Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. If the Chair would tell me when I have used 5 minutes and then I will conclude.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Klobuchar for her leadership and Senator Feinstein as well. These are the two Democratic women on the Judiciary Committee who have been such leaders on this issue, as well as Senator Murray.

I am proud to stand here today to call for the passage of the Violence Against Women Act. This is not a new bill, as has been painstakingly described to all of my colleagues. I can remember so well when then-Senator Joe Biden wrote the Violence Against Women Act, and he came to me when I was in the House and asked me to carry it in the House. I was as honored as I am right now.

Yes, it took us a while to pass it, but ever since it has been noncontroversial. For some reason our Republican friends, although we have 61 people as cosponsors, are slowing it down, and it seems to me very clear if they didn't have objections we could pass this by voice vote.

Three women are killed by their abusive partners every single day. I will repeat that: Three women today will be killed by their abusive husbands. For every woman who is killed, there are nine more who are beaten or injured every single day. In the name of those people--in the name of the three women who will be killed today--we should pass this unanimously.

Has the Violence Against Women Act worked? Yes. Incidents of domestic violence have decreased by 53 percent since we passed this law. Why on Earth, when three women are killed every day and nine women are injured, sometimes to the point of almost losing their lives--why on Earth, when a bill has brought down domestic violence by 53 percent, would there be objection? There is no reason whatsoever for objection.

When we go back to the votes on the bill, there are overwhelming votes in favor every time. This year 47 attorneys general signed a bipartisan letter supporting the reauthorization.

I have story after story from home, and I am going to read a couple to my colleagues. A mother in Alameda County with two children had been in a long-term abusive relationship. She separated from her abuser only to be stalked and brutally assaulted by him. She called 9 1-1. She hid the phone during the last beating so the police could hear what was going on. Because of the Violence Against Women Act, she was able to access a Family Justice Center where she received counseling, relocation assistance, and she worked with a deputy DA trained by program grants. She was pressured not to cooperate with the prosecution, but because of the Violence Against Women Act--the investigators had been trained by that act--she overcame her fear. She was protected as she cooperated and gained a strong conviction of her abuser.

That is a case that shows the training works, and the training took place because of the Violence Against Women Act.

This is a story of an immigrant woman in Los Angeles. This happened 2 years ago. She was stabbed 19 times by her boyfriend while she was 3 months pregnant. During her ordeal, her boyfriend drove her from one part of town

to the other, refusing to take her to an emergency room even though she was bleeding profusely. She jumped out of the car, screamed for help, and the abuser fled. Thankfully, she received medical attention. The baby was not lost, she recovered, and because of the Violence Against Women Act she cooperated with the prosecutors. She got a U-visa, and she and her child could move on.

The last case deals with Indian tribes. I know what a fierce advocate the Presiding Officer is in every way for Indian tribes. So I talked to my people back home. According to a 2008 report by the Centers for Disease Control, 39 percent of Native American women will face domestic violence--39 percent. Yesterday, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Murray, and I stood next to a woman who is the vice-chair of a tribe in Washington. She, for the first time, spoke out about the abuse she received as a toddler. I don't think Senator Klobuchar and I and Senator Murray will ever forget it.

She said: I know how old I was because I remember I was the size of a couch cushion. This woman spoke out about how later on she saw the gang rape of her aunt. Because of the situation with Indian law, if the abuser is not from the tribe----

I will complete my statement in a moment. If an abuser is not from the tribe, there is no recourse--no recourse--in a place where 39 percent of the women will face domestic violence, and we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who want to exclude people.

I wish to ask a rhetorical question: If a person is walking down the street and sees three people bleeding on the street--one just has to know a little bit about being a Good Samaritan--a person doesn't ask them for their papers, they don't ask them who they are, they don't ask them where they live, they help them.

Anyone on this floor who attempts to take out various groups from this bill is changing the Violence Against Women Act, which has never excluded any group. So let's be clear. Let's pass the bill. Let's get it done.

I will say in closing, tribal chairman Stacy Dixon of the Susanville Indian Rancheria said the improvements in this bill will ``bring justice back to Indian country and will equip tribal governments with the needed authority and resources to protect our residents and restore faith in the justice system.''

Let's restore faith in the justice system not just for those on tribal lands but for those who live in any part of our lands.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I speak in memory of five extraordinary sailors who recently died at sea during a boat race off the coast of California.

On Saturday, April 15, the sailing vessel Low Speed Chase was one of 49 boats participating in the Full Crew Farallones Race, which has been run annually from San Francisco to the Farallon Islands and back since 1907. As the yacht rounded an island, it was broadsided by huge waves and crashed onto the rocks.

Three sailors survived and were rescued by the U.S. Coast Guard. Tragically, the lives of five others--Alexis Busch, Alan Cahill, Jordan Fromm, Marc Kasanin, and Elmer Morrissey--were lost.

Alexis Busch, who as a teenager had been a beloved batgirl for the San Francisco Giants, managed the Ross Valley Swim and Tennis Club and crewed in sailing races from San Francisco Bay to Australia. Her longtime boyfriend and sailing partner, Nick Vos, was one of the survivors on the Low Speed Chase.

Alan Cahill was a married father of two children and a master marine craftsman who served as caretaker for

many boats at the San Francisco Yacht Club. Originally from Cork, Ireland, Alan moved to the Bay Area to pursue his love of racing. He was a talented sailor and good friend, who served as the best man at the wedding of his crewmate, Bryan Chong, one of the three survivors.

Jordan Fromm was a lifelong sailor who was a fixture at the San Francisco Yacht Club, where he had been a member since childhood and participated in its youth sailing programs. Fromm planned to start his own yacht restoration business.

Marc Kasanin grew up in Belvedere, started sailing at age 5, and spent most of his life on the water as a sailor and a nautical artist. His artwork was recently displayed at the Tiburon Art Festival.

Elmer Morrissey earned a Ph.D. in energy engineering and worked as a software designer at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. In addition to sailing, he enjoyed playing music and rugby and writing humorous sports blogs.

These crew members were some of the Bay Area's best sailors. Their loss is a devastating blow to their families, to their friends, to their crewmates, and to the entire sailing community. At this most difficult time, my heart goes out to them all.

Mr. President, I am very pleased with what just happened at the desk. For those who didn't follow it, the majority leader, Senator Reid, and Senator McConnell, just named the conferees so we can get moving with the House and settle our differences and move forward with a very important transportation bill.

We all know how hard it has been on the construction industry. We all know the housing crisis has made it very difficult for our construction workers to get work. We all know at the same moment we have had this real problem in the construction industry--where we have well over 1 million construction workers out of work and tens of thousands of businesses that want to do construction work--70,000 of our bridges are failing, half of our roads are in disrepair, and the American people expect an infrastructure that meets the needs of the strongest economy in the world, our economy.

So I am very pleased with what just happened. I am very pleased we see the continuation over here of bipartisan support for a transportation bill. We have Senator Reid working together with Senator McConnell to name the conferees, and we had a unanimous vote in our committee last year on this bill. It has been a very tortured path to get to where we are now because, for some inexplicable reason, the Republicans over in the House have insisted on just going to their own party to reach agreement rather than going to the Democrats so we can have bipartisanship over there. But I am very hopeful, with the naming of these conferees today, the House will now do its job and name conferees. I have been reading in the press that perhaps that will happen tomorrow. So I am very hopeful.

Mr. President, it is 10:20 in the morning on Tuesday, and I want to call attention to the fact we are now on the path we need to be on, starting at this moment, to get to conference. There is no reason we can't do that very soon when so much is at stake.

The Senate bill is a reform bill. There are no earmarks in that bill. That bill is fully paid for. It doesn't add to the deficit. It protects 2 million jobs and creates another 1 million jobs. What good news will it be for this economy to have this bill pass.

I know there are those who predicted this could never happen; that, A, we would never get a bipartisan bill out of our committee, but we did it; that, B, we would never get it to pass on the floor, but we did it with 74 votes; and, C, that the House will never act, and the House actually did act to move to conference. It took them a long time, but we are there. So there is no reason we cannot work together to get this done.

