Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to celebrate the life of Harriet Tubman and the establishment of the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park. Harriet Tubman was an American hero who championed freedom and was most famously known as a leader of the Underground Railroad whose roots were on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Harriet Tubman was an iconic figure in our Nation's history for whom liberty and freedom were not just ideas but were God-given rights she fought tirelessly and at great personal peril to spread to others in bondage. The woman who is known to us as Harriet Tubman was born in approximately 1822 in Dorchester County, MD, and given the name Araminta ``Minty'' Ross. Born into slavery, she spent nearly 30 years of her life toiling for various families on Maryland's Eastern Shore. Even as a young, enslaved girl, she demonstrated impressive mental and physical strength. One of her jobs was to set and check muskrat traps in the swamps of the Blackwater River during blazing hot summers and freezing cold winters. Even though Harriet was slight in physical stature, she frequently worked with the men in the forest cutting timber and carrying logs. It was in this work setting, where both free and enslaved people worked together harvesting timber, that she first heard stories about what life was like for free Blacks in Northern States. As a teenaged slave, one of her first acts of defiance was sticking up for an enslaved boy who was being harassed by a shopkeeper. In helping the boy out of this situation, she took a serious blow to the head when the shopkeeper threw a lead weight that struck her in the head. Tubman recalled later in life that the mark of the weight on her skull never fully healed and after this incident she would see visions that later inspired her to escape slavery. As an adult she took the first name Harriet, and when she was 24 years old she married John Tubman. In her late twenties, Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery in 1849. She fled in the dead of night, navigating the maze of tidal streams and wetlands that to this day comprise the Eastern Shore's landscape. She did so alone, demonstrating courage, strength, and fortitude that became her hallmark. Not satisfied with attaining her own freedom, she returned repeatedly for more than 10 years to 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 and Canada. She helped develop a complex network of safe houses and recruited abolitionist sympathizers residing along secret routes connecting the Southern slave States and Northern free States. No one knows exactly how many people she led to freedom or the number of trips between the North and the South she led, but the legend of her work was an inspiration to the multitude of slaves seeking freedom and to abolitionists fighting to end slavery. Tubman became known as the Moses of her people by African Americans and White abolitionists alike. Tubman once proudly told Frederick Douglass that in all her journeys she ``never lost a single passenger.'' She was so effective that in 1856 there was a $40,000 reward offered for her capture in the South. She is the most famous and the most important conductor of the network of resistance known as the Underground Railroad. But Tubman was more than a conductor on the Underground Railroad. She was a scout and a spy for the Union Army, she was active in the women's suffrage movement after the Civil War, and ultimately she served aging African Americans by running a home for the aged in Auburn, NY. In 1903 she bequeathed the Tubman home to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in Auburn, where it stands to this day. Just this month I was able to attend the midwinter meeting of the Board of Bishops/International Ministers and Lay Association of the AME Zion Church, where we honored Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and Harriet Tubman. The AME Zion Church, or the ``Freedom Church,'' as many refer to it, was an important part of Harriet Tubman's life and was involved in the forefront of both the abolition and civil rights movements. She was a dedicated member of the church and actively supported the construction of the Thompson AME Church in Auburn, NY, where she lay in state after her death. Harriet Tubman died in Auburn in 1913, and she is buried in the Fort Hill Cemetery. Fortunately, many of the structures and landmarks in New York remain intact, in relatively good condition. For the past 7 years, I have championed legislation to establish the creation of the Harriet Tubman Historical Parks in Maryland and New York. The creation of these parks has been years in the making and long overdue, and I am very grateful for the support my colleagues gave this bill in the last Congress. Recently I was able to celebrate this park's formal designation during a ceremonial event at the Harriet Tubman Museum and Educational Center in Cambridge, MD, just a few miles from where she grew up. I was able to meet some of Harriet Tubman's descendants, which was incredibly meaningful to me. I am so pleased Harriet Tubman's legacy will live on in these parks. My cosponsors and I all share a deep appreciation for how establishing this park is preserving the legacy of this remarkable historic figure in American history and will also show how important this park will be to communities where they are located. Every February our Nation's children learn lessons about the many contributions African Americans have made to our democracy and to the growth and prosperity of our Nation. Preserving places significant to Harriet Tubman's life story for future generations creates a learning opportunity that our kids and grandkids can't get in the classroom or learn from a textbook. The park will educate the public about the historical significance of the Underground Railroad and Harriet Tubman's early life and also is expected to increase tourism, create jobs, and strengthen local economies. The final passage of this bill to create the park was the result of an unyielding bipartisan effort, including Representative Andy Harris, Senator Mikulski, and me, along with our partners from New York, Senators Schumer, Gillibrand, and former Secretary Clinton when she represented New York in this body, along with Congressmen Dan Maffei and Richard Hanna. This was a bipartisan effort and involved Members from both New York and Maryland. The effort on this legislative work was started by my predecessor, Senator Sarbanes, when he passed legislation commissioning the national service to conduct a special resource study on Harriet Tubman. The establishment of the national historical park commemorating the life of Harriet Tubman and protecting the serene and almost untouched landscape is an ideal way to celebrate and honor the outstanding life and incredible work of Harriet Tubman, while establishing an important destination for tourists to come visit, learn, and experience Maryland's Eastern Shore. The vision for the Tubman National Historical Parks is to preserve the places significant to the life of Harriet Tubman and tell her story through interpretive activities, while continuing to discover aspects of her life and the experiences of passage along the Underground Railroad through archaeological research and discovery. The buildings and structures in Maryland have mainly disappeared. Slaves were forced to live in primitive buildings even though many slaves were skilled tradesmen who constructed the substantial homes of their owners. Not surprising, few of the structures associated with the early years of Tubman's life remain standing today. The landscape of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, however, is still evocative of the time when Harriet Tubman lived there. Farm fields and loblolly pine forests dot the lowland landscape, which is also notable for its extensive network of tidal rivers and wetlands that Tubman and the people she guided to freedom used under cover of night. In particular, a number of places significant to Tubman's life--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, is still largely intact in Caroline County. The properties in Talbot County, immediately across the Choptank River from the plantation, are currently protected by various conservation easements. Were she alive today, Tubman would recognize much of the landscape that she knew intimately as she secretly led freedom seekers of all ages to the North. This park helps connect people today to America's history. Only recently has the Park Service begun establishing units dedicated to the lives of African Americans. Places such as Booker T. Washington National Monument on the campus of Tuskegee University in Alabama, the George Washington Carver National Monument in Missouri, the National Historic Trail commemorating the march for voting rights from Selma to Montgomery, and most recently the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial on the Mall are all important monuments and places of historical significance that help tell the story of the African-American experience. As the National Park Service continues its important work to commemorate and preserve African-American history by providing greater public access and information about the places and people who have shaped the African-American experience, there are very few units dedicated to the lives of African-American women. This historic park is the first national park in honor of a woman--obviously the first historical park for an African-American woman. As we celebrate Black history this month and women's history next month, I cannot think of a more fitting hero than Harriet Tubman to be the first African-American woman to be memorialized with national historical parks. These parks tell both her personal story and her lifelong fight for justice and freedom, from her fight against the cruel institution of slavery and the establishment of the Underground Railroad that she led, to her work in the women's suffrage movement. I encourage my colleagues to seek inspiration from the heroes of their own States and work to preserve the physical remnants of their legacy so that future generations of Americans might better know who helped form this great Nation. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Medicare Access to Rehabilitation Services Act, which I am introducing today with my colleague Senator Collins. This important bill repeals the monetary caps that limit Medicare beneficiaries' access to medically necessary outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services. Limits on outpatient rehabilitation therapy services under Medicare were first imposed in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act. The decision to impose limits on these services was not based on data, quality-of-care concerns, or clinical judgment--its sole purpose was to limit spending in order to balance the federal budget. Since 1997, Congress has acted over 12 times to prevent the implementation of the therapy caps through moratoriums and an exceptions process. While these short-term actions have provided necessary relief to our seniors, a long-term solution is essential to bring permanent relief and much- needed stability for both patients and providers. We need a full repeal of the existing caps on physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services. These annual financial caps limit services often needed after a stroke, traumatic brain injury, or spinal cord injury, or to effectively manage conditions such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis. Arbitrary caps on these vital Medicare outpatient therapy services are simply unacceptable. They also discriminate against the oldest and sickest Medicare beneficiaries, who typically require the most intensive therapy, and disadvantage Medicare beneficiaries who live in regions with higher health care costs. In a 2009 report issued by the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, MEDPAC, it was estimated that the therapy cap, if enforced without an exceptions process, could negatively impact 931,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Arbitrarily capping outpatient rehabilitation therapy services would likely cause some beneficiaries to delay necessary care, force others to assume higher out-of pocket costs, and disrupt the continuum of care for many seniors and individuals with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Collins in supporting the Medicare Access to Rehabilitation Services Act to ensure that our seniors have access to the outpatient rehabilitation therapy services that they need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Medicare Access to Rehabilitation Services Act, which I am introducing today with my colleague Senator Collins. This important bill repeals the monetary caps that limit Medicare beneficiaries' access to medically necessary outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services. Limits on outpatient rehabilitation therapy services under Medicare were first imposed in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act. The decision to impose limits on these services was not based on data, quality-of-care concerns, or clinical judgment--its sole purpose was to limit spending in order to balance the federal budget. Since 1997, Congress has acted over 12 times to prevent the implementation of the therapy caps through moratoriums and an exceptions process. While these short-term actions have provided necessary relief to our seniors, a long-term solution is essential to bring permanent relief and much- needed stability for both patients and providers. We need a full repeal of the existing caps on physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services. These annual financial caps limit services often needed after a stroke, traumatic brain injury, or spinal cord injury, or to effectively manage conditions such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis. Arbitrary caps on these vital Medicare outpatient therapy services are simply unacceptable. They also discriminate against the oldest and sickest Medicare beneficiaries, who typically require the most intensive therapy, and disadvantage Medicare beneficiaries who live in regions with higher health care costs. In a 2009 report issued by the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, MEDPAC, it was estimated that the therapy cap, if enforced without an exceptions process, could negatively impact 931,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Arbitrarily capping outpatient rehabilitation therapy services would likely cause some beneficiaries to delay necessary care, force others to assume higher out-of pocket costs, and disrupt the continuum of care for many seniors and individuals with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Collins in supporting the Medicare Access to Rehabilitation Services Act to ensure that our seniors have access to the outpatient rehabilitation therapy services that they need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. More than half of the bird species found in the U.S. migrate across our borders and many of these spend our winter in Central and South America. This bill promotes international cooperation for long-term conservation, education, research, monitoring, and habitat protection for more than 350 species of neotropical migratory birds. Through its successful competitive, matching grant program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports