Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 100th anniversary of MedStar St. Mary's Hospital in Leonardtown, MD. When St. Mary's Hospital was founded in 1912, it was Leonardtown's first community health care center, located in a modest two-story home. The surrounding population was small and rural, and the hospital's running water was heralded in a local newspaper. The new health care center was the first of many institutions that marked the beginning of St. Mary's County's transformation into the modern, thriving region it is today.

As the county has grown and evolved from humble beginnings, so has the hospital. Today, St. Mary's is a full-service hospital facility which offers state-of-the-art emergency, acute inpatient and outpatient care. The emergency room serves over 50,000 patients per year, and St. Mary's is leading the way in using cutting-edge medical technology. St. Mary's was the first hospital in southern Maryland to achieve full certification as a stroke center and won the prestigious Delmarva Foundation Excellence Award five times for consistent improvements in patient safety and clinical outcomes. The hospital's fully integrated electronic medical records system is ranked among the top 5 percent nationally.

St. Mary's is committed to a ``patients first'' philosophy, which is evident in consistently high patient satisfaction scores. At St. Mary's, treating every patient with respect and compassion is an essential part of the healing process. The hospital offers dignity, comfort, and support to each and every patient and his or her family.

In 2009, St. Mary's joined the MedStar Health System. This partnership helps St. Mary's meet the expanding medical needs of the southern Maryland community and offer the region greater access to specialty care. A new name that blends the hospital's history and future--MedStar St. Mary's Hospital--has been unveiled to celebrate its centennial.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating MedStar St. Mary's Hospital on 100 years of providing outstanding patient-centered care to the residents of Leonardtown and the southern Maryland region.

First, let me express my disappointment that we are not here debating the surface transportation reauthorization bill. We had a bill that came out of the Environment and Public Works Committee and came out of several other of our committees by unanimous vote, so it is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that will save jobs and create jobs here in America. It will reinvest in our own infrastructure to make America more competitive. And, as I said, it has been done in a bipartisan manner thanks to the hard work of many people.

I see Senator Boxer on the floor. Thanks to her incredible leadership, we have an agreed path forward from the point of view of the relevant amendments. So what is holding up the process? It is these amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the transportation programs of this country. We are talking about policy in Egypt, which has nothing to do with our transportation needs. I would start by saying how disappointed I am that we haven't yet started the real debate on our transportation reauthorization bill which will create jobs, save jobs, modernize America, and make us more competitive.

Let me yield for a moment, if I could, to my colleague from California, Senator Boxer.

It is 10 minutes.

The Senator is absolutely correct. We need more jobs in America. I congratulate the Obama administration for turning our economy around. We have had 23 consecutive months of private sector job growth, but we don't have enough jobs yet. We have to create more jobs. Now is the time to be bold on looking for responsible programs that can move this country forward and creating more jobs, not only initially in road construction, in bridge construction and transit construction, but making us more competitive for the future and creating permanent job growth for America, jobs that cannot be exported.

That is what we should be doing, and that is why the surface transportation bill is so important for us to bring up and debate and pass.

And, quite frankly, the Senator from California had performed something unprecedented--well, not unprecedented but unusual here--in that she got bipartisan support from three committees, and we are working on the fourth now. Senator Boxer has gotten all the committees together, and so it is time to move this bill forward for jobs throughout America.

I thank Senator Boxer.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to confirm Judge George Levi Russell, III, of Maryland to be a United States District Judge for the District of Maryland.

The nomination of Judge Russell was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on February 16 by a voice vote, as the Acting President of the Senate knows. Judge Russell currently sits as a trial judge in the Baltimore City Circuit Court.

I take seriously the obligation of the Senate in terms of the advice and consent role we play. I am concerned that our judicial confirmation process in the Senate has broken down due to partisanship, particularly for noncontroversial judges. Judge Russell's nomination now joins a long list of backlogged, noncontroversial judicial nominations that are stuck on the Senate floor. As of yesterday, the Senate calendar contained 20 judicial nominations approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee which are still awaiting a final vote. Fifteen of these nominees have been pending since last year, and 18 of them have received strong bipartisan support from the Senate Judiciary Committee. These are noncontroversial nominees that are due the up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate, and there is no justification for the delay in the Senate's carrying out its constitutional responsibilities.

The Senate is responsible for the rising vacancy rate in our Nation's article III courts. The victims here are not only the nominee and his or her family, who are waiting on final Senate action, but the American people are also victims. They face increasing delays in courts that are overburdened and understaffed. A higher vacancy rate means lack of timely hearings and decisions by our Federal courts, affecting our citizens' access to justice and a fair and impartial resolution of their complaints.

In Maryland, we are trying to fill a vacancy that was created during the end of President Bush's term of office when Judge Peter Messitte took senior status in 2008. So this vacancy has been there for a long time. It is time for us to act. Judge Russell is an excellent candidate. He received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee and is ready to take office upon being confirmed by the Senate. The time for action is now.

Judge Russell brings a wealth of experience to this position in both State and Federal courts. Earlier in his career, he served as a Federal prosecutor and as an attorney in a private law firm. He now sits as a State trial judge court in Maryland. He has the experience.

He graduated from Morehouse College with a B.A. in political science in 1988 and a J.D. from Maryland Law School in 1991. He passed the bar examination and was admitted to practice law in Maryland in 1991. He then clerked for Chief Judge Robert Bell on the Maryland Court of Appeals, our State's highest court.

He worked as a litigation associate for 2 years at Hazel, Thomas, and then briefly at Whiteford, Taylor. He then served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland from 1994 to 1999, handling civil cases. In that capacity, he represented various Federal Government agencies in discrimination, accident, and medical malpractice cases. He then worked as an associate at the Peter Angelos law firm for 2 years.

In 2002, he went back to the U.S. Attorney's Office handling criminal cases until 2007. He represented the United States in the criminal prosecution of violent crime and narcotics cases during the investigatory stage, at trial, and on appeal. This included the initiation and monitoring of wiretaps to infiltrate and break up violent gangs in Baltimore City. He also served as the Project Safe Neighborhood coordinator for the office from 2002 until 2005. He participated in community outreach programs, including attending community meetings on behalf of the office, and attending meetings with the Baltimore State's Attorney's Office to reduce violent crime in Baltimore neighborhoods.

In January 2007, Governor Ehrlich, who I am sure you are aware was the Republican Governor of our State, appointed Judge Russell to serve as an associate judge of the Baltimore City Circuit Court for a term of 15 years. As a trial judge, Judge Russell has presided over hundreds of trials that have gone to verdict or judgment and has experience in handling jury trials, bench trials, civil cases, and criminal cases. He has the professional experience which has been recognized by a Republican Governor and a Democratic President. He should receive a vote on the floor of this body and he should be confirmed.

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

He has also served as a board member of several organizations that devote substantial resources to helping the disadvantaged, including Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Maryland. I know he has often spoken to young people in schools about the obligation, duty, and mandate of a judge, and tries to demystify the role of a judge in a black robe. Judge Russell is particularly concerned with addressing the drug violence and mental health problems that plague Baltimore City.

The reason I went through all of his qualifications right now, even though his nomination is not pending, is that we have to put a face on the people who are being denied the opportunity for an up-or-down vote before the Senate. You hear the numbers; I have mentioned them--20-- backed up. That is a large number when you look at the vacancy rates on our courts. When you look at this vacancy that has been pending now for the people of Maryland for 3 years, they have a right to action on the floor of the Senate. They have a right to have these nominees heard in regular order. But I want the people to know about this one individual and how qualified he is to assume the position on the District Court of Maryland.