If Senator Inhofe and I can agree, then I think we should be able to get a very strong bill through both Houses. On my committee--the Environment and Public Works Committee, which I am so privileged to chair--we have very conservative members, such as Senators Inhofe and Sessions, and very progressive members, such as myself. We have Senator Vitter on the other side and Senator Sessions, and on this side we have Senators Sanders and Cardin. So we have members who reach the entire ideological spectrum, and if we can all vote for a bill, then this can happen and it will send a great signal to this country.

I thank all the groups that have worked so hard to bring pressure on all of us to keep this moving forward. It starts with a coalition that includes the AFL CIO and the chamber of commerce. Good for them. They do not always agree, but they agree on this one.

Then we have all the business community that is behind us--the granite people and the cement people and the general contractors. The list goes on and on. There are many groups that have come together to push forward on this bill.

So I want to mark this moment. I am happy I was able to be on the Senate floor when the conferees were named. It is a great list of conferees.

We have in this bill the RESTORE Act, which will rebuild the gulf after the terrible BP spill, and we have people on this conference who were very instrumental in writing the RESTORE Act, including Senator Bill Nelson and Senator Richard Shelby. Senator Vitter also was involved, and I want to take a moment to thank Senator Landrieu, who was a driving force on this bill. There is no question that without her insistence this wouldn't have happened. So what an opportunity we have.

Now, there are certain things I think we should keep out of this conference, and that is things that tear us apart. There is no reason to have controversy built into this conference. We can save those battles for another day. I think, with this conference, we should just all rally around the consensus of what has to be done. If it is something outside the scope of the conference, if it is unanimous and everybody thinks it is a good idea--such as the RESTORE Act--then let's do it.

There is a provision in the bill that helps our rural counties use the proceeds from timber sales for their schools--this is so critical-- and for their local governments. One could argue it is not part of the transportation program, but it is a consensus. It is a coming together, and where we can do that it is very important we stick with those consensus items and stay away from the highly charged controversies. We have plenty of time for that. We don't have to put that into this conference. So I look forward to the House naming their conferees so we can get this done.

I also want to say how important it is that we pass the Violence Against Women Act. This bill, which has 61 cosponsors--it is my understanding that is the case--is a strong bill, and it makes sure people who are the victims of violence are taken care of, and it continues a great program that was put together by then-Senator Joe Biden.

I remember it well because I was in the House at the time and then- Senator Biden, now Vice President Biden, doing such a great job, spoke to me and said: Congresswoman Boxer, would you be willing to carry the House version of the Violence Against Women Act? This was in the early 1990s. I looked at the bill, read the bill, and said I would be honored to do so. I was so proud to work with Joe Biden on this issue. We had worked together on coastal issues and now we worked together, at that time, on violence against women.

I was able to get a couple of the provisions passed--a couple of, I would say, smaller provisions passed: safety on campuses, campus lighting, and some other things. But the heart of the bill did not pass until I actually was over here in the Senate, when Senator Biden really picked up steam and drove that bill through. My understanding is that Senator Schumer--at that time in the House--picked up the bill and did the same in the House.

This has been the law of the land--the Violence Against Women Act-- since the 1990s, so we don't need to have any arguments about it. I was very glad to hear Senator McConnell say he didn't intend to have any arguments about it because in this bill we cover even more people: people who were brutalized, women who were brutalized, and it is very key.

I see my colleague, Senator Harkin, has come to discuss a very important matter, a labor matter, and I would tell him I will finish in about 3 minutes, if that is OK with him.

I want to conclude by saying that the Violence Against Women Act is what we call a no-brainer. It is a serious problem in our Nation. Senator Reid said three women are killed every day because of violence against women.

The shelters in our States are doing incredible work. They take in women and children. They make sure there is protection and crack down on the violators and there is no reason to argue about that.

The last thing I wanted to talk about in the last couple minutes goes to the heart of what Senator McConnell said in his leader time. I have noticed that almost every time Senator McConnell has a chance on the Senate floor he comes and attacks President Obama and he goes after President Obama and blames him for everything under the sun. I have to say I support Senator McConnell's right to say whatever he wants to say. He has every right to use his leadership powers to attack the President and do it as much as he wants. So I am not complaining about that. But I am just saying it is very unfortunate for this country that the Republican leader in the Senate said, and I quote--I am not quoting directly the words, but this is what he said--that his highest priority was making President Obama a one-term President, and he is carrying it out on the floor of this Senate.

The things he blames this President for are unbelievable. The way he attacks the President for being out around the country--he doesn't attack the Republican candidates for President for traveling around the country. Let's face it, it is a few months to the election. Does he expect the President to stay in the White House? I am glad the President is getting outside. I am glad the President is making speeches. I am glad the President is fighting for students. I am glad the President is fighting for senior citizens. I am glad the President is fighting for small business. I am glad he is fighting for fairness. Why should a billionaire pay a lower tax rate than a secretary? I am glad this President is doing all that. To hear him attacked day after day after day is absolutely discouraging when we have so much work we can do that we can talk about in our leader time. But I have decided I am going to follow this, and every time Senator McConnell does this I am going to use my privileges as a Senator to come down.

Let's never forget, this President inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression from a Republican President who left us bleeding 800,000 jobs a month, who left us with an auto industry flat on its back, who left us with a credit system that was frozen. This President, through his leadership, stepped up and led us out of that mess. The other voices, the naysayers, said: Let Detroit go bankrupt. Stay out of everything. This President didn't listen because he is a fighter for change.

If this floor is going to be used to attack this President, count me in to stand and make sure the record is set straight. I hope we can go back to the work we need to do instead of using the floor of this great body to attack our President, the President of the United States of America. Everyone has a right to do it. Believe me, I don't argue that. But I also have the right as a Senator--and so do others--to come to clear the record on that, and I intend to do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Enzi resolution. If enacted, this resolution would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, from implementing commonsense, straightforward changes to the union representation process that will ensure union elections are conducted in a more fair and efficient manner.

The new rules, which will go into effect on April 30, will make it easier and less burdensome for workers and employers to navigate the union election process.

Workers and employers will now be able to electronically file election petitions and other documents. Timely information essential to both sides being able to fully engage in the election process will be shared more quickly. Timeframes for parties to resolve issues before and after elections will be standardized. Duplicative appeals processes that cause unnecessary delays will be eliminated. Both sides will be required to identify points of disagreement and provide evidence at the outset of the election process, helping to eliminate unnecessary litigation.

The modest reforms proposed by the NLRB do not mandate timetables for elections to occur, as some of my colleagues will allege; rather, the new rules simply eliminate existing barriers that get in the way of providing employees and employers with access to an open and fair election process. As Catholic Healthcare West, which employs most of its 31,000 workers in my State of California, wrote during the public comment period: ``[the] reforms proposed by the NLRB are not pro-union or pro-business, they are pro-modernization.''

I urge my colleagues to support modernization and oppose the Enzi resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today to solemnly recognize the 97th anniversary of the Armenian genocide.

In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide based in part on the horrific crimes perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenian people between 1915 1923. Yet, in the 63 years that have passed since the Convention was adopted, successive U.S. administrations have refused to call the deliberate massacre of the Armenians by what it was--a genocide.

For many years, I have urged these administrations to right this terrible wrong, and I do so again today, calling on President Obama to acknowledge unequivocally--as he did as a Senator--that the Armenian genocide is a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence.

The Armenian genocide--along with the Holocaust--is one the most studied cases of genocide in history. A number of sovereign nations, ranging from Argentina to France, as well as 43 U.S. States have recognized what happened as genocide. Yet, successive U.S. administrations continue only to refer to the Armenian genocide as annihilation, massacre or murder.

Every day that goes by without full acknowledgment by the United States of these undeniable facts prolongs the pain felt by descendants of the victims and the entire Armenian community.

There is no room for discretion when dealing with unspeakable crimes against humanity; genocide must be called genocide, murder must be called murder. And every day that goes by without the U.S. acknowledgment of what happened to the Armenian people in the early 20th century undermines the United States' role as a beacon for human rights around the world.

The United States' credibility is particularly important as we seek to compel international condemnation of and active response to those who are perpetrating extreme violence today--whether it be in individual cases of human rights abuses or in cases of government- driven attacks against citizens protesting for greater freedom and opportunity.

