Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss this concurrent resolution that honors the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, on the occasion of its 102nd anniversary. I thank Senators Grassley, Leahy, and others for joining me in submitting this bipartisan resolution and would like to note that this resolution is particularly timely not only because the NAACP just celebrated its 102nd anniversary, but also because we are celebrating Black History Month.

The NAACP was created amidst great adversity. In 1905, a group of African American civil rights activists came together to discuss prominent issues that they and many others faced in our Nation. Among those discussed issues was disenfranchisement. Despite passage of the 15th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1870, African Americans throughout the country were denied their right to one of the fundamental methods of civic engagement: the right to vote. In many circumstances Jim Crow State laws. These discussions were held on the Canadian side of the Niagara Falls because hotels across America remained segregated. On February 12, 1909, the centennial of President Abraham Lincoln's birth, distinguished leaders in the struggle for civil and political liberty, which included W.E.B. DuBois, Ida Wells- Barnett, Henry Moscowitz, Mary White Ovington, Oswald Garrison Villard, and William English Walling, created the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. It is now the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the United States.

Its national headquarters is located in my home city of Baltimore, MD, and its mission is one that I hold dear; that is, to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of the rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.

Over the years, the NAACP has advanced its mission of racial equality and has achieved concrete goals to that effect by nonviolent means through sheer moral force and legal persuasion. The NAACP initially focused on ending the use of lynching, bringing equality into the job market, and ensuring voting rights for all. Many of the significant legal victories came under the leadership of Charles Houston and his protege and fellow Marylander, Thurgood Marshall. Houston is remembered for stating, ``[A] lawyer is either a social engineer or a parasite on society.''

The duo of Houston and Marshall successfully argued Murray v. Maryland, 1936, which resulted in the desegregation of the University of Maryland's Law School and in 1938 Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada the Supreme Court ordered the admission of a Black student to the Law School at the University of Missouri. When Thurgood Marshall served as the NAACP's special counsel, the organization continued to fight for equality in cases such as Smith v. Allwright, 1944, where Marshall challenged ``White primaries,'' which prevented African Americans from voting in several Southern States. In Morgan v. Virginia, 1946, the Supreme Court struck down a State law that enforced segregation on buses and trains that were interstate carriers. In Shelley v Kraemer, 1948, the NAACP won a battle to end the enforcement of racially restrictive housing covenants, which denied access for African Americans to homes in what was considered White neighborhoods.

In 1950, the NAACP provided the legal resources to contest both Texas and Oklahoma laws allowing segregated graduate schools in Sweatt v. Painter, 1950, and McLaurin v. Oklahoma, 1950. Marshall and the team of lawyers argued and won unanimous decisions in the U.S. Supreme Court, stating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment required those States to admit African-American students to their respective graduate and professional schools. These court rulings supported and led to the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, which ended racial segregation in our public schools. Marshall went on to become the Nation's first African-American Solicitor General, and then the Nation's first African-American Supreme Court Justice.

Additionally, the NAACP has worked tirelessly to win passage of important legislation that protects the fundamental rights of all Americans. This legislation includes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act. More recently, the NAACP played an integral role in ensuring passage of important contemporary civil rights bills that I was proud to cosponsor, including the Civil Rights Act of 2008, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and the landmark Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the gross racial disparity inherent in our sentencing laws for crack cocaine.

One of America's greatest strengths is its rich diversity. From Rosa Parks and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to Marylanders Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass and Thurgood Marshall, strong African-American men and women have become role models for our Nation and others around the world who struggle for freedom. During the month of February, we all should take a moment to reflect upon the achievements and sacrifices of the African-American community-- achievements that might not have been possible without the hard work and tireless effort of the NAACP. It also is a time to rededicate ourselves to the ideals enshrined in the U.S. Constitution--the ideals of equality, freedom and justice--and making sure they are protected for future generations. Because in the words of the late Senator Ted Kennedy: ``Civil rights is the unfinished business of the Nation.''

Mr. President, the Classified Information Procedures Act, CIPA, was enacted in 1980 with bipartisan support to address the ``disclose or dismiss'' dilemma that arose in espionage prosecutions when a defendant would threaten the government with the disclosure of classified information if the government did not drop the prosecution. Previously, there were no Congressionally-mandated procedures that required district courts to make discovery and admissibility rulings regarding classified information in advance.

CIPA has worked reasonably well during the last 30 years, but some issues have arisen in a number of notable terrorism, espionage, and narcotics cases that demonstrate that reforms and improvements could be made to ensure that classified sources, methods and information can be protected, and to ensure that a defendant's due process and fair trial rights are not violated. In 2009, when the Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act, MCA, the Congress drew heavily from the manner in which the federal courts interpreted CIPA when it updated the procedures governing the use of classified information in military commission prosecutions. At that time, however, the Congress did not update CIPA. Indeed, since its enactment in 1980, there have been no changes to the key provisions of CIPA.

As the former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary's Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, I chaired a number of hearings during which witnesses testified about the capacity of our civilian courts to try alleged terrorists and spies. The first Subcommittee hearing that I chaired was on July 28, 2009, and was entitled ``Prosecuting Terrorists: Civilian and Military Trials for GTMO and Beyond.'' The second Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing that I chaired was on May 12, 2010, and was entitled ``The Espionage Statutes: A Look Back and A Look Forward.'' The testimony I have heard in regard to terrorism, espionage and our civilian courts, has convinced me that while our courts have the capacity and the procedures in place to try alleged terrorists and spies, reforms and improvements could be made to CIPA to codify and clarify the decisions of the federal courts.

As a result, today I am reintroducing the Classified Information Procedures Reform and Improvement Act, CIPRIA. CIPRIA contains reforms and improvements to ensure that the statute maintains the proper balance between the protection of classified sources, methods and information, and a defendant's constitutional rights. Among other things, this legislation, which includes the applicable changes that the Congress made when it enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2009, will: codify, clarify and unify federal case law interpreting CIPA; ensure that all classified information, not just documents, will be governed by CIPA; ensure that prosecutors and defense attorneys will be able to fully inform trial courts about classified information issues; and will clarify that the civil state secrets privilege does not apply in criminal cases. CIPRIA will also ensure high-level DOJ approval before the government invokes its classified information privilege in criminal cases and will ensure that the federal courts will order the disclosure and use of classified information when the disclosure and use meets the applicable legal standards. This legislation will also ensure timely appellate review of lower court CIPA decisions before the commencement of a trial, explicitly permit trial courts to adopt alternative procedures for the admission of classified information in accordance with a defendant's fair trial and due process rights, and make technical fixes to ensure consistent use of terms throughout the statute.

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

Mr. President, the current framework concerning the espionage statutes was designed to address classic spy cases involving persons who intended to aid foreign governments and harm the United States. The current framework traces its roots to the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a crime to disclose defense information during wartime. The basic idea behind the legislation, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional in 1919, was to stop citizens from spying or interfering with military actions during World War I. The current framework was formed at a time when intelligence and national security information existed primarily in some tangible form, such as blueprints, photographs, maps, and other documents.

Our nation, however, has witnessed dramatic changes to nearly every facet of our lives over the last 100 years, including technological advances which have revolutionized our information gathering abilities as well as the mediums utilized to communicate such information. Yet, the basic terms and structure of the espionage statutes have remained relatively unchanged

since their inception. Moreover, issues have arisen in the prosecution and defense of criminal cases when the statutes have been applied to persons who may be disclosing classified information for purposes other than to aid a foreign government or to harm the United States. In addition, the statutes contain some terms which are outdated and do not reflect how information is classified by the Executive Branch today.

Legal scholars and commentators have criticized the current framework, and over the years, some federal courts have as well. In 2006, after reviewing the many developments in the law and changes in society that had taken place since the enactment of the espionage statutes, one district court judge stated that ``the time is ripe for Congress'' to reexamine them. United States v. Rosen, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602, 646, E.D. Va. 2006, Ellis, J. Nearly 20 years earlier in the Morison case, one federal appellate judge stated that ``[i]f one thing is clear, it is that the Espionage Act statutes as now broadly drawn are unwieldy and imprecise instruments for prosecuting government `leakers' to the press as opposed to government `moles' in the service of other countries.'' That judge also stated that ``carefully drawn legislation'' was a ``better long-term resolution'' than judicial intervention. See United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057, 1086, 4th Cir. 1988.