public-private partnerships in countries mostly in Latin America and the Caribbean. Up to \1/4\ of the funds may be awarded for domestic projects. This legislation aims to sustain healthy populations of migratory birds that are not only beautiful to look at but help our farmers by consuming billions of harmful insect and rodent pests each year, providing pollination services, and dispersing seeds. Migratory birds face threats from pesticide pollution, deforestation, sprawl, and invasive species that degrade their habitats in addition to the natural risks of their extended flights. Birds are excellent indicators of the health of an ecosystem. As such, it is troubling that, according to the National Audubon Society, half of all coastally migrating shorebirds, like the Common Tern and Piping Plover, are experiencing dramatic population declines. The Baltimore Oriole, the State bird of Maryland and one whose song brightens all of the Northeastern U.S., has steadily declined in population despite being protected by federal law under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the State of Maryland's Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. Likewise, the iconic Red Knot bird, whose legendary 9,000 mile migration centers on a stopover in the Mid-Atlantic states, is decreasing in population quickly. Threats to these beloved Maryland birds are mainly due to habitat destruction and deforestation, particularly in the Central and South American countries where the birds winter. In addition, international use of toxic pesticides ingested by insects, which are then eaten by the birds, has significantly contributed to this decline. Conservation efforts in our country are essential, but investment in programs throughout the migratory route of these and countless other migratory birds is critical. This legislation accomplishes this goal. The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act has a proven track record of reversing habitat loss and advancing conservation strategies for the broad range of neotropical birds that populate the United States and the rest of the Western hemisphere. Since 2002, more than $50.1 million in grants have been awarded, supporting 451 projects in 36 countries. Partners have contributed an additional $190.6 million, and more than 3.7 million acres of habitat have been affected. This legislation is cost-effective, budget-friendly, and has been a highly successful Federal program. This simple reauthorization bill will make sure that this good work continues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today marks an important day in history as our Nation continues to honor the sesquicentennial of the Civil War. There are many landmarks in my hometown of Baltimore that are significant to Civil War history, which I believe are in the Nation's interests to protect for future generations. As our Nation pays tribute to this trying time in our Nation's history, I am proud to reintroduce the President Street Station Study Act, which would initiate the process for preserving one such landmark in the heart of Baltimore. President Street Station played a crucial role in the Civil War, the Underground Railroad, the growth of Baltimore's railroad industry, and is a historically significant landmark to the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. The station was constructed for the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore, PW&B, Railroad in 1849 and remains the oldest surviving big city railroad terminal in the United States. This historical structure is a unique architectural gem, arguably the first example and last survivor of the early barrel-vault train shed arches, also known as the Howe Truss. The arch-rib design became the blueprint for railroad bridges and roofs well into the 20th century and was replicated for every similarly designed train shed and roof for the next 20 years. The growth of President Street Station and the PW&B railroad mirror the expansion of the railroad industry throughout the country in the latter half of the 19th century. This station played an essential role in making Baltimore the first railroad and sea-rail link in the nation and helped the city become the international port hub it is today. In its heyday, President Street Station was the key link connecting Washington, D.C. with the northeast States. Hundreds of passengers traveling north passed through this station and, by the start of the Civil War, Baltimore had become our Nation's major southern railroad hub. Not surprisingly, the station played a critical role in both the Civil War and the Underground Railroad. Perhaps the most famous passenger to travel through the station was President Abraham Lincoln. He came through the station at least four times, including secretly on his way to his first inauguration in 1861. President-elect Lincoln was warned by a PW&B private detective of a possible assassination plot in Baltimore as he transferred trains. While it is unclear if this plot existed and posed a serious threat, Lincoln nevertheless was secretly smuggled aboard a train in the dead of night to complete his trip to Washington. Just a few months later, President Street Station served as a backdrop for what many historians consider to be the first bloodshed of the Civil War. The Baltimore Riot of 1861 occurred when Lincoln called for Union volunteers to quell the rebellion at Fort Sumter in Charleston. On this day in history, April 19, 1861, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania volunteers were met and attacked by a mob of secessionist and Confederate sympathizers. The bloody confrontation left four dead and 36 wounded. As the war continued, the Station remained a critical link for the Union. Troops and supplies from the north were regularly shuttled through the station to support Union soldiers. It is well known that Maryland was a common starting point along the Underground Railroad and that many escaped slaves from Maryland's Eastern Shore plantations were destined for Baltimore and the President Street Station to travel north to freedom. Last year, Congress acted to honor Maryland's own Harriet Tubman, the Underground Railroad's most famous ``conductor'' by enacting the Harriet Tubman National Historical Parks Act, establishing the first set of National Historical Parks to commemorate the life of an African American woman. While Harriet Tubman personally led dozens of people to freedom, her courage and fortitude also inspired others to find their own strength to seek freedom. President Street Station was indeed a station on this secret network. Prior to emancipation in 1863, several renowned escapees, including Frederick Douglass, William and Ellen Craft, and Henry ``Box'' Brown, traveled through the Station, risking their lives for a better and freer life. Others' journeys for a better life also passed through President Street Station. From its beginning and into the 20th century, Baltimore was both a destination and departure point for immigrants. New arrivals from Ireland, Russia, and Europe arriving on the eastern seaboard traveled by way of the PW&B railroads to the west. For decades, President Street Station has long been recognized as having an important place in history: In 1992, it was listed on the National Register of Historic places and the city of Baltimore has dedicated it a local historical landmark. For many years it served as the Baltimore Civil War Museum, educating generations of people about the role Maryland and Baltimore played in the Civil War and the early history of the city. In recent years, the museum, run by dedicated volunteers from the Maryland Historical Society and Friends of President Street Station, have struggled to keep the station's doors open and keeping the station's character true to its historical roots. The area around President Street Station has changed dramatically over the decades, but the Station has worked to preserve its place in place in history. It has been many years since trains passed through the President Street Station and it is clear that today the best use for this building is to preserve the building and use it to tell station's American story. President Street Station is an American historical treasure. This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of President Street Station to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Station as a unit of the National Park Service. President Street Station, a contributor to the growth of the railroad, and a vital player in the Underground Railroad, Lincoln Presidency and Civil War, is part of this history. I urge my colleagues to join me in giving this station the recognition it deserves and support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to discuss the introduction of my latest legislative proposal to better control the harmful and volumes of polluted stormwater that is generated from our Nation's Federal aid highways. Highway stormwater is a growing threat to water quality, aquatic ecosystems and the fish and wildlife that depend on the health of these ecosystems. Moreover, the high volumes and rapid flow of stormwater runoff from highways and roads poses a very serious threat to the condition of our Nation's water and transportation infrastructure as well as personal property particularly in urban and suburban communities. The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized that pollution from point sources have been steadily declining since the enactment of the Clean Water Act. Likewise, we have seen reductions in pollution from certain non-point sources like agriculture which are attributable in part to the success of a wide variety of USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Programs and farming innovations in soil conservation and nutrient pollution management. One non-point source sector where we are unfortunately seeing an increasing impact on water quality is from impervious surface that create rapidly moving high volumes of untreated polluted stormwater that rush off of road surfaces, erode unnatural channels next to and ultimately underneath roadways comprising the integrity of roadway infrastructure, and increases the stress on storm sewer systems shortening the useful life of this infrastructure and ultimately lead to the discharge of untreated pollution that is carried off roadways and into our lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal waters. Impervious surfaces include most buildings and structures, parking lots and of course the nearly 9 million lane miles of roads across our country. The total coverage of impervious surfaces in an area is usually expressed as a percentage of the total land area. The coverage increases with rising urbanization. In rural areas, impervious cover may only be 1 percent or 2 percent, however road surfaces comprise 80 percent-90 percent of a rural area's total impervious surfaces. In residential areas, impervious surface coverage ranges between 10 percent in low-density subdivisions to over 50 percent in more densely developed communities, where the composition of the impervious surface area coverage works out to be 50 percent roads. In dense urban areas, the impervious surface area is often over 90 percent the total land area, with roads comprising 60 percent-70 percent of that coverage. According to EPA, urban impervious cover, not just roads, in the lower 48 adds up to 43,000 square miles--an area roughly the size of Ohio. Continuing development adds another quarter of a million acres each year. Typically two-thirds of the cover is pavement, roads and parking lots, and \1/3\ is buildings. According to the Chesapeake Bay Program, impervious surfaces compose roughly 17 percent of all urban and suburban lands in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The greatest concentration of impervious surfaces in the bay watershed is in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Areas of DC, Maryland and Virginia. The Virginia Tidewater area, Philadelphia's western suburbs, and Lancaster, PA, are also regions in the watershed where impervious surfaces are greater than 10 percent of the total land area. Rainfall on hard surfaces like roads and highways has a very destructive and turbulent affect on nearby waterways and infrastructure. For example, the rain events that occur over a week long period at the end of April brought nearly 8 inches of rain to the Baltimore-Washington region. The urban runoff from roads in Baltimore caused an embankment above the CSX railroad track along East 26th Street, between St. Paul and Charles Street, to collapse. Fortunately no one was injured though homes had to be evacuated for more than a month, nearly a dozen parked cars were destroyed and moreover movement of freight along CSX railroad was disrupted for more than a week. This event shows just how destructive and disruptive poorly managed stormwater from transportation infrastructure can be. Some may chalk this up to a freak storm of unusually large proportion. It's true this storm was unusual, but so were the polar vortexes and all of the snow New England and Buffalo received this winter, and 2013's 3-mile wide tornado in Alabama, the ongoing drought in California. ``Unusual'' weather seems to becoming a lot more usual. As extreme weather events triggered by our changing climate become more frequent it is imperative that we incorporate better designs into our infrastructure to be better handle these types of events. Under the Clean Water Act, stormwater is considered a non-point source and there are no requirements that stormwater be collected or treated. The exception being for localities where in order to meet the standards set in an MS4, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, permit a region may include its transportation infrastructure in its MS4 permit. However, in most cases stormwater that falls on roadways washes oil, grease, asbestos brake-dust, nitrogen deposits from tailpipe emissions, trash, road salt and de-icing agents, and sediment into nearby waterways. Highway stormwater runoff is most often not treated or adequately managed. While these organic and inorganic contaminants are legitimate threats to water quality, the greater concern with roadway runoff is the sheer volume and rapid flow rate in which stormwater leaves these hard surfaces and enters our waterways. Flows and volumes that cause roads to collapse in Baltimore. Roads are designed for stormwater to flow off of the driving surface quickly, for safety reasons. When stormwater rushes off of road surfaces into storm drains it is usually piped straight into the nearest river or stream without removing contaminants, detaining any of the volume, or slowing down the flow. This creates an enormously destructive set of circumstances for our waterways. Another example of the destructive force that persistent unmitigated and poorly managed highway runoff can have on the condition and safety of highway infrastructure is in Mobile Alabama along Highway 131 in the Joe's Branch Watershed. The Mobile Bay Estuary Program, part of the National Estuaries Program, in coordination with Alabama Department of Transportation is having to spent millions of dollars to reinforce a highway embankment to keep the highway from slipping down a hill and into the Joe's Branch Creek, restore the hydrology of the river, and help protect private property from the dangerous erosion that's been caused by poorly managed stormwater from Highway 131. The Mobile Bay Estuary Program described