The United States cannot and does not turn a blind eye to atrocities around the globe. In fact, the United States is often the first to speak out in the face of violence and unspeakable suffering. But sadly, our Nation is on the wrong side of history when it comes to the Armenian genocide. It is long past time to do the right thing.

So this April 24, as we pause to remember the victims and to honor the countless contributions Armenian Americans have made to our great country, I hope that the U.S. will finally and firmly stand on the right side of history and officially condemn the crimes of 1915 1923 by their appropriate name--genocide.

Mr. President, earlier this month, California and the Nation lost one of our true environmental heroes when Peter Douglas, the longtime executive director of the California Coastal Commission, passed away. Peter was truly a giant among California conservationists, and our State is a much better and more beautiful place because of his life's work.

Peter Douglas was there at the creation of the California Coastal Commission, which for four decades has worked to protect, conserve, restore, and enhance the California coast and ocean for current and future generations. As a legislative aide in the early 1970s, he helped draft the 1972 Coastal Initiative and the California Coastal Act of 1976, which made the Coastal Commission a permanent public institution. After 7 years as the Commission's Chief Deputy Director, he was named executive director in 1985 and served brilliantly in that capacity for more than 25 years.

When Peter was diagnosed with cancer, he faced it as he did all the other challenges in his life with intelligence, courage, grace, and good humor. Last spring, Peter began writing a cancer blog. As he noted in his first posting, his doctors were ``quite pessimistic and advised I get affairs in order and focus on my bucket list. But I am an inveterate and aggressive activist not about to give up on life, especially not my own. My time will come, but not quite yet I hope. Besides, I am too busy to die.''

Peter kept writing, producing a remarkable record of his final battle with cancer along with his political autobiography and some profound personal insights. He advised his readers to ``live mindfully and fully every moment. Keep hope alive. . . . When the time comes to pass over to the other side, try to embrace that passage with dignity and grace knowing you have done well.'' Peter Douglas certainly did just that.

On behalf of the people of California, who have benefitted so much from Peter Douglas's life work, I send my deepest gratitude and condolences to his sons, grandchildren, brother, sister, and extended family and friends. Peter's memory and legacy will live on with everyone who loves the California coast and our priceless natural heritage, which he did so much to preserve and protect.

Mr. President, I support the Paying a Fair Share Act because it will help bring fairness to our Tax Code. In large part because of the irresponsible policies of President George W. Bush, the very wealthiest taxpayers have seen their tax rates drop by half over the last 50 years, even as their incomes have skyrocketed. The Tax Code has become so out-of-balance that one in four millionaires pays a lower tax rate than do millions of middle-class families, and in 2011 an estimated 7,000 millionaires paid no Federal income tax at all.

Responsible millionaires understand that a fair tax system is in our country's best interest. One Californian, Andy Rappaport, told my staff that over the past 8 years, his average Federal tax rate has been only 16 percent after charitable contributions. Meanwhile, working families making $60,000 to $100,000 per year pay average Federal tax rates of 17 or 18 percent.

Mr. Rappaport said: ``Those of us who are doing unprecedentedly well have built our success on a foundation of widespread well being and opportunity, not to mention adequate investments in education, research, and infrastructure. . . . It's not fair to ask those who make less than us to do without or to shoulder more than their share of our national investment burden.'' California entrepreneur Garrett Gruener wrote in the Los Angeles Times: ``For nearly the last decade, I've paid income taxes at the lowest rates of my professional career. . . . For the good of the country, we need to tax people like me more.''

In addition to opposing this common-sense proposal, our Republican colleagues want to cut valuable social programs to pay for another tax cut for the rich. The House-passed Ryan Budget would give high-income taxpayers an additional tax cut of at least $150,000 per year--a tax cut equal to three times the median household income, and more than ten times the average annual Social Security benefit--while cutting programs like food stamps and Pell Grants which provide security and opportunity to millions of lower-income Americans. Our Republican colleagues seem devoted to the interests of the wealthiest 1 percent above all else.

The Paying a Fair Share Act would only affect the top one-tenth of 1 percent of taxpayers, those with adjusted gross income over $1 million per year. It preserves the incentive for charitable giving, which is so important for our religious organizations, nonprofits, and universities.

And these millionaires and billionaires are not the ``job creators'' the Republicans say they are, because the vast majority of job creators are small business owners who earn far less than $1 million per year. In 2009, only 1.3 percent of taxpayers with business income made more than $1 million per year. The bill is supported by small business groups including the Main Street Alliance, American Sustainable Business Council, and the California Association for Micro Enterprise Opportunity. It also has the support of AFCSME, AFL CIO, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, United Auto Workers, the National Education Association, and many others. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, which will bring much-needed fairness to our Tax Code.

Mr. President, today I salute the life and achievements of Bea Abrams Cohen, who at 102 years old is California's oldest living woman veteran. Still active in veterans and community affairs, Mrs. Cohen was recently the guest of honor at a California Department of Veterans Affairs, CalVet, reception honoring the achievements of women in the military during Women's Military History Week.

As CalVet noted, ``Women have contributed to the rich military history of our country even before they were officially allowed to serve. The first known American woman soldier was Deborah Sampson of Massachusetts who, disguised as a man, served in the Revolutionary War. Throughout the history of our country, women have consistently shown themselves as dedicated patriots, willing to put their lives on the line in order to protect our nation and the freedoms of our people.''

The life of Bea Cohen is a living testament to the incredible contributions our service women make each and every day. Born in Romania in 1910, Bea Abrams came to America through Ellis Island in 1920 with her mother, brother, and sister. When the United States entered World War II, Bea vowed to do all she could to help her adopted country. She went to school to learn the machinist trade and then worked at Douglas Aircraft Company in Santa Monica as a real-life Rosie the Riveter.

Though she loved this work, Bea wanted to do more. In 1942, at age 33, she joined the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, WAAC, turning down a salary increase at Douglas. After going through basic training in Iowa, she did administrative work for the WAAC in Utah and Colorado.

By 1943, Bea took a second oath to become part of the new Women's Army Corps, WAC, which unlike the WAAC was now a part of the Regular Army. She was soon shipped overseas. Crossing the Atlantic Ocean on a ship that zigzagged to avoid enemy submarines, Bea arrived in England just in time for D-day. There, she worked in Army headquarters producing documents and operating a low-cost printing machine called a mimeograph. After 2 years of service, Bea was honorably discharged and returned to Los Angeles.

In late 1945, Bea met Marine MSgt Ray Cohen through family friends. Ray Cohen had served in the Pacific and had been a prisoner of War on the Philippine island of Corregidor for 3\1/2\ years. Bea and Ray were married the following year and had two daughters, Janiece and Susan. Later, during the Korean war, Ray was deployed for over

a year while Bea raised the girls and volunteered with the Jewish War Veterans of the United States.

After Ray retired in 1955, the Cohens remained active with the Jewish War Veterans. To this day, Bea volunteers at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Los Angeles. For her 102nd birthday party, Bea displayed her lifelong dedication to troops by asking her guests to bring socks for veterans rather than presents for herself. Bea has dedicated more than 70 years to providing support for American troops and their families. She is an enduring reminder of the contributions of this nation's veterans.

Mr. President, I know all of my colleagues will join me today in honoring Bea Abrams Cohen.

More than that--about 4,500.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes and then return the floor to Senator Durbin.

I was going to wait until the House actually sent over this extension before saying anything, but I was so impressed with Senator Durbin's explanation that I felt I should come to the floor and thank him so much. His leadership on this and also, Madam President, your deep concern for your State, which actually has the largest job loss numbers because they are being very conservative about what they do on the ground--not everybody understands the way the transportation programs work in our States. The Federal Government pays for about 75 percent of many projects and the State pays 25 percent. But the States go out and they front the money and then they bill the Federal Government. Well, the signal that has been sent from the House today is a disastrous signal because it is a signal to all of our States that they better beware because there is no guarantee they will ever get those funds back from the Federal Government.