I urge my colleagues to do everything they can. Let's carry out our responsibility. I am absolutely confident that Judge Russell possesses the qualifications, temperament, and passion for justice that will make him an outstanding United States District Court

judge for the District of Maryland. He will serve the people very well in this position. I therefore urge my colleagues not only to allow us to vote on Judge Russell's confirmation, but let us vote on the 20 nominees who have been reported out of the Judiciary Committee, and show the American people we are ready to carry out our responsibilities.

I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my Republican friends: It is way past time for us to carry out our responsibility. Stop putting filibusters or holds on these judicial nominations. Let's vote on them and carry out our responsibilities as Senators.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator Wicker for starting us off on the discussion of what is happening in Russia today.

I rise today, along with some of my colleagues, to bring attention to the growing issue of human rights violations in Russia, typified by the case of Sergei Magnitsky. Just last week, as part of a bilateral Presidential commission, Attorney General Holder met with the the Russian Minister of Justice to discuss the rule of law issues. That same week, Russian officials moved in their criminal prosecution of Sergei Magnitsky. Mr. President, I remind you that Mr. Magnitsky has been dead for more than 2 years.

Last May I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Wicker, and 11 other Senators from both parties to introduce the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. We now have nearly 30 cosponsors, and I urge more to join us and look at ways to move forward on helping halt abuses like this in the future.

After exposing the largest known tax fraud in Russian history, Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax lawyer, working for an American firm in Moscow, was falsely arrested for crimes he did not commit and tortured in prison. Six months later, he became seriously ill and was consistently denied medical attention, despite 20 formal requests. Then, on the night of November 16, 2009, he went into critical condition. But instead of being treated in a hospital, he was put in an isolation cell, chained to a bed, beaten by eight prison guards with rubber batons for 1 hour and 18 minutes until he was dead. Sergei Magnitsky was 37 years old and left behind a wife, two children, and a dependent mother.

While the facts surrounding his arrest, detention, and death have been independently verified and accepted at the highest levels of Russian Government, those implicated in his death and the corruption he exposed remain unpunished, in positions of authority, and some have even been decorated and promoted. Following Magnitsky's death, they have continued to target others, including American business interests in Moscow.

These officials have been credibly linked to similar crimes and have ties to the Russian mafia, international arms trafficking, and even drug cartels. The money they stole from the Russian budget was laundered through a network of banks, including two in the United States. Calls for an investigation have fallen on deaf ears.

In an Orwellian turn of events, the law enforcement officers accused by Magnitsky and those complicit in his murder are moving to try him for the very tax crimes they committed. Think of the irony. He exposed corruption in Russia. As a result, he was arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. Now those who perpetrated the crime on him are charging him, after his death, with the crimes they committed.

We cannot be silent. One of the most articulate voices in the Senate on this issue has been Senator Wicker, who is the leading Republican on the Helsinki Commission, and I applaud him for his efforts not only in bringing the Magnitsky abuse to public attention and what is happening in Russia, but in many other areas where human rights violations have occurred.

I will be glad to allow my colleague some time on this issue, Mr. President.

That is correct. And, again, I thank the Senator for his leadership and I thank him for his comments.

We have 30 cosponsors of the Magnitsky legislation and I am going to be encouraging more of our colleagues to join us in cosponsorship. I want to talk a little bit about that, if I might. But let me underscore the point Senator Wicker made.

Mr. Magnitsky died 2 years ago for crimes perpetrated on him that have been well documented. The Russian Federation is now charging him after his death for those crimes--after his death. Not even in Stalin's time did they try people after they died. This is the first time in Russian history that a man has been tried after his death. Further, they have summoned Mr. Magnitsky's widow and ailing mother as witnesses against their husband and son. This is a new chapter in brazen impunity.

An editorial last week in the Financial Times observed that:

If he is convicted, the accused's citizenship could be

revoked, he could be exiled, and forced to die somewhere

else.

That might be funny if it weren't real.

If that weren't enough, the Russian Justice Minister recently proposed that the United States and Russia conclude an extradition treaty.

Legal farces like we have seen in the case of Sergei Magnitsky and many others bring reasonable people to only two conclusions, both of which are profoundly disturbing: Either senior leaders are not the ones running the country or the senior leadership is complicit in these outrages.

The Magnitsky story sounds like a Hollywood thriller, but his case is real and the rampant corruption, violence, and lawlessness do exist in the Russian Government. His cause has become a global campaign for justice.

As Senator Wicker pointed out, the popular opinion in Russia is on the side of justice. There have been over 4,000 stories on Sergei Magnitsky since his death in Russia.

We know from countless historical cases, such as the death in police custody of the anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko in 1977, that one person's life and sometimes death can change the system. Since we are now living on the Internet, such change often comes much faster than expected.

I am going to comment about the legislation I filed and the need for us to consider that, but I notice Senator Shaheen is on the floor. Senator Shaheen is a member of the Helsinki Commission. She also chairs the Subcommittee on European Affairs on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has been an outspoken champion on behalf of human rights. I am pleased she is here, and I wish to give her an opportunity to talk about this issue.

If I might, I thank Senator Shaheen for her comments, but more importantly I thank her for her leadership. The hearing she held on the Sergei Magnitsky bill was very helpful.

First, I think in answer to the question of why we should care, we all understand America's leadership on moral issues. The world looks to America to stand against these fundamental abuses of human rights, so that in and of itself is a reason for us to act.

It is also apparent from the hearings that actions of these criminals, these violations in Russia, involve our financial institutions. So we are talking about the integrity of American companies to be able to do business internationally.

It is not only the moral issue about which we have a right to speak out. As my colleagues on the floor know, in the commitments we all signed onto in Helsinki in 1975, we had committed ourselves to basic human rights and the obligation of any member state to question the conduct in another state. Russia is a signator of the Helsinki Final Act. The United States is a signator. We have a responsibility to bring this to the world's attention.

We can do more. What can we do about this? There are many aspects of the Magnitsky tragedy that are difficult for us to pursue in the United States. It cannot be through our justice system; it has to be their justice system that has to be reformed. But there are steps we can take. The legislation we all filed recognizes the right to visit America is a privilege granted by the United States. The visa is a privilege. There is no guaranteed right to come to America.

One thing we can do is say those who are committing these gross human rights violations should not be given the privilege of entering the United States.

I wish to acknowledge and thank Secretary of State Clinton for taking action against human rights violators. That is the right policy. The legislation we have authored institutionalizes a process where we deny the right for those individuals to visit, to come to the United States.

Obviously, that has a price to them. Of course, what we are trying to do is get the government--in this case Russia--to do what is right.

The second thing we could do is deal with their financial participation in U.S. institutions. These people do get involved in international finance. They do have resources that travel through U.S. financial institutions. We do have laws that allow us to hold those funds through due process. We can do that.

That is the reason why the legislation we have talked about today, the legislation I introduced, along with my colleagues, would institutionalize those types of changes. For those who think it may not mean much, let me remind them about what we did when the Soviet Union denied the rights of Jews to be able to leave the country. In the Congress, we took action by legislation. Many said: Would that make any difference?