As the former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary's Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, I chaired a Subcommittee hearing on May 12, 2010, entitled ``The Espionage Statutes: A Look Back and A Look Forward.'' At that Subcommittee hearing, I questioned a number of witnesses, which included witnesses from academia as well as former officials from the intelligence and law enforcement communities, about how well the espionage statutes have been working. And since that hearing, I have been closely and carefully reviewing these statutes, particularly in the context of recent events. I am convinced that changes in technology and society, combined with statutory and judicial changes to the law, have rendered some aspects of our espionage laws less effective than they need to be to protect the national security. I also believe that we need to enhance our ability to prosecute spies as well as those who make unauthorized disclosures of classified information. We don't need an Official State Secrets Act, and we must be careful not to chill protected First Amendment activities. We do, however, need to do a better job of preventing unauthorized disclosures of classified information that can harm the United States, and at the same time we need to ensure that public debates continue to take place on important national security and foreign policy issues.

As a result, today I am reintroducing the Espionage Statutes Modernization Act, ESMA. This legislation makes important improvements to the espionage statutes to make them more effective and relevant in the 21st century. This legislation is narrowly-tailored and balanced, and will enable the government to use a separate criminal statute to prosecute government employees who make unauthorized disclosures of classified information in violation of the nondisclosure agreements they have entered, irrespective of whether they intend to aid a foreign government or harm the United States.

This legislation is not designed to make it easier for the government to prosecute the press, to chill First Amendment freedoms, or to make it more difficult to expose government wrongdoing. In fact, the proposed legislation promotes the use of Federal whistleblower statutes and regulations to report unlawful and other improper conduct. Unauthorized leaks of classified information, however, are harmful to the national security and could endanger lives. Thus, in addition to proposing important refinements to the espionage statutes, this legislation will deter unauthorized leaks of classified information by government employees who knowingly and intentionally violate classified information nondisclosure agreements.

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

Mr. President, the Classified Information Procedures Act, CIPA, was enacted in 1980 with bipartisan support to address the ``disclose or dismiss'' dilemma that arose in espionage prosecutions when a defendant would threaten the government with the disclosure of classified information if the government did not drop the prosecution. Previously, there were no Congressionally-mandated procedures that required district courts to make discovery and admissibility rulings regarding classified information in advance.

CIPA has worked reasonably well during the last 30 years, but some issues have arisen in a number of notable terrorism, espionage, and narcotics cases that demonstrate that reforms and improvements could be made to ensure that classified sources, methods and information can be protected, and to ensure that a defendant's due process and fair trial rights are not violated. In 2009, when the Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act, MCA, the Congress drew heavily from the manner in which the federal courts interpreted CIPA when it updated the procedures governing the use of classified information in military commission prosecutions. At that time, however, the Congress did not update CIPA. Indeed, since its enactment in 1980, there have been no changes to the key provisions of CIPA.

As the former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary's Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, I chaired a number of hearings during which witnesses testified about the capacity of our civilian courts to try alleged terrorists and spies. The first Subcommittee hearing that I chaired was on July 28, 2009, and was entitled ``Prosecuting Terrorists: Civilian and Military Trials for GTMO and Beyond.'' The second Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing that I chaired was on May 12, 2010, and was entitled ``The Espionage Statutes: A Look Back and A Look Forward.'' The testimony I have heard in regard to terrorism, espionage and our civilian courts, has convinced me that while our courts have the capacity and the procedures in place to try alleged terrorists and spies, reforms and improvements could be made to CIPA to codify and clarify the decisions of the federal courts.

As a result, today I am reintroducing the Classified Information Procedures Reform and Improvement Act, CIPRIA. CIPRIA contains reforms and improvements to ensure that the statute maintains the proper balance between the protection of classified sources, methods and information, and a defendant's constitutional rights. Among other things, this legislation, which includes the applicable changes that the Congress made when it enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2009, will: codify, clarify and unify federal case law interpreting CIPA; ensure that all classified information, not just documents, will be governed by CIPA; ensure that prosecutors and defense attorneys will be able to fully inform trial courts about classified information issues; and will clarify that the civil state secrets privilege does not apply in criminal cases. CIPRIA will also ensure high-level DOJ approval before the government invokes its classified information privilege in criminal cases and will ensure that the federal courts will order the disclosure and use of classified information when the disclosure and use meets the applicable legal standards. This legislation will also ensure timely appellate review of lower court CIPA decisions before the commencement of a trial, explicitly permit trial courts to adopt alternative procedures for the admission of classified information in accordance with a defendant's fair trial and due process rights, and make technical fixes to ensure consistent use of terms throughout the statute.

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

Mr. President, the current framework concerning the espionage statutes was designed to address classic spy cases involving persons who intended to aid foreign governments and harm the United States. The current framework traces its roots to the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a crime to disclose defense information during wartime. The basic idea behind the legislation, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional in 1919, was to stop citizens from spying or interfering with military actions during World War I. The current framework was formed at a time when intelligence and national security information existed primarily in some tangible form, such as blueprints, photographs, maps, and other documents.

Our nation, however, has witnessed dramatic changes to nearly every facet of our lives over the last 100 years, including technological advances which have revolutionized our information gathering abilities as well as the mediums utilized to communicate such information. Yet, the basic terms and structure of the espionage statutes have remained relatively unchanged

since their inception. Moreover, issues have arisen in the prosecution and defense of criminal cases when the statutes have been applied to persons who may be disclosing classified information for purposes other than to aid a foreign government or to harm the United States. In addition, the statutes contain some terms which are outdated and do not reflect how information is classified by the Executive Branch today.

Legal scholars and commentators have criticized the current framework, and over the years, some federal courts have as well. In 2006, after reviewing the many developments in the law and changes in society that had taken place since the enactment of the espionage statutes, one district court judge stated that ``the time is ripe for Congress'' to reexamine them. United States v. Rosen, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602, 646, E.D. Va. 2006, Ellis, J. Nearly 20 years earlier in the Morison case, one federal appellate judge stated that ``[i]f one thing is clear, it is that the Espionage Act statutes as now broadly drawn are unwieldy and imprecise instruments for prosecuting government `leakers' to the press as opposed to government `moles' in the service of other countries.'' That judge also stated that ``carefully drawn legislation'' was a ``better long-term resolution'' than judicial intervention. See United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057, 1086, 4th Cir. 1988.

As the former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary's Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, I chaired a Subcommittee hearing on May 12, 2010, entitled ``The Espionage Statutes: A Look Back and A Look Forward.'' At that Subcommittee hearing, I questioned a number of witnesses, which included witnesses from academia as well as former officials from the intelligence and law enforcement communities, about how well the espionage statutes have been working. And since that hearing, I have been closely and carefully reviewing these statutes, particularly in the context of recent events. I am convinced that changes in technology and society, combined with statutory and judicial changes to the law, have rendered some aspects of our espionage laws less effective than they need to be to protect the national security. I also believe that we need to enhance our ability to prosecute spies as well as those who make unauthorized disclosures of classified information. We don't need an Official State Secrets Act, and we must be careful not to chill protected First Amendment activities. We do, however, need to do a better job of preventing unauthorized disclosures of classified information that can harm the United States, and at the same time we need to ensure that public debates continue to take place on important national security and foreign policy issues.

As a result, today I am reintroducing the Espionage Statutes Modernization Act, ESMA. This legislation makes important improvements to the espionage statutes to make them more effective and relevant in the 21st century. This legislation is narrowly-tailored and balanced, and will enable the government to use a separate criminal statute to prosecute government employees who make unauthorized disclosures of classified information in violation of the nondisclosure agreements they have entered, irrespective of whether they intend to aid a foreign government or harm the United States.