You know, I love it when we make history here, but I love it when we make good history here. Today, by the House's action, I believe they have become the first House of Representatives ever to allow this highway trust fund to go bankrupt because right now the fund is not sufficient and has to be filled. That is why part of the wonderful result of the Senate bill--and Senator Inhofe and I appreciate getting a lot of credit, but we actually had four committees that did their work: Senators Johnson and Shelby over in Banking, and we had Senators Rockefeller and Hutchison over in Commerce. But a very tough job was given to Senator Baucus, and he worked hand-in-glove with the Republicans, particularly with Senators such as Senator Thune, to come up with a pay-for.

Well, here we have an extension with no revenues in it, Madam President, so naturally your State is very worried, as are all of our States, and I am going to quickly go through what we know so far. We know that Illinois is having big trouble because their contract-letting cannot go forward in 12 particular jobs, and that is going to result in a scaleback of 4,500 jobs. They are scaling back right now, as Senator Durbin said, at a time when we need jobs. North Carolina has 41,000 jobs that cannot be filled. Nevada has 4,000 jobs, Maryland has 4,000, and Michigan has 3,500. I see the great Senator from Rhode Island here. We got word from his director, Mike Lewis, from the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, that there are job delays, and it looks as if 1,000 jobs will not be filled. In West Virginia, 1,200 jobs will not be filled.

We are in trouble. You know what, it is like taking a hammer and hitting your head: Why do they do it? They don't have to. They don't have to do this. They are wreaking havoc on the Nation with this extension. And Chairman Mica said today: This must be the last extension. Fine. It should not even be an extension. They should take up and pass the Senate bill. How many bills do we have that have 74 votes in favor? And if Senator Lautenberg had not been at a funeral, it would have been 75. Three-quarters of this Senate came together around this bill. So the House is wreaking havoc on the Nation. Right now, you could fill 14 Super Bowl stadiums with unemployed construction workers--1.4 million. And why are they doing it? Because they don't want to deal in any way with the Democrats.

Senator Inhofe and I were so thrilled to work together. I see the senior Senator from Alaska who helped us draft our bill with Senator Begich. They crossed party lines. We have a great bill. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it strong? Yes. Is it paid for? Yes. Will it protect 1.9 million jobs and create an additional million? Yes. That is great news. But the House has decided--the only people in America not to get this is the House of Representatives over there, the Republicans.

I see my colleague here, and I am glad to yield for him.

Well, the question is very important. This is the worst possible time because now, if you can't enter into new contracts, you lose the building season. And it is particularly brutal right now on the businesses and on the workers.

Let me be clear. This is a 90-day extension without any hopes of them finishing their work. They didn't say that in the 90 days, they would get the job done, get to conference, and get the bill to the President; they are just saying 90 days with no commitment to go to conference.

I will come back and we will attempt to attach the Senate bill to the extension. Madam President, I hope you will have the opportunity to work on that with me because our States are counting on us, and we have to be strong and we have to keep fighting for one simple premise: that the House should have the right to vote on the Senate-passed bill.

I am very proud to be here. I will be here this afternoon as long as it takes. I say to my friend from Rhode Island, I hope he can be there, as well as my friend from Illinois. As soon as we get their extension, which makes no commitment to go to conference, we are going to try to attach the Senate bill to the extension and send it into conference, and I hope my friends will be here to help me with that.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

There are several of us who reserve our right to object. What the House has done is guaranteed job losses for this country. They are already dithering on the Senate bill. Their not taking it up for a vote has cost us about 100,000 jobs. Thousands of businesses are at stake, and eventually we are talking about 3 million jobs at stake. The fact that they would do this without any commitment to get to conference, without any commitment to finish their job and run off on vacation is the reason I am reserving the right to object.

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

Mr. President, I know my colleague Senator Collins is waiting to speak. I will be very brief.

Let's be clear what just happened. What just happened is the House sent us a 90-day extension of our transportation programs with not one dime of revenue in there to fund those, and the highway trust fund is on the road to bankruptcy. So they are the first in my memory--the first legislative body in the Capitol--to ever extend for this period of time without a dollar, which means an acceleration of bankruptcy of the trust fund.

What else did they do? They just guaranteed 100,000 people are not going to get their jobs, and they guaranteed hundreds of businesses are not going to get jobs. They sent out a signal that America should be ready for hardship because they didn't even have the decency to put in that extension a written commitment to produce a bill, to get to conference with us, and to get a bill to the President. No, they run off on their vacation and leave people twisting in the wind.

Well, I want it to be known I am one of the chairs who worked on the bill. There are many other people who were fantastic on this bill from both sides of the aisle. I know--I spoke to Senator Inhofe today about this--we want this bill done. I am going to use every tool at my disposal as one Senator to keep the pressure on the Republican House.

Speaker Boehner: You are not Speaker of the Republicans, you are Speaker of the House. Reach your hand across the aisle, as Senator Inhofe reached across the aisle to me and I reached across to him; and Jay Rockefeller reached across to Senator Hutchison and she reached across; and Tim Johnson reached across to Shelby and he reached across; and Max Baucus had an array of Republicans work with him in the Finance Committee. We know we can do this.

But what the House has done is send a very clear message of job loss and hardship. It is unacceptable. I look forward to working on this every single day. Now we have 90 days. Tomorrow it will be 89, and then 88. We are going to count down, and we are going to keep the pressure on, and we are not going to let this transportation program go up in smoke because it has been in place since Dwight Eisenhower was President.

It is a sad day for America today, a very sad day. But we will never give up over here, and James Inhofe isn't going to give up, and we are going to fight hard to get a bill.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 50th anniversary of the United Farm Workers of America, the Nation's largest farmworkers union.

In 1962, Cesar Chavez, the preeminent figure in the movement for farm laborers' rights in the 20th century, founded the National Farm Works Association, which later became the United Farm Workers, UFW.

Mr. Chavez's steely determination and use of nonviolent protest tactics in the Delano grape strike of 1965 1970; the fasts of 1968, 1972, and 1988; and numerous other strikes around the Nation became an organizing model and inspiration for the labor movement.

Driven by its core values of integrity, innovation, empowerment, nonviolence and ``Si Se Puede'' attitude, the UFW has worked valiantly and tirelessly over the past half century to achieve a number of historic gains for farmworkers. The vigorous advocacy of the UFW has enabled farmworkers to secure higher wages and safer working conditions, reduced exposure to the use of harmful and toxic pesticides, and equality and opportunities for their families.

Today, the UFW remains an ardent protector and advocate for the rights and interests of farmworkers in 10 States. The union's proud legacy of social justice and civil rights is alive and thriving.

The story of the first 50 years of the United Farm Workers is a testament to the value of perseverance and social justice. I applaud the indefatigable commitment of all UFW members, past and present, to bring justice and equality to farmworkers and to future generations.

As the members and friends of the United Farm Workers gather to celebrate this auspicious occasion, I congratulate them on their 50th anniversary and wish everyone a memorable anniversary and continued success.

What is the parliamentary situation at this time?

I am confused a little bit because didn't the minority get extra time? Did they not get extra time?

Well, I would ask consent that I have an additional 5 minutes on the 16.

So, Madam President, I think it is very important that we understand what we are trying to do here.

The Senator from Alaska said it has been a good debate. Yes, it has been a good debate, but let me tell you what is not good. What is not good is that Big Oil is getting corporate welfare. Big Oil is ripping us off at the pump. They never had greater profits. We are being asked to sacrifice and pay more at the pump because of instability in the world, because of problems with the refineries, even though we have never drilled as much as we are drilling now. Big Oil exports our oil now. We have never had as many exports as we have now.

Big Oil gets billions of dollars of subsidies, so big that I would tell you, $2 billion a year in U.S. tax breaks. Let me tell you, to explain how that compares to something we do that is very near and dear to my heart and to every mother and father, grandma, grandpa, or aunt and uncle, we put about $1 billion a year into afterschool programs, and we have millions of children waiting--$1 billion a year on afterschool programs while we give away $2 billion a year to the most, shall we say, successful companies in America.

I want to show you what I am talking about because I don't want people to think this is rhetoric. These are the facts. When my Republican colleagues come on the floor and defend these profits, let's talk about what they are.