It made a huge difference. It brought about change in the Soviet Union. Other countries followed our leadership. As both my colleagues have pointed out, if we act, other countries will act. It will become the norm and that will help us establish the expectation that countries do need to address tragedies such as Sergei Magnitsky's and, more importantly, take steps so it never happens again. That is what we are attempting to do by moving forward with this legislation. As Senator Wicker said, we do urge our colleagues to join us in this effort.

Senator Wicker mentioned what is happening around the world. We see countries go through a democratic transformation we never thought we would see in our lifetime. It happened in Europe and they are now some model democracies, our NATO allies, countries that just a few decades ago we thought would be our enemies to this day. So we have seen change occur. We want to be on the right side of this issue, the right side of history, on moving Russia forward with the types of reforms to which the people of Russia are entitled.

We have the right to do that under the Helsinki Act. We have the responsibility to point out these issues. We can take action that can make a huge difference. That is why we are engaged in this discussion, to say we want Russia to do the right thing. We want to speak out to the Russian people. We think we can play a very important role.

The U.S. Helsinki Commission, of which I had the honor to be the Senate chair and Senator Wicker is the lead Republican on the Senate side, has a proud history of putting a spotlight on problems. People do not like name calling, but we have to point out where the violations occur. Unfortunately, if we do not do it, it becomes statistics. But if we do it, we put a face on it--so we realize these are people who have families who have been abused because they are trying to do the right thing--we can get action. That is why I am so proud of the legacy of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and what we have been able to do.

This is another chapter in that proud history of saying we are going to stand for basic human rights, that is a priority for our country, we can do better and we can do justice for Sergei Magnitsky and we can do justice for the people of Russia.

I will be glad to yield.

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

I thank Senators Shaheen and Wicker and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I wish to take the time now to talk about the conference report that has been filed in regard to the extension of the payroll tax holiday, the Medicare physician issues so our seniors can continue to have access to their doctors, and the extension of the unemployment insurance.

I was appointed to that conference, and the conference has been meeting now for the better part of the last 6 to 8 weeks. We were able to reach an agreement that was filed. I first wish to compliment Senator Baucus, the Senate chair of the conference committee. There was a real effort made that this conference would operate the way a conference should operate; that is, the House and Senate Members meeting, discussing the differences between the two bodies and trying to reconcile their differences in a somewhat open process. We had several open discussions where we talked about some of the issues.

Each Member of the conference had a chance to express themselves on the issues, and we had a good exchange. I think during that exchange we were able to reach some consensus. Almost immediately we reached a consensus that all of us wanted to make sure the payroll tax holiday was extended. The payroll tax holiday provides tax relief for 160 million Americans. This is not the time for paychecks to actually go down for American workers. We are trying to build a confidence in the workplace, in the marketplace. The more money in the paychecks allows people the opportunity to be better consumers, helping to create jobs.

There was general consensus that we needed to extend the unemployment insurance, that we are still in the recovery where unemployment rates are so high that it is important we use this countercyclical program to help people but to also build our economy. It helps create jobs, again having more money available for the consumers to help our small businesses and to help our economy.

Lastly, we all understood we could not allow a 27-percent cut in Medicare rates for physicians, that that would deny many of our seniors access to health care. So very early in the conference process we reached consensus that those three issues should be extended, at least through the end of this calendar year. For the payroll tax holiday, that was our understanding, to extend it through the end of the year.

We know the Medicare issues need to be extended for a longer period of time. We worked together. I thought it was very important that we allow the full Senate, the full House to consider that conference report. We have had too much gridlock. We have had too much of individual Members trying to block the consideration of important legislation, particularly in the Senate. So I think it is very important that we were able to bring this issue to the full Senate, and we are going to have, I hope, a good debate, and sometime tomorrow we are going to have a chance to vote

on whether to accept the conference report.

There is some good news. I do applaud again Senator Baucus and my colleagues Senator Casey and Senator Reed on the work that was done by the Democrats on the committee. We took a very strong position against adding these extraneous positions that came over from the House, the so-called Boiler MACT, which was a provision that would have affected the health of people in our community. There is no question that if we would have accepted the House position, it would have weakened our Clean Air Act, it would have led to more premature deaths, more hospital admissions, more lost days from work. The cost-benefit ratio of this rule is well documented, that it will help our economy, help save the health and workdays for American workers.

We also removed a provision from the House bill that dealt with the Keystone issue. This has to go through a regular regulatory process. It should have no place in this conference. We were able to remove that provision.

On the unemployment insurance front, let me mention that we were able to reserve the extension of unemployment insurance benefits. Under the current law, there is a maximum available of 99 weeks. Let me remind my colleagues that because of the way the extended benefit program is calculated, that at least in my State by April, those 20 weeks are likely to be not available for new people who become unemployed, and throughout the rest of our Nation, we are finding that extended benefit program will not be providing those extra weeks.

So the conference committee recommendation is to try to use better triggers as it relates to the different tiers of benefits in the extended benefit program, so the high unemployment States have a greater number of weeks than those States that are doing better and to transition us to a more regular unemployment system as we go through the year.

In regard to the Medicare provisions in this bill, we were able not only to extend the sustainable growth rate, the SGR system, so we do not get the automatic cuts that would occur against physicians, we were able to extend that through the end of the year. But we also extended the therapy caps. If we did not do that, those who are the victims of stroke or who have had a hip replacement would have run into an arbitrary cap which would provide them the therapy they need for their recovery. We were able to get that done.

On the payroll tax, as I said earlier, there was an agreement we would extend that. The payroll tax is all about helping 160 million Americans. It is about creating jobs.

That is where we were able to come to an agreement that I think was in the best interest of the conference. Let me talk about some serious problems I have with the conference report. It deals with how we decided to fund or offset the cost of unemployment insurance extensions. Let me remind my colleagues that this is a short-term extension, where we are phasing out the extra benefits through the end of this year. It is calculated to cost about $30 billion. Historically, we have extended unemployment insurance benefits during tough economic times without having offsets.

Why? Because unemployment insurance is countercyclical. It is there to help people during tough times. During good times we pay money into the system. We are trying to put more money into the economy. It does not make sense to take money out of the economy when we are trying to create jobs and get our economy back on track.

Unfortunately, that principle was violated in this conference report. The $30 billion is offset. Let me compare that to the payroll tax holiday, which is $100 billion, which many of us think should be offset, which is not offset. As you know, we came in with recommendations where we could fairly offset the extension of the payroll tax holiday without adversely affecting our economy. We had suggested we would have a surtax on income, exempting $1 million of taxable income from the surtax--a little bit of fairness in our Tax Code--in order to make sure we do not add to the deficit, do not hurt the economy but allow middle-income taxpayers to continue to get their tax relief.

To me, that would have been the responsible thing for us to do. But we do not do that in this conference. Instead, we did not pay for the $100 billion for extending the payroll tax, but we paid for the unemployment insurance benefits, $30 billion, which I would suggest is an emergency. That truly is a matter that historically we have not paid for.

All right. Here is the problem. In order to pay for that $30 billion, we picked on our Federal workforce. I tell you, I find that wrong. We put a provision in this bill that will require new Federal employees, those who start work after January of 2013, to pay more for their defined retirement benefit. That is how we funded about half the cost of extending the unemployment insurance. I think that is wrong.

Let me also say that the extension of the unemployment benefits is temporary--only until the end of this year. The extra costs for the retirement benefits are permanent. It stays in the law. That doesn't seem like a good deal for what we are trying to do.

We also are saying that one group of workers, and only one group, makes a contribution toward this. These are middle-income workers who will be paying for this, a large part of the unemployment insurance cost. I don't think that is right. I don't think we should have done that.