the problem this way: ``In the Joe's Branch watershed, on the property of Westminster Village adjacent and parallel to Highway 131, a head cut stream is eroding at an accelerating rate, an ominous condition as ALDOT prepares to undertake improvements to the highway. Identified as a high priority stabilization area in the D'Olive Creek, Tiawasee Creek and Joe's Branch Watershed Management Plan, MBNEP has submitted a funding request to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management on behalf of its partners in Spanish Fort, Daphne, ALDOT and Westminster Village to undertake restoration of the stream using a cutting-edge technology called Regenerative Step Pool Storm Conveyance.'' The four entities involved are spending large amount money to repair a problem caused by stormwater damage that could have been prevented at a lower cost by incorporating better stormwater mitigation facilities into the design of the highway. These high-volume/high-speed flows also hasten the deterioration of water infrastructure. A 2001 study on the erosive power of urban stormwater flows examined how excessive stormwater volumes and flow rates off of urban surface infrastructure caused more than $1 million in roadway and water infrastructure damage in the Cincinnati metropolitan areas in Ohio and Kentucky in a single year. While there are serious water quality concerns with not adequately controlling roadway infrastructure runoff, there are serious infrastructure costs, that are ultimately passed on to taxpayers and ratepayers, that can be avoided if transportation authorities do more to control and manage stormwater runoff with the infrastructure assets they manage and build. The increased incidence of flash flooding events that occur even during seemingly mild and routine storm events is a direct result of the growing percentage of impervious land cover in urban and suburban communities. Replacement of the ``greenscapes'' that are lost to pavement is essential to restoring hydrological balance to our urban and suburban communities and impaired watersheds. According to USGS: an inch of rain on one square foot of pavement produces 1.87 gallons of stormwater, Scaled up, 1 inch of rain on one acre would produce 27,150 gallons of stormwater. Using FHWA design standards for interstate highway lane and shoulder widths, 12 feet per lane, 10 foot right shoulder, 2x, 4 foot left shoulder, 2x, 10 miles of a four lane interstate highway generates nearly 2.5 million gallons of polluted stormwater for every inch of rain. To put that into perspective for the Potomac and Anacostia River Watersheds: The Capital Beltway, not including its 48 interchanges, generates nearly 30 million, 29,920,946, gallons of polluted stormwater for every inch of rain that falls on the 64 mile 8 to 12 lane interstate highway loop. It is volumes of stormwater like that which cause dangerous streambank erosion. Gillies Creek is an urban waterway located East of Downtown Richmond. It is a tributary of the James River which flows into the Chesapeake Bay. Gillies Creek is surrounded by industrial and residential development and also receives stormwater from State highway 33, Interstate 64, US 60, and hundreds of city streets including Stony Run Parkway which directly adjacent to the creek for several miles. The banks and bed of this creek have eroded so badly as urban development around the creek has added more impervious surfaces to the watershed that streambed sheering has created cliffs more than 10 feet tall at spots along the creek. Trees supporting the bank continually fall into the creek and nearby roadways and other infrastructure as well as homes and business are at risk. Reducing the impacts of the storms by mitigating the flow and volume of stormwater in this watershed will protect against further erosion and save the cost of repair and eventual replacement of the assets located along this endangered creek. The aim of this legislation is to improve highway designs to better manage stormwater to avoid the costly damage that poorly managed stormwater causes to infrastructure and nearby streams, rivers and coastal waters. I held a hearing on this issue in the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee on May 13, 2014. I heard many ideas from both the minority and majority witnesses that were invited to present testimony at this hearing. I listened to the concerns of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I have incorporated provisions into this bill that should alleviate concerns they may have had with previous attempts to better control highway stormwater. My bill's approach to highway runoff management is one that I hope my colleagues of both parties can support. First of all it put States in the driver's seat for developing hydrological analysis and implementation of best management practices to control highway runoff. The objective of the legislation is to control and manage flow and volume of stormwater from highways not to treat runoff in order to meet water quality standards. By taking this sort of approach we avoid EPA's involvement in the process. Lastly, States would only need to apply these procedures to new construction on major reconfiguration projects that significantly increases the amount of impervious surface in the project area. Title 23 of the U.S. Code states: ``transportation should play a significant role in promoting economic growth, improving the environment, and sustaining the quality of life'' through the use of ``context sensitive solutions.'' In 2008, the Government Accountability Office issued a report examining key issues and challenges that needed to be addressed in the next reauthorization of the transportation bill. That report highlighted the clear link between transportation policy and the environment. With 985,139 miles of federal aid highways stretching from every corner of the US, polluted highway runoff is no small problem facing our Nation's waters. I would urge my colleagues to join me trying to address this problem facing America's waterways and infrastructure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, authorized under P.L. 105-312 in 1998 and reauthorized by P.L. 107-308 in 2002, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network helps several million visitors and residents discover, enjoy, and learn about the special places and stories of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. Today, I am introducing legislation to permanently authorize this successful 17-year-old program. For visitors and residents, the Gateways are the ``Chesapeake connection.'' The network members provide an experience of such high quality that visitors indeed connect to the Chesapeake emotionally as well as intellectually, and thus to the Bay's conservation. Through more than 160 of these sites, the Gateways Network partner sites and water trails enable visitors to experience the authentic Chesapeake. The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. The Chesapeake ranks as the largest of America's 130 estuaries and one of the Nation's largest and longest fresh water and estuarine systems. The Atlantic Ocean delivers half the bay's 18 trillion gallons of water and the other half flows through over 150 major rivers and streams draining 64,000 square miles within 6 states and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake watershed is among the most significant cultural, natural and historical assets of our Nation. The Chesapeake is enormously vast and diverse--to the extent that it is impossible to experience all the culture, history and natural beauty in any one place. That is why the gateways program is designed to connect and use the scores of existing public resources to collaborate on presenting the many chapters and tales of the bay's story. Visitors and residents go to more places for more experiences, all through a coordinated Gateways Network. Beyond simply coordinating the network, publishing a map and guides, and providing standard exhibits at all Gateways, the National Park Service has helped gateways with matching grants and expertise for several hundred high-quality projects, developing sites to provide fishing, boating, and viewing access to the bay and its major tributaries. This is a great deal for the bay--it helps network members tell the Chesapeake story better and inspires people to care for this National Treasure, in addition to supporting local, State, and national water trails--and it's a good deal for the Park Service. It serves all 170+ gateways and their 10 million visitors. No other National Park can provide such a dramatic ratio of public dollars spent to number of visitors served. With the National Park Service's expertise and support, gateways have made significant progress in their mission to tell the Bay's stories to their millions of members and visitors, extend access to the Bay and its watershed, and develop a conservation awareness and ethic. It is time to not only reauthorize the Chesapeake Gateways and Watertrails program, but make the annual $3 million reauthorization for this program permanent. It is my hope that the Congress will act quickly to adopt this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to discuss the introduction of my latest legislative proposal to better control the harmful and volumes of polluted stormwater that is generated from our Nation's Federal aid highways. Highway stormwater is a growing threat to water quality, aquatic ecosystems and the fish and wildlife that depend on the health of these ecosystems. Moreover, the high volumes and rapid flow of stormwater runoff from highways and roads poses a very serious threat to the condition of our Nation's water and transportation infrastructure as well as personal property particularly in urban and suburban communities. The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized that pollution from point sources have been steadily declining since the enactment of the Clean Water Act. Likewise, we have seen reductions in pollution from certain non-point sources like agriculture which are attributable in part to the success of a wide variety of USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Programs and farming innovations in soil conservation and nutrient pollution management. One non-point source sector where we are unfortunately seeing an increasing impact on water quality is from impervious surface that create rapidly moving high volumes of untreated polluted stormwater that rush off of road surfaces, erode unnatural channels next to and ultimately underneath roadways comprising the integrity of roadway infrastructure, and increases the stress on storm sewer systems shortening the useful life of this infrastructure and ultimately lead to the discharge of untreated pollution that is carried off roadways and into our lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal waters. Impervious surfaces include most buildings and structures, parking lots and of course the nearly 9 million lane miles of roads across our country. The total coverage of impervious surfaces in an area is usually expressed as a percentage of the total land area. The coverage increases with rising urbanization. In rural areas, impervious cover may only be 1 percent or 2 percent, however road surfaces comprise 80 percent-90 percent of a rural area's total impervious surfaces. In residential areas, impervious surface coverage ranges between 10 percent in low-density subdivisions to over 50 percent in more densely developed communities, where the composition of the impervious surface area coverage works out to be 50 percent roads. In dense urban areas, the impervious surface area is often over 90 percent the total land area, with roads comprising 60 percent-70 percent of that coverage. According to EPA, urban impervious cover, not just roads, in the lower 48 adds up to 43,000 square miles--an area roughly the size of Ohio. Continuing development adds another quarter of a million acres each year. Typically two-thirds of the cover is pavement, roads and parking lots, and \1/3\ is buildings. According to the Chesapeake Bay Program, impervious surfaces compose roughly 17 percent of all urban and suburban lands in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The greatest concentration of impervious surfaces in the bay watershed is in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Areas of DC, Maryland and Virginia. The Virginia Tidewater area, Philadelphia's western suburbs, and Lancaster, PA, are also regions in the watershed where impervious surfaces are greater than 10 percent of the total land area. Rainfall on hard surfaces like roads and highways has a very destructive and turbulent affect on nearby waterways and infrastructure. For example, the rain events that occur over a week long period at the end of April brought nearly 8 inches of rain to the Baltimore-Washington region. The urban runoff from roads in Baltimore caused an embankment above the CSX railroad track along East 26th Street, between St. Paul and Charles Street, to collapse. Fortunately no one was injured though homes had to be evacuated for more than a month, nearly a dozen parked cars were destroyed and moreover movement of freight along CSX railroad was disrupted for more than a week. This event shows just how destructive and disruptive poorly managed stormwater from transportation infrastructure can be. Some may chalk this up to a freak storm of unusually large proportion. It's true this storm was unusual, but so were the polar vortexes and all of the snow New England and Buffalo received this winter, and 2013's 3-mile wide tornado in Alabama, the ongoing drought in California. ``Unusual'' weather seems to becoming a lot more usual. As extreme weather events triggered by our changing climate become more frequent it is imperative that we incorporate better designs into our infrastructure to be better handle these types of events. Under the Clean Water Act, stormwater is considered a non-point source and there are no requirements that stormwater be collected or treated. The exception being for localities where in order to meet the standards set in an MS4, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, permit a region may include its transportation infrastructure in its MS4 permit. However, in most cases stormwater that falls on roadways washes oil, grease, asbestos brake-dust, nitrogen deposits from tailpipe emissions, trash, road salt and de-icing agents, and sediment into nearby waterways. Highway stormwater runoff is most often not treated or adequately managed. While these organic and inorganic contaminants are legitimate threats to water quality, the greater concern with roadway runoff is the sheer volume and rapid flow rate in which stormwater leaves these hard surfaces and enters our waterways. Flows and volumes that cause roads to collapse in Baltimore. Roads are designed for stormwater to flow off of the driving surface quickly, for safety reasons. When stormwater rushes off of road surfaces into storm drains it is usually piped straight into the nearest river or stream without removing contaminants, detaining any of the volume, or slowing down the flow. This creates an enormously destructive set of circumstances for our waterways. Another example of the destructive force that persistent unmitigated and poorly managed highway runoff can have on the condition and safety of highway infrastructure is in Mobile Alabama along Highway 131 in the Joe's Branch Watershed. The Mobile Bay Estuary