Now, remember, we have been in a deep recession for several years now. Remember that President Obama and we had to confront the loss of 800,000 jobs a month. Now, thank goodness, he has turned it around--we have turned it around. It is still not good enough but we were in the worst situation. During that time, small businesses went out of business. People lost their homes. If it were not for the leadership of the President, we would have lost the auto industry in America. Thank you, Mr. President, for saving the auto industry in America. Thank you for that. I was proud to vote for that even though I had a lot of problems with the auto industry not moving quickly enough to fuel efficient cars. Now they are doing a great job with it.

During that time when Americans were suffering, we were bleeding all these jobs and even now, just getting back on our feet, what has happened to Big Oil while they have raised our prices at the pump? In 2009, all the five oil companies made $64 billion. In 2010, Big Oil made $76 billion, and in 2011 they made a whopping $137 billion. So they went from $64 billion in 2009 to $137 billion in 2011, and my Republican colleagues are crying bitter tears for them. Oh, let's keep giving them that $2 billion a year.

Why would we do that when we are sacrificing and our constituents are paying more at the pump and Big Oil is profiting from it? There is no reason for this kind of increase at the pump. There is no reason for it. Look at what is going on here. If they made the normal profits, we could have some relief at the pump. But, oh, no. So now the Republicans are going to reward them by allowing them to keep these subsidies.

That started a long time ago. That started in the 1980s, most of it, because we wanted to help them get moving. How much more do they have to earn before we say they can get off corporate welfare? You talk about welfare queens, here it is. And my Republican friends defend giving these people, who have ripped us off at the pump, billions of dollars of subsidies.

They are exporting the oil they recover here. They will not keep it in the country. We had a proposal for the XL Pipeline to keep the oil in the country. My friends on the other side of the aisle voted against it. They don't care, they just want these companies to have their way, to do with it what they want.

If they want to send our oil to China, fine, that is what they want. But they also want to keep their subsidies. It is not right. I want to see these subsidies done with and I want to see us invest in alternatives to these big oil companies that hold us by the throat. I want to have alternatives.

I have been all over this country looking at the alternatives we are developing now. We know, for example, in Brazil they use sugar cane to create their gasoline and they are completely free from imported oil. That is the kind of thing we need to do. I am fortunate that I drive a hybrid vehicle and I get 50 miles to the gallon, so I don't go in for gas that often. But when you go in there, it is a shock. We want to have cars--let them be big cars. If people need that for their families, I understand it. I have grandkids. I know what it is to put your grandkids in a small car. It is hard. We need to have larger cars. They need to be fuel efficient. We are going to get there. We are getting there already.

Isn't it better to take that money away from people who are ripping us off at the pump, away from the corporate welfare queens here, and put it into alternatives so our people are no longer victims to their prices? That is the fight we are having. That is the debate we are having.

On the other side they say drill, baby, drill. You know what, I am for drilling where it makes sense. Do you know how many acres the oil companies are holding now that they have not drilled upon? It is pretty amazing. My friends say open the Arctic to drilling--a precious environment, God-given, placed in a refuge by I believe it was Dwight Eisenhower. They want to go in there and ravage it. Why don't they drill on their nonproducing acres? It looks like 75 million nonproducing acres, onshore and offshore, on which they hold leases.

Oh, no, that is not good enough for them. They are only drilling on 25 percent of the leases they hold, of the acreage they hold in those leases. How about ``use it or lose it,'' instead of ``drill, baby, drill''? Drill, baby, drill in here. Don't go into the coast of California where they want to go, or Washington, or Oregon, where we have fishing, tourism, recreation.

There are so many people here to whom I listen who make the arguments for the oil companies. I am so tired of it. How about speaking up for the American people who are getting brutalized at the pump? How about speaking up for the people who make their living off of a beautiful, pristine environment?

Oh, by the way, many jobs in my State, over 400,000 jobs, are related to a pristine coastline, and they don't care about that on the other side. They want to open it, push these people out of the way and create a few jobs--because there are far fewer jobs created from drilling. As President Obama has said many times, and the other side gets rankled: We only have 2 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and we use about 20 percent of the energy. You do the math, as the President said. You could drill in your grandmother's bathtub, you could drill in the Great Lakes, you could drill anywhere you want--you are not going to find enough oil.

So let's get off foreign oil, let's tell the oil companies to drill, baby, drill where they have the acres and let's look at these prices and let's understand--we will look at it again--the profits of Big Oil. They are crying all the way to the bank, as my dad used to say.

Look at this. In the height of the recession they are making record profits and crying to keep their subsidies and my Republican friends are crying right along: Oh, here, have a tissue. We are so sorry for you, even though we have to turn away millions of children from afterschool programs because we do not have more than $1 billion to spend on it. They are giving away $2 billion a year. That is just one example.

I hope we vote for the Menendez bill. I hope we vote tomorrow on that, to stop the filibuster, to vote it up or down. What a message of hope it will send to the American people, that we are willing to stand up to the biggest powers that be, that we are willing to fight for the average American, that we are not in the pockets of Big Oil. You don't need to give American taxpayer dollars to Big Oil. It is absolutely ridiculous. We don't have to allow them to drill in pristine areas when they will not even drill in areas that they have had under lease for years. And let's stop them from exporting the oil. We need it. Let's keep it here.

By the way, if they keep on ripping us off like this and getting rewarded for it from my Republican friends, let's release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and let's increase the supply and let's see prices go down.

Let's look at the CEOs of Big Oil for a minute, these poor guys who are fighting for the subsidies. Let's look at them. CEOs for the big five made more than $14.5 million in total compensation in 2010. This is it, average compensation. That is 307 times the average salary of a firefighter; that is 273 times the average salary of a teacher; that is 263 times the average salary of a policeman; that is 218 times the average salary of a nurse. But they need subsidies for their companies and they need to rip us off at the pump so they can make a little more money--$14.5 million isn't enough for a poor oil company executive. Give me a break. And stop giving them a break because they don't need this break.

We have an opportunity to stand for what is right and I hope we take it. Right now we want alternatives to Big Oil. We want competition for Big Oil. We want to be able to become energy independent. So let's stop these taxpayer handouts. The oil companies do not need them. Let's start investing in America's energy future which, by the way, that kind of investment creates many jobs at a time that we need to do that.

Health Care

I want to switch topics here for the remainder of my time and talk a minute about health care and then close with a little bit about the highway bill over in the House and the struggle over there to get their work done.

I ask how many minutes I have left.

Will the Chair advise me when I have 2 minutes remaining.

Madam President, we all are watching what the Supreme Court is going to do in terms of the health care bill they have before them. What I want to do today is completely stay away from that argument and talk about what the health care bill is doing now, right now as we speak, because people tend to get involved in mandates, and if it is constitutional, and how does it work and so on. I want to talk about what the Obama health care plan is doing for my people at home, your people back home, and the people of this country right now.

As we stand here today, over 5 million seniors have saved more than $3 billion on their prescription drugs. The way it worked before this bill was passed, you would use up a certain amount of money and then you would fall into this coverage gap that they call a doughnut hole, and just when you are at your sickest point, you get no help. A lot of our seniors were not taking their medicines at that critical point because they could not afford the full cost; they were cutting the pills in half and praying. It was a sad situation. Because of health care reform, we have these seniors being able to keep their medications flowing. Last year in my State, 300,000 seniors were able to save $171 million in their costs.

Let's look at that again. As a result of Obama health care, which I proudly supported, already 5 million senior citizens are able to afford their prescription drugs--your mother, your father, your grandma, your grandpa. That is important. What is going to happen to these people if this whole thing gets overturned? They will get sick and they will not have those medications.

In addition, what else is happening--2.5 million young Americans are now covered because they can stay on their parents' health plan until they turn 26. Without this law, when you graduated from college you were out of luck, and you had to find your own health care. The Obama plan said you should be able to stay on your parents' health plan until you turn 26. I cannot tell you how many people have written to me to thank me for that.

So over there in the Supreme Court they are talking about legalese, and I appreciate that. They are talking about severability, and they are talking about a lot of interesting things. One thing I want to talk about is what is going to happen to 5 million senior citizens who are able to stay on their medication as a result of the Obama health plan.

