Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 1:30 p.m. with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, today I rise in memory of Dorothy Howell Rodham, a truly extraordinary woman who died last week at the age of 92.

Many Americans knew Dorothy Rodham through her daughter, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who credits her mother with giving her the strength, self-confidence, perseverance, and faith she needed to thrive in politics and diplomacy.

Millions of Americans had the opportunity to get to know Dorothy on the campaign trail for her son-in-law, William Jefferson Clinton, and her daughter Hillary. They saw a bright, sincere, and highly intelligent woman who was so proud of her family and would do anything for them.

Some of us had known that Dorothy weathered a difficult childhood, but it was only with her passing that many Americans learned just how harrowing it was. Abandoned by her parents at age 8, she took her 3- year-old sister on

a cross-country train trip to live with their unwelcoming grandparents in California. By her early teens, she had to leave their home and begin working as a nanny.

Dorothy worked as a secretary in Chicago before marrying Hugh Rodham and raising their three children: Hillary, Hugh, and Tony. Throughout her life, Mrs. Rodham worked hard to ensure that her children and grandchildren had the opportunities she had been denied.

Dorothy and I shared a great joy--our grandson Zachary. I saw first- hand what a wonderful influence she was for Zach, always there for him in every way. She was that way for all her grandchildren, including her first remarkable grandchild--Chelsea.

When Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked who inspired her to succeed in public life, she credited the women's movement and Dorothy Rodham, ``who never got a chance to go to college, who had a very difficult childhood, but who gave me a belief that I could do whatever I set my mind to.''

Dorothy Rodham was an extraordinary woman--strong, compassionate and loving. She will be sorely missed by her loved ones, by her friends, and by the American people.

Mr. President, today I want to spotlight a generous act that will help a school and a community recover from a terrible natural disaster.

Joplin, MO, was devastated this past May by the worst tornado to strike the United States in 60 years. This horrific storm cut a 6-mile swath through Joplin, killing 162 people and destroying more than 8,000 buildings, including thousands of homes and many of the city's schools.

The people of Joplin have worked heroically to rebuild their community. At the end of August, students returned to school. Thanks to donations from people across America and around the world, every student received a backpack with school supplies and a new laptop computer.

Barry Manilow saw one need that had not been met: Among the countless losses in the tornado were all the musical instruments used by students in the band at Joplin High School and other city schools.

Last month, Barry arrived in Joplin with three truckloads of instruments, worth about $300,000. He presented the donation personally on the football field at Joplin High. Barry noted that his own high school music program in Brooklyn, NY, had nurtured his talent and opened the way for his amazing musical career.

Barry Manilow's gift to Joplin was tremendous but not unique for him. Through his nonprofit Manilow Music Project, Barry has helped public schools across the country to survive despite drastic cuts to school funding for the arts. He not only writes the songs; he also writes checks that enable school music programs to keep bringing the gift of music to our students, schools, and communities.

I salute Barry Manilow today and am deeply moved by his act of kindness. It brings me great pride to call him not only a Californian, but also a friend.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 10, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 10, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Opportunities and Challenges for Economic Development in Indian Country.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 10, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 10, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Unemployment Insurance: The Path Back to Work.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving Quality, Lowering Costs: The Role of Health Care Delivery System Reform'' on November 10, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 10, 2011, at 2:15 p.m., in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on November 10, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 10, 2011 at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I listened with interest to the Senator's explanation of the cross-air rule. I would just say he is off the mark, because if you produce deadly pollution in your State--deadly--you have an obligation to clean it up before it goes into another State.

It is like taking your garbage and dumping it in your neighbor's front lawn. We don't do that in America. So we are going to have a robust debate next week on the cross-State air rule.

I hope people keep in mind that we are talking about deadly pollution produced in one State and moving over to a series of other States which have no defense. So anyone who wants to come and claim that is the right thing to do morally--just walk away from that rule--I think they are going to have a hard time explaining it back home. I would not dump garbage on the front lawn of my neighbor's house. I think that patina is the best explanation of what this is about. More on that later.

Today we are going to be facing a very interesting choice. As we know, President Obama has put together a major jobs package, and he pays for it by going to the millionaires and saying that once they make $1 million, after that we think they could pay a little bit more to help us get out of this recession. My Republican friends voted that down. They were appalled we would even suggest there would be even a few dollars of increased taxes on people who make over $1 million. They would rather not do any job creation and protect the people who earn over $1 million.

(Mr. MANCHIN assumed the Chair.)

We have a very stark choice today. We have a small version of the jobs bill--this one focuses on infrastructure, mostly transportation investments--paid for by a seven-tenths-of-1-percent tax on people who earn over $1 million, and it would not go into effect on any of those funds until they pass the million. So it would be taxed seven-tenths of 1 percent on income over $1 million.

I make that point because it is not going to hurt anybody. A person making $1.5 million would pay an additional $3,000. This is not anything that will hurt the millionaires and billionaires. It is going to make this country stronger. It is going to grow this economy.

Here is what we have: We have a Democratic jobs bill. It is $60 billion--$50 billion for roads and bridges and $10 billion for an infrastructure bank.

To put that into the context of why this is such a good bill and why it would create 650,000 jobs, let me tell you what it is doing in essence. It is taking an extra year of transportation funding--we spend about $50 billion a year, approximately, through the highway trust fund--and it would inject essentially another year of spending over the next 12 months, creating well over 650,000 new jobs.