This legislation is not designed to make it easier for the government to prosecute the press, to chill First Amendment freedoms, or to make it more difficult to expose government wrongdoing. In fact, the proposed legislation promotes the use of Federal whistleblower statutes and regulations to report unlawful and other improper conduct. Unauthorized leaks of classified information, however, are harmful to the national security and could endanger lives. Thus, in addition to proposing important refinements to the espionage statutes, this legislation will deter unauthorized leaks of classified information by government employees who knowingly and intentionally violate classified information nondisclosure agreements.

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

Mr. President, today I am proud to re-introduce legislation to support greater public involvement in the administration of one of Maryland's most treasured National Parks. The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission Act ensures that the communities located along the 184.5 mile long C&O Canal National Historical Park have a voice with the National Park Service regarding decisions affecting the administration of the Park. The Commission keeps the people and small businesses most affected by the operation of the C&O Canal National Historical Park informed and involved in the decisions surrounding the Park. Citizen involvement in the governmental process is a hallmark of our democracy and the C&O Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission Act exemplifies the goal of ensuring the public's role in government decision making.

The importance of the Commission is intrinsically tied to the uniqueness of the C&O Canal National Historical Park. The Park covers an area of 20,000 acres winding North and West along the Potomac River from the heart of Georgetown's old industrial district in Washington D.C. to Cumberland, MD nestled in the valleys and mountains of Western Maryland. The Park's watered canal, contiguous towpath, popular among cyclists, backpackers, day hikers and runners, hundreds of historic structures and towns like Hancock, Hagerstown, Harpers Ferry, Williamsport and Sharpsburg that grew during the Canal's heyday, all tell the story of how the C&O Canal once served as a crucial East/West commercial link. The Park also preserves pristine views of the Potomac River, evocative of the C&O Canal's working days. At its widest points, the C&O Canal National Historical Park spans less than \2/10\ of a mile across and in many areas directly abuts neighboring commercial and residential properties bordering the Park.

During the commercial operation of the C&O Canal, these towns were local commercial centers where area farmers and tradesman utilized the canal boats to deliver their goods to market. Today, the hospitality and tourism industries of these communities thrive upon the C&O Canal National Historical Park's popularity and are integral to enhancing the park user experience. Whether it is hotel or bed and breakfast to spend the night in, a restaurant or diner to grab a meal, stores to shop in and perhaps stock up on camping provisions, boathouses to rent a canoe for the afternoon, bike shops to service a flat tire or make repairs to your bike or any of the myriad of goods and services park visitors may need, the communities along the C&O Canal are as important to the Park user experience as the Park's users are to maintaining their businesses.

In 2009, more than 3.75 million people visited the C&O Canal National Historical Park. To put it in perspective, in 2009, more people visited this historic treasure than the number of people who visited Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Everglades or Shenandoah National Park. Much of the C&O Canal National Historical Park's success is attributable to the positive relationship that has developed over time between the National Park Service and the local community leaders that span the length of the Park. The Park's Commission has greatly facilitated this relationship.

The Commission provides the vital link between the affected committee that the Park runs through and the National Park Service. The Commission ensures that the public is engaged in the numerous processes surrounding operational policy and infrastructure maintenance and restoration projects on the C&O Canal National Historic Park. The Commission plays a vital consultation and planning role for park activities and operations. The cooperation that has developed between the Commission and the National Park Service helps ties to the Park to its communities. The Commission serves a purely advisory function and does not have the authority to make binding park policy.

The Commission was first established as part of the 1971 Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act sponsored by Rep. Gilbert Gude, R-MD. Every ten years, a bill like mine comes before congress, when the 10- year extension of the Commission's authorization expires. Three times over a 40-year period extension bills have passed by unanimous consent and without controversy. My bill is another 10-year extension of the Advisory Commission's authorization and makes no changes to the Commission's authority. Legislative precedent has never set an authorization amount for the Commission, but the Commission has always functioned at a nominal cost.

The General Services Administration's Federal Advisory Commissions Act database determined that the C&O Canal Advisory Commission's expenses totaled $33,199 for fiscal year 2010. All expenses came out of the National Park Service's general operating budget. Expenses covered the cost of travel for commission members, $295, Federal staff time, $28,074, and miscellaneous expenses, $4,830, like meeting space, printing, supplies and website maintenance.

The National Park System is a showcase of America's natural and historical treasures. So much of the National Park System's success is rooted in the citizen stewardship projects and the involvement of caring citizens and community leaders. Like so many of our National Parks the C&O Canal National Historical Park has an extensive backlog of maintenance and repair projects. The Commission plays a critical role in helping keep these projects moving forward and assisting the National Park Service with their completion because there is recognition of the shared responsibility between the Park Service and the Commission about the importance of continuing to make the Park a desirable tourism and outdoor recreation destination. The Commission provides that bridge between the government and public. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, today I am proud to re-introduce legislation to support greater public involvement in the administration of one of Maryland's most treasured National Parks. The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission Act ensures that the communities located along the 184.5 mile long C&O Canal National Historical Park have a voice with the National Park Service regarding decisions affecting the administration of the Park. The Commission keeps the people and small businesses most affected by the operation of the C&O Canal National Historical Park informed and involved in the decisions surrounding the Park. Citizen involvement in the governmental process is a hallmark of our democracy and the C&O Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission Act exemplifies the goal of ensuring the public's role in government decision making.

The importance of the Commission is intrinsically tied to the uniqueness of the C&O Canal National Historical Park. The Park covers an area of 20,000 acres winding North and West along the Potomac River from the heart of Georgetown's old industrial district in Washington D.C. to Cumberland, MD nestled in the valleys and mountains of Western Maryland. The Park's watered canal, contiguous towpath, popular among cyclists, backpackers, day hikers and runners, hundreds of historic structures and towns like Hancock, Hagerstown, Harpers Ferry, Williamsport and Sharpsburg that grew during the Canal's heyday, all tell the story of how the C&O Canal once served as a crucial East/West commercial link. The Park also preserves pristine views of the Potomac River, evocative of the C&O Canal's working days. At its widest points, the C&O Canal National Historical Park spans less than \2/10\ of a mile across and in many areas directly abuts neighboring commercial and residential properties bordering the Park.

During the commercial operation of the C&O Canal, these towns were local commercial centers where area farmers and tradesman utilized the canal boats to deliver their goods to market. Today, the hospitality and tourism industries of these communities thrive upon the C&O Canal National Historical Park's popularity and are integral to enhancing the park user experience. Whether it is hotel or bed and breakfast to spend the night in, a restaurant or diner to grab a meal, stores to shop in and perhaps stock up on camping provisions, boathouses to rent a canoe for the afternoon, bike shops to service a flat tire or make repairs to your bike or any of the myriad of goods and services park visitors may need, the communities along the C&O Canal are as important to the Park user experience as the Park's users are to maintaining their businesses.

In 2009, more than 3.75 million people visited the C&O Canal National Historical Park. To put it in perspective, in 2009, more people visited this historic treasure than the number of people who visited Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Everglades or Shenandoah National Park. Much of the C&O Canal National Historical Park's success is attributable to the positive relationship that has developed over time between the National Park Service and the local community leaders that span the length of the Park. The Park's Commission has greatly facilitated this relationship.

The Commission provides the vital link between the affected committee that the Park runs through and the National Park Service. The Commission ensures that the public is engaged in the numerous processes surrounding operational policy and infrastructure maintenance and restoration projects on the C&O Canal National Historic Park. The Commission plays a vital consultation and planning role for park activities and operations. The cooperation that has developed between the Commission and the National Park Service helps ties to the Park to its communities. The Commission serves a purely advisory function and does not have the authority to make binding park policy.

The Commission was first established as part of the 1971 Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act sponsored by Rep. Gilbert Gude, R-MD. Every ten years, a bill like mine comes before congress, when the 10- year extension of the Commission's authorization expires. Three times over a 40-year period extension bills have passed by unanimous consent and without controversy. My bill is another 10-year extension of the Advisory Commission's authorization and makes no changes to the Commission's authority. Legislative precedent has never set an authorization amount for the Commission, but the Commission has always functioned at a nominal cost.

The General Services Administration's Federal Advisory Commissions Act database determined that the C&O Canal Advisory Commission's expenses totaled $33,199 for fiscal year 2010. All expenses came out of the National Park Service's general operating budget. Expenses covered the cost of travel for commission members, $295, Federal staff time, $28,074, and miscellaneous expenses, $4,830, like meeting space, printing, supplies and website maintenance.