What is going to happen to the 2.5 million Americans who are young who can stay on their parents' plan until they are 26 if something happens over there across the street in terms of this legal case? In California 335,000 Californians have benefited from that young person being able to stay on their parents' insurance provision.

What is going to happen to 54 million Americans who now have access to free preventive care, such as screenings for colon cancer, mammograms, and flu shots? This is new, folks. Before we didn't get free prevention. We had to pay a copayment. I have to tell you, as I lived my life and I have seen the tragedy of cancer, I have learned very clearly that if you take care of yourself and have mammograms and colon cancer screenings, your life can be saved.

What is going to happen to 54 million Americans who have that preventive care now if the Supreme Court strikes it down? Out of that 54 million, 6 million Californians have gotten these screenings and vaccinations. I will close with health care on this story.

I don't know how many people realize this, but before the Obama health care plan there were caps on insurance policies. Maybe they were a million-dollar cap or a half-million-dollar cap. Before I had different insurance, I had a cap on my husband's policy. What happened at that time is, if you used up enough health care, you were finished at a certain point.

I want to tell you the story of Julie Walters of Nevato, CA. She wrote to me last year about her 3-year-old daughter Violet who suffers from a severe form of epilepsy. She wrote that Violet could hit her lifetime limit in 5 years. So here is a little baby who is reaching her lifetime limit, and her mom wrote:

A lifetime limit on insurance is a limit on Violet's

lifetime, and that is immoral.

Because of health care reform, there is no longer a lifetime limit. So I wanted to point this out and so many other things that are totally essential to our people that are at stake across the street.

Surface Transportation Act

In closing, before we reach our full time, I want to call on the House to take up and pass the Senate Transportation bill. There are 3 million jobs at risk. They cannot get their act together. Allow a vote on the bipartisan Transportation bill and then leave for your vacation. But don't just give us these extensions which are, frankly, death by 1,000 cuts. We already know of six or seven States--including those in the Northeast--that are laying people off because they don't have certainty with the Transportation bill.

So I thank you very much. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for allowing me to finish.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I would like to thank my friend from Minnesota. Her leadership when she was on the Environment and Public Works Commission was amazing. We miss her leadership there. She is working so hard on other committees, but she still carries in her heart the great understanding that if anything is bipartisan around here, it is the highway bill and the transportation programs. We proved it here. So I thank the Senator.

I wish to talk a little bit about Big Oil and this crying about Big Oil by my Republican friends here, and then I am going to segue to the battle to pass a transportation bill and the 3 million jobs that hang in the balance.

First, I have to say that I listened very hard to the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, talk about what a useless thing it is to try to say to Big Oil, which has had these big subsidies for so long, decade after decade, starting when they were young companies--what a terrible thing it would be to take away those subsidies, billions of dollars, when they are making multibillion dollars and they are robbing us at the pump, pocketing the profit. We would like to see that money be used for alternative fuels, for energy-efficient cars so that we don't have to worry so much if the price of gas goes up a penny. If we are getting 50 to 60 miles to a gallon--I drive a hybrid car, and I don't visit the gas station that often because we get about 50 miles to the gallon, so the shocks that come with the increase in gas are a little bit muted.

But here is the story. Americans have made sacrifices. They are paying more at the pump. They are told by Big Oil: We are so sorry that Americans have to pay more at the pump because there is instability in the world. Americans have to pay more at the pump because our refineries are down, and we are really sorry.

What they don't say is that they are exporting the oil they find in America to other countries. What they don't tell us is that they are pocketing the profits we are paying for. They are pocketing the profits. In 2010 the five biggest oil companies made $80 billion among them. In 2011 they made $140 billion among them. So no one can stand here--not even the esteemed Republican leader--and tell me that Big Oil is making sacrifices just like ordinary Americans. The people who are running away with our money that we are paying at the pump are Big Oil and the speculators on Wall Street who are playing around with the instability in the Middle East on commodity futures trading.

So if you want to do something, let's take away those subsidies from these big oil companies that are making life miserable for the American people. But, no, our friends on the other side put up a fight, and they cite a couple of folks on our side who agree with them because they come from big oil States. I understand that. Let's stand up for the American people.

Another way we can stand up for the American people is to speak with one voice and ask the House to take up the Senate bipartisan Transportation bill that passed this Senate overwhelmingly. The clock is ticking toward a shutdown, and extensions are dangerous. So my story on the Transportation bill is a beautiful story of compromise, working together here in the Senate, and a very ugly story about what the House is doing, which is dithering around, playing with fire. And I am telling everyone that extensions are death by a thousand cuts. They think they can just send over an extension and feel they have done their job.

Well, let me say that what we found out today from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO-- these are folks who are on the ground in our States. Today I spoke to the departments of transportation from North Carolina, Nevada, Maryland, and Michigan. I think most people know I represent California, and I will be back with all of the details. Senator Feinstein is talking to the transportation officials today. But the reason I am talking about these four States is because they have already calculated the job losses that have already begun because the House is dithering and will not pass our bipartisan Transportation bill.

North Carolina, which is not a blue State--I spoke to Gene Conti, the secretary of the North Carolina Department of Transportation today, and what he said was that he has delayed the remaining 2012 project awards, which total $1.2 billion in projects and employ 41,000 people.

The House is right down the hall. I had the honor of serving there. I hope they are hearing this while they debate an extension. An extension of this program is not benign. An extension of this program is damaging. An extension of this program means job losses--41,000 in North Carolina.

I spoke with Scott Rawlins today, who is the deputy director and chief engineer of the Nevada Department of Transportation. He said he is holding up advertising for federally funded projects until there is a reauthorization bill committing Federal funds. He is required to slow down the development of future projects. He will not execute consultant agreements without reauthorization. And right now, today, AASHTO, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, tells me that 4,000 jobs are at risk in Nevada.

What the Nevada people tell me is that in the good old days when they were in a boom, the State could come forward and take these extensions in stride. They had the funding to front-load their projects and not worry about the Federal reimbursement. They thought that reimbursement would come. A, they are very worried about reimbursement, and B, because of the recession that has hit some of our States very hard because of the construction slowdown in housing, they do not have the funds to fast-forward any of these projects.

So North Carolina has 41,000 jobs at risk, and Nevada has 4,000 jobs at risk.

I spoke to Caitlin Rayman in Maryland. She talked about the uncertainty, and she went into four or five different things she is trying to do now that she cannot do. It is because the House is dithering and they won't take up the bipartisan Senate bill and pass it. So 4,000 jobs are at risk in Maryland because projects are being delayed.

I spoke to the director in Michigan, Kirk Steudle. He said several large construction projects have to be delayed.

I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds, and then I will turn it over to my friend.

So in Michigan it is the same story: 3,500 jobs.

So I am saying to the House today--and I encourage my colleagues to-- and I know the Senator from New Hampshire is here and she is going to speak a little bit later about this--come to the floor with stories about their States.

These extensions are dangerous and they will lose jobs. Tell the House to pass the bipartisan Senate bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am going to yield in just 2 minutes because I know Senator Sanders is here. I really feel I need to respond because it is very important to note that under the leadership of President Obama--for decades we did not drill as much as we have drilled now. We have more wells pumping than at any time in recent memory. I think it is an important point.

Of course, we are not going to drill off the coast of some of our precious areas because we have to support the fishing industry, we have to support the recreation industry, the tourism industry. But all this argument about drill, baby, drill and we will solve everything does not work because we threaten jobs when we go to certain areas that are pristine and very important sources of economic income for our States. Plus, if you ask my colleagues on the other side, they will not support keeping the oil in America--they will not--and we are exporting more oil than we ever have before.

So this thing gets very interesting when we look at it. Still, in all, the big oil companies--as we all make our sacrifices at the pump-- are bringing in record, record, record profits. They ask us to make sacrifices because there is instability in the world, but they are pocketing those increases. Yet our Republican friends cry bitter tears because we want to suggest that subsidies they got decades ago--kept on undisturbed billions of dollars--we would like to see those funds go into making it easier for America's families to be able to buy more fuel-efficient cars, to be able to find alternative fuels, et cetera, et cetera.