The Republican alternative actually loses jobs. They say they will continue the highway trust fund for 2 years. So they are just continuing what we are already doing. That is great. But then they cut the equivalent amount from police, fire, food inspection, and the FBI, and it will result in a loss of many jobs--200,000 jobs. So we have one bill, the Democratic bill, that creates a minimum of 650,000 jobs, and we have the Republican bill that cuts 200,000 jobs.

What are they thinking, Mr. President? What are they thinking? This is not the time to cut 200,000 jobs. Then they end health care reform which we all know, while not perfect, is going to help reduce our deficit. What they have done is continue the highway spending at current levels--it doesn't add one job--and then they cut all those other jobs to pay for it--200,000 jobs--and then they repeal health care reform, which will add to the deficit.

They cannot stand the thought of a millionaire paying a little bit more to help us at this time even though everybody knows we are at a point in time where the gap between the wealthiest and the middle class has never been bigger. Four hundred families earn more than 50 percent of all the rest of us; 400 families earn more than 50 percent of all the rest of us. It is unbelievable.

My State has many wealthy people in it, many poor people in it, and has a good middle class. But it is getting tougher to be part of that middle class.

The middle class is hit hard with health costs, with college costs that keep going up, and with gas prices going up. They are hit hard with mortgages they can't refinance because their mortgage is now higher than their home is worth. So we have to act on these issues. We have the ability to do it.

If we just read the Preamble of our Constitution, it tells us what we are supposed to do: work for a more perfect union, establish justice, domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare. We have to do these things today because we are losing the middle class.

This bill before us, the Democratic jobs bill, is an excellent place to start this very day by infusing $60 billion into spending that will go mostly to private sector contractors, people who build roads and bridges. Do you know that 70,000 bridges in America are deficient?

My colleague, Senator Inhofe, and I are working closely on a highway bill. We are going to have one soon. He tells the story of a woman walking in Oklahoma. She is simply taking a walk, and the bridge starts to fall apart; it falls down and traps her and kills her. He said she was a young mother. This is America in the 21st century. That is not acceptable. We can't have a country like ours neglect its infrastructure. It is wrong.

But our Republican friends will not work with us because they don't want to ask people earning over $1 million to pay just a little bit more. For example, if someone makes $1.1 million, they will have to pay $700 more in their taxes. That is it. But they don't even want to go there. What they want to do is say: Oh, yes, we will just renew the highway bill, but we will slash across the board everything but defense. That is how we are going to pay for their jobs bill, which actually will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. It is unbelievable to me.

I don't think this is the time to say we will turn our backs on jobs. As a matter of fact, in order to extend the highway trust fund we are going to fire cops, firefighters, food safety inspectors, FBI agents, and Border Patrol agents. That is their alternative. So don't vote for it unless you think it is the time to put all those people out of work.

What Republicans also do in this so-called jobs bill--which is a no jobs bill; it is a jobs loss bill--is they decide they want to block implementation of very important health and safety rules. I want to go through what those rules are. We are going to talk about the Clean Air Act right now.

The Republicans are repealing two rules that deal with clean air. Here is the thing. It is going to make people sicker. It is going to mean lots of jobs in clean tech. It is the last thing the country needs. It flies in the face of the views of the people. Let's talk about one of the rules they want to cut back: industrial boilers and incinerators.

This bill, called a jobs bill, would halt an EPA rule issued in February 2011 to reduce toxic air pollution. What do I mean? Toxic means it is toxic to our health; it will hurt us. People will die from toxic air pollution. People do die from toxic air pollution. The toxins the boilers and incinerators rule would reduce include mercury, lead, and other hazardous air pollution released by boilers and incinerators.

They can write it the way they want it, but here is what happens when we go back to those days when we allowed these toxins to be emitted. We saw developmental disabilities in our children. We saw more cases of cancer, more cases of heart disease, aggravated asthma, and premature death.

These are not just words. Congress commissioned a study, and we now know exactly what we are doing, how many lives it saves, and how many visits to the hospital it saves. Let me remind my friends who think that it is good for the economy to have toxic air pollution, if we cannot breathe we cannot work. If someone has to rush to the hospital or their child is rushed there because of an asthma attack, they lose a day's work. If a pregnant woman now has a problem with the child, and the child is disabled or has problems mentally from too much mercury, this is a tragedy.

Some people say: Oh, the EPA is regulating too much and it costs too much. Let me tell you the price of the Republican agenda: sick people, loss of jobs in the clean tech industry, lost days of work, loss of kids' schooldays.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate, when they have their next meeting with a large group of people--whether it is 100 or 50 or just a couple--ask them how many of them have asthma. Ask them how many know someone close to them with asthma. I guarantee the hands of one-third to one-half of those in the room will go up. That doesn't just happen-- asthma--because a person just woke up on the wrong side of the bed. It happens because of the air they are breathing. It is toxic.

But in the Republicans' so-called jobs bill--which I already told you loses jobs--they not only do that, but to add insult to injury they repeal all of these rules.

Let me put it into context for you, since I have now spoken emotionally about what it does to people when they breathe in toxins. Let me cite the numbers.

Congress demanded a study. We said, give us the numbers, and so a study was done. We believe the protections from this industrial boiler rule will annually prevent up to 6,500 premature deaths, 4,000 heart attacks, 4,300 hospital emergency room visits, 310,000 days when people miss work or school, and 41,000 cases of aggravated asthma. The benefits from these safeguards are expected to be $54 billion annually by 2014. That is the rule my Republican colleagues want us to set aside.