The National Park System is a showcase of America's natural and historical treasures. So much of the National Park System's success is rooted in the citizen stewardship projects and the involvement of caring citizens and community leaders. Like so many of our National Parks the C&O Canal National Historical Park has an extensive backlog of maintenance and repair projects. The Commission plays a critical role in helping keep these projects moving forward and assisting the National Park Service with their completion because there is recognition of the shared responsibility between the Park Service and the Commission about the importance of continuing to make the Park a desirable tourism and outdoor recreation destination. The Commission provides that bridge between the government and public. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and congratulate him on the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. It is a bill that we can all be proud of. I thank him for his good work.

Mr. President, I rise to speak today on the legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration.

Our Nation's economy is recovering from the worst economic recession in decades. Critical to getting our economy moving forward and getting Americans back to work is building an efficient and modern intermodal transportation system built to handle growing commerce in the 21st century.

I am pleased to see that this legislation, which is estimated to create 280,000 jobs in airports around the country, is one of the first orders of business for the Senate in the 112th Congress. It demonstrates this body's focus on job creation and helping get Americans back to work while updating the Nation's aviation infrastructure to ensure that America is ready for business.

The airline industry accounts for nearly 11 million U.S. jobs and $1.2 trillion in annual economic activity. This bill provides the airline industry the essential infrastructure it needs to succeed and remain strong and competitive in the global airline industry.

Every day, the Federal Aviation Administration faces the daunting task of marshalling thousands of airliners, and the air travelers on those planes, across the country from airports and airfields both large and small located in nearly every corner of the United States. These members of the Federal workforce safely guide thousands of airplanes, serving tens of thousands of air travelers, across America's skies every day.

I applaud Senator Rockefeller's dedication to getting this much needed legislation to the floor of the Senate. I greatly appreciate his willingness in the last Congress to incorporate a provision of mine that is important to keeping small rural airports in Maryland and in other parts of the country in operation. I look forward to continue working to build upon the great work he has done to get this important bill moving forward.

This bill is not just important to our big airports; it's important to all airports in this country. There are many challenges facing the FAA and air travelers. This bill sets a clear path towards addressing these challenges, not the least of which is working to reduce the number of flight cancellations and the frequency of flight delays that can range anywhere from 10 minutes to 9 or more hours that air travelers experience.

This bill will reduce delays by more than 20 percent--save passenger time, money and reduce airline fuel consumption, making our country more energy secure and reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

While air travel remains a safe and fast way to travel between distant destinations, the technology is readily available to make essential improvements to our Nation's aviation infrastructure to make it even safer and faster.

The bill's authorization of facility and equipment funding reinforces the FAA's commitment to overhauling the guidance systems used to direct flights across the country. The deployment of NextGen flight systems will cut travel times and save energy by directing flights to take shorter routes that use less fuel.

Domestic commercial flight routes follow the same terrestrial based guidance air traffic control system that was put in place more than half a century ago. The paths planes follow between airports is not based on the shortest most efficient routes, but instead based on the location of broadcasting points on the ground. That no longer makes any sense. We know that we now have a GPS system that could put our planes on a much more direct route, which is faster and will save time and energy.

For example, air travelers flying from National Airport, across the Potomac in Arlington, VA, to Boston's Logan International Airport currently follow a route north through central Pennsylvania, east across New York State and the entire State of Massachusetts to Boston located on the Atlantic coast.

This flight pattern goes 537 miles, takes an hour and 15 minutes to fly, and burns 7,376 pounds of fuel.

Alternatively, NextGen's satellite-based guidance system, using global positioning systems, would guide that same flight on a 367 mile, northeasterly route directly up the Atlantic coast, that takes less than an hour, and use 5,883 pounds of fuel.

That's a 1,493 pound savings of expensive, carbon emission intensive, jet fuel.

These are significant savings that benefit the environment and the consumer. The Air Transport Association estimates that ``even a 6% fleet-wide reduction in fuel burn results in fuel savings of 1.16 billion gallons of jet fuel and emissions savings of nearly 11 million metric tons or 24 billion pounds of CO2.'' We would be saving fuel and costs and would be polluting much less.

NextGen is essential to achieving these types of greenhouse gas emissions reductions from the aviation sector.

NextGen is also critical to meeting future air travel demands and will go a long way to alleviating the actual ``air traffic'' that is responsible for much of the delays air passengers experience when travelling.

The research, engineering and development funding is set to advance undergraduate and technical school programs for aircraft maintenance focusing on new technology job training for pilots and air traffic controllers. This includes essential job training programs for the next generation of air traffic controllers that will use NextGen systems to guide America's airline fleets.

Job training and education are important for preparing America's workforce to advance into well paid and skilled jobs and are essential to the Nation's economic recovery.

The operations and maintenance, Airport Improvement Program and facilities and equipment funding authorizations give the green light to hundreds of airports across the Nation to advance pressing maintenance, facilities, security and new construction projects that will create thousands of jobs in the engineering, computer science, construction, and software development sectors and much more.

For example, at Baltimore Washington International-Thurgood Marshall Airport in Anne Arundel County, the Maryland Department of Transportation has nearly $400 million in Airport Improvement Program projects that are ready to go. These projects will help improve runway safety, tarmac capacity and terminal efficiency at Maryland's largest airport.

BWI-Thurgood Marshall served 21 million passengers in 2009 and was ranked first out of 140 international airports, worldwide, that serve 15-25 million passengers annually by the Airports Council International's Airport Service Quality survey. We are proud of that and want to maintain that service at BWI. The reauthorization of these programs is critical to our doing that.

I appreciate the opportunity this bill gives me to show my support for Maryland's flagship airport and the 35 other commercial, municipal, regional and general aviation airports across my State.

I mentioned earlier my colleague's willingness to work with me to incorporate an amendment to help small commercial airports. The program I am referring to is the Essential Air Service Program, which provides funding to keep the small yet critical commercial airports serving rural communities viable.

This program assures that rural communities are provided a minimal level of service to preserve their connection to the national air transportation system.

Western Maryland's Hagerstown Airport has benefitted greatly from this program and has allowed the airport to secure service contracts with Cape Air to fly four daily flights from Hagerstown to Baltimore. Without Hagerstown's daily flights to BWI, western Maryland residents, as well as people living in eastern West Virginia and southern Pennsylvania, would have to drive anywhere from 75 to more than 150 miles to get to the nearest airport with commercial service.

There are many other rural communities where major commercial air passenger service is located at even greater distances and the Essential Air Service helps alleviate the travel isolation of these communities. I am pleased that this bill addresses the needs of Hagerstown Airport and others like it.

Another issue critical to the success of Maryland's airports that will surely come up during the debate of this bill is changing the slot and perimeter rule at Reagan National Airport. This is an issue that I care deeply about because it has a specifically targeted effect on the economic success and job growth potential at BWI-Thurgood Marshall airport and the surrounding area.

In the 111th Congress, the proposed changes to operations at National Airport were made by Senators representing States well beyond the Greater Washington region. Changing the slot and perimeter rule in this fashion subverts the established process for altering these rules and undermines the authority of local transportation experts.

Restricted service at National Airport lends itself to the steady growth at the region's major hub airports, which has been at the heart of the region's business communities' economic development plans.

Companies such as Northrop Grumman, L3, General Dynamics, IBM, Deloitte, and other major employers in the Baltimore-Washington area strategically located themselves around BWI. The growth of that airport is critically important to our economic progress.

The steady growth in service at the region's large international airports helped create an attractive business climate for these major companies. This would not have been possible without Congress's agreement to maintain the status quo of service at National Airport that, in turn, made Dulles and BWI the region's growth airports.

Based on existing service and prior historical evidence of the impacts of increased slots at DCA, allowing flights to be converted from within the perimeter to beyond the perimeter would have a direct impact on the service offered out of BWI Marshall.