Program, part of the National Estuaries Program, in coordination with Alabama Department of Transportation is having to spent millions of dollars to reinforce a highway embankment to keep the highway from slipping down a hill and into the Joe's Branch Creek, restore the hydrology of the river, and help protect private property from the dangerous erosion that's been caused by poorly managed stormwater from Highway 131. The Mobile Bay Estuary Program described the problem this way: ``In the Joe's Branch watershed, on the property of Westminster Village adjacent and parallel to Highway 131, a head cut stream is eroding at an accelerating rate, an ominous condition as ALDOT prepares to undertake improvements to the highway. Identified as a high priority stabilization area in the D'Olive Creek, Tiawasee Creek and Joe's Branch Watershed Management Plan, MBNEP has submitted a funding request to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management on behalf of its partners in Spanish Fort, Daphne, ALDOT and Westminster Village to undertake restoration of the stream using a cutting-edge technology called Regenerative Step Pool Storm Conveyance.'' The four entities involved are spending large amount money to repair a problem caused by stormwater damage that could have been prevented at a lower cost by incorporating better stormwater mitigation facilities into the design of the highway. These high-volume/high-speed flows also hasten the deterioration of water infrastructure. A 2001 study on the erosive power of urban stormwater flows examined how excessive stormwater volumes and flow rates off of urban surface infrastructure caused more than $1 million in roadway and water infrastructure damage in the Cincinnati metropolitan areas in Ohio and Kentucky in a single year. While there are serious water quality concerns with not adequately controlling roadway infrastructure runoff, there are serious infrastructure costs, that are ultimately passed on to taxpayers and ratepayers, that can be avoided if transportation authorities do more to control and manage stormwater runoff with the infrastructure assets they manage and build. The increased incidence of flash flooding events that occur even during seemingly mild and routine storm events is a direct result of the growing percentage of impervious land cover in urban and suburban communities. Replacement of the ``greenscapes'' that are lost to pavement is essential to restoring hydrological balance to our urban and suburban communities and impaired watersheds. According to USGS: an inch of rain on one square foot of pavement produces 1.87 gallons of stormwater, Scaled up, 1 inch of rain on one acre would produce 27,150 gallons of stormwater. Using FHWA design standards for interstate highway lane and shoulder widths, 12 feet per lane, 10 foot right shoulder, 2x, 4 foot left shoulder, 2x, 10 miles of a four lane interstate highway generates nearly 2.5 million gallons of polluted stormwater for every inch of rain. To put that into perspective for the Potomac and Anacostia River Watersheds: The Capital Beltway, not including its 48 interchanges, generates nearly 30 million, 29,920,946, gallons of polluted stormwater for every inch of rain that falls on the 64 mile 8 to 12 lane interstate highway loop. It is volumes of stormwater like that which cause dangerous streambank erosion. Gillies Creek is an urban waterway located East of Downtown Richmond. It is a tributary of the James River which flows into the Chesapeake Bay. Gillies Creek is surrounded by industrial and residential development and also receives stormwater from State highway 33, Interstate 64, US 60, and hundreds of city streets including Stony Run Parkway which directly adjacent to the creek for several miles. The banks and bed of this creek have eroded so badly as urban development around the creek has added more impervious surfaces to the watershed that streambed sheering has created cliffs more than 10 feet tall at spots along the creek. Trees supporting the bank continually fall into the creek and nearby roadways and other infrastructure as well as homes and business are at risk. Reducing the impacts of the storms by mitigating the flow and volume of stormwater in this watershed will protect against further erosion and save the cost of repair and eventual replacement of the assets located along this endangered creek. The aim of this legislation is to improve highway designs to better manage stormwater to avoid the costly damage that poorly managed stormwater causes to infrastructure and nearby streams, rivers and coastal waters. I held a hearing on this issue in the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee on May 13, 2014. I heard many ideas from both the minority and majority witnesses that were invited to present testimony at this hearing. I listened to the concerns of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I have incorporated provisions into this bill that should alleviate concerns they may have had with previous attempts to better control highway stormwater. My bill's approach to highway runoff management is one that I hope my colleagues of both parties can support. First of all it put States in the driver's seat for developing hydrological analysis and implementation of best management practices to control highway runoff. The objective of the legislation is to control and manage flow and volume of stormwater from highways not to treat runoff in order to meet water quality standards. By taking this sort of approach we avoid EPA's involvement in the process. Lastly, States would only need to apply these procedures to new construction on major reconfiguration projects that significantly increases the amount of impervious surface in the project area. Title 23 of the U.S. Code states: ``transportation should play a significant role in promoting economic growth, improving the environment, and sustaining the quality of life'' through the use of ``context sensitive solutions.'' In 2008, the Government Accountability Office issued a report examining key issues and challenges that needed to be addressed in the next reauthorization of the transportation bill. That report highlighted the clear link between transportation policy and the environment. With 985,139 miles of federal aid highways stretching from every corner of the US, polluted highway runoff is no small problem facing our Nation's waters. I would urge my colleagues to join me trying to address this problem facing America's waterways and infrastructure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the plight of Ukrainian fighter pilot Nadiya Savchenko. My resolution, S. Res. 52., which Senators Wicker, Brown, Rubio, and Gardner have co-sponsored, calls for the release of former Ukrainian fighter pilot Nadiya Savchenko, who has been languishing in Russian prisons since she was abducted by pro- Russian forces in eastern Ukraine last July and illegally transferred across the border in handcuffs and with a bag over her head. In the 8 months Nadiya has been incarcerated on specious and unsubstantiated charges, she has endured interrogations, involuntary psychiatric evaluations, and solitary confinement in the same pretrial detention center where Sergei Magnitsky was tortured and killed in 2009. The resolution is especially timely as Nadiya is in the 62nd day of a hunger strike. Her health is rapidly deteriorating. Her situation is critical. And yet, on Tuesday, a Moscow court extended her detention until May 13, ignoring clear evidence compiled by the defense proving her non-involvement in the deeds the Russian authorities claim as justification for holding her. Nadiya is yet another victim of the Putin regime's lawlessness, brutality, and contempt for human life. And we need to recognize that this isn't just about her; it's a highly visible manifestation of Putin's contempt for a Ukraine that wishes to remain free, independent, and democratic. She was elected in absentia to the Ukrainian parliament in October and a member of Ukraine's delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, PACE. As such, she enjoys diplomatic immunity and PACE has called for her immediate release. According to the September Minsk agreements between Russia and Ukraine, hostages on both sides were supposed to be released. Russia has made a mockery of the Minsk agreements, just as it has the Helsinki Final Act and numerous other Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, agreements. The illegal detention of Nadiya and other Ukrainian citizens represents yet another violation of international agreements and the norms of civilized behavior. S. Res. 52 sends a strong message of solidarity to the Ukrainian people and calls on the Putin regime to release Nadiya immediately. I am pleased the Senate is poised to pass this important resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. More than half of the bird species found in the U.S. migrate across our borders and many of these spend our winter in Central and South America. This bill promotes international cooperation for long-term conservation, education, research, monitoring, and habitat protection for more than 350 species of neotropical migratory birds. Through its successful competitive, matching grant program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports public-private partnerships in countries mostly in Latin America and the Caribbean. Up to \1/4\ of the funds may be awarded for domestic projects. This legislation aims to sustain healthy populations of migratory birds that are not only beautiful to look at but help our farmers by consuming billions of harmful insect and rodent pests each year, providing pollination services, and dispersing seeds. Migratory birds face threats from pesticide pollution, deforestation, sprawl, and invasive species that degrade their habitats in addition to the natural risks of their extended flights. Birds are excellent indicators of the health of an ecosystem. As such, it is troubling that, according to the National Audubon Society, half of all coastally migrating shorebirds, like the Common Tern and Piping Plover, are experiencing dramatic population declines. The Baltimore Oriole, the State bird of Maryland and one whose song brightens all of the Northeastern U.S., has steadily declined in population despite being protected by federal law under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the State of Maryland's Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. Likewise, the iconic Red Knot bird, whose legendary 9,000 mile migration centers on a stopover in the Mid-Atlantic states, is decreasing in population quickly. Threats to these beloved Maryland birds are mainly due to habitat destruction and deforestation, particularly in the Central and South American countries where the birds winter. In addition, international use of toxic pesticides ingested by insects, which are then eaten by the birds, has significantly contributed to this decline. Conservation efforts in our country are essential, but investment in programs throughout the migratory route of these and countless other migratory birds is critical. This legislation accomplishes this goal. The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act has a proven track record of reversing habitat loss and advancing conservation strategies for the broad range of neotropical birds that populate the United States and the rest of the Western hemisphere. Since 2002, more than $50.1 million in grants have been awarded, supporting 451 projects in 36 countries. Partners have contributed an additional $190.6 million, and more than 3.7 million acres of habitat have been affected. This legislation is cost-effective, budget-friendly, and has been a highly successful Federal program. This simple reauthorization bill will make sure that this good work continues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today marks an important day in history as our Nation continues to honor the sesquicentennial of the Civil War. There are many landmarks in my hometown of Baltimore that are significant to Civil War history, which I believe are in the Nation's interests to protect for future generations. As our Nation pays tribute to this trying time in our Nation's history, I am proud to reintroduce the President Street Station Study Act, which would initiate the process for preserving one such landmark in the heart of Baltimore. President Street Station played a crucial role in the Civil War, the Underground Railroad, the growth of Baltimore's railroad industry, and is a historically significant landmark to the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. The station was constructed for the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore, PW&B, Railroad in 1849 and remains the oldest surviving big city railroad terminal in the United States. This historical structure is a unique architectural gem, arguably the first example and last survivor of the early barrel-vault train shed arches, also known as the Howe Truss. The arch-rib design became the blueprint for railroad bridges and roofs well into the 20th century and was replicated for every similarly designed train shed and roof for the next 20 years. The growth of President Street Station and the PW&B railroad mirror the expansion of the railroad industry throughout the country in the latter half of the 19th century. This station played an essential role in making Baltimore the first railroad and sea-rail link in the nation and helped the city become the international port hub it is today. In its heyday, President Street Station was the key link connecting Washington, D.C. with the northeast States. Hundreds of passengers traveling north passed through this station and, by the start of the Civil War, Baltimore had become our Nation's major southern railroad hub. Not surprisingly, the station played a critical role in both the Civil War and the Underground Railroad. Perhaps the most famous passenger to travel through the station was President Abraham Lincoln. He came through the station at least four times, including secretly on his way to his first inauguration in 1861. President-elect Lincoln was warned by a PW&B private detective of a possible assassination plot in Baltimore as he transferred trains. While it is unclear if this plot existed and posed a serious threat, Lincoln nevertheless was secretly smuggled aboard a train in the dead of night to complete his trip to Washington. Just a few months later, President Street Station served as a backdrop for what many historians consider to be the first bloodshed of the Civil War. The Baltimore Riot of 1861 occurred when Lincoln called for Union volunteers to quell the rebellion at Fort Sumter in Charleston. On this day in history, April 19, 1861, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania volunteers were met and attacked by a mob of secessionist and Confederate sympathizers. The bloody confrontation left four dead and 36 wounded. As the war continued, the Station remained a critical link for the Union. Troops and supplies from the north were regularly shuttled through the station to support Union soldiers. It is well known that Maryland was a common starting point along the Underground Railroad and that many escaped slaves from Maryland's Eastern Shore plantations were destined for Baltimore and the President Street Station to travel north to freedom. Last year, Congress acted to honor Maryland's own Harriet Tubman, the Underground Railroad's most famous ``conductor'' by