When I come back to the floor after this discussion on the postal reform, I am going to talk more about the highway bill. The House is about to vote on a 60-day extension. Let me tell you, that is dangerous. I hope colleagues over there will not do that because, I have to tell you, every day we extend the highway trust fund for a short period of time, we lose jobs, and we need certainty.

I am happy to yield the floor at this time.

Madam President, before they leave the floor, I thank Senator Coons and Senator Begich and Senator Shaheen for the very important words they gave today on behalf of the House taking up and passing the bipartisan Senate Transportation bill. It is interesting to know we also have the senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, speaking out in favor of the House picking up and passing the Senate bipartisan bill. I also served as a county supervisor a long time ago, but I think we all understand that what we do here makes a difference.

This is one Nation under God, indivisible. There cannot be a circumstance where one State puts their own funding from their State into highways but the State next door does nothing. They cannot have commerce. That is why I thought Dwight Eisenhower, when he was a Republican President in the 1950s, said it well. He was a logistics expert. He is the one who started the National Highway System. He knew from his experience in war that you have to move goods and people. He also knew, in his role as President, that in order to have a strong economy, we have to do the same thing here at home.

For me to see this House dither as they are doing--they are dithering on a bill. All they have to do is take up the bipartisan bill. For goodness sake, they have three-quarters of the Senate to support it, and all we need is 218 votes. When I served in the House for 10 years, what did I learn? You needed 218 votes. Tip O'Neill never cared where he got his votes, he just got the votes for the American people. So I have written letters to Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor, and I have begged them to please work with us on this bill, and all we get back are statements from their staff, saying: Well, we are going to do it our way. As Congresswoman Pelosi, the Democratic leader, said today: When you say my way or the highway about the highway bill, you don't get much done.

I also wanted to thank Senator Klobuchar. She also held office at the State level. She was a district attorney, and she understands what happens when the Federal Government, State government, local government, all work together for jobs, and that is what this bill is about.

So I am going to call today on the House to immediately take up and pass the bipartisan Boxer-Inhofe bill. I am going to ask them to abandon their goal of a series of extensions.

When someone goes to buy a house, they need a mortgage. Maybe it will be a 10-year mortgage, 15-, 20-, or a 30-year mortgage. If the banker looked at them and said, We can only give you a mortgage for 30 or 60 days, it would be very difficult, to put it mildly. It is disruptive. You don't know how to plan, you don't know what it is going to cost, you don't know if you are ever going to get the money for the house. So the House, by taking up these extensions, has to understand the impact.

Today I called a press conference to let the press know what the impact is of these extensions. The extension means job losses. We started to put together a list that is coming to us from the States of job losses already happening in the field because of the lack of action by the House. I spoke to the Secretary of Transportation in North Carolina today. He has delayed the remaining 2012 projects totaling $1.2 billion that would employ 41,000 people. So 41,000 people do not have work, as we speak today, because the House is dithering and not passing the bipartisan Senate Transportation bill.

I spoke to the officials in Nevada. As we speak, thousands of jobs have been lost there because the House is considering an extension instead of passing a bill such as our bill.

I spoke to the officials in Maryland. Same thing, thousands of jobs. I spoke to the officials in Michigan. Same thing. Right now we are putting together a list from all across the country of job losses in all of our States as a result of the House failing to take up and pass the bipartisan Senate bill. What more bipartisanship do they need than to have 75 Senators support the bill? One of them was absent due to a funeral. So we have 74 votes for it and 22 against it. What more do they want?

Anyone watching the Senate today sees how paralyzed we are. We have not been able to do a thing. There are filibusters on fixing the post offices. There are filibusters on making sure that Big

Oil doesn't keep ripping off consumers at the pump. Filibuster, filibuster, filibuster, filibuster. But we were able to get over all of that and pass a transportation bill. Why wouldn't the House be thrilled about that? Why wouldn't the House embrace what we did? Why would the House instead stand up again today and say, We are going to have a 60- day extension. Guess what. They pulled it. They are not having a vote on that today because of the uproar it is creating in the States and on the House floor. The House has not delivered on its promise for a bill. All the leadership does is complain about our bill.

Today--I couldn't believe it--Chairman Mica said this bill is not paid for. Senator Baucus, Senator Thune, and others worked across party lines to pay for our bill. It is 100 percent paid for. And guess what it does. It protects 1.9 million jobs and creates another million. That is what our bill does. So they are pulling this vote. They are pulling this vote today. Good. I am glad they are pulling this vote because they ought to instead pass the bipartisan Senate Transportation bill.

I want to tell you a story about what is actually happening out there in the economy. If we do nothing, 1.9 million jobs are gone on March 31. If we do an extension, then you have death by a thousand cuts, a proportion of these jobs is lost, and it keeps getting worse with every extension. So it is the end of these jobs, a slow torturous end of these jobs.

I want to show how many unemployed construction workers there are-- 1.4 million. Why is that? When the unemployment rate is 8.3 percent, the unemployment rate among construction workers is 17.1 percent. Why is that? Because we were having a very tough housing crisis, and we are not out of it yet. So all of these workers who were building houses now were hoping to be able to build highways, build freeways, and fix bridges. And our bill does that. Our bill will take these people and put them to work. We could get this unemployment rate down to 400,000 because we will take a million off this with the expansion of the TIFIA Program, which stands for Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, which gives the money upfront for cities and States and gets projects built faster.

I want to show you what it would look like if you put every unemployed construction worker into a football stadium. This is a Super Bowl stadium, and it is filled. Imagine each and every one of these seats is filled by an unemployed construction worker, and then close your eyes and imagine 13 more stadiums for a total of 14 stadiums. Fourteen stadiums full of unemployed construction workers, that is what we are facing. Yet, the House will not take up and pass the bipartisan Transportation bill. They are flirting with extensions, which is the end of these jobs, but slower and more excruciating.

We talked about jobs, but we have to talk about businesses. These jobs are private sector jobs, and these businesses--over 11,000 of them--are construction companies that would be adversely impacted.

I met with business owners. One man was teary eyed. He said, Senator, I have had to lay off 1,000 people because of the indecision here, because of the constant extensions we have had on the highway bill. We need your bill now. I said I understood. He said, I cannot look at another worker. He said, Extensions are like living hand to mouth. It doesn't work.

If you know, again, that all you are going to get is 90 days' worth of Federal funding, how can you let a contract for a year? No one is going to go out and let a contract for 90 days for a big program that lasts for a year or a year-and-a-half of construction. So we just have to remember we are not just talking about workers; we are talking about the businesses that support those workers.

I am going to show my colleagues a series of editorials. They have run in red States. They have run in blue States. They have run in purple States.

I am going to make a statement, and I am going to stand by it: Everyone in America gets this except the House of Representatives. Everyone in America gets this except the Republicans in the House of Representatives, save a few of them who are courageous. Four of them have broken off--one of them from the Presiding Officer's home State, two of them from Illinois, and one of them from North Carolina. They said: We stand with those who say take up and pass the Senate bipartisan bill. Good for them for showing that kind of courage.

I say to my colleagues now, it is a quarter to 5 in the evening. If any of them are tuning in to this discussion, listen to what these newspapers are saying: ``House should pass transportation bill.''

The No. 1 priority for the House of Representatives should

be passing a bipartisan transportation bill--as the Senate

already has done on a 74 22 vote. . . .

The Senate has done its job. . . . House Speaker Boehner

should drop the notion of passing an extreme Republican-only

House bill and do as the Senate did--craft a bipartisan bill

that can pass both Houses.

This is in the Fresno Bee. It is in the reddest part of California. Trust me when I say that. I know. It is the reddest part of California, and they are asking the House to pass the Senate bill.

Then we have, in Michigan, the Detroit News: ``Congressional Waffling Hurts State Roads.''

The U.S. Senate . . . has approved a bipartisan plan. While

imperfect, it's better than another reprise of an outmoded

transportation act that already has been extended eight

times. . . . The disarray hardly gives States the kind of

revenue certainty they need to get from a Federal plan, but

if Boehner and House Members can't agree on their own plan,

they would probably be wise to take what is politically

possible and pass it. Pass the Senate bill.