If you went to your constituents and said to them: You know, we have a rule here that says industry is going to have to use the best available technology and clean up their pollution, and here is what it is going to do--it is going to prevent 6,500 premature deaths, 4,000 heart attacks, 4,300 hospital visits, 310,000 days when people miss school or work, and 41,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and it is going to deliver $54 billion a year in health benefits--I think your constituents would say, go for it, Senator; that makes sense.

Let me talk about a poll that just came out that reflects how people feel about this. Listen to this. We have our Republican friends offering what they call a jobs bill, which I have proven contains job cuts because they simply continue the highway trust fund. They do not add anything new, but they cut a couple hundred thousand jobs to pay for it. That is their so-called jobs bill.

They then want to repeal two rules that fall under the Clean Air Act, and I just talked about the boiler rule. But let me tell you what the people think, since we are supposed to represent the people.

There was a bipartisan poll done in October, a few days ago, reflecting 88 percent of Democrats, 85 percent of Independents, and 58 percent of Republicans opposed Congress stopping the EPA from enacting new limits on air pollution from electric powerplants.

Who is speaking for the people? We need to vote down the Republican alternative because 88 percent of Democrats want us to, 85 percent of Independents want us to, and 58 percent of Republicans want us to. They do not want Congress stepping in.

On Tuesday, Senator Paul is going to have a motion to repeal the cross-state air pollution rule, which is a rule that says to the States if they are creating toxic air pollution and it is flowing to another State, it has to be cleaned up. Now, 67 percent of voters support the cross-state air pollution rule and 77 percent of voters support the mercury air toxics rule. So 65 percent of voters surveyed are confident the health and environmental benefits of air pollution standards outweigh the costs, and 75 percent of voters believe a compelling reason to implement these air rules is the boost to local economies and thousands of new jobs that are created from investments in new technologies.

If we are representing the people of these great United States, we better listen to what they are saying in a bipartisan way. They are telling us to leave the EPA alone. When people come to this floor and demonize the EPA, they are going against the beliefs of the American people.

There are some incredible quotes I want to read, because, to me, it is amazing what is happening around here. When I get to the place here I want, I am going to cite some quotes from unlikely sources.

Mr. President, how many minutes remains on our side?

I thank the Chair.

Here is a quote from General Motors:

General Motors company recognizes the benefit of the

country continuing the historic national program to address

fuel economy and greenhouse gases that the EPA began.

That is signed by the chairman and CEO of General Motors.

Here is a quote from a letter from a whole group of electricity- producing companies: PG&E, Calpine Corp., NextEra Energy, Inc., Public Service Enterprise Group, National Grid USA, Exelon Corp., Constellation Energy, and Austin Energy. This is a quote from their letter to the Wall Street Journal:

Our companies' experience complying with air quality

regulations demonstrates regulations can yield important

economic benefits, including job creation, while maintaining

reliability.

Kind of amazing, isn't it? And there is Gerald Ford, the Republican President who signed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974--also under attack, by the way--who said:

Nothing is more essential to the life of every single

American than clean air, pure food, and safe drinking water.

Yet if you look at the Republican plan, they roll back clean air regulations and they roll back food safety. Even after we had people die from contaminated cantaloupe, my friends on the other side think now is the time to cut back on food safety inspection. Give me a break. Who are we here representing?

This is why people across the country are upset. They see things such as this and they say, is this Alice in Wonderland?

Listen to what Christine Todd Whitman and William Ruckelshaus wrote-- two Republicans who were former EPA Administrators under Republican Presidents. They said:

It is easy to forget how far we have come in the past 40

years. We should take heart from all this progress and not,

as some in Congress have suggested, seek to tear down the

agency that the President and Congress created to protect

America's health and environment.

They wrote that letter in March of this year. They understand. This isn't a partisan issue. Republicans breathe the same air that Democrats and Independents breathe. That is why it is so frustrating to see, in a so-called jobs bill from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, an actual loss of jobs and loss of clean air regulations and loss of food safety inspectors.

I have to say I find myself quoting Richard Nixon more and more these days. He signed the Clean Air Act. Listen to what he said at a State of the Union speech. He said:

Clean air, clean water, open spaces--these should once

again be the birthright of every American.

I have cited these quotes from Republican Presidents and former Administrators of the EPA under Republican Presidents, so I am stunned at this so-called jobs bill. I have talked about the industrial boiler rule, but they also roll back the cement manufacturing facilities rule that would indefinitely delay standards to address smog and toxic soot pollution from over 150 cement kilns nationwide. These facilities contain hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, arsenic, lead, and other heavy metals.

Remember the movie ``Arsenic and Old Lace''? Arsenic kills you. Too much of it does that. Come on. We need to clean up the air, and we need to be sure we do it in a reasonable way. I am on that side--the side of doing it in a reasonable way. And no one could be more reasonable than Lisa Jackson. I tell you, the woman has the patience of a saint. She is not going to go out and hit people over the head with this. She is going to phase in these regulations, and she is going to listen carefully. And you have to listen. Mercury, arsenic, lead, and other heavy metals are the third largest mercury source in the country. These relate to cement manufacturing facilities.

Let me tell you what these pollutants do. They cause cancer and they harm the reproductive system and the developmental system. Pregnant women and children are at risk. We hear a lot of talk about life--when does life begin? That is up to each individual and their God to decide that. But one thing I hope we can agree on is that a pregnant woman shouldn't be subjected to too much mercury or too much arsenic in the air.

We have a rule here, a reduction of mercury and toxic soot emissions. We know that rule will prevent 2,500 premature deaths, 1,500 heart attacks, more than 1,700 emergency room and hospital visits, that it will prevent 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks, 130,000 days of lost work, and it will provide up to $18 billion of benefits annually by 2013, which is a benefits-to-cost ratio of 19 to 1. Yet my friends on the other side think it is a terrible idea and want to indefinitely delay it.