Under any slot-change scenario, service reductions at BWI Marshall will reduce the value and return on Federal and State infrastructure investments made at BWI. Maryland has invested more than $1.5 billion in the airport over the last 10 years and plans to invest $684 million in the next 6 years. I welcome a collaborative and open process should changes in the region's airport operations be necessary.

In regard to another important provision in this legislation, I support the passenger bill of rights. No one should ever be forced to stay aboard a plane on a tarmac for extended periods of time.

I also applaud the provisions within the bill that provide customers with better information about the wide range of fees airlines and airports place upon the flying public.

I understand that between high fuel costs and the current economy, travelers are flying less and this has hurt the airline industry. As a result, airlines have resorted to charging a variety of fees for services on each flight. Airlines have counted on air travelers adapting to each change of policy so much that today's frequent fliers rarely expect a free meal or to check their bags for free.

Air travelers often have no choice but to pay the airlines' fees. The problem is how these fees come at the customers, often by surprise. If the fees are explained in advance, there is less with which to take issue.

Surprise fees have consumers upset and weary of flying. By the time travelers reach the ticket counter, they are committed to getting on that plane. At that point, the airlines have the clear upper hand when it comes to levying additional charges for baggage based on size, weight or type or even fees for simple onboard amenities such as refreshments, headphones or blankets once passengers are in their seats. In some instances, particularly the at-the-counter baggage fees, travelers have no choice but to pay the fee.

In the 111th Congress, I introduced legislation to ensure air travelers were made well aware of the fees they were being charged to fly. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure this issue is adequately addressed in this bill.

I want the airlines to succeed. Working to improve access to information and require the honest disclosure of airline fees and improved passenger treatment help public confidence in the airline industry.

Currently, the airline industry can point at high fuel costs and a downturn in the economy as the top reasons for why less people are traveling by air. As the economy continues to improve and as more Americans find work, both business and leisure travel will begin to pick up. Whether the travelers look to the skies or the ground to get to their destination will largely depend on the users' experience.

The passenger bill of rights goes a long way to improving the users' experience for air travelers.

Before concluding on this legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, I think it is important that I comment on one amendment that may be brought up. I wish to express my opposition to an amendment that would exclude employees of the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, from collective bargaining rights of Federal employees. On June 23, 2010, more than 6 months ago, I spoke on the floor of the Senate about the need for collective bargaining for more than 60,000 TSA employees who work at BWI Marshall International Airport and airports around the Nation.

At that time, some Members of Congress opposed collective bargaining for TSA employees because of their concern that we need to be able to adapt quickly and effectively to specific aviation threats. The underlying premise of that argument is, we must choose between protecting the Nation from threats to aviation and collective bargaining. As I said in my June 23, 2010, speech, that choice is a false choice because national security and what I called smart collective bargaining are not mutually exclusive. Under a smart collective bargaining agreement, where a true emergency exists, TSA would be fully capable of deploying assets without there being any negative impact from collective bargaining.

At his confirmation hearing, Administrator Pistole stated that ``we have to be able to surge resources at any time . . . not only nationwide but worldwide.'' The smart collective bargaining agreement I called for would enable us to do exactly that. Moreover, I believed then and I believe now that a smart collective bargaining agreement would enhance national security because it would enable TSA to recruit and retain better employees.

Our Nation's history with labor unions clearly teaches us that collective bargaining boosts morale, it allows employees to have a voice in their workplace, and it allows them to increase stability and professionalism.

On the other hand, poor workforce management can lead directly to high attrition rates, job dissatisfaction, and increased costs, which lead to gaps in aviation security. In the past, there have been reports that the TSA has had low worker morale, which can undermine the agency's mission and our national security.

I am now pleased to learn that after he was confirmed by the Senate, Administrator Pistole did what he said he would do--he studied the issue and gathered all the facts and information he could from stakeholders, including TSA employees, TSA management, union presidents, and a variety of present and former leaders and experts in law enforcement agencies and organizations.

This past Friday, on February 4, Administrator Pistole decided that the more than 60,000 TSA employees working at BWI Marshall International Airport and at airports around the Nation could vote on whether they want or do not want representation for limited collective bargaining on nonsecurity employment issues.

Administrator Pistole's determination will provide a framework to protect TSA's ability to respond to evolving threats, while allowing TSA's employees the right to join a union under clear definitions.

This is a smart decision and can lead to the kind of solution I was talking about 6 months ago.

On issues of national security, we need to come together and reject the either/or. We need to be smart on national security, and this collective bargaining decision by Administrator Pistole is a smart decision. The fact is, the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Patrol officers, some of whom work at the same airports as TSA employees, as well as DHS Federal Protective Service and the Capitol Police, all operate under collective bargaining agreements.

As our late colleague, Senator Kennedy, noted in August 2009 when he cosponsored a collective bargaining rights bill for public sector officers, tomorrow morning, thousands of State and local public safety officers, police officers, and firefighters will awake and go to work to protect us. They will put their lives on the line, responding to emergencies, policing our neighborhoods, and protecting us in Maryland and in communities all across the Nation. These dedicated public servants will patrol our streets and run into burning buildings to keep us safe. No one believes for a moment we are less safe because they have secured collective bargaining rights.

If opponents of Administrator Pistole's decision want to invoke 9/11 to support their views, they will soon discover that the legacy of 9/11 shows very clearly that national security will not be compromised by smart collective bargaining. Before 9/11, New York Port Authority police worked 8 hours a day, 4 days on and 2 days off. By the end of the day on 9/11, however, vacations and personal time were canceled and workers were switched to 12-hour tours, 7 days a week. Indeed, schedules did not return to normal for 3 years. The union did not file a grievance, and everyone recognized it was a real crisis.

Administrator Pistole's decision will enhance our ability to recruit and retain the best TSA employees to protect us.

It will also lead to conditions that will improve our ability to recruit and retain the best employees, such as the countless number of American heroes who work every day to protect us and keep us safe, under collective bargaining agreements.

In concluding, I wish to acknowledge in the reauthorization of the FAA bill the thousands of hard-working government workers, pilots, flight attendants, and other members of our Nation's flight crews. Without their service, air travel would not be possible. I am pleased several of the labor organizations that represent so many hard-working Americans in the aviation industry support this bill. I also note the important worker safety provisions this legislation provides workers in the aviation industry.

Congress has passed 17 short-term extensions of this authorization. It is time for a permanent fix. It is time to pass this bill. It will provide stability, safety, and jobs for both the airline industry and its passengers.

It promotes jobs, consumer travel protections, homegrown technological innovation, and reductions of fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. This could not come at a more opportune time.

I congratulate the chairman for all the work he has done.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Scott J. Glick, a Department of Justice detailee to the Senate Judiciary Committee during today's session.

Mr. President, Mr. Glick will be leaving us soon. He has been an invaluable resource, particularly for the subcommittee I chaired in the 111th Congress that dealt with terrorism and homeland security. I thank him for his dedicated work in the Senate. It was extremely important work that he did dealing with the espionage statute and terrorists, generally. I thank him for his service.

Mr. President, I listened to my friend from South Dakota. I was thinking about how long we have been debating health care reform. If we were to repeal the bill we enacted last year, how long would it be before we would be able to get back to serious health care changes?

It took us 1 year to debate and pass the bill that was ultimately signed by the President, but it took us 30 years to get to this subject and several administrations, both Democratic and Republican, that offered proposals where we could bring down the cost of health care and make it more available to the people of this country.

We brag, and rightly so, that we have the highest quality, most technologically advanced health care in the world in the United States. I look at my own State of Maryland, and I know people come from all over the world to get their health care needs met and get their doctors trained, whether it is at Johns Hopkins University or the University of Maryland Medical Center or what is happening at NIH. I know the Presiding Officer can tell us about the great institutions in the State of Pennsylvania, and that is true.

The problem is, it is out of the reach for too many Americans. It is too expensive. We don't have access to care in too many communities in America. The Congress last year did something about that. We took major steps forward to help the people of our Nation.

I have gotten hundreds of letters and phone calls from people in Maryland who told me their stories about fighting health insurance companies or their stories about trying to get access to preventive health care and how they were denied under our current system. I have talked to seniors in Maryland. I know how expensive health care is to them.