enacting the Harriet Tubman National Historical Parks Act, establishing the first set of National Historical Parks to commemorate the life of an African American woman. While Harriet Tubman personally led dozens of people to freedom, her courage and fortitude also inspired others to find their own strength to seek freedom. President Street Station was indeed a station on this secret network. Prior to emancipation in 1863, several renowned escapees, including Frederick Douglass, William and Ellen Craft, and Henry ``Box'' Brown, traveled through the Station, risking their lives for a better and freer life. Others' journeys for a better life also passed through President Street Station. From its beginning and into the 20th century, Baltimore was both a destination and departure point for immigrants. New arrivals from Ireland, Russia, and Europe arriving on the eastern seaboard traveled by way of the PW&B railroads to the west. For decades, President Street Station has long been recognized as having an important place in history: In 1992, it was listed on the National Register of Historic places and the city of Baltimore has dedicated it a local historical landmark. For many years it served as the Baltimore Civil War Museum, educating generations of people about the role Maryland and Baltimore played in the Civil War and the early history of the city. In recent years, the museum, run by dedicated volunteers from the Maryland Historical Society and Friends of President Street Station, have struggled to keep the station's doors open and keeping the station's character true to its historical roots. The area around President Street Station has changed dramatically over the decades, but the Station has worked to preserve its place in place in history. It has been many years since trains passed through the President Street Station and it is clear that today the best use for this building is to preserve the building and use it to tell station's American story. President Street Station is an American historical treasure. This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of President Street Station to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Station as a unit of the National Park Service. President Street Station, a contributor to the growth of the railroad, and a vital player in the Underground Railroad, Lincoln Presidency and Civil War, is part of this history. I urge my colleagues to join me in giving this station the recognition it deserves and support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, authorized under P.L. 105-312 in 1998 and reauthorized by P.L. 107-308 in 2002, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network helps several million visitors and residents discover, enjoy, and learn about the special places and stories of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. Today, I am introducing legislation to permanently authorize this successful 17-year-old program. For visitors and residents, the Gateways are the ``Chesapeake connection.'' The network members provide an experience of such high quality that visitors indeed connect to the Chesapeake emotionally as well as intellectually, and thus to the Bay's conservation. Through more than 160 of these sites, the Gateways Network partner sites and water trails enable visitors to experience the authentic Chesapeake. The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. The Chesapeake ranks as the largest of America's 130 estuaries and one of the Nation's largest and longest fresh water and estuarine systems. The Atlantic Ocean delivers half the bay's 18 trillion gallons of water and the other half flows through over 150 major rivers and streams draining 64,000 square miles within 6 states and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake watershed is among the most significant cultural, natural and historical assets of our Nation. The Chesapeake is enormously vast and diverse--to the extent that it is impossible to experience all the culture, history and natural beauty in any one place. That is why the gateways program is designed to connect and use the scores of existing public resources to collaborate on presenting the many chapters and tales of the bay's story. Visitors and residents go to more places for more experiences, all through a coordinated Gateways Network. Beyond simply coordinating the network, publishing a map and guides, and providing standard exhibits at all Gateways, the National Park Service has helped gateways with matching grants and expertise for several hundred high-quality projects, developing sites to provide fishing, boating, and viewing access to the bay and its major tributaries. This is a great deal for the bay--it helps network members tell the Chesapeake story better and inspires people to care for this National Treasure, in addition to supporting local, State, and national water trails--and it's a good deal for the Park Service. It serves all 170+ gateways and their 10 million visitors. No other National Park can provide such a dramatic ratio of public dollars spent to number of visitors served. With the National Park Service's expertise and support, gateways have made significant progress in their mission to tell the Bay's stories to their millions of members and visitors, extend access to the Bay and its watershed, and develop a conservation awareness and ethic. It is time to not only reauthorize the Chesapeake Gateways and Watertrails program, but make the annual $3 million reauthorization for this program permanent. It is my hope that the Congress will act quickly to adopt this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to urge the Senate to take up a clean Homeland Security appropriations bill and pass it without further delay. I know we have had several votes on the floor on proceeding to the bill, but I would urge the leadership to make it clear that we stand on record for a clean Homeland Security appropriations bill. We have an obligation to protect the American people. Given the terrorist threat we face both at home and abroad, it is irresponsible to continue to fund the Department of Homeland Security with short-term budgets and bring them to the edge of an agency shutdown. We also should not force hard-working Federal workers to stand in the crossfire between Congress and the President. Providing the resources our Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers need to carry out their vital around-the-clock mission should not be caught up in partisan political disagreements. We need a clean appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. We face a dangerous world today in light of recent terrorist attacks throughout Europe, Asia, and North America, and the ongoing threat of ISIS. I know I express the views of all Members of the Senate in expressing our deep condolences and prayers for the Kayla Mueller family as we learn today of her fate at the hands of ISIS. ISIS is actively recruiting foreign fighters, who are being radicalized and then returned to their home countries, including countries in Europe and North America. We need to fully fund without further delay, uncertainty, or another short-term budget the critical homeland security, law enforcement, and intelligence activities and programs of the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. President, we are now 4 months into the fiscal year. One-third of the fiscal year is already over for the Department of Homeland Security. We should not keep funding DHS on short-term budgets. No agency or private business, for that matter, can effectively implement a budget and carry out its mission under this type of financial tightrope. How would you like to run a business not knowing whether your budget is going to be there starting March 1? How do you plan? How do you make commitments for the year to carry out your mission when you don't know whether you are going to have the budget support starting March 1 or whether it is going to be continued on a continuing resolution, whether you are going to have to go through a government shutdown or whether you are going to have a budget? You can't run an agency that way. DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson has stated that if Congress continues to fund his agency on short-term budgets, it will harm its mission and programs at the agency. We created the Department of Homeland Security in response to the devastating attacks on our country on September 11. For example, short-term funding may limit more aggressive counterterrorism efforts, weaken our cyber security protections against hackers trying to corrupt or steal our data, delay enhancements to aviation security, slow down new border security initiatives, and defer new grants to State and local law enforcement. DHS may have to delay or postpone contract awards and new acquisitions, which also hurts small businesses and our economy. DHS will have to scale back employee training and postpone the hiring of new personnel. We have broad bipartisan support on almost all aspects of this $40 billion Homeland Security funding measure. This legislation funds critical agencies, including the Coast Guard; the Transportation Security Administration, TSA; the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA; the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office; and the Secret Service, just to mention a few of the agencies that come under the Department of Homeland Security. Three former heads of the Department of Homeland Security, both under Democratic and Republican administrations, recently wrote a letter to Congress urging us to passes a clean Homeland Security appropriations bill and avoid another short-term funding measure or, worse yet, a government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security at the end of February. Let me quote from a part of the letter from former Homeland Security Secretaries Ridge, Chertoff, and Napolitano, again representing both Democratic and Republican administrations: [W]e write to you today to respectfully request that you consider decoupling critical legislation to fund DHS in FY '15 from a legislative response to President Obama's executive action on immigration...The President has said very publicly that he will ``oppose any legislative effort to undermine the executive actions that he'' has taken on immigration. Therefore, by tethering a bill to fund DHS in FY 2015 to a legislative response to the President's executive action on immigration, the likelihood of a DHS shutdown increases. The letter continues: We do not question your desire to have a larger debate about the nation's immigration laws. However, we cannot emphasize enough that DHS's responsibilities are much broader than its responsibility to oversee the Federal immigration agencies and to protect our borders. And funding for the entire agency should not be put in jeopardy by the debate about immigration...It is imperative that we ensure that DHS is ready, willing and able to protect the American people. To that end, we urge you not to risk funding for the operations that protect every American and to pass a clean DHS funding bill. That is from a letter from three former Secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security who worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations. Mr. President, what if Congress allows DHS funding to lapse on February 27? That is the end of the current funding resolution. We would then ask critical frontline personnel, such as Border Patrol agents and air marshals, to work without pay. That is insulting to those law enforcement officers who are putting their lives on the line to keep Americans safe every day. That is insulting to the families of those law enforcement officers who depend on a steady paycheck to make ends meet. And that is insulting to the American people, who deserve nothing less than world-class service from government officials. I must tell you that we have gone through government shutdowns before. It hurts people, no question about it. But guess who gets hurt the most. The taxpayers of this country. It ends up costing us more. We don't save taxpayer dollars. It ends up costing more, jeopardizing the mission, and putting individual families at risk. Let me cite one example that many of our States and localities know very well. It is the Emergency Management Grant Program. Many local fire, police, and emergency management officials rely on funding from the Homeland Security Grant Program, which provides funds to States, territories, and other local governments to prevent, protect against, and respond to potential terrorist attacks and other hazards. This is a program local governments rely upon. They do not know whether they are going to get any of these funds after March 1. How do they plan? Local officials as well rely on funding from FEMA's emergency management performance grants. These grants help them to prepare for the unexpected, whether it is a natural disaster or some type of terrorist activity. It allows them to be prepared. We require this training, and it is 50 percent Federal funds and 50 percent local funds. How do they make arrangements to set up this training if they do not know whether the Federal funds are going to be there? I can speak for the State of Maryland. We have a very tough budget. Our Governor is trying to figure out how he is going to make ends meet. He doesn't have the resources to advance the Federal share. That is no way for us to work in federalism with our local governments when we have a partnership to keep everyone safe. I can mention many other programs that are in jeopardy of not being funded if we don't pass a clean bill, but let me just in conclusion address the issue of immigration. Due to many extraneous amendments that were added by the House to the Homeland Security appropriations bill, we have this challenge here in the Senate. The President has made it clear he will veto any bill that expressly limits his authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion on immigration matters. While we agree that our current immigration system needs comprehensive reform, including border security enhancements, this appropriations bill is not the place for that debate. No matter what side of this debate you are on, most of us agree that the American immigration system is badly broken. Comprehensive immigration reform is long overdue. We need a balanced immigration system that is fair. My strong preference is that Congress send the President a comprehensive immigration reform bill that he can sign into law. This would provide a more thorough and more permanent solution than Executive action. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill in the last Congress, and I am sure we can do so again. My hope is that the House will take it up soon so we can come together in a bipartisan way, reconcile our differences, and pass comprehensive immigration reform as a separate bill. Funding for the Department of Homeland Security expires Friday, February 27, which is now less than 3 weeks away. We are not scheduled to be in session one of those weeks because of the district work period. The Senate should act now to pass a clean Homeland Security bill and send it to the President without further delay. That is in the best interest of the American people. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize February as National Children's Dental Health Month. Every year since 1981 we have acknowledged the importance of children's dental health and worked to ensure that all children have access to proper oral health. As former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop reminded us, ``There is no health without oral health.'' Today tooth decay is the single most common chronic childhood disease--5 times more common than asthma, 4 times more common than early childhood obesity, and 20 times more common than diabetes. Despite the fact that tooth decay can be prevented, nearly half of all 5-year-olds have experienced tooth decay. Left untreated, tooth decay can not only destroy a child's teeth and health but also have a severe negative impact on a child's quality of life. Because children with severe tooth decay are frequently in constant pain, they are often unable to learn, play, or interact with others. Recent studies have shown that children with poor oral health are nearly three times more likely to miss school due to dental pain, and children reporting recent toothaches are four times more likely to have lower grade point averages than peers without dental pain. Good oral health is essential for our children to thrive. It is simply unacceptable that 16.5 million children are denied basic dental care each year. The health and well-being of every child depends on access to affordable care for all of his or her health needs, including dental services. Tooth decay and oral health problems also disproportionately affect children from low-income families and minorities. According to the National Institutes of Health, about 80 percent of dental disease in children is concentrated in 25 percent of the population, and children from poor families face an inordinately high barrier in receiving dental care. To these children, the consequences of poor health care can be devastating. Many have heard me speak before, including on the floor of the Senate, about the tragic loss of Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old Prince George's County resident who died in February of 2007. Deamonte's death was particularly traumatic because it was entirely preventable. It is outrageous that only a few years ago a young boy died in our country because his family was unable to find a dentist to remove an infected tooth. By the time he was evaluated at the Children's Hospital emergency room, the infection had spread to Deamonte's brain. After multiple surgeries and a lengthy hospital stay, he passed away. This was a tragic loss of life that was completely preventable, and a waste of terrible resources. A person's life, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and all it took was $80 in dental care to save his life. I recently heard another story that gives me both hope in the future and strength and resolve to guarantee that all Americans have access to proper dental care. Ronald shared his story at the 2-day Mission of Mercy Health Equity Festival at the University of Maryland, where he waited 15 hours at the charity clinic to have a tooth pulled that had been troubling him for 2 years. Prior to the charity clinic, Ronald had been living with two choices: endure increasingly worse pain or go into debt to pay for dental care. A working man, Ronald had spent $800--his entire life savings--to get a tooth fixed in 2012, but it continued to bother him. He recently paid a dentist for relief. The dentist suggested a more expensive procedure, but Ronald was unable to pay the high cost. So it was just a bandaid, he said. Now he is behind with his landlord and trying to catch up. Ronald talked, however, with great pride about his 9-year-old soccer- playing daughter, who waves away candy and drinks water instead of soda. ``I didn't know about oral health when I was her age,'' he said. Like many other children in Maryland, Ronald's daughter has access to dental care through our State's Children's Health Insurance Program. She has coverage for pediatric dental, she learns about oral health in her school, and she is taking steps to make sure she has proper oral health. She has coverage if she needs to see a dentist. Thanks to CHIP, we now have the highest number in history of children who are insured with medical and dental insurance. CHIP provides affordable, comprehensive health coverage to more than 8 million children from working families--people who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance. CHIP also provides funding for school-based health centers that are critical to providing dental services to at-risk children. I have visited these schools and have seen firsthand how effective they are in delivering dental care to our children. However, if Congress does not act to reauthorize funding for CHIP before September 30, the program's funding will run out and millions of children will again be at risk. I am very proud that my State of Maryland has been recognized as a national leader in pediatric dental health. In the 2010 Pew Center report on the state of children's dental health, Maryland earned an A and was the only State to meet seven of the eight policy benchmarks for addressing children's dental health needs. In addition, in the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange, every plan except one includes pediatric dental coverage as part of the comprehensive medical plan, so families don't have to pay a separate premium for pediatric dental coverage and they don't have an additional out-of-pocket cost. In the Affordable Care Act, we included pediatric dental as part of the essential benefits; therefore, every family now has access to affordable pediatric coverage. That is primarily offered to most of the people in our State through a universal policy, meaning that they don't have to pay a separate premium or copayment. Dental diseases are chronic, progressive, and destructive over time. Yet too often oral health care is overlooked or ignored. We have made great progress, but there are still millions of children in our country without dental care. We must continue to work to ensure that all Americans have access to both medical and dental care, as no citizen of our country should ever have to choose between going into debt and receiving proper health care. The health care system was not there for Ronald, but thanks to CHIP and the Affordable Care Act, it has the potential to help his daughter stay healthy for years to come. Let's pledge to do more for our children, starting with a reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program--CHIP--including the guaranteed pediatric dental benefits. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with Senator Collins not to exceed 20 minutes.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that Senator Collins and I have introduced legislation known as the Small Brewer Reinvestment and Expanding Workforce Act, S. 375. The two of us have led the effort to try to help the craft brewing industry. The craft beer industry is composed of small businesses that have used their ingenuity to create beers that are becoming very, very popular. It is interesting that when we developed the excise tax on beer, I don't think we thought of the craft beer industry at the time. The craft beer industry, as I said, generally consists of small businesses who are struggling to find capital in order to expand. The current law imposes an excise tax on the first 60,000 barrels at $7 per barrel for breweries that produce 2 million or fewer barrels annually. The Small BREW Act would modify that, by increasing the threshold to 6 million barrels. Under the bill, brewers producing 6 million or few barrels each year would pay $3.50 per barrel on the first 60,000 barrels, and $16 per barrel on their annual production between 60,001 and 2 million barrels. So the Small BREW Act would reduce the amount they pay in federal excise taxes. I wish to take a moment and then yield to my colleague to explain the rationale as to why we have introduced this legislation. As I said a moment ago, when we imposed the excise tax on beer, I believe we thought about the big companies and that we wanted to have taxes on distilled spirits, wine, and beer as an excise tax. When we take a look at the craft breweries, they are really burdened by this tax. They are creating jobs, they are creating a different product, and they are creating new markets for beer in this country. I wish to share some of these numbers because I think they are pretty impressive. In 1989 there were 247 breweries in the entire United States. Today there are over 3,200 small and independent breweries and brew pubs in the United States that employ over 110,000 Americans. So this has been a real growth industry. Here are jobs that can't be outsourced, and they have created a better product, a better way of doing business. But the challenge is that they are really strapped for capital. It is not easy for them to invest in the type of equipment necessary to expand their capacity. Brewers Association CEO Bob Pease said last month in testimony submitted to the House Ways and Means Committee: America's small brewers are quintessentially small Main Street manufacturers. They typically employ 10 to 100 workers, and many began as home brewers before devoting themselves full time to the brewing industry. I think that the No. 1 problem for craft brewers trying to expand their capacity is access to sufficient capital. An article in yesterday's New York Times entitled ``Betting on the Growth of Microbreweries'' quotes Brewers Association economist Dr. Bart Watson: Brewery after brewery is looking for ways to grow because when you talk to these companies, the biggest constraint is capacity. They're selling beer as fast as they can make it. I recently visited Heavy Seas Brewery in Baltimore. Now, I know this brewery quite well because I helped Hugh Sisson, the owner and CEO, tap the very first keg he produced in a micropub when he was doing this basically as a hobby. Well, he has expanded his operations a couple of times now, and it wasn't easy to do this. He has invested a lot of money, and he has hired additional people, creating more jobs in Baltimore. Hugh hired 8 people in 2013, another 10 last year, and he expects to hire at least 6 more people this year. These are good jobs. But he needs the capital, and the relief provided by this act would allow him to be able to do this. So Senator Collins and I wanted to bring attention to this legislation which provides some very modest relief from the excise taxes I mentioned earlier. It would reduce the $7 per barrel on the first 60,000 barrels to $3.50 and establish a new rate of $16 per barrel after that up to 2 million barrels for breweries producing up to 6 million barrels annually. It doesn't seem like much, but that would be the difference in making the investment to expand the microbrewery and hire another 6, 8 or 10 people or to start another brewery, to create the excitement in a community that comes with these brew pubs, which I think all of us would agree should not be subject to a special tax which prevents them from expanding. This is an important business in my community. It is a growing business in Baltimore. It is a growing business around the country. I hope we all would want to help these small businesses. In this Congress I have assumed a new role as the ranking Democrat on the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee. We are going to be looking for ways in which we can help small businesses in our country because we know that small businesses are the growth engine for innovation and change and good jobs. So if we can help the microbreweries, if we can pass this legislation, we will help small businesses, and we will help economic growth in our communities. I am pleased that Senator Collins and I are joined by 23 of our colleagues. Between all of use, 25 percent of the Senate has already cosponsored S. 375. We hope we will be able to find a way to move this legislation early this year so we can help economic growth. In Maryland we are currently home to 43 craft breweries--up from 34 in 2013--and 24 more are in the planning stages. I have been to many of these craft breweries. I enjoy their product, but, more importantly, I enjoy their entrepreneurial spirit, which they have been able to show in a growth industry in our country and of which we all can be proud. Mr. President, I yield the floor to Senator Collins.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins not only for her leadership but for also pointing out something very important here: This is a jobs bill. The passage of this bill will create more jobs. We know that because we know that craft breweries are strapped for capital. Every dollar they save here will be reinvested and create more jobs because they don't have the capacity to meet the current demand for their beers. If they could produce more beer today, they would sell more beer, but they don't have the capital to make the investments. Senator Collins is absolutely right when she says this is a jobs bill that will create more jobs. It also creates a lot of indirect jobs. I was pleased Senator Collins pointed out that many of the ingredients the craft breweries use come from the community. They are helping local farmers and local industries grow, which are also generally small businesses. So as they grow, they help other small businesses grow. One interesting fact is we are now starting to see an increase in craft beer exports. There is a real desire for our craft brews outside of the United States. It is a relatively new phenomenon, but exports grew by 49 percent in 2013. We exported 283,000 barrels in 2013, and I expect we will see those numbers greatly increase. This chart shows some of the Maryland craft breweries. They are becoming well known outside of my State of Maryland. I already mentioned Heavy Seas, and Flying Dog is another brewery I had a chance to visit. There are many other breweries, including some with names that are synonymous with my State, such as Raven Beer, Ellicott Mills Brewing Company, Eastern Shore, and Antietam. These are companies and brand names that are now becoming better known because they are producing a great product and people really do like to encourage this type of industry. I thank Senator Collins and our 23 cosponsors. I see Senator King is on the floor, and I thank the Senator for his help on this bill. I hope we will have an opportunity to show, in a bipartisan fashion, that we can pass legislation to help job growth here in the United States. With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from Maine.