Let me tell you something. If we had that kind of attitude in Congress years before, we wouldn't have a Clean Air Act. I can tell you what happened in Los Angeles. We used to have about 160 days in Los Angeles where people could not go out. They were warned to stay indoors. As a result of the Clean Air Act, we have had none of those days--none--in Los Angeles in 2010.

So why on Earth does anyone want to delay these rules? If you want to sit with Lisa Jackson and sit with me, as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and sit with others and see if there is a way we can do this in a fair manner, of course. But the public wants us to act, and the action they want us to take is to support the EPA, not to put our noses in there and stop them from doing what the Clean Air Act requires them to do.

Poll after poll shows that voters are on the side of clean air. They are on the side of protecting the public health. They are not on the side of polluters. So I wish to say, we know two things today: People want jobs, and they also want their health protected. We also know that when you protect the people's health, what happens is a huge economic boost is given to the clean tech sector, and that boost has resulted in many jobs. As many as 1.7 million jobs are created because of these clean air rules and clean water rules.

The whole world wants these technologies. I had the amazing experience of visiting China, and I didn't see the Sun--I didn't see the Sun--for the 7 days or so I was there. The air is filthy, and people complain about it. One day we had the hint of sun--the hint of sun--breaking through the pollution, and the people there said, what a beautiful day. You must have brought the good weather. I said, you know what, come to California, I will show you a blue sky.

We cannot go backward. We need to move this country forward.

If the arc of history bends toward justice, it also bends toward health, public health, making sure our people get that health care, that they don't have those public health enemies out there--the soot, the arsenic, the lead, the mercury--and, yes, jobs. We have seen our GDP explode since we passed the Clean Air Act, and we grew more than any other industrialized nation while we had these laws in place, for two reasons. One, these laws create clean tech jobs. Two, if we can't breathe, we can't work. When we have a healthy society, we are far more productive.

So we have the Democratic alternative that will create over 600,000 jobs in transportation. It doesn't go into these extraneous issues such as the air pollution laws, and it is paid for by seven-tenths of 1 percent of income over $1 million.

Then we have the Republican alternative that just continues our transportation at the same levels and pays for it by cutting 200,000 jobs--police, fire, and the rest, FBI agents, food safety inspectors, Border Patrol agents. Just what we don't need. That is what they do. Plus, just for good measure, they repeal basically two Clean Air Act rules that I talked about from boilers and cement plants.

Folks, if ever there was a difference between the parties in evidence, this is it. If one person comes up to me and asks if there is really a difference between Democrats and Republicans, I will point them to this debate.

So I hope very much that we will get enough votes to take up the Democratic bill that is fully paid for and will create over 600,000 jobs, that will fix our deficient bridges and our deficient highways, that will say to the construction workers: We know you are out of work, and we are going to put you back to work--or the Republican alternative that would result in 200,000

jobs lost and overturn these clean air rules that are so important that the vast majority of people, including Republicans, who are asked about it would say: Congress, keep your hands off these rules because, you know what. We think they are working.

I reserve the remainder for other speakers, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, what is before us now is supposed to be a jobs bill. Actually, all they do in this alternative, my Republican friends, is extend the highway trust fund at the current levels. That is something we intend to do, and Senator Inhofe and I are going to bring the bill to the floor that does that, but they decided they want to do it now. And how do they pay for it? They cut $40 billion out of such functions as firefighters, police, Border Patrol, food safety inspectors, and we will lose 200,000 jobs from that action.

In addition, there are two rollbacks of environmental laws that deserve a heck of a lot more notice than putting them in this bill. That is going to hurt our people because if you can't breathe, you can't work. We have to get the mercury and the soot and the arsenic out of the air.

I hope we will vote no on this. It is not a jobs bill.

I yield the floor.

Parliamentary inquiry.

I want to make sure I will have a minute to respond against the amendment.

Madam President, this amendment is not about taking funds from beautification and putting them into bridges. As a matter of fact, what this amendment does is it prohibits any bridge that is a historic bridge from being fixed, and there are thousands of those bridges all over this great Nation, including the Brooklyn Bridge.

Second, it would tell our States they can't use these TIGR funds for things they want. I know my colleague thinks it is beautification to have a pedestrian or a bicycle path built. The fact is, 13 percent of traffic fatalities nationwide occur because we don't have these safety improvements. There were 47,000 pedestrians killed between 2000 and 2009. That is the equivalent of a jumbo jet crashing every month. So this isn't about taking money for beautification.

Senator Inhofe and I have worked very closely to make sure we are not frivolous in what we fund.

Please vote this down. We have voted down a similar amendment before.

This amendment affects the ability of people with asthma to purchase an inhaler that works, and the American Lung Association opposes this amendment. The American Thoracic Society, which is the expert--these are the experts on anything to do with respiratory diseases. There are 150,000 doctors who oppose this amendment.

I am perplexed by it because the reason we want to get away from these CFCs is because Ronald Reagan signed the treaty to do away with them and George W. Bush passed the rule to do away with them.

On behalf of the people who depend on inhalers that work right, that don't use CFCs, I hope we will stand with the Lung Association and the 150,000 doctors of the Thoracic Society.

I hope we will vote this down.

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

Madam President, I rise in support of John Bryson of California, President Obama's nominee to be Secretary of Commerce.