Newspapers all over the country--look at this one: ``Road to Compromise.'' One would think the House would embrace this. What are the American people telling us? We are viewed--we in the Congress--as fighting constantly. Our approval rating is 10 percent. I don't know who represents that 10 percent, but it is probably the Presiding Officer's family, my family, and the family of my colleague from Missouri.

Why is that? We can't work together. We proved today on two bills that we can't get together. But we proved a couple of weeks ago, after 5 weeks of debate, we could do it on the Transportation bill.

When Senator Inhofe and I agree, my goodness, that is a day. We don't agree on so many things, believe me. We are struggling over anything that has the word ``environment'' in it. He is fighting to overturn the EPA clean air rules, and I am fighting him to keep them. He doesn't want that much oversight on nuclear accidents; I want more oversight. He says I don't do enough oversight on things he wants oversight on. Listen, we argue. We respect each other. We like each other. We disagree with each other. But on this we came together. What more does Boehner want? What more does Cantor want?

Speaker Boehner is putting at risk 55,000 jobs in Ohio, and Leader Cantor is putting at risk 40,000 jobs in Virginia. Don't they care about the businesses and the workers there?

This headline says the ``Road to Compromise.'' This is the Ohio Akron Beacon, from the heartland:

On Wednesday, 74 Senators, Republicans and Democrats,

joined together in a real accomplishment. They approved a

two-year bill. . . . The timing couldn't be better. . . .

What will the House do? It should take the cue of the Senate

and quickly approve the legislation that won bipartisan

support.

It couldn't be more clear. That is Ohio.

I will tell my colleagues I have never seen such an array of newspapers from all over the country.

This one is the Chicago Sun-Times: ``For a Better Commute, Pass Transportation Bill.''

The Senate just delivered a gift to the House: A bipartisan

transportation bill at a time when America really could use a

lift. Here's hoping the House Republicans don't mess it up. .

. .

Well, hope against hope. So far, I feel very worried--very, very worried. The whole program expires on Friday and all they can come up with is extensions, and then they don't even have the votes for that. How bad would it be for them to give me a call, give Senator Inhofe a call, and say: We are going to come over and sit down and bring the bipartisan leadership of the committee--there are four of them--bring the bipartisan leadership of the Senate, and let's hammer out something.

What is happening over there? Speaker Boehner is the Speaker of the House not Speaker of the Republicans. He needs to work with the Democrats. I don't expect they will love each other, my goodness. We don't expect miracles, but we should expect them to work together.

I remember fondly my days in the House with Tip O'Neill and Bob Michel. Couldn't have better friends. Did they agree on everything? No. Did they work on everything? Yes. I remember those days. I was a whip at a certain point in the House, and they used to call us together and we would come back and say: There are 25 Democrats who can't vote for this Democratic bill. You know what Tip O'Neill would do? He would say: Fine, I will call Bob Michel and see if he has 25 votes for me. They saw that they might have had 20 and they didn't have 25 and they had to compromise the bill. And they did it. That is why I decided I loved legislating.

I loved working on this bill with my friend Senator Inhofe. I loved working with my staff and his staff. Our staffs became almost like family. I would encourage Speaker Boehner to take a page out of this book.

I see the Senator from Louisiana on the Senate floor. He and I go at it on a number of issues. We work together. We even put on this bill the Restore Act--a bipartisan piece of legislation that is going to make sure the gulf can rebuild and get paid back for the suffering that went on there. Did California get a lot out of that? No. But the country will get a lot out of that because the gulf is a region we care about. It is where we get a lot of our energy. It is where we get a lot of our seafood. We need to work together.

So Senator Vitter and I don't agree on a lot of subjects, and we go at it pretty hard in the committee. But on this we agreed.

So let's look at a few others, and then I will yield the floor after we go through the rest of these.

``Highway Bill Would Boost Stability.'' This is Mississippi. This is one of the reddest States in the Union. I beg Speaker Boehner to open his ears and hear me:

A two-year, $109 billion highway bill that passed the U.S.

Senate this week buoys the hope of interest groups like

roadbuilders and the travel industry that the House can be

prodded by the Senators' action to pass its own bill before a

March 31 expiration date. . . .

This bill has no earmarks. . . .

Mississippi could derive major benefits.

I am just saying, when we have editorials from Mississippi

for a bill, we know it is a bipartisan bill.

Let's take a look at some others: ``A Solid Transportation Bill.'' This comes from Oregon, the Register Guard, an editorial:

By an impressive bipartisan vote of 74 to 22, the Senate on

Wednesday passed a two-year blueprint for transportation. The

House should move quickly to approve the Senate measure. If a

transportation bill is not approved and signed into law by

April 1, the government will lose its ability to pay for

Federal transportation projects.

So now we have Mississippi, Oregon, Illinois, and Ohio. I don't remember all that I read.

``Bipartisanship in Senate Moves Transportation Bill.'' This is Oklahoma, another deeply red State:

With rare bipartisanship, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday

passed a much-needed and much-delayed national transportation

bill that could create jobs and fund road projects. . . .

The country's infrastructure has been ignored for too long

and is in dire straits. This is an important and necessary

extension of the transportation bill. It will make needed

improvements to our infrastructure, and it is a real job-

creator. . . .

I am telling my colleagues that I am buoyed by these editorials because these editorials from Republican papers and Democratic papers are nonpartisan. They are all urging us to act.

``Transportation Funding Held Hostage in the House.'' Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Texas--another red State:

What an exciting thing to see the Senate pass a surface

transportation bill last week on a 74 to 22 vote. Such

bipartisan support for maintaining and improving this crucial

part of the national infrastructure makes it almost seem like

the good old days in Washington. . . .

At one point, [House Speaker Boehner] said he would put the

Senate bill before the House. Earlier, he said House

Republicans might go for an 18-month extension. . . . It's

beginning to look like Boehner doesn't have a clue what the

House will do. . . .

Does this sound familiar? Does it remind you of the

congressional follies of last summer, the reality-TV drama

and brinksmanship of the debate over raising the federal debt

limit.

I can't reach Speaker Boehner. He doesn't answer my letters. Cantor doesn't answer my letters. They just have spokespeople who put something out there. What is wrong with talking to each other? What happened to those days?

Now, it goes on, and I am going to go through these: ``Pass This Transit Bill.'' This one is the Miami Herald:

In an all too rare display of bipartisanship, the Senate,

by a vote of 74 to 22 last week, passed a transportation bill

of vital interest to South Florida and the rest of the

country. . . .

This uncompromising approach is why public approval of

Congress stands at 10 percent or below in recent polls. Mr.

Boehner should urge the members of his caucus to set aside

their job-killing intransigence and accept the bipartisan

Senate version before funding runs out.

So here is the thing--I will wrap up--there is a clear path to success, and it is not painful. It is not painful. Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor should abandon their idea of these endless extensions. We have proven today through the State organizations and by talking to State officials in all of our States that jobs are already being lost because of the uncertainty, the dithering--that is my word--and the fact that they are talking about extensions. Extensions are no good. Extensions mean job losses--41,000 jobs already lost today as of now in North Carolina and thousands in other States because States do not have the ability to up-front the Federal share. They are counting on us.

Our bill is fully paid for in a bipartisan way. Our bill has not one earmark. Our bill takes 90 programs down to 30. It is streamlined. It is made efficient.

We have, in a bipartisan way, added the Restore Act. We added ways to fund rural districts for their schools by the timber receipts. This is a good bill, and this is a bill that is truly a work product of everyone in this Chamber. Even those who ended up voting no had something to do with it and helped us get it through.

So there is a clear path. They pulled their 60-day extension off the floor of the House, and that is a good thing. Now they should put the Senate bill on the floor and both sides should embrace it and pass it.

Let me tell my colleagues a signal it will send to our people at home: It will send a signal of job growth in the future, a signal that we are working together, a signal that we are going to get out of this recession, a signal that we put aside politics for the good of these hard-hat workers and the companies that employ them. They deserve it. They got hurt by Wall Street. Everybody in the country did. But for these construction workers, because of all this messing around with these mortgage-backed securities, it killed the construction industry and housing.

We have a chance to help some of the hardest working people in our Nation. I call on the House leadership to take a page out of our bipartisan book here and pass the Senate bill.

I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.