Seniors are very fortunate in that they have Medicare. But seniors, as an age group, have the highest out-of-pocket costs of any group of Americans. There are too many gaps in the system. We have to improve the system.

The problem I have with the amendment of Senator McConnell is, if we repeal what we did last year, we have to understand what consequences that will mean. We are not sure when Congress will be able to deal with this subject again. It might be 30 years from now. If we just repeal the bill, as suggested by Senator McConnell, the consequences of that action will be very damaging to the seniors in Maryland and around the Nation.

Let me tell you why. The bill we enacted last year started to deal with the gap in coverage for prescription drugs. Seniors last year received $250. This gap--after you spend a couple thousand dollars on prescription medicines, you then have to pay 100 percent of the costs of your prescription medicines under current law, until you spend another couple thousand. For many seniors, they cannot afford that. That means doing without prescriptions, cutting pills in half, compromising their own health care.

I have received many letters from seniors in Maryland telling me: I had to leave a prescription on the counter because I couldn't afford it and I have Medicare and I have coverage under Medicare D, but I could not afford it because I fell within the coverage gap. Do something about it.

It is not fair. Taking medicine to keep me healthier--I should be able to get that coverage here in the wealthiest Nation in the world. We did something about it last year, and repeal would eliminate that protection. We are going to close totally that coverage gap, that so- called doughnut hole. This year, the benefits are going to be worth about $500 to seniors who fall within that coverage gap. That would be lost if the McConnell amendment were adopted and became law. We can't let that happen. Next year, it will even be a better benefit because it gets up to about $2,400. That would be lost if we were to repeal the legislation.

It goes beyond that. We are now providing a wellness exam every year to seniors. They will be able to get covered for their preventive health care. They don't have that today. We expand their benefits. We guarantee their benefits will be provided, but we go beyond that. We eliminate a lot of the copayments on preventive health care. We make the program stronger, increasing the benefits for seniors.

At the same time, we do something which is extremely important: We make the program safer for tomorrow. We extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund for a decade. That is what we did last year.

If we repeal the bill, if the McConnell amendment becomes law, the Medicare system will be on much weaker ground, making it much more vulnerable to the types of attacks some of my Republican colleagues have been talking about, much more likely that would become a reality. That is what this bill means for the seniors of Maryland and the seniors of West Virginia and the seniors of Pennsylvania.

That is what we did. We strengthened the program. That would be lost if the McConnell amendment were to become law.

It goes beyond seniors. It goes to all families. I can't tell my colleagues how many families I have run into who have said to me: Senator Cardin, we want to cover our children, but under the old law, once they became 21 or 22, they lost coverage, even though they still needed insurance coverage.

We changed that to the age of 26. Under this law, one is allowed to be on their parents' policy until age 26. That is the law of the land right now. The McConnell amendment will repeal that. It will tell these young people who perhaps have graduated from college, who may be in their first job but

they don't have insurance available, that they will not have an affordable option for health coverage. They can't be on their parents' policy. Do we want to do that? That doesn't help American families. That moves us in the wrong direction.

We have told the private insurance marketplace that your premium that you pay, whether you do it through work and your employer and your own contributions or the premium you pay, that most of that premium should go for health benefits. It should not go for bonuses for insurance company executives. It should not go for nonmedical expenses. Most of it should go for benefits. The bill we passed last year says that now 80 to 85 percent of the premium you pay for your health insurance must go for benefits. If it doesn't, you will get a rebate. The money will actually come back to you in your pocket. That is taking on the private insurance companies, telling them they have to work within at least acceptable ranges. That is going to provide real benefits, improved coverage for the people. If the McConnell amendment were to become law, that would be lost. We would be at the mercy of private insurance companies.

How many constituents have we heard from who have told us examples of insurance companies using preexisting conditions to block their coverage? I could tell you about a family in Montgomery County. A husband and wife with two children had to take out two insurance policies because the insurance company said that one of their children had a preexisting condition. They had to take out two insurance plans, paying two premiums and two deductibles. That is outrageous. We have done away with preexisting conditions for children.

We are going to do away with preexisting conditions for all Americans, as we should. You buy insurance to protect you. I was surprised to learn how many Americans, if they try to buy insurance today without government protection, would run into an insurance company that tells them they have a preexisting condition. If you have high blood pressure, even if it is under control--preexisting condition. God forbid you should need to see a cardiologist--not covered. If you have high cholesterol, take a pill, it is under control. You think you are in good shape. Your cholesterol numbers are still good. Not for the insurance company; that has been considered a preexisting condition. If you are a victim of domestic violence, that is considered a preexisting condition. Quite frankly, some insurance companies consider women to be a preexisting condition, the way they write their policies. We do away with that. If the McConnell amendment were to become law, all that protection is gone.

If you think we will be able to pass it again quickly in this Congress, come down here and watch the way Congress works. Thirty years it took us to bring this bill up and get it passed. These are protections that are critically important to families. We need to make sure these are protected.

Caps. You buy an insurance plan and find out you have annual caps and lifetime caps which you thought you were buying protection against in a catastrophe. It is not there. We have done away with the caps to protect American families. That would be gone if the McConnell amendment were to become law.

I have heard a lot of discussion about small businesses. One of the reasons I worked so hard for passage of the Affordable Care Act is to help small businesses. They are discriminated against. It costs a small business owner more for the same coverage for its employees than a large company. On average, it is about 20 percent higher for smaller companies to insure their employees. That is just wrong. We take steps to correct that immediately by giving small businesses a credit. We help them by making it more affordable for them to cover their employees.

I heard my colleagues complain that premiums are going up. Yes, they are, because of the current system, the one we have changed or are in the process of changing. It is going to take some time for us to get full implementation of that law. That is understandable. It is wrong. I wish we could do more to bring it down quicker. But for this bill the premiums would be even higher. We know that.

This bill helps us to start to get a handle on helping small businesses have affordable coverage for their employees. Once again, if the McConnell amendment were adopted and became law, that protection, that help for small businesses would be lost.

Let me talk about taxpayers for a moment. There is a lot of discussion on both sides of the aisle--and I hope we are able to reach agreement--about bringing down the deficit. We need to do that for the sake of our economy and for our children and grandchildren. It is wrong for us to pass on our debt to future generations. We need to be serious about deficit reduction. I hope we do come up with a game plan in order to bring that about, but you don't do that by repealing the health reform bill.

Our own Congressional Budget Office, our independent evaluators, tells us that repealing this bill will add about $1.5 trillion to the national deficit over the next 20 years. I know people who are listening to me may not believe what I say. I understand that. I understand there has been a lot of misinformation given out. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle have tried to oversell this.

The Congressional Budget Office is our independent evaluator.

I remember when Senator Rockefeller was working on this bill, and we thought we had a pretty good understanding on how to bring the bill out. But, unfortunately, the CBO said: We can't give you all the savings you think you are going to get by keeping people healthy. Senator Rockefeller and the Finance Committee had to go back and find some additional savings in order to meet the CBO's requirement so that we made sure we didn't add to the deficit. In fact, we reduced the deficit with this bill.

So what do my colleagues in the House do? They say the CBO doesn't mean anything. If we do that with every bill we pass here, we will never attack the deficit. We have to have objective rules for evaluating what we do and its impact on the deficit.

One thing is clear by the objective scorekeepers: The McConnell amendment will add $1.5 trillion to the national debt because of what we were able to do in the Affordable Care Act.

We could argue this from many different sides. I am always amazed that my friends on the other side of the aisle say this is what the American people want us to do. I have looked at the polls. They go back and forth. Americans are divided on this issue, but most Americans want us to move forward. They want us to deal with job creation and job growth.

The bill my friend from West Virginia has brought forward, the FAA bill, is a very important bill for the American people. It is going to make our air traffic safer, but it will also create more jobs in communities--the exact type of bill we should be bringing forward. We should be working today to create more jobs and keep more jobs. That is what this underlying bill does, not the McConnell amendment. That won't help us create jobs. That will add to the deficit and make it more difficult for Americans to keep and get affordable health care. That is not what we should be doing.