Let me also point out, as we talk about the Federal workforce, that the additional cost the new workers will pay will be 2.3 percent of their payroll, which will go to a retirement trust fund that is already fully funded. So this is not to address a problem with the funding of the retirement plans for our Federal employees; I think this is strictly a punitive hit at the Federal workforce.

Public servants have already given $60 billion toward deficit reduction in the form of a 2-year pay freeze and will give at least another $30 billion if the base pay adjustment for 2013 is .5 percent instead of the 1.2 percent, which is what the adjustment should be under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act. Add it all together, and present and future Federal workers are providing over $100 billion in deficit reduction. That is $100 billion in deficit reduction coming out of our Federal workforce. Yet the Republicans continue to defend the most affluent Americans who won't pay one extra penny for funding this payroll tax package. I don't think that is right, I don't think that is fair, and I don't think we should have done it in that manner.

Now, I want to say some positive things. You can always look at things and say it could have been a lot worse. And that is true, it could have been a lot worse. When you look at the House bill that included these provisions, it included a pay freeze for our Federal workers. That is not in this. We got that out.

I worked very hard with my colleague, Congressman Chris Van Hollen from Maryland. We worked together. In the original package, all Federal workers would have had to pay more, including current Federal workers. This package does not affect current Federal workers. They will not have to pay extra for their pension plans. That is fair. When they signed up as a Federal employee, they knew what the ground rules were and they knew what the pension contributions would have to be and what the benefits were. It is right that we live up to that commitment. So this agreement will not affect current workers. Their pension contributions will remain the same.

The bill that came over to us from the House also reduced pension benefits. We took that out of the bill. That is not in the bill. And the rate they would have had new hires pay is higher than what we agreed to in this package.

Congressman Van Hollen and I worked very hard to try to accommodate the parameters of the conference and what was being required of our Federal workforce in a way that it would not penalize our existing workers and would not be anywhere near as punitive as the provisions that were put in the House bill. So we are at least grateful that the conference includes that, but I can't help but be disappointed that the unemployment insurance is being financed at least in half by a permanent change in the contribution rates to defined benefit plans

by those who join the Federal workforce after January 1, 2013. They are the only ones who are affected by that proposal.

Let me conclude by saying that we all should be pleased that the conference worked, that we took a difficult issue in which there are strong fundamental differences between the House and the Senate and we were able to come to an agreement to at least be presented to the Members of the House and Senate for an up-or-down vote where each of us can make our own judgment as to whether we think this is the right package for the American people. I might have a different view than the Presiding Officer, and we will both be able to express our views by our votes tomorrow.

I hope that process will be used to get more work done for the American people. They want us to work together. They want Democrats and Republicans to say: OK, we know we differ on issues. Now let's get together and get things done.

We have the Transportation bill that is on the floor and that we are talking about today. That Transportation bill should end up on the President's desk. That Transportation bill came out of our committees with bipartisan votes. So now let's not clutter that bill with issues that will divide us. Let's work in the spirit the conference committee did--a committee on which I was privileged to serve--and try to keep it relevant to the issues at hand so that at the end of the day we can not only pass the Transportation bill in the Senate, but we can get it passed in the House of Representatives--or work out our differences-- and get it to the President for his signature. That bill will create jobs.

By the way, I think the American people will applaud us for moving forward with the people's business. That is what we need to do. If we could get that bill done, maybe--just maybe--we can get other issues done.

I have talked to my Republican colleagues, and they all agree we can't allow sequestration to take place. That is these automatic cuts, if we can't do another $1.2 trillion of deficit reduction over the 10 years. We should be able to get that done. We shouldn't have to wait until after the November elections. Let's take a lesson from the conference committee on which I served. Let's sit down and work out our differences and not just say ``it has to be my way or it is not going to get done.'' That is what is in the best interests of the Senate, and that is in the best interests of our Nation.

I hope we will have a robust debate on the conference report. I hope each Member will have an opportunity to review it, and at the end of the day we will have a chance to see how the votes turn out. Again, I am sorry I have certain reservations about it, and I needed to express them, but, quite frankly, I think we need to stand for our Federal workforce out there every day providing services to our people. Whether it is guarding our borders, whether it is finding the answers to the most dread diseases, whether it is helping us develop the technology that will make America competitive, or providing public safety as a correctional officer or helping us make sure we get our Social Security checks or get our disability checks, these are the people on the front lines. We are asking them to do more with less, and they deserve not just the respect of this body but they deserve our support.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Junior League of Baltimore. Mary Goodwillie founded the Junior League of Baltimore in 1912 with the goal of engaging educated young ladies to help alleviate the ills of the city. The league members began working with underprivileged women and children in Baltimore. Their early advocacy efforts helped bring about reduced work hours for women and better living conditions for children. Throughout its 100-year history, the league has harnessed the spirit of volunteerism to help countless families in Baltimore with projects ranging from a nursery school for blind and deaf children in the 1940s, a drug abuse education program in the 1970s, and the Kids in the Kitchen nutrition education program today.

Once, the league was a volunteer activity for well-to-do women; today, it is a training ground where women interested in nonprofit management, social work, and public service professions receive hands- on experience. Volunteer activities are designed to empower diverse women from all walks of life to make a difference in their community.

The Junior League of Baltimore is part of the Association of Junior Leagues International and continues its foremothers' legacy of service and advocacy, emphasizing collaboration, coalition building, and responsiveness to community needs. The Junior League of Baltimore's recent projects include art programs, family support services, and partnerships with various organizations such as Read Across America, in addition to its innovative nutrition education program designed to fight childhood obesity.

I would ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Junior League of Baltimore on 100 years of service to Baltimore, and in thanking league members past and present for all that they have done and are doing to enrich the lives of the citizens of Baltimore and Maryland.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Water Resources Research Amendments Act. First authorized in 1964, the Water Resources Research Act established 54 Water Resources Research Institutes across the country and set up a grant program for applied water supply research. The act was most recently reauthorized in 2006, in PL 109- 471. The bill I introduce today would reauthorize the grant program for the next 5 years and would add a program focused on the research and development of green infrastructure.

The research funded through the Water Resources Research Act has had lasting impacts on our Nation's waters. In fact, some of the tools we use today for restoration of the Chesapeake Bay were a product of these research grants. WRRA Researchers across the Mid-Atlantic States have developed ways to keep the Chesapeake waters clean through urban stormwater treatment, improved roadway design, and eco-friendly poultry farming practices. Moreover, WRRA-funded projects develop innovative and cost-effective solutions for similar water resources issues across the country. For example, the technology used in West Virginia's innovative nutrient trading program utilizes technology developed by WRRA researchers. Undoubtedly, funding WRRA is an intelligent and necessary investment in the future of our water resources.

WRRA authorizes two types of annual grants. First, it supplies grants to each Water Resources Research Institute for research that fosters improvements in water supply reliability, explores new ways to address water problems, encourages dissemination of research to water managers and the public, and encourages the entry of new

scientists, engineers and technicians into the water resources field. Second, WRRA authorizes a national competitive grant program to address regional water issues. All WRRA grants must be matched 2 to 1 with non- federal funding.