Mr. Bryson will bring a wealth of experience in both the private sector and the public sector to this very important job of Commerce Secretary. Lord knows, we are in a recession and we are fighting hard to get out of it. We need a Commerce Secretary, and we need someone who understands the private sector and the public sector and we have that in John Bryson.

In the 1970s and 1980s, he served as the chairman of the California Water Resources Board and as the chairman of the California Public Utilities Commission. There, he helped California navigate droughts, oil shortages, and other crises during a critical period in my State's history.

For more than 20 years, Mr. Bryson has utilized his talents in the private sector, first as chairman and CEO of Southern California Edison, and later as chairman and CEO of Edison International.

Mr. Bryson has also served on the boards of many companies, both large and small, and he will bring to the job of Commerce Secretary a unique expertise on what it takes for businesses to grow and expand.

Mr. Bryson's top priority is job creation. As Commerce Secretary, he will be working closely with the President to meet the goal of doubling our Nation's exports by 2015 and creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs right here in the United States. He will be working with the private sector to drive innovation and economic growth, and he will be working to make the United States a leader in the clean energy economy.

At Edison International, Mr. Bryson helped California become a hub for clean energy development and clean energy jobs by making investments in those renewable technologies. He understands new clean energy technologies will create millions of jobs here at home and that the Nation that rises to this challenge will lead the world because the whole world is looking for these kinds of technologies.

I think Mr. Bryson comes to us with varied experiences which will serve us well and will serve President Obama well. Mr. Bryson's nomination has been applauded by all sides of the political spectrum, from environmentalists to business interests.

Tom Donohue of the Chamber of Commerce praised Mr. Bryson's ``extensive knowledge of the private sector and years of experience successfully running a major company.''

The Business Roundtable called Mr. Bryson ``a proven, well-respected executive who will bring his private sector experience to the Commerce Department's broad portfolio that includes technology, trade, intellectual property and exports, which will be crucial to expanding our economy and creating jobs.''

The Natural Resources Defense Council, which Mr. Bryson helped found in the 1970s, called him:

. . . a visionary leader in promoting a clean environment and

a strong economy. He has compiled an exemplary record in

public service and in business that underscores the strong

linkage between economic and environmental progress.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from the Los Angeles Times, titled ``Commerce Department nominee deserves the job.''

Mr. President, Mr. Bryson's unique background will serve him well as he works with President Obama, the Senate, and the House to create jobs. I applaud our President for choosing such a well- qualified, experienced individual to be Commerce Secretary, and I want to thank Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison for working together so we could get to this vote today.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the final 10 minutes of debate prior to noon on the McCain amendment No. 739 be equally divided between Senator McCain and myself or our designees.

To lead us off on this very important amendment and to explain why it is important to not support the McCain amendment is a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and a great member of that committee and a great supporter of the environment and transportation, Senator Cardin of Maryland. I yield him 6 minutes.

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

Madam President, the Transportation Enhancements Program that the McCain amendment would essentially cripple was established in 1991 in a bipartisan transportation bill signed by President George H.W. Bush, and it has been continued in subsequent bipartisan transportation bills which passed in 1998 and 2005.

This program benefits all Americans by making significant investments in safety, helping to reduce congestion, expanding transportation choices, and it strengthens local economies, provides jobs, protects the environment.

This amendment eliminates seven of the activities eligible under the Transportation Enhancements Program, and it prevents any funds from being spent on those activities.

Here is the thing about the TE Program, the Transportation Enhancements Program: There are things in it we need to reform. Senator Inhofe and I, along with Senator Vitter and Senator Baucus, are working very hard, and we have a bill, a bipartisan bill. The Acting President pro tempore is a proud member of our committee. We are going to mark up that bill very soon. Yes, it needs reform. But this amendment takes a meat ax to a very important program, and it would have far-reaching and unintended consequences.

By prohibiting any funds to be used on these activities that Senator McCain has singled out, this amendment actually eliminates the flexibility of our States and prevents them from spending funds on activities which are necessary to construct and maintain our highway system.

So even setting aside the loss of jobs that would incur as a result of the McCain amendment, let me tell you the other unintended consequences. But maybe Senator McCain intended that there would be fewer jobs. But I am assuming he did not intend, for example, this kind of a situation.

In the case of historic bridges, a bridge could be deficient, but under this amendment we could not fund a rehabilitation project because the bridge is historic. Because he says we cannot spend any money on historic sites, a regular fix to a bridge that happens to be historic would not take place.

I just happened to have finished a book I strongly recommend: ``The Great Bridge: The Epic Story of the Building of the Brooklyn Bridge.'' What a story David McCullough tells. That bridge was built in the 1800s. It is historic. Under the McCain amendment, they could no longer get funds. That is the unintended consequence because it is historic. So even though it is probably one of the heaviest traveled bridges--and the Acting President pro tempore could attest to that--in our Nation, imagine this amendment which would not allow bridges such as this to get funded. It is a poorly drafted amendment. I do not know, maybe this was intended. I cannot imagine it was intended, but this is the truth. This is what would happen.

We also have in this amendment a prohibition on the use of funds for landscaping, which is necessary to complete any Federal aid highway project in order to prevent erosion along a highway. So I happen to be a person who believes, when we do a project, it ought to look good, it ought to make people feel good. Landscaping is important and it creates jobs and it cleans the air. OK. But setting all that aside, it is a safety question because a lot of times those plants will hold the soil in place and stop erosion when we have strong and heavy rains.