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, to re- introduce the Small Brewer Reinvestment & Expanding Workforce Act of 2015, otherwise known as the Small BREW Act. Our esteemed former colleague, Senator Kerry, now Secretary of State, introduced this bill in the 112th Congress. I was honored to take up the mantel in the 113th Congress. The Small BREW Act of 2015 would reduce the excise tax on America's craft brewers. Under current Federal law, brewers producing 2 million or fewer barrels annually pay $7 per barrel on the first 60,000 barrels they brew, and $18 per barrel on every barrel thereafter, one barrel = 31 gallons. The Small BREW Act would create a new excise tax rate structure that helps start-up and small breweries and reflects the evolution of the craft brewing industry. The rate for the smallest packaging breweries and brewpubs would be $3.50 per barrel on the first 60,000 barrels. For production between 60,001 and 2 million barrels, the rate would be $16.00 per barrel. Thereafter, the rate would be $18.00 per barrel. Breweries with an annual production of 6 million barrels or less would qualify for these recalibrated tax rates. The small brewer threshold and tax rate were established in 1976 and have never been updated. Since then, the largest multinational producer of beer has increased its annual production from 45 million barrels to 97 million barrels domestically and 325 million barrels globally. To put the matter in perspective, the biggest domestic craft brewer produces 2.7 million barrels of beer annually. Raising the ceiling that defines small breweries from 2 million barrels to 6 million barrels more accurately reflects the intent of the original differentiation between large and small brewers in the U.S. Because of differences in economies of scale, small brewers have higher costs for raw materials, production, packaging, and market entry compared to larger, well- established multi-national competitors. Adjusting the excise tax rate would provide small brewers with an additional $67 million each year they could use to start or expand their businesses on a local, regional, or national scale. This past November, the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, estimated the bill would cost $253 million through 2019 and $641 million over 10 years. A March 2013 study on the costs and benefits of the Small BREW Act bill which then-Harvard University economist John Friedman prepared on behalf of the Brewers Association, BA, indicates that the bill would directly reduce the excise tax revenue the Federal Government collects by $67.0 million the first year after enactment. But Professor Friedman notes that such a loss would be offset in large part by $49.1 million in new payroll and income taxes collected on increased economic activity. Professor Friedman believes that demand for craft beer will continue to increase and the Federal Government would collect an additional $1.1 million in excise taxes from the increased sales. The net revenue loss, therefore, would be $16.9 million the first year after enactment. The total net revenue loss over 5 years would be $95.9 million. The bill would lead to the creation of 5,230 new jobs in the first 12-18 months after passage and the cost of each new job in foregone revenue would be just $3,300. While some people may think this is a bill about beer, it is really about jobs. Blue collar jobs and white collar jobs. Small brewers are small business owners in communities in each and every State across the country. Roughly 75 percent of Americans now live within 10 miles of a brewery. Nationally, small and independent brewers employ over 110,000 full- and part-time employees, generate more than $3 billion in wages and benefits, and pay more than $2.3 billion in business, personal and consumption taxes, according to the BA. As the craft beer industry grows so, too, does the demand for American-grown barley and hops and American-made brewing, bottling, canning, and other equipment. That demand creates more good jobs. Maryland is home to 43 craft brewers, up from 34 in 2013, with 24 more in the planning stages. The existing breweries and brew-pubs employ roughly 600 people who were directly involved in producing craft beer in the State last year, and another 700 to 1,400 part-time workers including brew-pub restaurant staff and associated employees. In 2012, the Brewers Association determined that the economic impact of the craft brewing industry on the State was $455 million and that the industry created a total of 5,422 ``full-time equivalent'', FTE, jobs in Maryland, including indirect and induced jobs, paying over $185 million in wages. Based on 2013 production figures, the Small BREW Act would provide Maryland's small brewers with roughly $570,000 to reinvest in their growing businesses and hire more workers. Small brewers have been anchors of local communities and America's economy since the start of our history. Indeed, there is a Mayflower document published in 1622 that explains why the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock which states, ``For we could not now take time for further search or consideration: our victuals being much spent, especially our beer.'' Presidents from George Washington to Barack Obama have been homebrewers. Going back much further, the oldest extant recipe is for beer. And many people would argue that our thirst for beer is what drove man from being a hunter-gatherer to a crop cultivator since the earliest domesticated cereal grains were various types of barley better suited for beer production than making bread. Saint Arnulf of Metz, also known as St. Arnold, who lived from roughly 582 to 640 AD, is known as the ``Patron Saint of Brewers'' because he recognized that beer, which is boiled first, contains alcohol and is slightly acidic, was much safer to consume than water. French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur, 1822-1895, who discovered yeast and propounded the germ theory that is the basis of so much of modern medicine, worked for breweries for much of his career. The pH scale, the standard measurement of acidity, was developed by the head of Carlsberg Laboratory's Chemical Department in 1909. Dr Soren Sorensen, 1868-1939, developed the pH scale during his pioneering research into proteins, amino acids and enzymes--the basis of today's protein chemistry. So it is fair to say that civilization and beer go hand-in- hand. In addition to making high-quality beers, craft brewers such as Maryland's Flying Dog, Union Craft, Ruddy Duck, Baying Hound, Heavy Seas, and The Brewers Art create jobs and reinvest their profits back into their local economies. The Federal Government needs to be investing in industries that invest in America and create real jobs here at home. With more than 3,200 small and independent breweries and brew-pubs currently operating in the United States--and many more being planned--now is the time to take meaningful action to help them and our economy grow. An article in today's New York Times entitled ``Betting on the Growth of Microbreweries'' quotes BA economist Dr. Bart Watson as saying, ``Brewery after brewery is looking for ways to grow because when you talk to these companies, the biggest constraint is capacity. They're selling beer as fast as they can make it.'' Let us help them grow. I am proud to announce that Senators Baldwin, Blumenthal, Cantwell, Carper, Casey, Cochran, Coons, Heinrich, Hirono, King, Kirk, Klobuchar, Leahy, Markey, Menendez, Merkley, Mikulski, Murkowski, Murphy, Portman, Sanders, Schumer, and Wyden have all signed on as original co-sponsors of the Small BREW Act, and I encourage the rest of my Senate colleagues to consider joining us in this worthwhile legislative endeavor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, to re- introduce the Small Brewer Reinvestment & Expanding Workforce Act of 2015, otherwise known as the Small BREW Act. Our esteemed former colleague, Senator Kerry, now Secretary of State, introduced this bill in the 112th Congress. I was honored to take up the mantel in the 113th Congress. The Small BREW Act of 2015 would reduce the excise tax on America's craft brewers. Under current Federal law, brewers producing 2 million or fewer barrels annually pay $7 per barrel on the first 60,000 barrels they brew, and $18 per barrel on every barrel thereafter, one barrel = 31 gallons. The Small BREW Act would create a new excise tax rate structure that helps start-up and small breweries and reflects the evolution of the craft brewing industry. The rate for the smallest packaging breweries and brewpubs would be $3.50 per barrel on the first 60,000 barrels. For production between 60,001 and 2 million barrels, the rate would be $16.00 per barrel. Thereafter, the rate would be $18.00 per barrel. Breweries with an annual production of 6 million barrels or less would qualify for these recalibrated tax rates. The small brewer threshold and tax rate were established in 1976 and have never been updated. Since then, the largest multinational producer of beer has increased its annual production from 45 million barrels to 97 million barrels domestically and 325 million barrels globally. To put the matter in perspective, the biggest domestic craft brewer produces 2.7 million barrels of beer annually. Raising the ceiling that defines small breweries from 2 million barrels to 6 million barrels more accurately reflects the intent of the original differentiation between large and small brewers in the U.S. Because of differences in economies of scale, small brewers have higher costs for raw materials, production, packaging, and market entry compared to larger, well- established multi-national competitors. Adjusting the excise tax rate would provide small brewers with an additional $67 million each year they could use to start or expand their businesses on a local, regional, or national scale. This past November, the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, estimated the bill would cost $253 million through 2019 and $641 million over 10 years. A March 2013 study on the costs and benefits of the Small BREW Act bill which then-Harvard University economist John Friedman prepared on behalf of the Brewers Association, BA, indicates that the bill would directly reduce the excise tax revenue the Federal Government collects by $67.0 million the first year after enactment. But Professor Friedman notes that such a loss would be offset in large part by $49.1 million in new payroll and income taxes collected on increased economic activity. Professor Friedman believes that demand for craft beer will continue to increase and the Federal Government would collect an additional $1.1 million in excise taxes from the increased sales. The net revenue loss, therefore, would be $16.9 million the first year after enactment. The total net revenue loss over 5 years would be $95.9 million. The bill would lead to the creation of 5,230 new jobs in the first 12-18 months after passage and the cost of each new job in foregone revenue would be just $3,300. While some people may think this is a bill about beer, it is really about jobs. Blue collar jobs and white collar jobs. Small brewers are small business owners in communities in each and every State across the country. Roughly 75 percent of Americans now live within 10 miles of a brewery. Nationally, small and independent brewers employ over 110,000 full- and part-time employees, generate more than $3 billion in wages and benefits, and pay more than $2.3 billion in business, personal and consumption taxes, according to the BA. As the craft beer industry grows so, too, does the demand for American-grown barley and hops and American-made brewing, bottling, canning, and other equipment. That demand creates more good jobs. Maryland is home to 43 craft brewers, up from 34 in 2013, with 24 more in the planning stages. The existing breweries and brew-pubs employ roughly 600 people who were directly involved in producing craft beer in the State last year, and another 700 to 1,400 part-time workers including brew-pub restaurant staff and associated employees. In 2012, the Brewers Association determined that the economic impact of the craft brewing industry on the State was $455 million and that the industry created a total of 5,422 ``full-time equivalent'', FTE, jobs in Maryland, including indirect and induced jobs, paying over $185 million in wages. Based on 2013 production figures, the Small BREW Act would provide Maryland's small brewers with roughly $570,000 to reinvest in their growing businesses and hire more workers. Small brewers have been anchors of local communities and America's economy since the start of our history. Indeed, there is a Mayflower document published in 1622 that explains why the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock which states, ``For we could not now take time for further search or consideration: our victuals being much spent, especially our beer.'' Presidents from George Washington to Barack Obama have been homebrewers. Going back much further, the oldest extant recipe is for beer. And many people would argue that our thirst for beer is what drove man from being a hunter-gatherer to a crop cultivator since the earliest domesticated cereal grains were various types of barley better suited for beer production than making bread. Saint Arnulf of Metz, also known as St. Arnold, who lived from roughly 582 to 640 AD, is known as the ``Patron Saint of Brewers'' because he recognized that beer, which is boiled first, contains alcohol and is slightly acidic, was much safer to consume than water. French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur, 1822-1895, who discovered yeast and propounded the germ theory that is the basis of so much of modern medicine, worked for breweries for much of his career. The pH scale, the standard measurement of acidity, was developed by the head of Carlsberg Laboratory's Chemical Department in 1909. Dr Soren Sorensen, 1868-1939, developed the pH scale during his pioneering research into proteins, amino acids and enzymes--the basis of today's protein chemistry. So it is fair to say that civilization and beer go hand-in- hand. In addition to making high-quality beers, craft brewers such as Maryland's Flying Dog, Union Craft, Ruddy Duck, Baying Hound, Heavy Seas, and The Brewers Art create jobs and reinvest their profits back into their local economies. The Federal Government needs to be investing in industries that invest in America and create real jobs here at home. With more than 3,200 small and independent breweries and brew-pubs currently operating in the United States--and many more being planned--now is the time to take meaningful action to help them and our economy grow. An article in today's New York Times entitled ``Betting on the Growth of Microbreweries'' quotes BA economist Dr. Bart Watson as saying, ``Brewery after brewery is looking for ways to grow because when you talk to these companies, the biggest constraint is capacity. They're selling beer as fast as they can make it.'' Let us help them grow. I am proud to announce that Senators Baldwin, Blumenthal, Cantwell, Carper, Casey, Cochran, Coons, Heinrich, Hirono, King, Kirk, Klobuchar, Leahy, Markey, Menendez, Merkley, Mikulski, Murkowski, Murphy, Portman, Sanders, Schumer, and Wyden have all signed on as original co-sponsors of the Small BREW Act, and I encourage the rest of my Senate colleagues to consider joining us in this worthwhile legislative endeavor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I take a few minutes to debate the next amendment and save a little bit of time at the end by withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, as we consider both the Barrasso and Cardin amendments, I wish to remind my colleagues of the unique history the United States has with Indian nations. This history includes over 300 treaties that were negotiated with individual tribes and nations which remain in effect today. For over two centuries our Nation disregarded the concerns of tribal nations with respect to expansion and development that affected their communities. This often included abrogating treaty rights and disregarding trust obligations this country has to Indian nations and individual Indians. But this is no longer how we work with Indian nations in our country. We now have laws and Executive orders requiring deliberate and meaningful consultation on any actions taken by the Federal Government that affect tribal interests. We have also signed on to the United Nations