Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, Senator Inhofe's amendment will cut money from the Environmental Protection Agency that has already gone through, I think, three rounds of cuts from sequestration, and then prevents it from carrying out its mission to regulate our environment. It is a very extreme approach. We have already approved the Cardin amendment that establishes the right standards for regulating carbon emissions. I urge my colleagues to reject the Inhofe amendment, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Let me last point out, in an effort to make sure that no small businesses are disadvantaged, there is a small business sales exemption of up to $1 million, so we are not talking about very small sales. We are talking about a great deal of revenue. I thank Senator Enzi for his leadership, and Senator Durbin. This is long overdue. We should pass this.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, let me first thank Senator Enzi and Senator Durbin for bringing forward this amendment. I agree with Senator Alexander for his comment as it relates to this bill. Let me talk about one of the objectives we want to see in taxes. We talk about simplifying, we talk about fairness. We also talk about what is known as the tax gap. That is the gap between the taxes that we have imposed that we should collect and what we really collect. When it comes to sales and use tax, it has been estimated that because of the place in which an individual buys the product there is a $23 billion gap. That is $23 billion of taxes that are owed are not collected. This is an urgent problem. In my own State of Maryland it is $300 million a year. There are people who are paying higher taxes than they should because Maryland has to impose higher rates to make up for that $300 million. We all talk about a system where we can spread the base and lower the rates. The first way you do it is by collecting the taxes that everyone should pay. This is a good-governance issue, this is a fairness issue, this is an issue that is not that terribly complicated. We are not talking about any new tax responsibilities. We are not talking about any new taxes. We are talking about getting our local governments, as Senator Alexander has said, the ability to collect the taxes that they impose in a fair manner. This is a matter of fairness. This is a matter of doing what is right. Let me give one example that was brought to my attention by a retailer in Maryland, a person who works in an electronics shop in our State, where someone came into that shop recently and was shopping for a TV monitor, a new TV set. They did all the comparative shopping, brought the expert in from that store, answered all their questions and decided on what television set he was going to buy. He then went on his phone and ordered it from an Internet supplier. The price was identical at the two locations--identical. But the person bought it on the Internet because they did not have to pay the State sales tax. They had to pay the State use tax, but they never paid the State use tax. That is something we have to end. That is wrong. That is basic fairness. The distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee points out, how do we collect these taxes? Let me point out we already collect taxes in our State from sales that are made outside of our State. We do it when there is that nexus that the Supreme Court has acknowledged, and as has been pointed out, the retailer you buy it from adds the State sales tax by putting in their sales the ZIP Code in which we live and they calculate the sales tax and they remit the sales tax. That is currently being done. This is not an additional burden. Then I heard how complex it is to figure out what taxes are owed. Let me point out two points about that. First, the bill provides that the States adopt the streamlined sales and use tax agreement so we have a uniformity as far as how this is applied. But let me tell you, I do not even know that is totally necessary because there are computer programs today that figure this out for the retailer. The retailer knows the products they are selling and they know how the retail sales taxes throughout the Nation apply to the products they sell. It is a simple program. This is not a burden to the retailer. Senator Durbin already pointed out if you live in New Hampshire or you live in Montana or you live in a State that may not have a sales tax, your citizens are not going to pay a sales tax. It does not increase anyone's sales tax. All we are saying is that when our citizens buy products that are subject to our sales and use tax that they cannot get a competitive advantage by going on the Internet rather than using a retail establishment. What is wrong with that? We are not talking about imposing any taxes on anyone.

Mr. CARDIN. Let me thank my friend from Delaware, Senator Coons. The Senator is exactly right, as he talks about balance. Senator Murray is absolutely right about the balance we have and the budget which has come out of the Budget Committee. Yesterday we did something which was the right thing to do. We passed the continuing resolution, an omnibus appropriations bill. The good news is we worked together. We completed it, and it was a major improvement from what the House did. The House again was acting in a very partisan, one-way direction which would have caused additional harm. I was disappointed the bill we passed yesterday was at the sequestration levels. I am against sequestration. I think we should substitute it for strategic reductions in the deficit. This is exactly what the budget coming out of the Budget Committee would do. It will substitute for sequestration a strategic way to get our budget into better balance. This is what we need to do. The budget, as Senator Coons has pointed out, is our blueprint. It speaks to the priorities we have as a Nation. It is a framework. All of the elements which are necessary for a responsible budget are included in the budget document, which has been brought to the floor. I am proud to support it. It gives us the right blueprint for America's future. The most important thing is it does get rid of sequestration. Sequestration is across-the-board mindless cuts. It says every priority in this country is exactly the same. That is not the case. The budget coming out of the Budget Committee is a responsible way of substituting for sequestration. Senator Murray mentioned balance. I wish to speak about this chart, which points out the fact of how balanced the budget is. The Senate Democratic budget balances additional spending cuts--Senator Coons is absolutely right--and additional cuts in what we do in the tax expenditures. We spend money through the Tax Code and through appropriated bills. The budget you brought out balances reductions in both categories. Sequestration only applies through the appropriations process. It doesn't apply to how we spend money through tax expenditures. It is very interesting, as this is very similar to the other bipartisan proposal which has been brought forward. We talk frequently about Simpson-Bowles. Some of us may have disagreed with the specifics, but we thought it was the right blueprint and the right balance between spending reductions and tax expenditure reductions. The Senate Democrats' proposal is very similar to Simpson-Bowles on the ratio of cuts. Actually it has more spending cuts and a little bit less revenue. Again, the Gang of Six is very similar. We are very proud our colleagues came together in an effort to try to bring Democrats and Republicans together. The Democratic budget in the Senate builds upon that bipartisan cooperation. It is very similar. When we look at the House Republicans, they are totally out of step with what is necessary in order to get our country back into balance. This provides a framework for investment. I appreciate the fact Senator Murray has provided ways in which we can invest in infrastructure, invest in research and development, and how we may invest in education. This translates into job growth. The more jobs we create, the more people pay taxes and the less revenue which is used. This is how you also balance the budget. The Senate Democratic budget, the budget coming out of the Budget Committee, provides for those types of important investments. You also protect the most vulnerable citizens. This is so important. You protect Medicare. Why? Because it is important for the dignity of our seniors. I particularly appreciated the statements which were made by Senator Durbin, who was a major player in bringing this out, that going into deficit reduction we want to protect the most vulnerable. We don't want to add to the poverty of America. The Democratic budget which you brought out carries out that commitment, protecting our most vulnerable. You also lived up to the commitment to our veterans, and I appreciate that very much. President Kennedy said, ``As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.'' We all say how much we appreciate our veterans and our soldiers and what they have done for our country, protecting the democracy and freedom of our country. This budget does more than just say our appreciation, it acts by deeds, carrying out our commitment to the best health care for our veterans, including mental health services. I particularly appreciate the reserve fund that is permitted that makes more veterans eligible for benefits and improves the efficiency of the claims processing, which is particularly important in our region where so many veterans have waited way too long to get the benefits to which they are entitled. Let me mention one last point, which is a huge difference--and Senator Murray and Senator Coons have mentioned it. The main difference between the budget the Democrats have brought out and the Republican budget conceived in the House is this is a credible way to manage our deficit, which is the most important thing--managing our deficit in a credible way--that will get our deficit under control. It builds on the deficit reductions we have already done. Since we started this debate and the Simpson-Bowles recommendations came out, we have already done $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, $1.8 in spending reductions, and $600 billion in revenues. This is very similar to how the Simpson- Bowles proposal was made to have a plausible baseline. Now, I am not going to get too technical about all this, but it means we are not using smoke and mirrors but are using a realistic baseline in order to do the deficit reduction. It is achievable, it is doable, it is credible, and Senator Coons deals with tax extenders. One more word about tax extenders, because Senator Coons is absolutely right. We have provisions in the spending programs of this country that invest in energy security that are subject to sequestration because it is an appropriations bill. But we have provisions in the Tax Code that give special breaks to the oil and gas industry. These are expenditures. These are revenues we are hemorrhaging. They should at least be under the same scrutiny as the appropriations bills. What this budget is saying is that we can get some savings from these tax expenditures and then use that to get our debt under control. Senator Murray is absolutely right. One of the huge differences between the Democrats and the Republicans is the Republicans want to reduce the tax breaks for middle-income families to give bigger tax breaks for high-income families. We say we can make the Tax Code more efficient and have a budget that allows for the growth of the middle class and manage our debt in a better way. The bottom line is this budget produces $4.25 trillion over the 10- year window compared to Simpson-Bowles, which was $4 trillion. It is even more deficit reduction than the Simpson-Bowles proposal. It puts us on a sustainable path for a manageable deficit. What we need to do now is negotiate and get this done for this Nation, and this framework gives us the ability to do that. What Americans want is a balanced approach that allows for growth and that is credible. This budget gives us that pathway and, most importantly, it will give predictability to the American economy, which is what I hear more and more as I go around. People want us to make decisions. We are prepared to make decisions. This budget gives us that pathway, and I congratulate Senator Murray. I also congratulate Senator Coons for the work he has done.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Supporting Colorectal Examination and Education Now, SCREEN, Act. This legislation promotes access to colon cancer screenings in an effort to help prevent colorectal cancer, save lives, and reduce costs for families, the Medicare program, and the health care system. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical piece of legislation. Colorectal cancer affects far too many Americans. The rate of colon cancer deaths is shocking--taking the lives of over 50,000 people this year alone, according to the American Cancer Society. Fortunately, colorectal cancer is highly preventable with screening, and colon cancer screening tests rank among the most effective preventive screenings available. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that removal of precancerous polyps during a screening colonoscopy may reduce colon cancer deaths by over 50 percent. Early detection and intervention are key to preventing colon cancer. Colonoscopy screenings are different from other types of preventive or screening services because pre-cancerous polyps found during a screening are removed during the same visit, thus preventing a potential cancer from developing and helping to ensure detection, intervention, and prevention. Congress recognized the value of colon cancer screenings and, through bipartisan legislation that I authored in 1998, established a Medicate benefit for screening. The problem is that only half of individuals coveted by the Medicare program receive a screening colonoscopy, even though a Medicate colorectal cancer screening benefit is available. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, Medicare claims show that only 52 percent of beneficiaries have had a colorectal cancer screening test. Many barriers account for this, including patient education on screenings and operational issues within the Medicare program, but colorectal cancer has become too widespread and we have reached the time to take action to promote prevention and save lives. Ensuring that individuals receive colorectal cancer screening tests is critical to this goal. In addition, detection and intervention through proper colonoscopy screening should reduce costs to the Medicare program and health care system overall. Once colon cancer develops, the direct costs of treating colon cancer are starting--reaching $4 billion in 2010. A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that colorectal cancer screening has been shown to reduce Medicare long-term costs. Congress must help promote access to colorectal cancer screenings and help increase the number of persons receiving these life-saving screening tests. The SCREEN Act takes many steps to increase the rate of colorectal cancer screenings and help prevent colon cancer, while also reducing Medicare costs. The SCREEN Act first waives cost sharing for Medicare beneficiaries receiving colorectal cancer screenings where precancerous polyps are removed during the visit. Currently, Medicare waives cost-sharing for any colorectal cancer screening recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, USPSTF. Colorectal cancer screens have a grade ``A'' recommendation by USPSTF. However, if the doctor finds and removes a precancerous polyp during the visit, the procedure is no longer considered a ``screening'' for Medicare purposes--and the beneficiary would be forced to pay the Medicare coinsurance. In February 2013, the Administration announced that private insurers participating in State-based health insurance exchanges must waive all cost sharing for colon cancers screenings where a polyp is removed. This bill promotes a similar policy by waiving Medicare cost sharing for diagnostic and screening colorectal cancer tests. Additionally, the SCREEN Act extends Medicare coverage to include an office visit or consultation so that a Medicare beneficiary may sit down and discuss the screening with a doctor prior to the colonoscopy procedures. One of the major barriers to increasing colorectal cancer screening rates is a patient's lack of knowledge and the ``fear of the procedure.'' This pre-procedure visit is not only good clinical practice but also would help increase patient utilization of colorectal cancer screening. This visit allows the individual to ask questions about the procedure, assures selection of the proper screening test, and increases beneficiary education and test preparation. There is no reason for a Medicare beneficiary to be seeing his or her physician for the first time only just before being sedated for the procedure. The SCREEN Act also provides incentives for Medicare providers to participate in nationally recognized quality improvement registries so that our Medicare beneficiaries are receiving the quality screening they deserve. Congress and other organizations can look to the SCREEN Act as a model for Medicare reimbursement reform as the bill reimburses providers in a budget neutral manner based on the quality of the procedure and not volume of services. Promoting access to colorectal cancer screening will help ensure detection and intervention of this highly preventable disease and reduce costs to the health care system. I ask my colleagues to join in support of this fight to end colorectal cancer by cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Supporting Colorectal Examination and Education Now, SCREEN, Act. This legislation promotes access to colon cancer screenings in an effort to help prevent colorectal cancer, save lives, and reduce costs for families, the Medicare program, and the health care system. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical piece of legislation. Colorectal cancer affects far too many Americans. The rate of colon cancer deaths is shocking--taking the lives of over 50,000 people this year alone, according to the American Cancer Society. Fortunately, colorectal cancer is highly preventable with screening, and colon cancer screening tests rank among the most effective preventive screenings available. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that removal of precancerous polyps during a screening colonoscopy may reduce colon cancer deaths by over 50 percent. Early detection and intervention are key to preventing colon cancer. Colonoscopy screenings are different from other types of preventive or screening services because pre-cancerous polyps found during a screening are removed during the same visit, thus preventing a potential cancer from developing and helping to ensure detection, intervention, and prevention. Congress recognized the value of colon cancer screenings and, through bipartisan legislation that I authored in 1998, established a Medicate benefit for screening. The problem is that only half of individuals coveted by the Medicare program receive a screening colonoscopy, even though a Medicate colorectal cancer screening benefit is available. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, Medicare claims show that only 52 percent of beneficiaries have had a colorectal cancer screening test. Many barriers account for this, including patient education on screenings and operational issues within the Medicare program, but colorectal cancer has become too widespread and we have reached the time to take action to promote prevention and save lives. Ensuring that individuals receive colorectal cancer screening tests is critical to this goal. In addition, detection and intervention through proper colonoscopy screening should reduce costs to the Medicare program and health care system overall. Once colon cancer develops, the direct costs of treating colon cancer are starting--reaching $4 billion in 2010. A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that colorectal cancer screening has been shown to reduce Medicare long-term costs. Congress must help promote access to colorectal cancer screenings and help increase the number of persons receiving these life-saving screening tests. The SCREEN Act takes many steps to increase the rate of colorectal cancer screenings and help prevent colon cancer, while also reducing Medicare costs. The SCREEN Act first waives cost sharing for Medicare beneficiaries receiving colorectal cancer screenings where precancerous polyps are removed during the visit. Currently, Medicare waives cost-sharing for any colorectal cancer screening recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, USPSTF. Colorectal cancer screens have a grade ``A'' recommendation by USPSTF. However, if the doctor finds and removes a precancerous polyp during the visit, the procedure is no longer considered a ``screening'' for Medicare purposes--and the beneficiary would be forced to pay the Medicare coinsurance. In February 2013, the Administration announced that private insurers participating in State-based health insurance exchanges must waive all cost sharing for colon cancers screenings where a polyp is removed. This bill promotes a similar policy by waiving Medicare cost sharing for diagnostic and screening colorectal cancer tests. Additionally, the SCREEN Act extends Medicare coverage to include an office visit or consultation so that a Medicare beneficiary may sit down and discuss the screening with a doctor prior to the colonoscopy procedures. One of the major barriers to increasing colorectal cancer screening rates is a patient's lack of knowledge and the ``fear of the procedure.'' This pre-procedure visit is not only good clinical practice but also would help increase patient utilization of colorectal cancer screening. This visit allows the individual to ask questions about the procedure, assures selection of the proper screening test, and increases beneficiary education and test preparation. There is no reason for a Medicare beneficiary to be seeing his or her physician for the first time only just before being sedated for the procedure. The SCREEN Act also provides incentives for Medicare providers to participate in nationally recognized quality improvement registries so that our Medicare beneficiaries are receiving the quality screening they deserve. Congress and other organizations can look to the SCREEN Act as a model for Medicare reimbursement reform as the bill reimburses providers in a budget neutral manner based on the quality of the procedure and not volume of services. Promoting access to colorectal cancer screening will help ensure detection and intervention of this highly preventable disease and reduce costs to the health care system. I ask my colleagues to join in support of this fight to end colorectal cancer by cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. I was listening to the exchange between Senator Murray and Senator Mikulski. I just want to concur in their comments. We need to act on H.R. 933, the amendments offered by Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby. It is important for us to move forward on this for several reasons. First, we are over 5 months into the fiscal year. We need to enact the fiscal year 2013 budget. If we are going to the fiscal year 2014 budget, we have to get past the fiscal year 2013 budget. So it is critically important that we pass the continuing resolution omnibus bill, send it back to the House, and, hopefully, reconcile those differences very quickly because we only have a few more days to get this enacted in order to make sure government continues, but just as importantly to give predictability to our agencies for the next 7 months. We are very close to getting that done. I urge my colleagues to cooperate as the chairperson of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski, has said. I certainly strongly support the work that has been done. I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby for bringing us together in a way that I would hope the Senate would operate, that we work together, Democrats and Republicans, come together on a bill, and move that legislation. Having said that, I must tell you I share the frustration that Senator Mikulski talked about. There are provisions that are not included in this legislation that I would like to see included, and there are some provisions that are included that I would like to see not included. Let me talk about one of the provisions that is included that I regret is there. That is the provision that would extend the pay freeze for our Federal workforce through the remainder of the current budget year, fiscal year 2013. I am proud to represent the people of Maryland in the Senate, along with my colleague Senator Mikulski. We represent 130,000 Federal workers. That is about 5.6 percent of the Maryland workforce who are Federal workers. These are public servants. These are people who are on the frontline. These are people who are providing critical services every day to the people of this country. A couple of weeks ago, I was at the National Institutes of Health. I had a chance to talk to the workforce there. What they are doing is critically important to the people of this country. I could tell you that the basic research they do is critically important to a lot of companies in the creation of jobs. That is absolutely true. I will tell you the story of one individual I happened to meet. One of the scientists there took me to the program on which they are working. The work they are doing is in the field of research on renal cancer. The reason I say this is I had a chance to meet with one of the individuals who is in the program. He comes from a different State and was diagnosed a while ago with having a form of renal cancer with no cure. He was told by his doctor that he had basically two choices: We can treat you with the only technology we know here or at any facility in the country--and you have 6 months to live--or you may participate in an NIH program where they are looking at alternative ways to treat this form of renal cancer. This person chose the latter course, traveled to Bethesda, MD, and participated in the program. They discovered for this form of cancer a drug therapy that will stop the growth of the cancer cells. He is now living a somewhat more normal life with hope of survival. He didn't have that just a few months ago. When I spoke with this person about what he felt about sequestration or about government shutdowns, do you know what he told me? He said: I never thought I would need government. I was working. I never thought I would need government. NIH needs the money we give them. It helped save my life, and it helped develop the type of scientific base we need in this country. This story could be told many times over. They need the predictability of a budget. They need the legislation Senator Mikulski is promoting, which will give them funding for the remainder of this year so they can continue their critically important work. I visited the Social Security Administration a week ago and met a lot of hard-working Federal workers who were trying to send Social Security benefits to those who need them. We have people with disabilities trying to get a disability determination to receive a check. There is a delay in getting this done--a delay that will only become longer if the Social Security Administration doesn't have the people it needs in order to process those claims. I could mention many other agencies--NSA and the critical work they do in cyber security. These are the best mathematicians in the world who are Federal workers serving in the most noble of public service. This includes Departments such as NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology, which develops technology needs for our future, and the work done at FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, on food safety. These are all people working in my State of Maryland for a Federal agency as Federal workers. They are getting the job done for the people of this country and deserve our support. They have already sacrificed and have seen budgets that have shrunk. There are fewer people working, and their mission has increased--more work, fewer workers. They have now been through 2 years--which will now increase to 3--of a pay freeze. This translates into a $90 billion contribution to the deficit problems of this country. This is what the Federal workers have done. Quite frankly, I find it disappointing that a very modest pay adjustment for a 7-month period--a .5 percent, one-half of 1 percent increase, which was in the President's budget--was held off for the first 5 months and will now be held off for the remainder of this year. I think this is wrong. That pay adjustment should have gone forward. I regret that it is not included in the legislation we will act on. The Federal workforce will have additional sacrifices because