In the last authorization period, the program was authorized at $12,000,000 per year, providing $6,000,000 to each type of grant. Authorization for these grants expired in fiscal year 2011. Today's bill would reauthorize both grant programs for an additional five years by providing $7,500,000 for institutional grants and $1,500,000 for national competitive grants. This change in authorization levels reflects our efforts to adjust for present fiscal limitations. The proposed authorization maximizes economic efficiency of the program without compromising its efficacy. The Water Resources Research Institutes across the Nation have 45 years of experience assisting states and federal agencies through research, education and outreach. While the Institutes are only required to match Federal funding with outside sources at a ratio of 2 to 1, they regularly exceed that proportion, often with ratios of more than 5 to 1. Moreover, Federal grants are critical for the institutes to be able to leverage funding from their home State. Consequently, by focusing funds on the Water Resources Research Institutes, we can be sure that we are supporting top-notch science while maximizing cost-effectiveness. Moreover, by funding this network of institutes we are investing in our future. The Water Resources Research Institutes are the country's single largest training program for water scientists, technicians, and engineers.

Today water-related issues pervade the nation. Whether it is floods, droughts, or water degradation, American economies and lives depend on our water resources. WRRA grants provide us with improved understanding of water-related issues and better technology to address them. Nearly half a century after the Water Resources Research grant program was first put in place, this program is just as relevant, just as critical, and deserves our support.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Water Resources Research Amendments Act. First authorized in 1964, the Water Resources Research Act established 54 Water Resources Research Institutes across the country and set up a grant program for applied water supply research. The act was most recently reauthorized in 2006, in PL 109- 471. The bill I introduce today would reauthorize the grant program for the next 5 years and would add a program focused on the research and development of green infrastructure.

The research funded through the Water Resources Research Act has had lasting impacts on our Nation's waters. In fact, some of the tools we use today for restoration of the Chesapeake Bay were a product of these research grants. WRRA Researchers across the Mid-Atlantic States have developed ways to keep the Chesapeake waters clean through urban stormwater treatment, improved roadway design, and eco-friendly poultry farming practices. Moreover, WRRA-funded projects develop innovative and cost-effective solutions for similar water resources issues across the country. For example, the technology used in West Virginia's innovative nutrient trading program utilizes technology developed by WRRA researchers. Undoubtedly, funding WRRA is an intelligent and necessary investment in the future of our water resources.

WRRA authorizes two types of annual grants. First, it supplies grants to each Water Resources Research Institute for research that fosters improvements in water supply reliability, explores new ways to address water problems, encourages dissemination of research to water managers and the public, and encourages the entry of new

scientists, engineers and technicians into the water resources field. Second, WRRA authorizes a national competitive grant program to address regional water issues. All WRRA grants must be matched 2 to 1 with non- federal funding.

In the last authorization period, the program was authorized at $12,000,000 per year, providing $6,000,000 to each type of grant. Authorization for these grants expired in fiscal year 2011. Today's bill would reauthorize both grant programs for an additional five years by providing $7,500,000 for institutional grants and $1,500,000 for national competitive grants. This change in authorization levels reflects our efforts to adjust for present fiscal limitations. The proposed authorization maximizes economic efficiency of the program without compromising its efficacy. The Water Resources Research Institutes across the Nation have 45 years of experience assisting states and federal agencies through research, education and outreach. While the Institutes are only required to match Federal funding with outside sources at a ratio of 2 to 1, they regularly exceed that proportion, often with ratios of more than 5 to 1. Moreover, Federal grants are critical for the institutes to be able to leverage funding from their home State. Consequently, by focusing funds on the Water Resources Research Institutes, we can be sure that we are supporting top-notch science while maximizing cost-effectiveness. Moreover, by funding this network of institutes we are investing in our future. The Water Resources Research Institutes are the country's single largest training program for water scientists, technicians, and engineers.

Today water-related issues pervade the nation. Whether it is floods, droughts, or water degradation, American economies and lives depend on our water resources. WRRA grants provide us with improved understanding of water-related issues and better technology to address them. Nearly half a century after the Water Resources Research grant program was first put in place, this program is just as relevant, just as critical, and deserves our support.

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

Mr. President, at the end of January, something remarkable happened: Slovak Deputy Prime Minister Rudolf Chmel made a positive statement about Roma. Saying something nice about Europe's largest ethnic minority may not seem newsworthy, but it is and here is why.

The Deputy Prime Minister reacted to an escalation of anti-Roma rhetoric in the runup to Slovakia's March 10 parliamentary elections by calling on political parties not to play the ``Roma card.'' But more than that, he welcomed a landmark decision of the European Court on Human Rights holding that the sterilization of a Slovak Romani woman without her consent had been cruel and inhuman. He welcomed the findings of a Slovak court that concluded Romani children had been placed in segregated schools in eastern Slovakia. And he commended the human rights organization that had helped litigate both these cases.

To say that statements like these are few and far between is an understatement. On the contrary, officials at the highest levels of government frequently perpetuate the worst bigotry against Roma.

For example, after four perpetrators were convicted and sentenced for a racially motivated firebombing that left a Romani toddler burned over 80 percent of her body, Czech President Vaclav Klaus wondered if their 20-plus-year sentences were too harsh. Romanian Foreign Minister Teodor Baconschi suggested that Roma were ``physiologically'' disposed to crime. Last year, President Silvio Berlusconi warned the electorate of Milan to vote for his party lest their city become a ``Gypsyopolis.'' And French President Nicolas Sarkozy has explicated targeted Roma--from EU countries--for expulsion from France. The common thread in most of this rhetoric is the portrayal of Roma as inherently criminal.

Nearly 20 years ago in the New York Times--Dec. 10, 1993--Vaclav Havel described the treatment of Roma as a litmus test for civil society. Today, Europe is still failing that test miserably. As Hungary's Minister for Social Inclusion Zolton Balog has argued, Roma are worse off today than they were under communism. While a small fraction of Roma have benefited from new opportunities, many more have been the absolute losers in the transition from the command-to-a market economy, and vast numbers live in a kind of poverty that the United Nations Development Programme described as more typically found in sub- Saharan Africa than Europe. Endemic discrimination has propelled economic marginalization downward at an exponential pace, and the past 20 years have been marked by outbreaks of hate crimes and mob violence against Roma that are on the rise again.

In the current environment, those who play with anti-Roma rhetoric are playing with a combustible mix.

In the near term, there is the real prospect that fueling prejudice against Roma will spark interethnic violence. Before Bulgaria's local elections last October, the extremist Ataka party parlayed an incident involving a Romani mafia boss into anti-Romani rioting in some 14 towns and cities. In the Czech Republic, the government has had to mount massive shows of law enforcement to keep anti-Roma mobs from degenerating into all-out pogroms; its worked so far, but at a huge cost.

Significantly, Roma are not always standing by while the likes of the Hungarian Guard mass on their doorsteps; they have sometimes gathered sticks, shovels, scythes, and anything else handy in an old-school defense.

Even without the prospect of violence, there is a longer term threat to many countries with larger Romani populations: if they fail to undertake meaningful integration of Roma, they will find their economies hollowed out from within. More than a decade ago, then- Hungarian Minister of Education Zolton Pokorni said that one out of every three children starting school that year would be Romani. Some economic forecasts now suggest that by 2040, 40 percent of the labor force in Hungary will be Romani. A number of other countries face similar trajectories.

A desperately impoverished, uneducated, and marginalized population will not serve as the backbone of a modern and thriving economy. But several studies have shown that the cost of investing in the integration of Roma--housing, education, and job training and the like--will be more than offset by gains in GNP and tax revenue. In order to undertake those integration policies, somebody has to build popular support for them. And that is where Mr. Chmel comes in.