Yesterday, our friend from Alaska, Senator Begich, mentioned the Seward Highway outside Anchorage and how scenic overlooks were added to provide a safe place for tourists to pull over. Under the McCain amendment, as I understand it, we could not spend money on scenic outlooks. But let me tell you, in the case of this particular scenic outlook, it was necessary for safety because people were so inspired, before the scenic outlook, they would just pull over in a dangerous way, have no place to go, and it was not good for safety.

I wish to talk about the Transportation Enhancements Program in Senator McCain's State of Arizona. The demand is so strong from Arizona for these funds that Arizona submitted three times what they were actually able to get under the Transportation Enhancements Program. For example, in 2006, 72 applications requested $31 million in local project TE funding, but only $11 million was awarded to 24 projects.

In Safford, AZ, TE funds are being used to improve five intersections and the surrounding streetscapes along Main Street to provide safer means of travel for pedestrians. According to the city of Safford, in Arizona, this project provides a viable transportation component dedicated to pedestrian safety within the increased vehicle traffic on Main Street. This downtown project to improve safety, mobility, and commerce was supported by the town of Thatcher, the Safford Downtown Association, and the Graham County Chamber of Commerce.

Again, we have a situation where I believe this amendment has very adverse consequences to our local people, to our States.

Right now, the way TE is in our bill--the old bill--it is up to the States whether they want to do this. No one can force them to spend the money on this. They have the flexibility.

So now seven ways of using these funds would be taken away from the States. Let's be clear on it. This is a State decision how they spend this money. They do not have to take this money. They make the decision themselves. This amendment would take away that ability.

There is also a prohibition on controlling outdoor advertising in the McCain amendment. That means if a State wanted to remove outdoor advertising, they could not use any Federal funds to do it, and they could not effectively control their advertising, which is required under current law. Again, they are supposed to control outdoor advertising, but the funds would not get to them to do that. I think if we ask the average person, they want their local people to have control over these things. So we need to defeat the McCain amendment or table the McCain amendment.

My friend from Arizona also is telling us that 10 percent of surface transportation funding goes to transportation enhancements. That is not correct. The Transportation Enhancements Program represents a tiny fraction of the Federal highway program--about 2 percent--not 10 percent, as my colleague John McCain said. Furthermore, the seven activities prohibited by the amendment have represented less than 1 percent of the entire Federal highway program.

This amendment is making a dramatic and sweeping policy change in what should otherwise be a clean appropriations bill. It represents an issue we have been discussing at the EPW Committee for quite some time in the context of a multiyear surface transportation reauthorization bill, which, as I said at the outset, is the proper vehicle for such a policy change.

I thought we had decided as a Senate--Republicans and Democrats--we should not legislate on these bills. Senator McCain does not like seven things in the Transportation Enhancements Program. Maybe I do not like two things or Senator Gillibrand may not like four things. It is not up to one colleague to stand here and decide, without any hearings or any discussion, what they do not like in a particular bill.

I do not think that is the way we should legislate, especially since the TE Program is run by the States. We make the funds available. They decide whether they want the funds for those activities. They do not have to do it. They do not have to take the funds. They do not have to do any of the eligible projects. So it, at the moment, has a lot of flexibility built in. As we reform in the next bill, we will look at some of the areas where we think we can make this a better program.

Believe me when I tell you that Senator Inhofe and I have been working very closely on this, along with Senator Vitter and Senator Baucus. So we think we are going to have a very good reformed TE Program. This is not the place to change a program that our States like. They like it because it is flexible. They like it because it has a number of ways they can use the funding.

So we are going to have a bill. It is called MAP-21, which stands for Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century. It is going to have a lot of reforms in it. It is going to consolidate a lot of programs. It is going to be a bill most of us can embrace and be happy with. It is going to have a reform TE Program, and that is the way to do this. There will be significant reform. But it is not right, in my view--and we will see how the vote goes--for one Senator to say: I do not like seven things that are in this potpourri of things we can use TE for, so I am saying we cannot do it. We cannot use the funds.

It is just not right, and I pointed out how this is worded in such a fashion that bridges such as the Brooklyn Bridge and other historic bridges could lose all their funding as a result of the way this is drafted.

So let's turn away from this McCain amendment. We know what works around here. What works around here is bipartisan cooperation, coordination. I see the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, in the Chamber. She works so closely with Senator Rockefeller, and I will tell you what that means. It means we have wonderful progress in the Commerce Committee, which we would never have. Senator Inhofe and I work very closely in the EPW Committee. Everyone kind of smiles about it because they know on the environment side we do not work closely. That is true. We know that. He thinks global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. I think it is happening. It is real. So we know we do not see eye to eye on that, and we have decided that is just a fact. So we do not engage in long arguments about it. We pursue our agendas, and we try to get the votes. But on infrastructure, he is one of the most conservative, I am one of the most liberal Members here. The fact is, there is no daylight between us on infrastructure because he believes that is one of the major functions of our government and I do, too, and it makes a lot of sense.

I want to note the McCain amendment is opposed by the National Association of Counties, the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, the National League of Cities, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the U.S. Travel Association. America does not support this amendment.

This is a group of bipartisan organizations. When you look at the National Association of Counties, I started as a county supervisor. You have Republicans, Democrats, Independents, everything in between.

Highway Transportation Officials is completely nonpartisan. National League of Cities, we have Republicans and Democratic mayors and councils; National Trust for Historic Preservation, again a mixture of different views. And the U.S. Travel Association. I mean, I do not know how that breaks down, but it certainly is a bipartisan group.