this continuing resolution on the omnibus bill incorporates the lower numbers caused by these across-the-board cuts by sequestration. As a result of that, many of our Federal workers will be getting furlough notices. What does a furlough notice mean? That means as many as 1 day out of 5 they will be asked to not show up for work, which translates into a 20-percent pay cut, and some possibly 1 out of every 10 days, which is a 10-percent pay cut. If you have a mortgage payment to make or your utility bills to pay, creditors are not going to accept the fact that it can be 10 percent less because you have been furloughed 1 day out of every 10 days. Our Federal workers will even do more, and I think we need to acknowledge that not by just saying ``you are doing a great job at public service'' but by giving them the support they need. I hope that as we move forward on the budget considerations for fiscal year 2014, we will take into consideration the sacrifices already made by our Federal workforce and give them the support they need to get the job done for the people of this country. There are provisions which were left out of this continuing resolution omnibus bill which I think should have been included. Let me support Senator Harkin and the amendment he has pending, which would basically put into the continuing resolution the work that was done during regular order by the Appropriations Committee on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. It really accepts regular order. It doesn't increase the total at all; it just adjusts the money that was spent in fiscal year 2012 to the committee priorities established in fiscal year 2013. In other words, it establishes regular order with the same appropriation dollars in order to update the spending in the agencies under the committee's jurisdiction. This makes sense. Let me give you one example, and I could give you many others. I spoke about the National Institutes of Health. I spoke about how valuable the work is that they accomplish. Well, as a result of budget reductions, they may now only approve about one out of every seven grants. They make grants to our universities and to groups who work to find answers for these diseases. They only now may do one out of every seven. As was explained to me by Dr. Collins, they must choose between the really great grants that are submitted and the great, great grants that are submitted. They can take only a few of the really great projects that are out there. We need to do better. Senator Harkin's amendment would increase the amount of money going to NIH by about $140 million. Once again, it doesn't change the overall totals; it adjusts the priorities from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2014. I urge my colleagues to support the Harkin amendment to enable an agency such as NIH to receive the help needed without affecting the overall spending of this Nation. I really do look forward to us working together, Democrats and Republicans, in the national interest to compromise in a bipartisan manner. This is what we need to do. This is exactly what Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby have done in bringing forward this legislation. It deserves our support. I listened to Senator Murray, as I know we will be voting on a budget next week for fiscal year 2014. What we need to do is work together, Democrats and Republicans, let these bills go to conference, work together and bring out a budget that represents the best for our Nation to move forward. What I hear most from the people of Maryland is that they want us to make decisions. They need the predictability of a budget. We can give them that for our current year by the enactment of the bill that is currently before us, and then we could give them the predictability they need for the future decisions of our Nation by approving in a bipartisan manner the budget for fiscal year 2014. I would hope we could do that also as this would clearly be in the best interests of our Nation. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about International Women's Day. International Women's Day is an occasion to honor and praise women for their accomplishments and to celebrate women who are making a difference, both here in America and around the world. Already this year, we have seen advances for women in the United States. In January, former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that women in the military can now join their male colleagues on the front line. America's military is the greatest in the world and it has been made stronger with the promise of equal opportunity for women and men. Last month, we reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, which provides victims of domestic violence with the services they desperately need. We need to ensure that women across the world, not just in the United States, have the same liberty to determine the scope of their own lives and futures. Unfortunately, in far too many nations women face extraordinary obstacles. A woman's ability to earn a sustained income is severely limited by cultural norms and lack of opportunity, which explains why women represent nearly 70 percent of the world's poor. And if extreme poverty and destitution weren't enough, women around the world are under attack. Worldwide, 1 in 3 women will experience some form of violence in her lifetime. Women and girls in emergencies, conflict settings, and natural disasters often face extreme violence. The World Health Organization has reported that up to 70 percent of women in some countries describe having been victims of domestic violence at some stage in their lives. When we discuss the issues of poverty and violence against women, we cannot think of them in isolation. They work in tandem, feeding off of one another. Violence against women and girls is both a major consequence and cause of poverty; the two go hand-in-hand. Violence prevents women and girls from getting an education, going to work, and earning the income they need to lift themselves and their families out of poverty. I believe in the power of women to change the world, and empowering women is one of the most critical tools in our tool box to fight poverty and injustice. Integrating the unique needs of women into our domestic and international policies is critical. Decades of research and experience prove that when women are able to be fully engaged in society and hold decisionmaking power, they are more likely to invest their income in food, clean water, education, and health care for their children. Investment in women creates a positive cycle of change that lifts women, families, and entire communities out of poverty. In January, President Obama issued a memorandum on the coordination of policies and programs to promote gender equality and empower women globally. This memo recognizes that coordinating gender equality and empowering women is critical to effective international assistance across all sectors such as food security, health care, governance, climate change, and science and technology. Our Nation has the potential to be a true leader in empowering women across the globe, ending gender-based discrimination in all forms, and ending violence against women and girls worldwide. And on this International Women's Day, let us join together to continue to fight for the rights of women both at home and abroad.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to note a sad anniversary. Friday, March 1, marked 6 years since the tragic death of a 12-year-old Maryland child named Deamonte Driver. I have spoken about him many times since his passing, which happened just weeks after I came to the Senate. The death of any child is tragic; Deamonte's was even more so because it was entirely preventable. He died from untreated tooth decay. It started with an infected tooth. Deamonte began to complain about headaches in early January 2007. By the time he was evaluated at Children's Hospital's emergency room, the infection had spread to his brain, and after multiple surgeries and a lengthy hospital stay, he passed away. The principal at Deamonte's school, Gina James, remarked, ``Everyone here was shocked. They couldn't understand how he could have a toothache and then die. We sometimes give the little kids candy as a reward; well, for a while they stopped taking it because they would say, `if I get a cavity, will I die?' '' Because Deamonte did not get a tooth extraction that would have cost about $80, he was subjected to extensive brain surgery that eventually cost more than $250,000. That is more than 3,000 times the cost of an extraction. After Deamonte's death, more Americans began to recognize the link between dental care and overall health that medical researchers have known for years. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop once said that ``there is no health without oral health.'' The story of the Driver family has brought Dr. Koop's lesson home in a painful way. Children living in poverty have twice as much tooth decay as middle- and upper-income children, and nearly 40 percent of black children have untreated tooth decay in their permanent teeth. This has serious implications for their overall health. Untreated oral health problems in children can result in attention deficits, poor school performance, and problems sleeping and eating. And these problems carry over to adulthood. Improper oral hygiene can increase an adult's risk of having low birth-weight babies, developing heart disease, or suffering a stroke. Employed adults lose more than 164 million hours of work each year due to dental disease and dental visits, and in 2009 over 830,000 emergency room visits were the result of preventable dental conditions. Poor oral health is also associated with a number of other diseases, including diabetes, stroke and respiratory disease. In older adults, poor oral health is significantly associated with disability and reduction in mobility. Medical researchers have discovered the important linkage between plaque and heart disease, that chewing stimulates brain cell growth, and that gum disease can signal diabetes, liver ailments and hormone imbalances. Further, oral research has led to advanced treatments like gene therapy, which can help patients who have chronic renal failure. They have also discovered that oral disease is far more prevalent than you might imagine. In fact, dental decay is the most common chronic childhood disease in the United States. Dental disease affects 1 in 5 children aged 2 to 4, and more than half of all children have dental disease by the time they reach second grade. By the age of 17, approximately 80 percent of young people have had a dental cavity. The average 50-year-old in the United States has lost 12 teeth, and by age 65 over one-quarter of Americans have lost all their teeth. More than 10 percent of the nation's rural population have never visited a dentist. These are sobering statistics. But here is the good news: Dental decay is a dynamic disease process, and not a static problem. Before a cavity is formed in the tooth, the caries infection can actually be reversed. That means that we can prevent tooth decay, as long as dental care is made available and good oral hygiene practices are used. Deamonte's story was told around the world. But nowhere did it hit harder than in his home State of Maryland. I am proud of how the Maryland Congressional Delegation, Governor Martin O'Malley, and the Maryland General Assembly have responded to the need for better access to oral health care. In 2010 and 2011, the Pew Center on the States named Maryland a national leader in improving dental access for low-income Marylanders. We were the only State to meet seven of Pew's eight dental policy benchmarks, and we ranked first in the nation for oral health. CMS also invited our State officials to share their story at its national quality conference in August 2011 and placed Maryland's achievements in its Best Practices Guide. I will mention just some of what Maryland has accomplished: In 2010, our State secured $1.2 million in Federal funding to develop a statewide Oral Health Literacy Campaign, called ``Healthy Teeth, Healthy Kids.'' More than 368,000 children and adults in Medicaid received dental care in 2011; 82,000 more than in 2010. The percentage of pregnant women receiving dental care in 2011 was 28.4 percent, compared to 26.6 percent in 2010. Created by the Robert T. Freeman Dental Society and funded in part by the State, the Deamonte Driver Mobile Dental Van Project provided diagnostic and preventive services for over 1,000 Prince George's County children who live in neighborhoods where otherwise care would be unavailable to them. The Kaiser Family Foundation awarded a $200,000 grant to the Maryland Dental Action Coalition that funded a pilot dental screening program at a school-based health center in Prince George's County. The Dental Action Coalition also began granting and reimbursing primary care providers to apply fluoride varnish for children up to 3 years of age. By June 2012, 385 primary care providers had administered over 58,000 treatments. The Maryland Community Health Resources Commission continues to expand oral health capacity for underserved communities. Since 2008, the Commission has awarded 20 dental grants totaling $4.6 million. These grants have funded services to more than 35,000 low-income children and adults in our State. I am also very proud of what Congress has done. In the CHIP Reauthorization Act passed a few months after Deamonte died, we established a guaranteed oral health benefit for children. With the leadership of Senators Baucus, Grassley, Rockefeller, Collins, and former Senator Bingaman, we created grants to the States to improve oral health education and treatment programs. We also addressed one of the problems that Deamonte's mother faced in trying to get care for him--a lack of readily available information about accessible providers. For a variety of reasons, it is difficult for Medicaid and CHIP enrollees to find dental care, and working parents whose children qualify for those programs are likely to be employed at jobs where they can't spend 2 hours a day on the phone to find a provider. So HHS must include on its Insure Kids Now Web site a list of participating dentists and benefit information for all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Also, in 2009, Congress passed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. That law created the Healthy Futures Corps, which provides grants to the States and nonprofit organizations