Until now, most popular discourse about Roma seems predicated on the ostrich-like belief that perhaps they can be made to go away. Few politicians have shown the courage and foresight to reframe public discourse in any way that acknowledges Europe's future will definitely include Roma. Mr. Chmel has taken an important step in that direction. I hope he will inspire others.

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

Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to let us proceed on the reauthorization of the surface transportation act, S. 1813. This is a critically important bill, and I am proud to be on two committees that have had jurisdiction over this bill. One is the Environment and Public Works Committee, where Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe have worked together to bring out a bill that received the unanimous support of our committee. I also serve on the Senate Finance Committee, where Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch have worked together so we have the sufficient revenues in order to be able to finance the reauthorization bill during its 2-year reauthorization.

This bill is so important to our country. First, it gives predictability to our State and local governments. It gives predictability to the highway engineers. It gives predictability to contractors to know the funding will be there in order to advance our transportation programs. When we do these short-term extensions, it really does cause significant problems for planners. If you are trying to plan a transportation project, you need to know the funding is going to be there for more than just a few months. You need to have some degree of predictability. This legislation will allow us to give that predictability to those who are involved in the decisionmaking. It has been 2009 since we last reauthorized the surface transportation act. It is time for us to act.

This bill will also help us as far as American competitiveness is concerned. We need to have modern transportation infrastructure, whether it is our highways, our bridges, or our transit systems. We need to make sure we can meet the challenges to today's society.

I could talk about just in this region our needs in the transit area. We have one of the most congested communities in the Nation in Washington, DC. Many of my constituents who live in Maryland go to work every day in Washington, DC, working for the Federal Government, using the mass transit system. That system is aged and needs attention. We need to provide the financing nexus in this area in order to be as competitive as we can with transportation options for the people of this country.

This bill is important for jobs. You hear that over and over. In Maryland, the passage of this bill will preserve or expand 10,000 jobs for its people. I expect the Acting President pro tempore would have similar numbers in New Mexico. It is important in every State in this Nation.

It is also important for safety. I will give you one number in Maryland that really has me concerned. There are 359 bridges in the State of Maryland that have been rated structurally deficient and 4.6 million motorists travel over those bridges every day. The State of Maryland is taking steps to make sure the motorists are safe, but we need to fix those bridges in a more permanent way. The longer we wait, the more it costs. Deferred maintenance means we are not doing what we should to protect the future needs of our communities. This legislation puts a heavy priority on maintaining our transportation infrastructure so it is safe and we can move forward into the future.

The legislation is balanced between transit and highway. I know that in certain regions of this country, highways are the principal means of transportation, and their interest in transit is not quite as great as it is if you represent the people of New York or you represent the people of Maryland or you represent the people in an urban center where public transit becomes a very important part of our transportation needs. This legislation is balanced to take care of the needs of our highways and the needs of our transit systems. I think it is a credit to that balance that in the Environment and Public Works Committee and in the Banking Committee--the two committees that have principal jurisdiction over the highway program and over the transit program--we had unanimous support on bringing this bill forward. That is how we should be proceeding to consider legislation. We have that type of bipartisan cooperation because this bill is properly balanced.

Let me also point out that we have received hundreds of letters from organizations that support the passage of the surface transportation reauthorization act. We have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, we have the AFL-CIO, we have businesses, we have labor groups, we have local communities, we have national groups.

This bill has been put together in a way where we can get it done this year, and it would be very important for the people of this country and for our economy.

Let me talk a little bit about my State of Maryland and the Maryland department of transportation. They have given us a list of projects that will move forward if we can get this bill reauthorized, from the beltway around Baltimore, to critical roads in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, to our rural areas. I could share some of those specific examples. But this will affect the ability of Maryland to move forward with critical roads and transit needs, and we need to get that done.

I want to talk a little bit about some of the specific issues that are in the bill that I want to highlight.

The Appalachian Development Highway System is one for which we have put a separate provision historically in the code because we recognize that in bringing economic opportunity to that part of our Nation, which includes West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania--and it also includes some of our Southern States that are in the Appalachia highway region--it is tough to get jobs there. I was just recently in the most western part of Maryland up in Garrett County, and I can tell you it is difficult to get companies to move into that region. One of the problems is that you have to go over the mountains. It is not easy to get over the mountains.

We have a real opportunity around Cumberland, MD, to be able to expand dramatically the economic opportunities and jobs by completing the north-south highway that goes through Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia. Now there is reason to celebrate that in this bill that can become a reality. There is an amendment I had offered that is included in this legislation that provides the toll credits so we can advance this project. It was a major issue needed, particularly in the Pennsylvania part of this north-south highway.

So we do have reason to celebrate that in this legislation we have a way of completing the Appalachian Development Highway System in my part of the country.

Senator Rockefeller has been working very closely on this issue, and I really applaud his leadership. We are going to be looking to see whether we might be able to strengthen it more, through amendments to this bill, to make sure these projects get the priority to which they are entitled.

For the sake of flexibility, we have combined many of the specific programs into more general programs. That is part of the balance in this legislation--to give greater flexibility to local governments. That is important. But we also want to make sure the national priorities receive the attention they need, and the Appalachian Development Highway System is a national priority. We want to make sure that is, in fact, done.

I wear another hat as chair of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I want to do everything we can to make sure the Federal

Government, as a partner in developing highways and roads and transit systems, does what is important for clean water in our communities. A large part of the pollutants that enter into our waters comes from storm runoff. In the Chesapeake Bay region, the largest growth source of pollutants going into the Chesapeake Bay comes from storm runoff. Well, highway construction can help or hurt storm runoff. If you do it the right way, you actually can help keep pollutants out of our streams and rivers and bays. So I am hopeful that during the discussion of this bill on the floor of the Senate, we will look for ways we can make this bill helpful in the best practices being used in order to deal with storm runoff, as we deal with major transportation programs in this country.

One of the programs I have spent a lot of time on is the Transportation Enhancement Program, the TE Program. That has been used by local governments to do what is critically important to our communities. I could talk about bicycle paths. I could talk about paths that have connected communities, which has allowed us to take cars off the roads. This is a small amount of money, but it becomes very important for getting motorists off the roads. We have the use of the Transportation Enhancement Program so it is safe for motorists who want to pull off to the side of the road to see the vistas. We have used funds for that. That is a safety issue.

So transportation enhancements are important programs. We want to make sure the flexibility and funding opportunities remain. Chairman Boxer has been very careful to work out an arrangement so we can advance that, and I thank her for it. I have been working with Senator Cochran, and we are hoping to offer an amendment that will make it clear we need to work with the local governments as we look at how the transportation enhancement funds are being used.

Let me tell you about another opportunity I think we could have in the consideration of this bill, and that deals with our veterans.

There is a way we could use the training veterans receive while in military service to help when they come back here as far as truckdrivers are concerned. We are looking for an amendment in regard to that area where we could advance that issue.

There are many areas in this bill that we think are extremely important to advance our needs. It is a bipartisan bill. We have to get this done.

I know Senator Boxer is on the floor. Once again, I compliment her for her patience and leadership in working through each of these issues.

We are looking forward to a robust debate on the floor of the Senate. I hope Members who have amendments will allow us to proceed. Let's take a look at amendments, but let's proceed in the spirit in which the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Banking Committee, and the Finance Committee reported the bills to the Senate; that is, listen to each other, do not lose sight of the prize of getting this bill done, and be willing to compromise so that we can maintain the type of bipartisan cooperation we need in order to get this bill enacted. If we do that, we will be doing something so important to our country.