Declaration Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states that the rights of indigenous peoples cannot be abrogated without their free and informed consent. I want to make it crystal clear that nothing in this bill is meant to abrogate the rights of any Indian nation or any individual Indian. So while I believe we could say more to affirm these policies in this bill, I am happy that at a minimum, Senator Barrasso's amendment guarantees that Indian nations continue to have a voice through meaningful consultation on this project. It has been necessary to have this discussion because the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association does not believe that the consultation required is occurring with respect to KXL. It is helpful to remind the executive branch agencies involved in this process just what their obligations are. I would like to quote from a letter the association recently sent to Interior Secretary Jewell, which states in part: As our Trustee, DOI has a specific duty to insure that its comments and positions on this National Interest Determination accurately reflect the very real potential impacts that this Project may have on our historical Tribal homelands, sacred sites, cultural resources and water rights, all of which are protected by applicable federal law and our Treaties with the United States. While many of our Tribes have submitted comments on this document, the State Department's unwillingness to sit down with us on a government to government basis to discuss our concerns has led us to question whether that Department really respects our legal roles as elected officials of federally recognized sovereign tribes. These concerns are so serious that the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, and the Yankton Sioux Tribe have all become party interveners in the South Dakota Public Utility Commission's proceedings challenging its 2010 action permit for this project. Madam Secretary, we know that you have many important demands on your schedule, but meaningful government to government consultation, especially on matters of this importance, is assured to us by President Obama's Tribal Consultation policy of November 5, 2009, as well as by Executive Order 13175. President Clinton issued that Executive Order to ``establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have tribal implications [and] to strengthen the United States government-to- government relationship with Indian tribes''. President Obama re-committed federal agencies to this duty through a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies issued on November 5, 2009, in which he declared: ``My Administration is committed to regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in policy decisions that have tribal implications including, as an initial step, through a complete and consistent implementation of Executive Order 13175''. To prepare final DOI comments on a document of this magnitude without affording us the opportunity for a meaningful face to face/ government to government meeting is a flagrant violation of President Obama's directive in 2009 and of the commitments President Obama has made to us as recently as last December. Now, what is meant by the term ``consultation''? When the world community of nations, including the United States, worked with Indigenous Peoples over a 15-year period to develop the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, they used the consultative standard of ``free, prior and informed consent'' in Article 11, 2: which reads: ``States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.'' This language was necessary because the Federal Government and the States once ran roughshod over the rights of Native peoples and simply took and used land and other property of Native nations and persons, and there was a need to make sure that this would not happen in the future. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Native peoples were confined to reservations and could not leave without permission of the Federal Indian agent. Even in the 1950s and 1960s, Native delegations to Washington were not supposed to go to Capitol Hill without checking in at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA. Native people tell me that they used to think BIA stood for ``boss Indians around.'' Out of this sorry past have come new policies that give true meaning to the nation-to- nation relationship. Key to this relationship is ongoing consultation that is meaningful and worthy of trust, and agreements that are made are transparent and consensual. There are many laws mandating consultation with Indian tribes and persons, regarding areas on tribal, individual trust and original lands, among them the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Unless the consultation required under these and other statutes is open and based on informed consent, it is not meaningful and cannot lead to a good end. When we refer to consultation in the modern era, we do not mean some sleight of hand; rather, we intend fair, good faith dealings that honor the high standards of the United States' treaty and trust relationship with the Native peoples. I will close my remarks simply by including excerpts from just two recent judicial decisions regarding the nature of Federal-tribal consultation. First, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruling in the case of Quechan Tribe v. United States Department of the Interior, et al (December 15, 2010), citing the National Historic Preservation Act: ``The consultation requirement is not an empty formality; rather, it `must recognize the government- to-government relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes' and is to be `conducted in a manner sensitive to the concerns and needs of the Indian tribe.' '' Second, from the case of Comanche Nation, et al v. USA, et al (September 23, 2008), involving the Army's failure to consult with the Comanche Nation regarding a sacred place, Medicine Bluff, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma found that the National Historic Protection Act, NHPA: . . . requires an agency to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties that may be impacted, and to identify . . . issues in connection with such potential impact. . . . The reasonable and good faith efforts requirement extends to consultation with Native American tribes which may attach religious and cultural significance to potentially affected property . . . It has been said that, in a general sense, the NHPA requires agencies to `stop, look, and listen' before commencing actions which could impact historic or culturally significant properties. . . . The evidence submitted during the preliminary injunction hearing substantially demonstrates Defendants' actions were contrary to the letter and the spirit of the NHPA and its implementing regulations. . . . Defendants virtually ignored the concerns regarding the viewscape up to the Bluffs from the southern approach. . . . Contrary to the direction of the Ft. Sill Garrison Commander . . . to `get with the tribes' about their viewscape issues, that same day the Section 106 letter was sent out without a reference to Medicine Bluffs and without mentioning the potential impact on viewscapes. Instead, the details of the TSC project were buried in technical attachments, and the consulting parties were left to ferret out for themselves the adverse impact on viewscapes then known by Defendants to exist. . . . Moreover, the requirement of good faith consultation suggests that the consulted Native American tribes would have considered it important to know, and therefore should have been told, that the TSC warehouse was the tip of the iceberg regarding plans to build within the southern approach to the Bluffs. . . . In reality, the area in question is also slated for construction of a DRMO facility (which will occupy about 20 acres), construction of a fire station, and a widening of Randolph Road on its north side. Had this cumulative impact been disclosed to the area tribes, their initial reaction may well have been different. As it was, the Comanche Nation began complaining in earnest in the fall of 2007 and early 2008. These protests, asserted after the close of the 30-day comment period announced in the August 10, 2007 Section 106 letter, were brushed off by defendants as untimely. Having concluded that they technically complied with the Section 106 process, Defendants decided to proceed with the TSC project despite the mounting objections from the Comanche Nation. . . . it has been said that the NHPA requires an agency to `stop, look and listen' Coliseum Square Ass'n, Inc., 465 F.3d at 225; the evidence in the present case suggests that Defendants merely paused, glanced, and turned a deaf ear to warnings of adverse impact. Thus, Defendants' efforts fell short of the reasonable and good faith efforts required by the law. Where a plaintiff shows that an agency failed to comply with the NHPA requirements, injunctive relief may issue. The bottom line is that for over two centuries, our Nation disregarded the concerns of tribal nations with respect to projects affecting tribal communities. We now have laws and executive orders requiring deliberate and meaningful consultation on any actions taken by the Federal Government that affect tribal interests. This certainly applies to the Keystone pipeline. I want to thank Senator Barrasso for working with us on the amendment we just approved that makes it very clear that the consultation obligations must be adhered to. I also want to thank Senator Heinrich, Senator Tester, and Senator Cantwell for their incredible help on this issue so we could get a compromise. The work that Senator Barrasso and I have done in consultation with other Members, with the amendments that have been filed, to try to find common ground exemplifies what I hope we would do more of here in the Senate: finding common ground. So I am pleased we were able to adopt the Barrasso amendment. Amendment No. 124 Withdrawn With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me first thank Senator Carper for his comments on the need for us to pass a homeland security appropriations bill. I think our constituents would be surprised to learn that we have not passed an appropriations bill that funds for this fiscal year the Department of Homeland Security, a critically important agency that keeps us safe. We know the challenges around the world. We know the challenges to our homeland. Yet we haven't passed a full-year Homeland Security bill. Instead, we have legislation that has come over from the House that is more interested in picking political fights on immigration policy--when we should be together on immigration policy--and holding up the funding for Homeland Security. I thank Senator Carper, who is the ranking Democrat on that committee, for bringing to our attention that the best thing for us to do is to take up the Shaheen-Mikulski bill, which is a clean reauthorization of the appropriations for this year, so we can get through this year, and then we can debate immigration on an immigration bill, debate next year's budget on a budget bill, and not have the politics of the House interfere with the funding for Homeland Security.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to bring to my colleagues' attention that January 27 represented the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and Birkenau--Auschwitz, the concentration camp that became a death camp; and Birkenau, a death camp, located in Poland, that was liberated by the Allied Forces on January 27, 1945. There were 1.3 million Jews, Poles, and other minorities who were deported to Auschwitz and Birkenau between 1940 and 1945. Of that 1.3 million, 1.1 million died in these camps. I had a chance in 2004 to visit both Auschwitz and Birkenau, and it was emotionally draining. It was a site that is hard to imagine, to see the cruelty and the barbaric activities of humans against other humans. From looking at the rooms in which medical experiments were done on human beings, who ultimately died, to seeing the gas chambers, it very much affected my perspective on humanity and life. In the United States we are blessed. I can practice my religion and don't have to fear losing my head. I can disagree with my government and know I am not going to be locked up for doing it. We should never take those liberties for granted. I think our freedoms give us a special responsibility to make sure that when we say never again, that it becomes a reality, that it becomes real. We also have a responsibility to remember the victims of the Holocaust. In the Jewish religion, we have Yom Hashoah, a separate day set aside to recognize that. We need to learn from the survivors. I will always remember the times I had a chance to talk to Leo Bretholz. He was a constituent of mine who escaped the trains taking him to Auschwitz. He was an inspiration to all of us who learned more about the circumstances surrounding the Holocaust. Unfortunately, he passed away last year. Leo advocated for the repatriation of victims, particularly from the French railway SNCF, and we were ultimately successful in getting those funds. This all underscores the importance of Holocaust education. When we say never again, let's always remember what happened over 70 years ago under Nazi rule. Let's have Holocaust education so young people understand the consequences of the cruelty and the consequences of not getting engaged. Let's also help the survivors. I very much want to acknowledge that in the United States we have many survivors from the Holocaust, and over half of them live under the Federal poverty line. They are so fearful of being institutionalized, and we can understand that. I thank Senator Mikulski and the appropriators for putting money in the omnibus appropriations bill last year to help provide assistance so these survivors can get the services they are entitled to under our law. Sometimes they can't work their way through it. I was proud to help in those efforts. I also thank Vice President Biden for his leadership in the Obama administration. I thank those on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in the Older Americans Act reauthorization that was acted on this week because they include services for Holocaust survivors so that they will have easier access to government services. Lastly, let me thank Senators Mikulski and Kirk. I joined both of them in a Senate resolution to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and Birkenau. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee that I serve on unanimously approved that resolution for consideration on the Senate floor, and I thank Senators Corker and Menendez for their help. As I think most Members of this body know, I have been an active participant in the Helsinki Commission. I am the democratic leader, working with Senator Wicker. The Helsinki Commission is known for its participation in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, but I think it is best known because we put a spotlight on human rights issues. We try to live up to that motto ``never again.'' We try to say we will not let violations of basic human rights go unchallenged. So on this 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and Birkenau, which are the iconic symbols today of the Holocaust, let's rededicate ourselves to making sure that ``never again'' becomes a reality. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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