so they can fund national service in low-income communities. It will allow us to put into action tools that can help us close the gap in health status--prevention and health promotion. For too long we have acknowledged health disparities, studied them, and written reports about them. With the help of the senior Senator from Maryland, my colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski, we added language to that law specifying oral health as an area of focus. Now the Healthy Futures Corps can help recruit young people to work in the dental profession, where they can serve in areas that we have shortages of providers in urban and rural areas. It will fund the work of individuals who can help parents find available oral health services for themselves and their children. It will make a difference in the lives of the Healthy Futures Corps members who will work in underserved communities and in the lives and health of those who get improved access to care. Then in the 2010 Affordable Care Act, we enacted several landmark provisions designed to improve oral health. The ACA funds and encourages a number of oral health prevention activities. First, it directs the CDC to establish a 5-year national oral health education campaign. This campaign is required to use science-based strategies and to target children, pregnant women, parents, the elderly, individuals with disabilities and ethnic and racial minority populations, including Native Americans. The ACA also created demonstration grants to study the effectiveness of research-based oral health programs, which will be used to inform the public education campaign. The health care law expands an existing school-based dental sealant program to each of the 50 States and territories and to Indians, Indian tribes, tribal organizations and urban Indian organizations. It directs the CDC to enter into cooperative agreements with State, territorial and Indian organizations to establish guidance, conduct data collection and implement science-based programs to improve oral health. ACA also authorizes HHS to make grants to dental schools, hospitals, and nonprofits to participate in dental training programs. This funding can be used to provide financial assistance to program participants, including dental and dental hygiene students as well as practicing dentists, and for loan repayment for faculty in dental programs. The ACA also provides grants for up to 15 demonstration programs to train alternative dental health providers in underserved communities. The law authorizes and requires a number of public health initiatives that should improve access to oral health care, including an $11 billion, 5-year initiative that funds construction, capital improvements and service expansions at community health centers, where so many oral health services are provided. It also establishes a National Health Care Workforce Commission to serve as a resource to evaluate education and training to determine whether demand for health care workers is being met, and identify barriers to improvement. We need that information. That was Senator Bingaman's provision and it should be funded as soon as possible. But perhaps the most important provision is a requirement that health plans cover a set of essential health benefits, EHBs, that includes pediatric dental care. Beginning January 1, 2014, the law says that oral health care for children must be part of the essential health benefits package that must be offered in the new health insurance exchanges and in the small group and individual insurance markets that exist outside the exchanges. When the ACA was passed nearly 3 years ago, I had great hopes that in a few years, I could stand here on the Senate floor and celebrate all the progress we had made in bringing affordable dental care to every child in this nation. I had hoped this would be a day to talk about what a difference Congress has made in the oral health of America's children. We celebrated that section of the law, because it meant that once and for all, oral health would be available to America's children. It gave many of us hope that we would be able to get every child basic dental care and begin to erase the epidemic of dental disease that still affects millions of American children. Now, however, the affordability of that benefit is at risk. The ACA includes a Finance Committee provision that allows stand- alone dental plans to exist in the market. In a colloquy on September 26, 2011, Senators Baucus, Stabenow, and Bingaman engaged in a colloquy. They clarified that the intent of the law in allowing stand-alone dental plans was not to create separate standards but to ensure competition in the insurance exchanges and allow choice in the marketplace. Later, I joined 10 of my colleagues in writing to HHS Secretary Sebelius, urging her to ensure that all children who receive their dental coverage through a stand-alone dental plan should have the same level of consumer protections and cost-sharing as those who get coverage through a plan that offers integrated benefits. Last week, HHS published a final rule on the benefits that creates a separate out-of-pocket limit for stand-alone dental plans, but only specifies that the limit be ``reasonable.'' There are two huge problems with this approach. First, an additional out-of-pocket limit will make the benefit far less affordable for many families. It was not what Congress intended. The whole point of adding pediatric dental benefits to the essential health benefits package was to make certain that oral health not be considered separate from overall health. We have been here before. This approach is similar to policies that were set decades ago for mental health services--separate policies to cover mental health treatment, separate limits on coverage, and separate copays. Mental health was treated as second-class health care. We know now that this was an injustice. It was wrong to treat those services, and the patients who used them, as second-class. Many of my colleagues were here in Congress when we fought the battles for mental health parity. It was a difficult battle, but we won. It seems to me that this is what we are doing now with dental care, rather than treating it as part of the Essential Benefits Package, which was our intent in the Affordable Care Act. Section 1402(b) of the law also establishes an out-of-pocket limit for all families and lowers that limit for families with incomes under 400% of the Federal poverty level. By creating a separate limit, HHS is reducing the number of families who will be able to afford dental coverage for their children. Second, the rule has left the determination of what is a ``reasonable'' out-of-pocket limit to each State. With pressure from insurance companies, a State could decide to provide an out-of-pocket limit of $1,000 or more per child, which could more than double out-of- pocket costs for a family with five children. In the Federally run exchanges, HHS has the authority to set a ``reasonable'' out-of-pocket limit. Last Thursday, in a Finance Committee hearing, I asked Jon Blum, the CMS Deputy Administrator, about the idea of segregating dental benefits from health benefits and increasing cost-sharing. This is what he said: ``Well I think one of the lessons that we learned within the Medicare program is that when the care is siloed, our benefits aren't fully integrated. That can often lead to worse total health care consequences. I can pledge to get back to you with direct answers to your questions. But I do agree with your general principle that when benefit design is broken up and care is not coordinated, that it can often lead to bad quality of care. `` Later that day, I spoke with CMS acting administrator Marilyn Tavenner. I asked her to take into account the affordability of a plan that had separate, high cost-sharing, and she agreed to consider my views. Less than 24 hours later, CMS released a proposed ``guidance'' to insurers, setting a maximum out-of-pocket limit of $1,000. When I contacted HHS to ask whether this was a per-family or per-child limit, the expert in charge of the rule was unable to tell me. They did not know whether this meant extra costs per year of $1,000 or $5,000 for a family with five children. This tells me that the affordability of care was a secondary consideration when this final rule was written. There are still millions of American children without coverage for dental care. If we are to make real progress in improving the health of Americans, we cannot afford to continue giving oral health care second- class treatment. The question now is whether the guidance to plans will go forward. It is contrary to Congressional intent and contrary to the best interests of American families to allow it to stand. On this sixth anniversary of the death of Deamonte Driver, let's pledge to do better for our children. Madam President, I call to the attention of my colleagues a colloquy between Senators Bingaman, Stabenow, and Baucus in the Record of September 26, 2011, at page S5973. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to reintroduce legislation to support greater public involvement in the administration of one of Maryland's most treasured National Historical Parks. The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission Act ensures that the communities located along the 184\1/2\ mile-long C&O Canal National Historical Park have a voice with the National Park Service regarding decisions affecting the administration of the Park. The Commission keeps the people and small businesses most affected by the operation of the C&O Canal National Historical Park informed and involved in the decisions surrounding the Park. Citizen involvement in the governmental process is a hallmark of our democracy and the C&O Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission Act exemplifies the goal of ensuring the public's role in government decision making. The importance of the Commission is intrinsically tied to the uniqueness of the C&O Canal National Historical Park. The Park covers an area of 20,000 acres winding North and West along the Potomac River from the heart of Georgetown's old industrial district in Washington D.C. to Cumberland, MD nestled in the valleys and mountains of Western Maryland. The Park's watered canal, contiguous towpath, popular among cyclists, backpackers, day hikers and runners, hundreds of historic structures and towns like Hancock, Hagerstown, Brunswick, Harpers Ferry, Williamsport and Sharpsburg that grew during the Canal's heyday, all tell the story of how the C&O Canal once served as a crucial East/ West commercial link. The Park also preserves pristine views of the Potomac River, evocative of the C&O Canal's working days. At its widest points, the C&O Canal National Historical Park spans less than two- tenths of a mile across and in many areas directly abuts neighboring commercial and residential properties bordering the Park. During the commercial operation of the C&O Canal, these towns were local commercial centers where area farmers and tradesman utilized the canal boats to deliver their goods to market. Today, the hospitality and tourism industries of these communities thrive upon the C&O Canal National Historical Park's popularity and are integral to enhancing the park user experience. Whether it is a hotel or Bed and Breakfast to spend the night in, a restaurant or diner to grab a meal, stores to shop in and perhaps stock up on camping provisions, boathouses to rent a canoe for the afternoon, bike shops to service a flat tire or make repairs to your bike or any of the myriad of goods and services park visitors may need, the communities along the C&O Canal are as important to the Park user experience as the Park's users are to maintaining their businesses. In 2009, more than 3.75 million people visited the C&O Canal National Historical Park. To put it in perspective, in 2009, more people visited this historic treasure than the number of people who visited Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Everglades or Shenandoah National Park. Much of the C&O Canal National Historical Park's success is attributable to the positive relationship that has developed over time between the National Park Service and the local community leaders that span the length of the Park. The Park's Commission has greatly facilitated this relationship. The Commission provides the vital link between the affected communities that the Park runs through and the National Park Service. The Commission ensures that the public is engaged in the numerous processes surrounding operational policy and infrastructure maintenance and restoration projects on the C&O Canal National Historic Park. The Commission plays a vital consultation and planning role for park activities and operations. The cooperation that has developed between the Commission and the National Park Service helps tie the Park to its communities. The Commission serves a purely advisory function and does not have the authority to make binding park policy. The Commission was first established as part of the 1971 Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act sponsored by Rep. Gilbert Gude, R-MD. Every ten years, a bill like mine comes before Congress, when the 10- year extension of the Commission's authorization expires. Three times over a 40-year period extension bills have passed by unanimous consent and without controversy. My bill is another 10-year extension of the Advisory Commission's authorization and makes no changes to the Commission's authority. Legislative precedent has never set an authorization amount for the Commission, but the Commission has always functioned at a nominal cost. The General Services Administration's Federal Advisory Commissions Act database determined that the C&O Canal Advisory Commission's expenses totaled $33,199 for fiscal year 2010. All expenses came out of the National Park Service's general operating budget. Expenses covered the cost of travel for commission members, $295, Federal staff time, $28,074, and miscellaneous expenses, $4,830, like meeting space, printing, supplies and website maintenance. The National Park System is a showcase of America's natural and historical treasures. So much of the National Park System's success is rooted in the citizen stewardship projects and the involvement of caring citizens and community leaders. Like so many of our National Parks the C&O Canal National Historical Park has an extensive backlog of maintenance and repair projects. The Commission plays a critical role in helping keep these projects moving forward and assisting the National Park Service with their completion because there is recognition of the shared responsibility between the Park Service and the Commission about the importance of continuing to make the Park a desirable tourism and outdoor recreation destination. The Commission provides that bridge between the government and public. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to reintroduce legislation to support greater public involvement in the administration of one of Maryland's most treasured National Historical Parks. The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission Act ensures that the communities located along the 184\1/2\ mile-long C&O Canal National Historical Park have a voice with the National Park Service regarding decisions affecting the administration of the Park. The Commission keeps the people and small businesses most affected by the operation of the C&O Canal National Historical Park informed and involved in the decisions surrounding the Park. Citizen involvement in the governmental process is a hallmark of our democracy and the C&O Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission Act exemplifies the goal of ensuring the public's role in government decision making. The importance of the Commission is intrinsically tied to the uniqueness of the C&O Canal National Historical Park. The Park covers an area of 20,000 acres winding North and West along the Potomac River from the heart of Georgetown's old industrial district in Washington D.C. to Cumberland, MD nestled in the valleys and mountains of Western Maryland. The Park's watered canal, contiguous towpath, popular among cyclists, backpackers, day hikers and runners, hundreds of historic structures and towns like Hancock, Hagerstown, Brunswick, Harpers Ferry, Williamsport and Sharpsburg that grew during the Canal's heyday, all tell the story of how the C&O Canal once served as a crucial East/ West commercial link. The Park also preserves pristine views of the Potomac River, evocative of the C&O Canal's working days. At its widest points, the C&O Canal National Historical Park spans less than two- tenths of a mile across and in many areas directly abuts neighboring commercial and residential properties bordering the Park. During the commercial operation of the C&O Canal, these towns were local commercial centers where area farmers and tradesman utilized the canal boats to deliver their goods to market. Today, the hospitality and tourism industries of these communities thrive upon the C&O Canal National Historical Park's popularity and are integral to enhancing the park user experience. Whether it is a hotel or Bed and Breakfast to spend the night in, a restaurant or diner to grab a meal, stores to shop in and perhaps stock up on camping provisions, boathouses to rent a canoe for the afternoon, bike shops to service a flat tire or make repairs to your bike or any of the myriad of goods and services park visitors may need, the communities along the C&O Canal are as important to the Park user experience as the Park's users are to maintaining their businesses. In 2009, more than 3.75 million people visited the C&O Canal National Historical Park. To put it in perspective, in 2009, more people visited this historic treasure than the number of people who visited Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Everglades or Shenandoah National Park. Much of the C&O Canal National Historical Park's success is attributable to the positive relationship that has developed over time between the National Park Service and the local community leaders that span the length of the Park. The Park's Commission has greatly facilitated this relationship. The Commission provides the vital link between the affected communities that the Park runs through and the National Park Service. The Commission ensures that the public is engaged in the numerous processes surrounding operational policy and infrastructure maintenance and restoration projects on the C&O Canal National Historic Park. The Commission plays a vital consultation and planning role for park activities and operations. The cooperation that has developed between the Commission and the National Park Service helps tie the Park to its communities. The Commission serves a purely advisory function and does not have the authority to make binding park policy. The Commission was first established as part of the 1971 Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act sponsored by Rep. Gilbert Gude, R-MD. Every ten years, a bill like mine comes before Congress, when the 10- year extension of the Commission's authorization expires. Three times over a 40-year period extension bills have passed by unanimous consent and without controversy. My bill is another 10-year extension of the Advisory Commission's authorization and makes no changes to the Commission's authority. Legislative precedent has never set an authorization amount for the Commission, but the Commission has always functioned at a nominal cost. The General Services Administration's Federal Advisory Commissions Act database determined that the C&O Canal Advisory Commission's expenses totaled $33,199 for fiscal year 2010. All expenses came out of the National Park Service's general operating budget. Expenses covered the cost of travel for commission members, $295, Federal staff time, $28,074, and miscellaneous expenses, $4,830, like meeting space, printing, supplies and website maintenance. The National Park System is a showcase of America's natural and historical treasures. So much of the National Park System's success is rooted in the citizen stewardship projects and the involvement of caring citizens and community leaders. Like so many of our National Parks the C&O Canal National Historical Park has an extensive backlog of maintenance and repair projects. The Commission plays a critical role in helping keep these projects moving forward and assisting the National Park Service with their completion because there is recognition of the shared responsibility between the Park Service and the Commission about the importance of continuing to make the Park a desirable tourism and outdoor recreation destination. The Commission provides that bridge between the government and public. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I am taking this time on the floor to speak in support of the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to be U.S. Circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I think my comments are at the right time, following Senator Alexander's comments about the difficulty we have had in the past confirming judicial nominees and the use of the filibuster that blocked the consideration of Presidential nominees. Senator Alexander pointed with pride to an accommodation that was reached a few years ago, before I got to the Senate, that the filibuster would only be used in ``extraordinary circumstances.'' Ms. Halligan was first nominated by President Obama in September 2010, after that accommodation had been reached. I am disappointed that her nomination was filibustered, nearly on a party-line vote, in December of 2011. I urge my colleagues to allow an up-or-down vote on Ms. Halligan's nomination. I would challenge my colleagues who oppose an up-or-down vote to come to the floor and explain the extraordinary circumstances that would prevent an up-or-down vote on Ms. Halligan's nomination. She is extremely well qualified for this position, and I will support her nomination. The Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported her nomination last month. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Ms. Halligan ``well qualified'' to serve on the DC Circuit--the highest rating from its nonpartisan peer review. Ms. Halligan received her A.B. from Princeton University and her J.D. from Georgetown University Law School. After law school, she clerked for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and for Judge Patricia Wald on the DC Circuit, the court to which she has now been nominated. After working in private practice, Ms. Halligan joined the New York State attorney general's office. She began working in the office as the first chief of the office's Internet Bureau, where she worked to protect consumers against Internet fraud and safeguard online privacy. She was ultimately promoted to the position of solicitor general, a position she held for 6 years. The solicitor general is basically the top attorney for the State of New York. In that capacity she managed a staff of nearly 50 appellate attorneys litigating in State and Federal appellate courts. Her responsibility included handling cases of public corruption and judicial misconduct. She then became a leading appellate lawyer in private practice at a national law firm, serving as counsel of record for a party or amicus curiae in nearly 50 matters before the U.S. Supreme Court. She is well qualified for the position to which President Obama has nominated her. She is currently general counsel at the New York County district attorney's office, an office that investigates and prosecutes 100,000 criminal cases annually in Manhattan. In her current position, she is focused on reducing crime, protecting victims of domestic and sexual violence, and reviewing so-called cold cases that remain unsolved. Most of Ms. Halligan's career has been dedicated to public service and law enforcement. She has also made time over the years to devote substantial time to pro bono work, including representing the evacuees from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita who were in danger of losing their rental assistance benefits. She has also served as pro bono counsel to the Board of Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the entity that is overseeing the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. She has her priorities straight. She is an outstanding attorney. She has used a lot of her time to help people less fortunate receive free legal services as a result of her participation. Ms. Halligan has received widespread support from law enforcement and legal professionals across the political spectrum which I understand will be made part of the Record, so I will not repeat those statements now. I have heard only two substantial reasons in opposition to her nomination. Let's review those two points that have been raised to see whether they are extreme circumstances that warrant a vote to support a filibuster. Last time we had over 40 Senators who supported the filibuster basically blocking an up-or-down vote. We had an accommodation that would only be used for extraordinary circumstances. Let's take a look at the two cases that have been made about why those extraordinary circumstances may exist--and, I will submit, they do not exist. One argument is that Ms. Halligan is a liberal advocate who cannot set aside her personal views on issues, including the second amendment. The other argument is that the D.C. Circuit has too low a caseload to justify additional judges. Ms. Halligan was questioned about her views on the second amendment issues during her Senate Judicial Committee hearing. She testified, both at her hearing and in response to written questions, that she would faithfully follow and apply the Supreme Court precedent from the District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, which held the second amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. When asked by Senator Grassley whether the rights conferred under the second amendment are fundamental, Ms. Halligan answered: ``That is clearly what the Supreme Court held and I will follow that precedent, Senator.'' Some have also criticized her for her position she advocated while solicitor general for the State of New York. In her confirmation hearing, she made it clear she filed these briefs at the direction of the New York attorney general--arguing on behalf of New York State, not her own views. It was her responsibility as solicitor general to represent her client, the State of New York. Of course, she has worked on controversial issues before the State of New York, such as affirmative action, the death penalty, and same-sex marriage. As New York solicitor general, she argued in support of affirmative action and in defense of the constitutionality of the death penalty because that is what her client's position was and she represented her client. That is what she is supposed to do. That is what a lawyer does, represent her client as best as she can, and she did that well on behalf of her client, the State of New York. But I will remind my colleagues what Chief Justice Roberts said during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing in terms of attributing the views of a client to an attorney. Chief Justice Roberts testified that: It's a tradition of the American Bar that goes back before the founding of the country that lawyers are not identified with the positions of their clients. We should apply the same standard when considering Ms. Halligan's nomination, as our legal system requires vigorous advocacy by both sides of a dispute. I quote Chief Justice Roberts here in part because Ms. Halligan, quite remarkably, has been nominated in 2013 to fill Chief Justice Roberts' former seat in the D.C. Circuit, which became vacant in 2005. This brings me to the second argument that has been used. I urge my colleagues to consider whether this is an extraordinary circumstance that justifies a vote in support of a filibuster. The second argument is that this court has a low caseload, which is just not the case. Chief Justice Roberts was elevated from the D.C. Circuit to the Supreme Court in 2005. His seat has been vacant for 8 years, one of the longest circuit vacancies in the country. The D.C. Circuit has four vacancies on the 11-member court. That is one-third of the court that is currently unfilled. Ms. Halligan has been nominated by the President for the seat formerly held by Chief Justice Roberts, so, of course, the Senate should act as quickly as possible to fill this seat. The D.C. Circuit is often referred to as the second most important court in the land due to the complexity and importance of its caseload. The court regularly reviews highly technical decisions and rulemaking of Federal agencies that are based in Washington, often without a lower court decision of a Federal district court. The D.C. Circuit proclaims the final law of the land for many environmental, health, labor, financial, civil rights, and terrorist cases. The Supreme Court only accepts a handful of cases each year, so the D.C. Circuit is often the last word in these cases. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court, the caseload per active judge in the D.C. Circuit has increased 50 percent since 2005, when this vacancy was created. It was also the year the Senate confirmed President Bush's nominee to fill the 11th seat on the court. Let me repeat that. We in 2005 confirmed President Bush's 11th seat of the 12-seat court. Justice delayed is justice denied. To remind my colleagues, the Senate confirmed President Bush's nominees for the 9th, 10th, and 11th seats on the D.C. Circuit. Ms. Halligan is President Obama's first nominee to the District Circuit to fill the eighth seat. The Senate confirmed four of President Bush's nominations to the D.C. Circuit, twice filling the 10th seat and once filling the 11th seat. So there is no extraordinary circumstance that exists. Let's be clear about that. A vote against moving forward is filibustering a judicial nominee in an effort to kill the nominee and not allow an up-or-down vote. There are no extraordinary circumstances that would justify the delay and not allowing us to have an up-or-down vote. I urge my colleagues to vote for us proceeding and not using the filibuster; to adhere to the agreement that was reached. Again, it was before I got to the Senate. It was the right agreement, that there should truly be an extraordinary circumstance that prevents an up-or- down vote on a judge. It does not exist in this case. President Obama's nominee is well qualified. The court is in desperate need of additional judges, being four seats short today, only two-thirds of the bench having been appointed and confirmed to date. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of proceeding and then, after we have the nominee before us, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the confirmation. I think Ms. Halligan will make an outstanding member of the D.C. Circuit.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I yield back all remaining time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, shortly, I hope, we will be voting on the confirmation of Jack Lew to be the next Secretary of the Treasury, and I urge my colleagues to support that nomination. He is the right person at the right time to be Secretary of the Treasury. He has devoted his entire life to public service. I thank him for that, and I thank him for his willingness to continue to serve his Nation. He has a great record of accomplishment. I have known Jack Lew for 26 years. I have served with him on common issues, and I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues some of the things he has done. He first served in the House of Representatives as a staff person for Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill. In that capacity, one of the responsibilities he had was to be the liaison to the commission that was working on Social Security reform when President Reagan was President of the United States. I mention that because I think we all point to that time when a Democratic-controlled Congress and a Republican administration were able to deal with one of the most difficult challenges of the time, the solvency of Social Security, and they were able to come together with a bipartisan product. Jack Lew's fingerprints were involved in that transaction. He was able to bring us together. We need that type of person as Secretary of the Treasury today, a person who will bring together our Nation with the type of fiscal policy that Democrats and Republicans can rally behind as we look for a solution to our fiscal issues. He was President Clinton's OMB Director, and during that time we balanced the Federal budget. We were able to do something that has only been done once in my lifetime; that is, we actually balanced the Federal budget. Jack Lew was the architect of bringing us together to balance the Federal budget. We need that type of leadership in the Treasury today--a person who understands fiscal responsibility and understands how to do it in a way where you can create job growth. During those years, let me remind us, we created millions of jobs. He then returned to public service as the OMB Director for President Obama and as Chief of Staff. He has the experience we need to be Secretary of the Treasury, and he has the political know-how to bring us together--Democrats, Republicans, Americans--to do what is right for this country. I am proud he is willing to step forward. I urge my colleagues to support his nomination. He is the right person at the right time to lead our Nation on fiscal policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I have the honor of being the chair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission representing this body. This is a commission which was established in 1975 in order to implement the U.S. responsibilities in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Its membership includes all the countries of Europe, as well as the former Republics of the Soviet Union, Canada, and the United States. The main principles of Helsinki are we are interested in each other's security. In order to have a secure nation, you need to have a nation that respects the human rights of its citizens, which provides economic opportunity for its citizens, as well as the defense of their borders. We also have partners for cooperation, particularly in the Mediterranean area, that used the Helsinki principles in order to try to advance security in their region. During this past recess, I took the opportunity to visit that region on behalf of the U.S. Helsinki Commission. I was joined by several of our colleagues looking at the current security issues. Our first visit was to Israel, and our main focus, quite frankly, was on Syria--what is happening today in Syria. In Israel, we had a chance to meet with the Israeli officials, and it was interesting as to how many brought up the concerns about Syria. They were concerned about Syria's impact on Israel's neighbors and what was going to happen as far as security in that region. While we were there, there was an episode on the Syrian-Israeli border, and the Israelis provided health care to those who were injured, providing humanitarian assistance. We thank the Israelis for providing that humanitarian assistance. It was interesting that the Israeli officials pointed out the concern about the refugees who are leaving Syria going into neighboring countries. We know the vast numbers. There are almost 1 million Syrians who have left Syria for other countries because of the humanitarian concerns. About one-quarter of a million have gone to Jordan, about 280,000 are in Lebanon, about 281,000 in Turkey, another 90,000 in Iraq, and 16,000 in Egypt. Israel is concerned about the security of its neighbors and concerned about how Jordan is dealing with the problems of the Syrian refugees, how Lebanon is handling them. We note the concerns about Hezbollah operations in Lebanon and how that is being handled with the Syrian refugee issue. We had a chance to travel to Turkey when we left Israel. We met first with the Turkish officials in Ankara, and we received their account as to what was happening in Syria and what Turkey was doing about it. We then had a chance to visit the border area between Turkey and Syria. We visited a refugee camp named Kilis, where there has been about 18,000 Syrian refugees. We also had a chance to meet with the opposition leaders who were in that camp, as well as later when we were in Istanbul meeting with the opposition leaders from Syria. I mention that all because the humanitarian crisis is continuing in the country of Syria. The Assad regime is turning on its own people. Over 70,000 have been killed since the Arab Spring started in Syria. While we were there, the Assad regime used scud missiles against its own people, again killing Syrians and killing a lot of innocent people in the process. This is a humanitarian disaster. I wish to mention one bright spot, if I might. We had a chance to visit the camps, I said, in Kilis, on the border of Syria and Turkey, in Turkey. We had a chance to see firsthand how the Syrian refugees are being handled by the Turkish Government. I want to tell you, they are doing a superb job. I think it is a model way to handle a situation such as this. They have an open border. The border area at that point is controlled by the Syrian freedom fighters. They control that area. The Turks allowed the Syrians to come in and find a safe haven. The Turkish Government has built housing for the refugees in the camp. We had a chance to see their children in schools. They are attending schools. They are getting proper food and proper medical attention. They have the opportunity to travel where they want in Turkey, freedom of movement. They have the opportunity to go back to Syria if they want to go back to Syria. The Turkish authorities are providing them with a safe haven and adequate help. They are doing this primarily with their own resources. There is one other thing we observed when we were in this camp on the border. We had a chance to meet with the elected representatives of the refugees in Kilis. They actually had an election. They don't have that opportunity in Syria. They are learning how to cast their votes. They are learning what democracy is about. They are learning what representation is about. We had a chance to talk to these representatives about the circumstances in Syria and what we could do to help. First, I want to point out there is still a tremendous need for the international community to contribute to the humanitarian needs of those who are affected in Syria. There are approximately 4 million Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance. There are 2\1/2\ million internally displaced people within Syria. The United States has taken the lead as far as humanitarian aid, having provided $384 million. Other countries have stepped up but, quite frankly, more needs to be done. In talking with the opposition leaders--and we had a chance to talk to them in depth when we were in Istanbul--they expressed to us a sense of frustration that there hasn't been a better, more unified international response to the actions of the Assad regime--to what the Assad regime has done to its own people--and to get Assad out of Syria. Quite frankly, they understand--or, as we explained--some countries might be willing to provide a certain type of help; other countries may not. The United States has provided nonlethal help, other countries are providing weapons, still other countries training. But we need to coordinate that. The absence of coordination provides a void in which extreme elements are more likely to get into the opposition, and that is something we all want to make sure doesn't happen. The message I took back from those meetings is that the United States needs to be in the lead in coordinating the efforts of the opposition. We made it clear, and I think the international community has made it clear, that Assad must go, and he should go to The Hague and be held accountable for his war crimes. He has no legitimacy to remain in power in Syria. That has been made clear and we underscored that point again. We also underscored the point there is no justification for any country--any country--providing assistance to the Assad regime on the military side. As we know, Russia and Iran have provided help. That is wrong. That is only adding to the problems and giving strength to a person who has turned on his own people. But then we also need to coordinate our attentions so we can provide the help they need and the confidence they are looking for so they will have the necessary training not only to reclaim their country but then to rule their country in a democratic way that respects the rights of all of its citizens. As the Chair of the Helsinki Commission, I pointed that out to the Syrian opposition, that we want to provide the help so they can rule their country one day--we hope sooner rather than later--in a way that respects the rights of all of its citizens and provides economic opportunity for its citizens, for that is the only way they will have a nation that respects the security of its country. That was the message we delivered, and I hope the United States will join other countries in a more concerted effort to get Assad out of Syria. As I said, I think he should be at The Hague and held accountable for his war crimes and held accountable for not allowing the people of Syria to have a democratic regime. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Blue Alert Act of 2013. Every day, more than 900,000 Federal, State and local law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to keep our communities safe. Unfortunately these officers can become targets for criminals and those seeking to evade our justice system, and we must make sure our officers have all the tools they need to protect themselves and each other. Each year thousands of law enforcement officers are assaulted while performing their duties and dozens lose their lives. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, 72 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2011. This is an unacceptable level of violence against our law enforcement officers, and we must act now to better protect them. This is why I am introducing the National Blue Alert Act of 2013 today, and thank Senators Graham, Leahy, Klobuchar, Boxer, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Heitkamp, and Durbin for joining me as co-sponsors of this important legislation. The Blue Alert system provides for rapid dissemination of information about criminal suspects who have injured or killed law enforcement officers. The Blue Alert system would only be used in the case of the death or serious injury of a law enforcement officer, where the suspect has not been apprehended, and where there is sufficient descriptive information of the suspect and any vehicles involved. This information can be used by local law enforcement, the public and the media to help facilitate capture of such offenders and ultimately reduce the risk they pose to our communities and law enforcement officers. A National Blue Alert will encourage, enhance and integrate blue alert plans throughout the United States in order to effectively disseminate information notifying law enforcement, media and the public that a suspect is wanted in connection with an attack on a law enforcement officer. Currently there is no national alert system that provides immediate information to other law enforcement agencies, the media or the public at large. Many states have created a state blue alert system in an effort to better inform their local communities. The State of Maryland, under the leadership of Governor Martin O'Malley, created their Blue Alert system in 2008 after the murder of Maryland State Trooper Wesley Brown. Blue Alert programs have been created in 18 states so far including: Washington, California, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Maryland, Montana, and Delaware. The National Blue Alert Act will provide police officers and other emergency units with the ability to react quickly to apprehend violent offenders and will complement the work being done by Attorney General Holder in his Law Enforcement Officer Safety Initiative. The purpose of our National Blue Alert legislation is to keep our law enforcement officers and our communities safe. And based on the success of the AMBER Alert and the SILVER Alert, I believe this BLUE Alert will be equally successful in helping to apprehend criminal suspects who have seriously injured or killed our law enforcement officers. I am also pleased to say this legislation has the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Concerns of Police Survivors, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association of the New York City Police Department. Passing this legislation can help us live up to our commitment to help better protect those who serve us.