This bill will create jobs. This bill will help our economic recovery. This bill will help our future. I am proud to be part of the group that has brought this bill forward to the floor of the Senate.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 200th anniversary of the chartering and relocation of West Nottingham Academy in Colora, MD. West Nottingham Academy is recognized as the oldest boarding school in the nation 267 years after the school's original founding. West Nottingham Academy was founded in 1744 by Samuel Finley, a young Presbyterian minister from Ireland who later became president of Princeton. The school prepared boys for university study, and two early graduates, Benjamin Rush and Richard Stockton, went on to sign the Declaration of Independence. In 1812, West Nottingham Academy was granted a Charter by the State of Maryland, and moved to its present location. Notable alumni include Maryland Governor Austin Lane Crothers, Cincinnati founder John Filson, North Carolina Governor Alexander Martin, and Pennsylvania Congressman Peter Kostmayer.

West Nottingham Academy has evolved from its humble beginnings as a log cabin addition to Samuel Finley's home to a modern campus that is home to 120 boarding and day students in grades 9-12 representing eight States and ten countries. Student life is enriched outside the classroom by interscholastic sports teams, service learning opportunities, student-led clubs, and educational excursions to Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Washington.

West Nottingham Academy uses an innovative, student-centered academic approach which celebrates students' many learning styles through a variety of teaching methods. The student-centered approach is exemplified in West Nottingham's Chesapeake Learning Center, where students with learning differences receive support services uniquely tailored to help each student reach his or her full potential.

I would ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating West Nottingham Academy on the bicentennial of its chartering and relocation, and on over 200 years of providing educational opportunity and leadership to Maryland and our Nation.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

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

Mr. President, as we start Black History Month, I rise to discuss a national hero I have spoken about many times on the Senate floor. With this year's Black History Month focused on African-American women, it is all the more appropriate for me to talk about Maryland's Harriet Ross Tubman and her dedication to justice, equality, and service to this country.

In my career, I have spoken on the Senate floor, at events in Maryland, in meetings with constituents, and with my colleagues about Harriet Tubman's legacy. While I hope each opportunity I have taken to discuss the life of this remarkable woman helps raise the

awareness about her importance to the history of our great Nation, my ultimate goal is to properly commemorate her life and her work by establishing the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park on the eastern shore of Maryland, and, in working with my colleagues from New York, to establish the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park in Auburn, NY.

A year ago this week, I reintroduced the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park Act with Senators Schumer, Mikulski, and Gillibrand as original cosponsors. I am happy to say since that time the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committees held a positive hearing on the bill, the Energy Committee favorably reported the bill, and it has been placed on the Senate calendar. I thank my colleagues on the committee for their support, particularly Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski, and the chairman of the National Park Subcommittee, Senator Udall of Colorado.

The establishment of the Harriet Tubman Historical Park has been years in the making and is long overdue. The mission of the National Park Service has evolved over time, from preserving our natural wonders across the United States for recreational purposes to commemorating unique places of significance to historical events and extraordinary Americans who have shaped our Nation.

The woman who is known to us as Harriet Tubman was born in approximately 1822 in Dorchester County, MD, and given the name Araminta--Minty--Ross. She spent nearly 30 years of her life in slavery on Maryland's eastern shore. She worked on a number of different plantations on Maryland's eastern shore, and as a teenager she was trained to be a seamstress. As an adult, she took the first name Harriet, and when she was 25 years old she married John Tubman.

In her late twenties, Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery in 1849. She fled in the dead of night, navigating the maze of tidal streams and wetlands that to this day comprise the eastern shore's landscape. She did this alone, exercising incredible courage and strength.

Not satisfied with attaining her own freedom, she returned repeatedly for more than 10 years to the places of her enslavement in Dorchester and Caroline Counties, where under the most adverse conditions she led away many family members and other slaves to freedom in the Northeastern United States.

She helped develop a complex network of safe houses and recruited abolitionist sympathizers residing along secret routes connecting the southern slave States and the northern free States. No one knows exactly how many people she led to freedom or the number of trips between the North and South she led, but the legend of her work was an inspiration to the multitude of slaves seeking freedom and to abolitionists fighting to end slavery.

Tubman became known as ``the Moses of her people'' by African Americans and White abolitionists alike. She is the most famous and the most important conductor of the network of resistance known as the Underground Railroad.

During the Civil War, Tubman served the Union forces as a spy, a scout, and a nurse. She served in Virginia, Florida, and South Carolina. She is credited with leading slaves from those slave States to freedom during those years as well.

Following the Civil War and the emancipation of all Black slaves, Tubman settled in Auburn, NY. There she was active in the women's suffrage movement and established one of the first incorporated African-American homes for the aged to care for the elderly. In 1903, she bequeathed the Tubman Home to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in Auburn where it stands to this day. Harriet Tubman died in Auburn in 1913, and she is buried in Fort Hill Cemetery.

Fortunately, many of the structures and landmarks in New York remain intact and in relatively good condition. Only recently has the Park Service begun establishing units dedicated to the lives of African Americans. Places such as the Booker T. Washington National Monument on the campus of Tuskegee University in Alabama, the George Washington Carver National Monument in Missouri, the Buffalo Soldiers at Guadalupe Mountains National Park, the National Historical Trail commemorating the march for voting rights from Selma to Montgomery, AL, and, most recently, the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial on The National Mall.

These are all important monuments and places of historical significance that help tell the story of the African-American experience.

As the National Park Service continues its important work to recognize and preserve African-American history by providing greater public access and information about the places and people that have shaped the African-American experience, there are very few units dedicated to the lives of African-American women, and there is no national historical park commemorating African-American women.

I cannot think of a more fitting hero than Harriet Tubman to be the first African-American woman to be memorialized with a national historical park that tells her story and her fight against institutions of slavery and the work on the Underground Railroad. I hope my colleagues will support my effort to honor Harriet Tubman and support the passage of my bill to authorize the creation of the Tubman National Historical Parks in New York and Maryland.

Let me just point out that the landscapes in which she lived still exist today, and that will be an incredible part of the national park that can tell the story, particularly to young people, about the courage of this extraordinary woman. A number of structures exist in Auburn, NY, which complement her life as the conductor of the Underground Railroad, as well as her later life in helping to advance the rights of all people.

This is an incredible opportunity for us to honor her with this national park and to help future generations understand the history of America and the courage of this extraordinary leader and hero of our Nation, Harriet Tubman.

Mr. President, these parks will hopefully pave the way for the Park Service to develop more National Historical Park commemorating the lives of many other important African-American women in our history.

The vision for the Tubman National Historical Parks is to preserve the places significant to the life of Harriet Tubman and tell her story through interpretative activities and continue to discover aspects of her life and the experience of passage along the Underground Railroad through archaeological research and discovery.

The buildings and structures in Maryland have mostly disappeared. Slaves were forced to live in primitive buildings even though many slaves were skilled tradesmen who constructed the substantial homes of their owners. Not surprisingly, few of the structures associated with the early years of Tubman's life still stand.

As I mentioned, the landscapes of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, however, remain similar to the time Tubman lived there. Farm fields and forests dot the lowland landscape, which is also notable for the extensive network of tidal rivers and wetlands that Tubman, and the people she guided to freedom, would have traveled under the cover of night.