Please, I hope people will turn away from the McCain amendment. It is not good for jobs. It is going to hurt jobs. It is going to have the unintended consequences of not allowing us to fix some of our most deficient bridges. It goes against the people we are supposed to represent here, the people out there on the ground: our county officials, our State highway transportation officials, our city officials, and those who work so hard to preserve the history of this greatest Nation in the world.

We cannot turn our backs on historic preservation. Otherwise we do not know what our past was. I cannot tell you how many mistakes were made in California where in the early years we did not realize what we were losing. What people would give back to get back some of those old courthouses that were torn down--I cannot tell you--from the 1800s. And they could have been fixed up. But people did not have the foresight. This McCain amendment would do real damage.

The U.S. Travel Association, you know, we are talking here about small businesses. We are talking about people who work in recreation, in airline travel. They do not want to see this happen, this McCain amendment. So I am assuming Senator McCain will be here. We have reserved the last 10 minutes before noon.

At this point I think I have said all I can say to persuade my colleagues, who

I hope are listening in their offices, that they should turn away from the McCain amendment.

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

Madam President, I am happy to yield my 5 minutes to Senator Inhofe at the appropriate point.

Mr. President, could we have order?

The reason I asked for order is because this amendment affects each and every one of you and

your constituents. The McCain amendment says to the States that they cannot use a certain section of the transportation bill for several things, including scenic or historic highway programs, including tourist centers, landscaping, or scenic beautification, historic preservation, and it goes on.

The point I want to make is this amendment is opposed by the National Association of Counties, the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, the National League of Cities, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the U.S. Travel Association. That is a nonpartisan list, and let me tell you why. The way this amendment is drafted, historic bridges could never even be repaired. The Brooklyn Bridge or other historic bridges could not be repaired and we could not control erosion. We would have major problems.

I move to table the McCain amendment.

Mr. President, I move to table McCain amendment No. 739, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Jewish Federation of the Desert as the organization prepares to move into its new home in Rancho Mirage, CA.

The Jewish Federation of the Desert embraces the core Jewish values of compassion, charity, generosity, and responsibility to care for those in need including the elderly, the homeless, the undereducated, and victims of abuse and violence. In addition, the federation is dedicated to supporting child and youth education, with afterschool activities, day schools, and childhood centers.

On November 1, the Jewish Federation of the Desert will open its doors in Rancho Mirage. This new home will allow the federation to dedicate more of its resources to helping people in the Coachella Valley and create a vibrant new center for Jewish community life.

I congratulate the Jewish Federation of the Desert and wish its staff, volunteers, and supporters continued success in carrying out its noble mission.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Early Language Proficiency Act, legislation critical to preparing young children across our country to be successful in school.

Studies have shown that children who participate in pre-kindergarten programs are less likely to be held back a grade, show greater learning retention and initiative, have better social skills, are more enthusiastic about school, and are more likely to have good attendance records.

Experts agree that an early education experience is one of the most effective strategies for improving later school performance. The National Research Council reported that prekindergarten educational opportunities are critical in developing early language and literacy skills and preventing reading difficulties in young children.

This bill is a step forward in making a national commitment to giving all children access to high quality pre-kindergarten programs that have been proven to have a solid impact on a child's success later in school and in life.

The Early Language Proficiency Act, would authorize pre-kindergarten English language instruction as an allowable use of Federal funding. With over 5 million English language learning students nationwide, 1.5 million of who reside in my home State of in California, allowing school districts to use Federal funds to prepare young English learners for grade school is critical.

In addition, this legislation will help local school districts use federal funds to provide prekindergarten services to all young children they serve. Although school districts may already use Federal funds from Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for early education, many school districts are either unaware of or are uncertain of how to use this authority. The Early Language Proficiency Act would ensure that states provide proper guidance to local schools about how to use Title I funds to educate pre-kindergarteners.

The future of our Nation's economy depends on the next generation of workers, and high-quality early childhood education is key to preparing them for their careers. In the long run, pre-kindergarten programs pay for themselves. Decades of research have proven that early education programs yield between $7 to $16 for every dollar invested.

Ensuring that all students start school ready to learn is essential to ensuring that we meet our goal of having the best-educated workforce and the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the trade agreements pending before the Senate.

I first want to note how pleased I am that a full extension of trade adjustment assistance will be sent to President Obama for his signature. This important program provides much-needed job training, health care, and income support to workers whose jobs are affected by trade.

As we seek to grow our economy and increase exports we must take steps to train American workers and provide them with continued job opportunities.

I am supporting the free trade agreement with South Korea because of its impact on California's economy. This agreement is not perfect, but on balance I believe it will benefit California.

South Korea is California's 5th largest trading partner. California companies export more than $7 billion in goods there every year. This agreement will reduce tariffs and other trade barriers for California businesses that export goods to South Korea, resulting in greater productivity in my State. In addition, the South Korean economy is advanced, with per capita GDP equal to $30,000 year and a well- developed middle class, which will provide a substantial market for all types of U.S. exports.

The South Korea Free Trade Agreement also includes strong intellectual property rights that protect U.S. patents and trademarks and copyrights for films and other recorded works. These provisions are very important for California's entertainment sector. The agreement also reduces tariffs on U.S.-made machinery and high-tech products, increasing export potential for California industries.

The agreement also includes carefully negotiated rules for automobiles, to protect our auto industry from unfair treatment. I am pleased that the United Auto Workers were able to support the final version.

The free trade agreement opens the Korean market to the large number of agricultural products we produce in California. In February 2011, I wrote to the administration to urge better market access for two important California products: rice and fresh oranges. While I am disappointed that California rice is not part of the FTA, I was pleased that the Obama administration will continue working to expand market access for California rice and for California citrus. As the agreement is implemented I will continue to press for fair treatment for all California agricultural commodities.