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, we take this time in order to acknowledge the extraordinary accomplishments of the Baltimore Ravens and their victory in Super Bowl XLVII as well as to honor the players, coaches, staff, and loyal fans who helped to secure the Ravens' second Lombardi trophy in the last 12 years as the best team in the National Football League. I have been a Baltimore football fan for as long as I can remember, from the days of the Baltimore Colts and Johnny Unitas, Alan Ameche, and Lenny Moore. I am so proud of this team. This team has guts. No one predicted them to win the Super Bowl--no one. At one point no one expected them to even get into the playoffs. They not only made the playoffs but they won in spectacular fashion. They looked after each other, and they worked hard. Coach Harbaugh brought the team together. Ray Lewis, in his last season, motivated the team. We had players who were injured during the course of the season who came back to play in the playoffs. The team represented Baltimore so well and I think represented the best in football. They not only gave our city and our football fans the opportunity to come together, I was very much impressed how Baltimore changed during Super Bowl week. Our city was so proud of our team and so proud of the manner in which they conducted themselves on and off the field. They gave back to the community in so many different ways. They helped young people. They helped develop healthy lifestyles. They have been role models. This Super Bowl will be remembered for a long time to come. I think in the first half we thought it was going to be a runaway game, but the Baltimore Ravens have a way to make sure they keep TV ratings high. It got a little more suspenseful, particularly when we had the blackout in the third-quarter, but in the end the Baltimore Ravens prevailed and Baltimore is the championship city. We are so proud of the accomplishments of our team. Whether we are talking about the comeback of Ray Lewis or Terrell Suggs from a devastating injury or Ray Rice's fourth and 29 scramble to keep our playoff hopes alive, it is clear that the Ravens were the most determined team in the National Football League. Unflappable Joe Flacco has established himself as a leader and one of the preeminent quarterbacks in the league. His Most Valuable Player performance in the Super Bowl was a fitting capstone on an MVP season and should prove once and for all ``Joe Cool'' has what it takes. It has been thrilling to watch the Ravens this year, to say the least. In a season during which the team clawed and ``cawed'' its way to some close victories, the Super Bowl was a fitting end. The Ravens came into New Orleans as the underdogs against incredible odds, and they prevailed as the world champions. I applaud the team, the coaches, the managers, the owner, and all who were involved for giving not just Baltimore but for giving football a team everyone can admire. I also want to acknowledge the gracious way in which our colleagues from California have handled the results of the Super Bowl. The 49ers are a great team. They played a great game and had a great season. Baltimore and San Francisco share a lot. We share great football and we share a bay. We call our bay the Chesapeake Bay and they call theirs the San Francisco Bay. We share great seafood, and we share a love for the sport of football. I thank them for their graciousness, and I thank all involved for a great season for the Baltimore Ravens.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Blue Alert Act of 2013. Every day, more than 900,000 Federal, State and local law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to keep our communities safe. Unfortunately these officers can become targets for criminals and those seeking to evade our justice system, and we must make sure our officers have all the tools they need to protect themselves and each other. Each year thousands of law enforcement officers are assaulted while performing their duties and dozens lose their lives. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, 72 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2011. This is an unacceptable level of violence against our law enforcement officers, and we must act now to better protect them. This is why I am introducing the National Blue Alert Act of 2013 today, and thank Senators Graham, Leahy, Klobuchar, Boxer, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Heitkamp, and Durbin for joining me as co-sponsors of this important legislation. The Blue Alert system provides for rapid dissemination of information about criminal suspects who have injured or killed law enforcement officers. The Blue Alert system would only be used in the case of the death or serious injury of a law enforcement officer, where the suspect has not been apprehended, and where there is sufficient descriptive information of the suspect and any vehicles involved. This information can be used by local law enforcement, the public and the media to help facilitate capture of such offenders and ultimately reduce the risk they pose to our communities and law enforcement officers. A National Blue Alert will encourage, enhance and integrate blue alert plans throughout the United States in order to effectively disseminate information notifying law enforcement, media and the public that a suspect is wanted in connection with an attack on a law enforcement officer. Currently there is no national alert system that provides immediate information to other law enforcement agencies, the media or the public at large. Many states have created a state blue alert system in an effort to better inform their local communities. The State of Maryland, under the leadership of Governor Martin O'Malley, created their Blue Alert system in 2008 after the murder of Maryland State Trooper Wesley Brown. Blue Alert programs have been created in 18 states so far including: Washington, California, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Maryland, Montana, and Delaware. The National Blue Alert Act will provide police officers and other emergency units with the ability to react quickly to apprehend violent offenders and will complement the work being done by Attorney General Holder in his Law Enforcement Officer Safety Initiative. The purpose of our National Blue Alert legislation is to keep our law enforcement officers and our communities safe. And based on the success of the AMBER Alert and the SILVER Alert, I believe this BLUE Alert will be equally successful in helping to apprehend criminal suspects who have seriously injured or killed our law enforcement officers. I am also pleased to say this legislation has the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Concerns of Police Survivors, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association of the New York City Police Department. Passing this legislation can help us live up to our commitment to help better protect those who serve us.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to enter into a colloquy with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as we start Black History Month, I rise today to discuss a national hero that I have spoken about many times on the Senate floor. 2013 is a particularly remarkable year for Harriet Ross Tubman in that March 13, 2013 will mark the 100th anniversary of her death. This noteworthy anniversary makes it all the more appropriate for me to talk about Maryland's Harriet Ross Tubman and her dedication to justice, equality and service to this country. It is also why it is important for Congress to take action this year on The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park Act that I am reintroducing today. In my career, I have spoken on the Senate Floor, at events in Maryland, in meetings with constituents and with my colleagues about Harriet Tubman's legacy. While I hope each opportunity I have taken to discuss the life of this remarkable woman helps raise awareness about her importance to the history of our great Nation, my ultimate goal is to properly commemorate her life and her work by establishing the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and, in working with my colleagues from New York, also establish the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park in Auburn, NY. For the last 5 years I have championed the legislation I am reintroducing today. I appreciate the active support and work my cosponsors of this bill, Senators Mikulski, Schumer and Gillibrand have put into advancing this bill through the Senate. We all share a deep appreciation for how important establishing these parks is to preserving the legacy of this remarkable historical figure in American History but also to how important these parks will be to the communities where they will be located. I also greatly appreciate the support this legislation has received in the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee. In the last Congress, the bill was reported out of committee with bi-partisan support including the support of Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski. I look forward to working with the Committee's new Chairman, the Senior Senator from Oregon in reporting this bill quickly for the full Senate's consideration. The establishment of the Harriet Tubman Historical Parks has been years in the making and is long overdue. The mission of the National Park Service has evolved over time from not only preserving natural wonders across the U.S. for recreational purposes but also commemorating unique places of significance to historical events and extraordinary Americans that have shaped our nation. The woman, who is known to us as Harriet Tubman, was born in approximately 1822 in Dorchester County, MD and given the name Araminta, Minty, Ross. She spent nearly 30 years of her life in slavery on Maryland's Eastern Shore. She worked on a number of different plantations on Maryland's Eastern Shore and as a teenager was trained to be a seamstress. As an adult she took the first name Harriet, and when she was 25 years-old 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 hallmarks. Not satisfied with attaining her own freedom, she returned repeatedly for more than 10 years to the places of her enslavement in Dorchester and Caroline counties where, under the most adverse conditions, she led away many family members and other slaves to freedom in the Northeastern United States. 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 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 of 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 most important conductor of the network of resistance known as the Underground Railroad. During the Civil War, Tubman served the Union forces as a spy, a scout and a nurse. She served in Virginia, Florida and South Carolina. She is credited with leading slaves from those slave states to freedom during those years as well. Following the Civil War, and the emancipation of all black slaves, Tubman settled in Auburn, NY. There she was active in the women's suffrage movement, and she also established one of the first incorporated African-American homes for aged to care for the elderly. In 1903 she bequeathed the Tubman Home to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in Auburn where it stands to this day. Harriet Tubman died in Auburn in 1913 and she is buried in the Fort Hill Cemetery. Fortunately many of the structures and landmarks in New York remain intact and in relatively good condition. Only recently has the Park Service begun establishing units dedicated to the lives of African-Americans. Places like Booker T. Washington National Monument on the campus the Tuskegee University in Alabama, the George Washington Carver National Monument in Missouri, The Buffalo Soldiers at Guadalupe Mountains National Park, the National Historical Trail commemorating the March for Voting Rights from Selma to Montgomery Alabama, and most recently the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial on the National 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 recognize and preserve African-American history by providing greater public access and information about the places and people that have shaped the African-American experience, there are very few units dedicated to the lives of African-American women, and there are no National Historical Parks commemorating African-American women. I cannot think of a more fitting hero than Harriet Tubman to be the first African-American woman to be memorialized with National Historical Parks that tell both her personal story and her lifelong fight for justice and freedom starting with her fight against the cruel institution of slavery and work of the Underground Railroad she led to her work in the women's suffrage movement. I hope that my colleagues will support my effort to honor Harriet Tubman and support passage of my bill to authorize the creation of the Tubman National Historical Parks in New York and Maryland. These parks will hopefully pave the way for the Park Service to develop more National Historical Park