In particular, a number of properties--including the homestead of Ben Ross, her father, Stewart's Canal, where he worked, the Brodess Farm, where she worked as a slave, and others are within the master plan boundaries of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.

Similarly, Poplar Neck, the plantation from which she escaped to freedom, is still largely intact in Caroline County. The properties in Talbot County, immediately across the Choptank River from the plantation, are currently protected by various conservation easements.

Were she alive today, Tubman would recognize much of the landscape that she knew intimately as she secretly led black men, women and children to freedom.

There has never been any doubt that Tubman led an extraordinary life. Her contributions to American history are surpassed by few. Determining the most appropriate way to recognize that life and her contributions, however, has been exceedingly difficult.

The National Park Service determined that designating a Historical Park that would include two geographically separate units would be an appropriate tribute to the life of this extraordinary American.

The New York unit would include the tightly clustered Tubman buildings in the town of Auburn. The Maryland portion would include large sections of landscapes that are representive of Tubman's time and are historically relevant.

Harriet Tubman was a true American patriot. She was someone for whom liberty and freedom were not just concepts but values she fought tirelessly for. She lived those principles and achieved freedom with hundreds of others. In doing so, she has earned the Nation's respect and honor.

Harriet Tubman is one of many great Americans who we honor and celebrate every February during Black History Month.

In schools across the country, American History curriculums teach our children about Tubman's courage, conviction, her fight for freedom and her contributions to the greatness of our Nation during a contentious time in U.S. history. Now it is time to add to Tubman's legacy by preserving and commemorating the places representative of her extraordinary life.

Every year, millions of school children, as well as millions of adults, visit our National Historical Parks and gain experiences and knowledge about our Nation's history that simply cannot be found in history books or on Wikipedia.

Our Nation's strength and character comes from the actions of the Americans who came before us and the significant events that shaped our Nation.

The National Park Service is engaged in the important work of preserving where American history has taken place and providing a tangible experience for all people to learn from.

It is one thing to learn about Harriet Tubman from a book, it is a completely different and fulfilling experience to explore, to see, to listen, and to feel the places where she worked as a slave, where she escaped from, and where she lived her days as a free American.

The National Park Service is uniquely suited to honoring and preserving these places of historical significance, and I urge my colleagues to join me in preserving and growing the legacy of Harriet Tubman by establishing the Harriet Tubman National Historical Parks in her honor.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor former Czech President and renowned human rights activist Vaclav Havel. Vaclav Havel died last month, and I was sad to note that the news of his death was overshadowed by not only the holidays but also by media coverage of Kim Jong Il's death. The irony--that one of the great leaders of the third wave of democracy, passed at virtually the same time as one of the century's most dangerous, repressive tyrants--is striking.

Eulogies to Havel from everyday Czechs, European and world leaders, and admirers across the globe have poured forth in the past month, and for me, some of the most touching have come from the Czech Romani community. The Roma community, which is often ostracized from and disenchanted with mainstream politics, embraced Havel as a leader and a friend. And indeed Emil Scuka, the Czech president of the International Romani Union, said ``Vaclav Havel was not afraid to publicly stand up for Romani people even though he knew he could lose a great deal politically by doing so because the public wouldn't like it. He never made such political calculations in advance . . . With the death of Vaclav Havel, all of us Romani people are losing a great defender, a fighter for freedom and human rights. We are losing the certainty that when things are at their worst, Vaclav Havel will help us. However, I believe his ideals, his ideas, and his philosophy will live on.''

I was also inspired by the eloquent tribute of Gabriela Hrabanova, a former advisor to the Czech government on Romani issues, who said ``Everyone has been writing about how this is the end of an era. I firmly hope that is not the case. The legacy of Vaclav Havel must remain with us, and the space for truth and love in society must continue to increase.''

Just a few days before his death, Havel was actively following protests in Moscow, and published an opinion in the independent Russian newspaper Novaya gazeta, and called the current Russian government a ``specific combination of old stereotypes and a new business-mafia environment.'' He encouraged Russian citizens to see that the current regime, which presents itself as democratic, is in fact not democratic at all. Exposing the truth of the repressive Communist regime lead to the victory of his peaceful Velvet Revolution, and Havel was convinced this experience could be replicated in Russia, if the citizens were committed.

I am not at all surprised by a report from Aung San Suu Kyi, who said she received a letter in the days following Havel's death from Havel himself. Suu Kyi said that Havel wrote from his deathbed that he was thinking of her and how the transitional experience from Czech Republic might prove useful to her in Burma's transition and her own quest for freedom and truth. Even in the last moments of his life, Havel was thinking about the imperiled human rights defenders around the world, from Russia to Burma, whom he could help.

And so it strikes me that in addition to the resolution honoring Havel, introduced by Senators Rubio and Lieberman, on which I am a proud cosponsor, we should also take this moment to rededicate ourselves to the principles so clearly visible in the life of this virtuous man. We must aid the Havels of this generation in their efforts to live in truth and freedom. We must do an even better job of prioritizing respect for human rights whenever we engage other governments, whether we are dealing with the transitional regime in Egypt, long-established rulers in Bahrain, newly elected leaders in Honduras, or strategic allies in Europe.

Vaclav Havel was a hero of the twentieth century, and I was very fortunate to have met him. I am also very proud of all that the Helsinki Commission and the United States did in Eastern Europe to support Havel and his friends in their quest to live in truth. We must strive to honor that commitment in the rest of the world, so that Havel's legacy, and our own, lives on in the twenty-first century.

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Steven D. Garbarino of Owings Mills, MD, on the completion of a highly successful 27-year career as a civilian employee within the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District, on January 31, 2012. Mr. Garbarino's entire career was marked by his daily demonstration of the Army's values. His performance reflected a strong loyalty to the organization and its members; a selfless dedication to duty, his customers and the Corps' public service mission; and a no-nonsense ``can-do'' attitude built upon honor, integrity, superior competence, and the personal courage to strive for excellence in his job performance. I applaud his commitment to public service and recognize the sacrifices he has made for the good of our Nation. Mr. Garbarino highlights the importance of hard-working Federal workers who strive to keep us healthy, safe, informed, and free to enjoy the lifestyle that we, as Americans, have grown to appreciate and expect. He is a model Federal employee who readily deserves recognition for his distinguished career as a professional member of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

As a project manager, Mr. Garbarino made significant personal efforts to become a subject matter expert on policy, procedures, and processes associated with the Civil Works Program and projects. This expertise led him to serve as a mentor to project team members and other Civil Works project managers.

Mr. Garbarino has also authored several environmental technical report/papers and made numerous presentations related to his work. Forums for these presentations have included numerous workshops, conferences, public meetings, televised interviews, radio talk shows, and the United Nations 1995 conference on environmental restoration. Over his career he has developed a strong public speaking presence and is recognized for his outstanding professional representation of the Corps.

I also want to thank Diane, Steve's wife of over 30 years, and their two

sons, Garret and Zachery. The families of outstanding Federal employees have to make sacrifices, too, as they share their loved ones with a job serving the American people. I know they join me in my best wishes to Steve for a happy and well-earned retirement.

Mr. President, it is my sincere pleasure to congratulate Mr. Garbarino on the occasion of his retirement. He was a highly valued employee of the Baltimore District and well deserves recognition in 2012 for his outstanding public service career as a distinguished member of the Federal workforce. He is an outstanding example of the Federal workforce who worked tirelessly day in and day out for the American people.