I invite my Republican friends, we should be working together on this bill. We should be looking at ways to improve health care. We never said, when we completed our work last year, that we know there is no more work to be done. We know there are ways we can improve health care. Let's work today to do that, but let's not go backward. Let's move forward for the American people. Let's create the jobs we need for our economy. Let's continue to make health care accessible to more and more Americans and affordable to more and more Americans. Let's provide the quality of care that is befitting of this great Nation to all of our citizens.

In my State of Maryland, we have a person whom we will never forget-- Diamante Driver, a 12-year-old who lived in Prince George's County. In the wealthiest Nation in the world, in 2007, he needed to see a dentist but had no health insurance. So his mom tried to get him to a dentist. No dentist would treat him because he had no money. So he went to a social worker. His mom took him there. They made a lot of calls. No one would treat him. His condition got worse. He went to an emergency room, which is what happens

with a lot of people who have no health insurance. Talk about saving money. One of the ways we save money under the Affordable Care Act is to bring people out of the emergency rooms and into our clinics and get them the health care they need. Diamante Driver went to an emergency room months after he should have seen the dentist. Because his tooth had become abscessed and had gone into his brain, he had severe headaches. He went to the emergency room because of his headaches. They found that the only way they had a chance to save his life was through emergency surgery.

Two surgeries later, $\1/4\ million spent, where it would have cost $80 to take care of his need, Diamante Driver lost his life in 2007 in the wealthiest Nation in the world.

I understand that health care is personal to every person. Everyone looks at how they are going to be taken care of in this health care bill. That is what they should do. We think the overwhelming majority of Americans benefit by the bill we passed last year. But I would hope every American wants to make sure we have no more Diamante Drivers, that every person has access to affordable quality care. That was the signature accomplishment in the last Congress. We did it in a way that helped seniors, that helped families, that helped small businesses, that helped taxpayers and helped America to become at long last a Nation that said health care is a right, not a privilege. All that is lost if the McConnell amendment were to become law.

I urge my colleagues to think before they vote on this amendment as to whether they want to be on the right side of an issue that has helped define the Nation. I urge my colleagues to reject the McConnell amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, on the first day of Black History Month, I am proud to reintroduce The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park Act. I am joined by Mr. Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, and Ms. Gillibrand as original co-sponsors.

The woman, who is known to us as Harriet Tubman, was born in approximately 1822 in Dorchester County, Maryland and given the name Araminta, Minty, Ross. She spent nearly 30 years of her life in slavery on Maryland's Eastern Shore. As an adult she took the first name Harriet, and when she was 25 she married John Tubman.

Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery in 1849. She did so in the dead of night, navigating the maze of tidal streams and wetlands that, to this day, comprise the Maryland Eastern Shore landscape. She did so alone, demonstrating courage, strength and fortitude that became her hallmarks. 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. Tubman became known as ``Moses'' by African-Americans and white abolitionists. She is the most famous and 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.

Following the Civil War, Tubman settled in Auburn, NY. There she was active in the women's suffrage movement, and she also established one of the first incorporated African-American homes for aged. In 1903 she bequeathed the home to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in Auburn. Harriet Tubman died in Auburn in 1913 and she is buried there in the Fort Hill Cemetery.

Slaves were forced to live in primitive buildings even though many 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. The landscapes of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, however, remain evocative of the time that Tubman lived there. Farm fields and forests dot the landscape, which is also notable for its extensive network of tidal rivers and wetlands. 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 today 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 their freedom.

In New York, on the other hand, many of the buildings associated with Tubman's life remain intact. Her personal home, as well as the Tubman Home for the Aged, the church and rectory of the Thompson Memorial AME Zion Episcopal Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery are all extant.

In 1999, the Congress approved legislation authorizing a Special Resource Study to determine the appropriateness of establishing a unit of the National Park Service to honor Harriet Tubman. The Study has taken an exceptionally long time to complete, in part because of the lack of remaining structures on Maryland's Eastern Shore. 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. Eventually, 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 evocative of Tubman's time and are historically relevant. The Special Resource Study, completed by the National Park Service in the Fall of 2008, confirmed these findings and on July 15, 2009, the National Park Service endorsed S. 227 as introduced in the 111th Congress during a legislative hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

During the process of preparing S. 227 for markup in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Bingaman, drafted a substitute amendment of the bill. The contents of the Bingaman substitute are the result of his work to accommodate concerns that the Ranking Member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee had with S. 227 as introduced. An agreement was reached on the contents of the substitute amendment. An opportunity to mark up S. 227, consider the Bingaman substitute, and hold a vote in Committee never happened in the final months of the 111th Congress.

The legislation I am introducing today incorporates the proposed changes from the Bingaman substitute to S. 227. The bill establishes two parks.

The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park is comprised of important historical structures in Auburn, NY. They include Tubman's home, the Home for the Aged that she established, the African Methodist Episcopal AME Zion Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery where she is buried.

The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park includes historically important landscapes in Dorchester, Caroline and Talbot counties, Maryland, that are evocative of the life of Harriet Tubman.

In Dorchester County, the parcels would not be contiguous, but would include about 2,775 acres. All of these parcels are located within the established master plan boundaries of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge but are not currently owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The four parcels located within the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge Boundary, are sites significant to the life of Harriet Tubman. These parcels include the Anthony Thompson plantation parcel where Harriet Tubman likely was born, The Brodess Plantation parcel where Tubman worked as a young girl, the Cook Plantation parcel where as a teenager Harriet Tubman worked as a seamstress, and the Jacob Jackson parcel which is believed to be the location of one of the first safe houses along the Underground Railroad. The Park would be established upon the fee simple acquisition, by the National Park Service, of any of these parcels located within the current boundary of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.

Additional areas that would comprise the Harriet Tubman historic area include about 2,200 acres in Caroline County that comprise the Poplar Neck plantation that Tubman escaped from in 1849. The 725 acres of viewshed across the Choptank River in Talbot County would also be included in the Park. These parcels are authorized to come under protection through conservation easements held by the private property owners.

The bill authorizes such sums as necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the bill. Funds can be used for the construction of the Harriet Tubman Park Visitors Center, through a cost sharing requirement, for easements, or acquisition of the designated parcels eligible for fee simple acquisition.

Harriet Tubman was a true American patriot. She was someone for whom liberty and freedom were not just concepts. She lived those principles and shared that freedom with hundreds of others. In doing so, she has earned a nation's respect and honor.

Harriet Tubman is one of many great Americans that 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, protecting and commemorating the places evocative of Harriet Tubman's extraordinary life.

I am so proud to introduce this legislation, establishing the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park. I look forward to working with my colleagues to establish this important and fitting tribute to Harriet Tubman, a life worthy of recognition.

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

Mr. President, today, on the first day of Black History Month, I am proud to reintroduce The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park Act. I am joined by Mr. Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, and Ms. Gillibrand as original co-sponsors.

The woman, who is known to us as Harriet Tubman, was born in approximately 1822 in Dorchester County, Maryland and given the name Araminta, Minty, Ross. She spent nearly 30 years of her life in slavery on Maryland's Eastern Shore. As an adult she took the first name Harriet, and when she was 25 she married John Tubman.

Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery in 1849. She did so in the dead of night, navigating the maze of tidal streams and wetlands that, to this day, comprise the Maryland Eastern Shore landscape. She did so alone, demonstrating courage, strength and fortitude that became her hallmarks. 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. Tubman became known as ``Moses'' by African-Americans and white abolitionists. She is the most famous and 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.

Following the Civil War, Tubman settled in Auburn, NY. There she was active in the women's suffrage movement, and she also established one of the first incorporated African-American homes for aged. In 1903 she bequeathed the home to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in Auburn. Harriet Tubman died in Auburn in 1913 and she is buried there in the Fort Hill Cemetery.

Slaves were forced to live in primitive buildings even though many 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. The landscapes of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, however, remain evocative of the time that Tubman lived there. Farm fields and forests dot the landscape, which is also notable for its extensive network of tidal rivers and wetlands. 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 today 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 their freedom.

In New York, on the other hand, many of the buildings associated with Tubman's life remain intact. Her personal home, as well as the Tubman Home for the Aged, the church and rectory of the Thompson Memorial AME Zion Episcopal Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery are all extant.