commemorating the lives of many other important African-American women in our history. The vision for the Tubman National Historical Parks is to preserve the places significant to the life of Harriet Tubman and tell her story through interpretative activities and continue to discover aspects of her life and the experience of passage along the Underground Railroad through archaeological research and discovery. The buildings and structures in Maryland have mostly disappeared. Slaves were forced to live in primitive buildings even though many slaves were skilled tradesmen who constructed the substantial homes of their owners. Not surprisingly, few of the structures associated with the early years of Tubman's life remain standing today. The landscape of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, however, is still evocative of the time that 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, under the cover of night. In particular, a number of properties including the homestead of Ben Ross, her father, Stewart's Canal, where he worked, the Brodess Farm, where she worked as a slave, and others are within the master plan boundaries of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. Similarly, Poplar Neck, the plantation from which she escaped to freedom, is still largely intact in Caroline County. The properties in Talbot County, immediately across the Choptank River from the plantation, are currently protected by various conservation easements. Were she alive today, Tubman would recognize much of the landscape that she knew intimately as she secretly led black men, women and children to freedom. There has never been any doubt that Tubman led an extraordinary life. Her contributions to American history are surpassed by few. Determining the most appropriate way to recognize that life and her contributions, however, has been exceedingly difficult. The National Park Service determined that designating a Historical Park that would include two geographically separate units would be an appropriate tribute to the life of this extraordinary American. The New York unit would include the tightly clustered Tubman buildings in the town of Auburn. The Maryland portion would include large sections of landscapes that are evocative of Tubman's time and are historically relevant. Harriet Tubman was a true American patriot. She was someone for whom liberty and freedom were not just concepts but values she fought tirelessly for. She lived those principles and so selflessly helped hundreds of other people attain freedom. In doing so, she has earned a nation's respect and honor. Harriet Tubman is one of many great Americans that we honor and celebrate every February during Black History Month. In schools across the country, American History curriculums teach our children about Tubman's courage, conviction, her fight for freedom and her contributions to the greatness of our Nation during a contentious time in U.S. history. Now it is time to add to Tubman's legacy by preserving and commemorating the places evocative of Harriet Tubman's extraordinary life. Every year, millions of school children, as well as millions of adults, visit our National Historical Parks gain experiences and knowledge about our Nation's history that simply cannot be found in history books or on the Internet. Our Nation's strength and character comes from the actions of the Americans who came before us and the significant events that shaped our Nation. The National Park Service is engaged in the important work of preserving the places where American history was made and providing a tangible experience for current and future generations to experience and understand. It is one thing to learn about Harriet Tubman from a book, and it is yet a completely different and fulfilling experience to explore, see, listen to and feel the places where she worked as a slave, where she escaped from and where she lived out her life as a free American. The National Park Service is uniquely suited to honor and preserve these places of historical significance and I urge my colleagues to join me in preserving and growing the legacy of Harriet Tubman by establishing the Harriet Tubman National Historical Parks in her honor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as we start Black History Month, I rise today to discuss a national hero that I have spoken about many times on the Senate floor. 2013 is a particularly remarkable year for Harriet Ross Tubman in that March 13, 2013 will mark the 100th anniversary of her death. This noteworthy anniversary makes it all the more appropriate for me to talk about Maryland's Harriet Ross Tubman and her dedication to justice, equality and service to this country. It is also why it is important for Congress to take action this year on The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park Act that I am reintroducing today. In my career, I have spoken on the Senate Floor, at events in Maryland, in meetings with constituents and with my colleagues about Harriet Tubman's legacy. While I hope each opportunity I have taken to discuss the life of this remarkable woman helps raise awareness about her importance to the history of our great Nation, my ultimate goal is to properly commemorate her life and her work by establishing the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and, in working with my colleagues from New York, also establish the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park in Auburn, NY. For the last 5 years I have championed the legislation I am reintroducing today. I appreciate the active support and work my cosponsors of this bill, Senators Mikulski, Schumer and Gillibrand have put into advancing this bill through the Senate. We all share a deep appreciation for how important establishing these parks is to preserving the legacy of this remarkable historical figure in American History but also to how important these parks will be to the communities where they will be located. I also greatly appreciate the support this legislation has received in the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee. In the last Congress, the bill was reported out of committee with bi-partisan support including the support of Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski. I look forward to working with the Committee's new Chairman, the Senior Senator from Oregon in reporting this bill quickly for the full Senate's consideration. The establishment of the Harriet Tubman Historical Parks has been years in the making and is long overdue. The mission of the National Park Service has evolved over time from not only preserving natural wonders across the U.S. for recreational purposes but also commemorating unique places of significance to historical events and extraordinary Americans that have shaped our nation. The woman, who is known to us as Harriet Tubman, was born in approximately 1822 in Dorchester County, MD and given the name Araminta, Minty, Ross. She spent nearly 30 years of her life in slavery on Maryland's Eastern Shore. She worked on a number of different plantations on Maryland's Eastern Shore and as a teenager was trained to be a seamstress. As an adult she took the first name Harriet, and when she was 25 years-old 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 hallmarks. Not satisfied with attaining her own freedom, she returned repeatedly for more than 10 years to the places of her enslavement in Dorchester and Caroline counties where, under the most adverse conditions, she led away many family members and other slaves to freedom in the Northeastern United States. 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 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 of 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 most important conductor of the network of resistance known as the Underground Railroad. During the Civil War, Tubman served the Union forces as a spy, a scout and a nurse. She served in Virginia, Florida and South Carolina. She is credited with leading slaves from those slave states to freedom during those years as well. Following the Civil War, and the emancipation of all black slaves, Tubman settled in Auburn, NY. There she was active in the women's suffrage movement, and she also established one of the first incorporated African-American homes for aged to care for the elderly. In 1903 she bequeathed the Tubman Home to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in Auburn where it stands to this day. Harriet Tubman died in Auburn in 1913 and she is buried in the Fort Hill Cemetery. Fortunately many of the structures and landmarks in New York remain intact and in relatively good condition. Only recently has the Park Service begun establishing units dedicated to the lives of African-Americans. Places like Booker T. Washington National Monument on the campus the Tuskegee University in Alabama, the George Washington Carver National Monument in Missouri, The Buffalo Soldiers at Guadalupe Mountains National Park, the National Historical Trail commemorating the March for Voting Rights from Selma to Montgomery Alabama, and most recently the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial on the National 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 recognize and preserve African-American history by providing greater public access and information about the places and people that have shaped the African-American experience, there are very few units dedicated to the lives of African-American women, and there are no National Historical Parks commemorating African-American women. I cannot think of a more fitting hero than Harriet Tubman to be the first African-American woman to be memorialized with National Historical Parks that tell both her personal story and her lifelong fight for justice and freedom starting with her fight against the cruel institution of slavery and work of the Underground Railroad she led to her work in the women's suffrage movement. I hope that my colleagues will support my effort to honor Harriet Tubman and support passage of my bill to authorize the creation of the Tubman National Historical Parks in New York and Maryland. These parks will hopefully pave the way for the Park Service to develop more National Historical Park commemorating the lives of many other important African-American women in our history. The vision for the Tubman National Historical Parks is to preserve the places significant to the life of Harriet Tubman and tell her story through interpretative activities and continue to discover aspects of her life and the experience of passage along the Underground Railroad through archaeological research and discovery. The buildings and structures in Maryland have mostly disappeared. Slaves were forced to live in primitive buildings even though many slaves were skilled tradesmen who constructed the substantial homes of their owners. Not surprisingly, few of the structures associated with the early years of Tubman's life remain standing today. The landscape of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, however, is still evocative of the time that 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, under the cover of night. In particular, a number of properties including the homestead of Ben Ross, her father, Stewart's Canal, where he worked, the Brodess Farm, where she worked as a slave, and others are within the master plan boundaries of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. Similarly, Poplar Neck, the plantation from which she escaped to freedom, is still largely intact in Caroline County. The properties in Talbot County, immediately across the Choptank River from the plantation, are currently protected by various conservation easements. Were she alive today, Tubman would recognize much of the landscape that she knew intimately as she secretly led black men, women and children to freedom. There has never been any doubt that Tubman led an extraordinary life. Her contributions to American history are surpassed by few. Determining the most appropriate way to recognize that life and her contributions, however, has been exceedingly difficult. The National Park Service determined that designating a Historical Park that would include two geographically separate units would be an appropriate tribute to the life of this extraordinary American. The New York unit would include the tightly clustered Tubman buildings in the town of Auburn. The Maryland portion would include large sections of landscapes that are evocative of Tubman's time and are historically relevant. Harriet Tubman was a true American patriot. She was someone for whom liberty and freedom were not just concepts but values she fought tirelessly for. She lived those principles and so selflessly helped hundreds of other people attain freedom. In doing so, she has earned a nation's respect and honor. Harriet Tubman is one of many great Americans that we honor and celebrate every February during Black History Month. In schools across the country, American History curriculums teach our children about Tubman's courage, conviction, her fight for freedom and her contributions to the greatness of our Nation during a contentious time in U.S. history. Now it is time to add to Tubman's legacy by preserving and commemorating the places evocative of Harriet Tubman's extraordinary life. Every year, millions of school children, as well as millions of adults, visit our National Historical Parks gain experiences and knowledge about our Nation's history that simply cannot be found in history books or on the Internet. Our Nation's strength and character comes from the actions of the Americans who came before us and the significant events that shaped our Nation. The National Park Service is engaged in the important work of preserving the places where American history was made and providing a tangible experience for current and future generations to experience and understand. It is one thing to learn about Harriet Tubman from a book, and it is yet a completely different and fulfilling experience to explore, see, listen to and feel the places where she worked as a slave, where she escaped from and where she lived out her life as a free American. The National Park Service is uniquely suited to honor and preserve these places of historical significance and I urge my colleagues to join me in preserving and growing the legacy of Harriet Tubman by establishing the Harriet Tubman National Historical Parks in her honor. Mr. President, I 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 the order for the quorum call be rescinded.