I am also supporting this agreement because South Korea is a close friend and strategically-important ally for the United States in East Asia. Strengthening our trade relationship will bring economic and national security benefits to both nations, and will help to ensure that the U.S.-Korea relationship remains strong in the future.

The South Korea FTA is supported by the California Chamber of Commerce, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the Motion Picture Association of America, the California Association of Port Authorities, the California Manufacturing and Technology Association, the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation, the Wine Institute, the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership, the California Table Grape Commission, the California Walnut Commission, the California Strawberry Commission, the California Fig Advisory Board, the California Dried Plum Board, and the Western Growers Association, among many other groups.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee responsible for human rights, I cannot support a free trade agreement with Colombia. In short, Colombia's human rights record is appalling.

More than 2,800 union members have been murdered in Colombia in the last 25 years, including 51 last year, and many more so far in 2011. The conviction rate for union murders and other

violence is shockingly low, and the Colombian government continues to support policies that deny workers the right to join unions and bargain collectively.

I am pleased that under a labor rights action plan negotiated between the Obama administration and the Colombia government that steps are being taken to provide more protection for union members and to investigate crimes, but I have major concerns that these reforms do not go far enough to provide real changes for workers in Colombia.

This summer trade unionists from Colombia came to the United States to discuss the environment for working people in their country. Their stories are chilling.

A Colombian port worker described how he is one of the few union members at the ports because so many trade unionists have been fired for joining unions. He talked about how the unsafe working conditions have caused dozens of deaths at ports, how those who are injured on the job receive no compensation from their employer, and how older workers are routinely fired.

A math and science teacher discussed how teachers who participate in organizing efforts have their salaries withheld, and that the threat of violence against teachers with union ties forces many to flee their homes and their jobs to protect their families.

Human Rights Watch recently released a report that concluded that Colombia has made ``virtually no progress'' in securing convictions for killings that have occurred in the last 4 years. Until Colombia's labor and human rights record shows significant long-term improvement, I cannot support a Free Trade Agreement, especially when U.S. producers stand to gain little from market access.

When the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, was approved, we were told that the U.S. would run a trade surplus with Mexico and gain hundreds of thousands of jobs. But instead, our trade deficit with Mexico increased to almost $100 billion, displacing an estimated 682,900 U.S. jobs.

The economic situation in Mexico when NAFTA was passed is similar to the current climate in Colombia--a very low per capita GDP and a large percentage of the population living in poverty. A free trade agreement with Colombia under these conditions will result in the displacement of U.S. manufacturing jobs and few consumers for U.S. exports, just like what happened with Mexico after implementation of NAFTA.

I also oppose the free trade agreement with Panama.

For many years, Panama has failed to implement international tax standards. It has been a haven for those who seek to avoid their tax obligations. More than 400,000 multinational corporations register businesses in Panama, a nation with a population of 3.4 million people. That is one corporation for every seven persons. Although the recent Tax Information Exchange Agreements entered into by Panama are a step in the right direction, I will continue to have significant concerns about Panama's tax policies until they have fully implemented an accountable system.

I hope that Panama will eventually develop a well-functioning tax system and cooperate with the international community, but I cannot support a Free Trade Agreement until a higher standard is reached.

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

Mr. President, today I join my colleagues and so many around the world in paying tribute to Apple chairman and cofounder Steve Jobs, the Silicon Valley pioneer who died at age 56 after a long, brave fight with pancreatic cancer. I send my deepest condolences to Steve Jobs' family and friends on this devastating loss.

Steve was a California icon and one of America's greatest innovators who changed the way we work, communicate, and live our daily lives. Billions of people around the world have been touched by the power of his ideas.

His true genius lay in knowing what consumers wanted and needed before they themselves knew it, and then giving them simple, elegant products to meet those needs. Many of us who never knew we needed an iPad or an iPod now can't do without them.

Steve was a Californian through and through: He was born in San Francisco, raised in Los Altos, and changed the world from Cupertino. He embodied California's entrepreneurial spirit of creativity and optimism. In the process, he created millions of jobs in industries that he himself helped to create.

Even in the face of a deadly disease, Steve never lost his grace, his sense of humor, and his optimism. In a commencement address at Stanford University in 2005, he talked openly about his illness and urged graduates to devote their lives to following their passions. ``Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life,'' he told them. ``Don't be trapped by dogma--which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition.''

These were the principles he lived by. This was the guiding philosophy that helped create a revolution in communications. And these are the lessons that still inspire so many all across the world.

All of us are deeply grateful to Steve Jobs, who showed us once again how one person really can change the world.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor our teachers here in the United States and across the globe by recognizing October 5 as World Teachers' Day.

Celebrated in over 100 countries, World Teachers' Day is an occasion to acknowledge the many ways teachers make a difference in the lives of their students and in their communities.

There is no doubt that teachers play a key role in our society. Quality education reduces poverty and inequality, and provides the building blocks for democracy and civic participation.

Every day, over 3.5 million educators across the country work to close achievement gaps, give children the opportunity to succeed, and ensure that we have the educated workforce necessary for a global economy. I am especially proud to recognize the over 300,000 teachers, educating over 6 million students my home State of California.

Last year, I was happy to work with Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa to pass the Education Jobs Fund, which has kept over 100,000 teachers in the classroom teaching our children.

I know firsthand how much goes into teaching a child, and praise the talented and committed individuals in the United States and around the world who have dedicated their lives to teaching.