In 1999, the Congress approved legislation authorizing a Special Resource Study to determine the appropriateness of establishing a unit of the National Park Service to honor Harriet Tubman. The Study has taken an exceptionally long time to complete, in part because of the lack of remaining structures on Maryland's Eastern Shore. 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. Eventually, 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 evocative of Tubman's time and are historically relevant. The Special Resource Study, completed by the National Park Service in the Fall of 2008, confirmed these findings and on July 15, 2009, the National Park Service endorsed S. 227 as introduced in the 111th Congress during a legislative hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

During the process of preparing S. 227 for markup in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Bingaman, drafted a substitute amendment of the bill. The contents of the Bingaman substitute are the result of his work to accommodate concerns that the Ranking Member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee had with S. 227 as introduced. An agreement was reached on the contents of the substitute amendment. An opportunity to mark up S. 227, consider the Bingaman substitute, and hold a vote in Committee never happened in the final months of the 111th Congress.

The legislation I am introducing today incorporates the proposed changes from the Bingaman substitute to S. 227. The bill establishes two parks.

The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park is comprised of important historical structures in Auburn, NY. They include Tubman's home, the Home for the Aged that she established, the African Methodist Episcopal AME Zion Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery where she is buried.

The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park includes historically important landscapes in Dorchester, Caroline and Talbot counties, Maryland, that are evocative of the life of Harriet Tubman.

In Dorchester County, the parcels would not be contiguous, but would include about 2,775 acres. All of these parcels are located within the established master plan boundaries of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge but are not currently owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The four parcels located within the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge Boundary, are sites significant to the life of Harriet Tubman. These parcels include the Anthony Thompson plantation parcel where Harriet Tubman likely was born, The Brodess Plantation parcel where Tubman worked as a young girl, the Cook Plantation parcel where as a teenager Harriet Tubman worked as a seamstress, and the Jacob Jackson parcel which is believed to be the location of one of the first safe houses along the Underground Railroad. The Park would be established upon the fee simple acquisition, by the National Park Service, of any of these parcels located within the current boundary of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.

Additional areas that would comprise the Harriet Tubman historic area include about 2,200 acres in Caroline County that comprise the Poplar Neck plantation that Tubman escaped from in 1849. The 725 acres of viewshed across the Choptank River in Talbot County would also be included in the Park. These parcels are authorized to come under protection through conservation easements held by the private property owners.

The bill authorizes such sums as necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the bill. Funds can be used for the construction of the Harriet Tubman Park Visitors Center, through a cost sharing requirement, for easements, or acquisition of the designated parcels eligible for fee simple acquisition.

Harriet Tubman was a true American patriot. She was someone for whom liberty and freedom were not just concepts. She lived those principles and shared that freedom with hundreds of others. In doing so, she has earned a nation's respect and honor.

Harriet Tubman is one of many great Americans that 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, protecting and commemorating the places evocative of Harriet Tubman's extraordinary life.

I am so proud to introduce this legislation, establishing the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park. I look forward to working with my colleagues to establish this important and fitting tribute to Harriet Tubman, a life worthy of recognition.

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

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was agreed to and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The resolution (S. Res. 28) was agreed to, as follows:

S. Res. 28

Resolved,

Mr. President, I rise today to return to the issue of the legacy of the invasion and ongoing occupation of Northern Cyprus and related human rights violations in the region. The disruption of a Christmas liturgy at the Orthodox Church of Agios Synesios, in Rizokarpaso, by the security services is appalling and should be roundly condemned by people of good will. The town, located in the Karpas region, is an anchor for the remnant of the once thriving Greek Cypriot community, now numbering several hundred mainly aged souls. The faithful had gathered at the church one of only a handful of Orthodox places of worship in the occupied area to have survived intact for a rare service. According to reports, members of the security services entered the church while the liturgy was being celebrated, ordered a halt to the religious service, and forced the worshipers and the priest out of the building before locking the doors.

This sad turn of events has become all too familiar in a region under the effective control of the Turkish military. Of the 500 Orthodox Christian churches, monasteries, chapels and other sacred sites in the north, nearly all have sustained heavy damage, with most desecrated and plundered, including cemeteries. A mere handful, including the Church of Agios Synesios, may occasionally be used for religious services depending upon the whims of the local authorities and the military. The disruption of the Christmas Day liturgy is an affront to the dignity of those attending the service and is part of a disturbing pattern of violation of OSCE commitments on the fundamental freedom of religion, including the right of religious communities to maintain freely accessible places of worship.

A related concern has been the tendency of State Department reports to downplay the difficulties faced by Orthodox Christians seeking to conduct services in northern Cyprus as well as the extent of the region's rich religious cultural heritage. I raised my concerns over the denial of religious freedom in occupied Cyprus when the Committee on Foreign Relations held a nomination hearing for the position of Ambassador-At-Large for International Religious Freedom and will continue to closely monitor the situation in that part of Cyprus.

Under my chairmanship of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe we undertook an examination of the destruction of religious cultural heritage in that part of Cyprus. Our findings, along with expert testimony were presented at a Commission briefing, ``Cyprus' Religious Cultural Heritage in Peril'' held on July 21, 2009. I encourage my colleagues and other interested parties to review the materials from that event, available on the Commission's Web site, www.csce.gov. A Law Library of Congress report: ``Cyprus: Destruction of Cultural Property in the Northern Part of Cyprus and Violations of International Law'' was also released at the briefing. In addition to documenting the extensive destruction of such sites, the briefing also touched on infringements of the rights of Orthodox Christians in Northern Cyprus to freely practice their religion.

Those responsible for the interruption and abrupt forcible ending of the Christmas service at the Church of Agios Synesios should issue a formal apology for the boorish act of repression and I call upon all authorities in northern Cyprus to remove restrictions on the free exercise of freedom of religion and other basic human rights in this part of the country under their control.

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

Madam President, on Monday, January 17, our Nation once again celebrated the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as a national holiday. Signed into law in 1983, the bill to make Dr. King's birthday a legal public holiday was the result of a 15-year legislative effort.

Although I was not a Member of the Congress at the time, I remember well the national debate and eventually the overwhelming support this legislation engendered. For the Senate pages on the floor today, for their entire lifetimes, Dr. King's birthday has been a Federal holiday. But they and all young Americans should know the passage of that law was not certain and not without controversy at the time.

I was the speaker of the Maryland house of delegates in the 1980s when the State of Maryland took up legislation to make Dr. King's birthday a State holiday, and we were one of several States that passed State laws to make Dr. King's birthday a holiday. As the federalism system works, as more States got engaged in this issue, the momentum at the national level became very apparent. And for the importance of this day and its message to Americans, the Congress finally enacted legislation in 1983.

This holiday, which has appropriately come to be known as a day of service, would not have happened without the leadership of former Senator Charles Mathias of Maryland. I am very proud of the work Senator Mathias did on this issue and so many issues that were important to the opportunities for all Americans. I also want to acknowledge the work of former Representative Katie Hall of Indiana. They were the authors of the 1983 legislation. This holiday also would not have happened without the work of Representatives John Lewis and John Conyers, who have dedicated their lives to social justice. Also, I might add, without the work of our former colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy, this bill would never have become law. I congratulate all of them for their work.

Serving in the Senate today are colleagues whom I would also like to thank for their efforts to enact this legislation, the 1983 King holiday bill. Six of the thirty-four sponsors are still in the Senate today, including Senator Baucus, Senator Bingaman, Senator Inouye, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Levin, and Senator Lugar, as well as the president of the Senate, Vice President Joe Biden. Moreover, five Senators who were Members of the House of Representatives at the time were original cosponsors of the companion bill, H.R. 3706, which became law. They are Majority Leader Reid, Senators Akaka, Boxer, Mikulski, and Schumer. I thank them all for their leadership and vision in the 1980s as to the importance of making this holiday a remembrance to Dr. Martin Luther King.

Twenty years before its enactment, in August of 1963 on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Dr. King delivered what is his most well-known speech, in which he called for racial equality and social justice for all Americans.

In honor of Dr. King's birthday, I ask unanimous consent that the text of that speech be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.