Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the amendment offered by Senator Cornyn regarding the sale of F-16C/D fighter aircraft to Taiwan.

Let me begin by reiterating that I am a strong supporter of Taiwan's right to self-defense. That is why I am proud to support the proposed arms sale package to Taiwan that the Obama administration transmitted to Congress just yesterday.

This package would provide an estimated $5.85 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, including a significant advanced technology upgrade to 145 F-16A/B aircraft that are currently part of Taiwan's air defense fleet.

But what I cannot support is the process by which Senator Cornyn is seeking to require the sale of additional F-16C/D aircraft to Taiwan.

Instead of mandating this sale on a trade adjustment bill, I would like Congress to continue to work with the Obama administration to determine how to best meet our obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act to ``make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.''

A defeat of the Cornyn amendment does not take the potential sale of F-16C/D aircraft to Taiwan off the table. In fact, the administration has stated that it is still considering the possibility of F-16C/D sales to Taiwan.

I am confident that the United States will continue to help ensure Taiwan's security and stability long into the 21st century.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Madam President, first, I want to say thank you to the leadership on this bill. This trade adjustment assistance is so critical. When we talk about creating jobs, we also want to talk about retraining those who need, in this century, the new kinds of training it takes to keep up in this economy and this world economy. So I want to thank them for their leadership.

Jobs and Deficit Reduction

Madam President, I want to talk about jobs and deficit reduction. The good news on this front is that President Obama has presented to the Nation both a jobs plan and a deficit reduction plan. He has shown the Nation, through this plan, that while we must cut the deficit and the debt in the long term, we have to focus on jobs in the short term. His plan ensures that middle-class Americans get the jobs and the opportunities they need to continue to move ahead. It also makes sure we have a fair tax system in place so everyone pays his or her own fair share--not too much, not too little, but fair. So this approach is welcome.

I will tell you why I welcome it. Because the approach outlined by President Obama--deficit and debt reduction, investments in jobs--was the same vision that worked before when Bill Clinton was the President. I had the honor of being here in this body to support those policies. People forget that when Bill Clinton became President, there were deficits and debt as far as the eye could see, and this country was going on the wrong path. What he did was to make sure everyone paid his or her own fair share so we had the revenues we needed to make the investments we needed to create the jobs we needed.

In those years, the investments were in high-tech and biotech, and we really broke through on the global scene. Madam President, 23 million jobs were created and deficits were turned into surpluses. I remember looking back at the record. Some of my Republican colleagues who are still here today said: The Clinton approach is going to lead to the worst deficits, no job creation. They were incorrect.

We lived through it, and we know that vision of cutting spending on what does not work, increasing spending on investments, everyone paying their fair share--all that turned into prosperity, 23 million jobs. What perplexes me is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to go back to the Bush years, trickledown economics, more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, no investments, so we even lose funding for our teachers, our firefighters, our nurses, and even our transportation stakeholders.

I am so grateful we passed an extension of the highway bill for 6 months. But, believe me, we face perils ahead because the House cuts that bill by a third, and we have to make sure that does not happen because 1.8 million jobs are at stake.

So I am perplexed that my Republican friends only evidence compassion and concern for the millionaires and the billionaires, but not for the middle class. Their compassion for the wealthiest is overwhelming. Their expressions of concern for billionaires--mind boggling. They call them the job creators, even though they are not the ones creating the jobs. The jobs are being created, if they are at all, by the way, by the small businesspeople. For 64 percent of new jobs, the creation comes from small business. They do not earn a million dollars. No way. So they call millionaires and billionaires job creators, which they are not, and they cry bitter tears that we might ask a millionaire or a billionaire to pay a fair share.

When I was young--and maybe I shouldn't tell the truth because this is going to date me--there was a show on television called ``Dragnet.'' The star of it was Joe Friday. Joe Friday used to say: ``Just the facts.'' So let's look at just the facts. Let's look at the facts. Why are my Republican friends defending the wealthiest among us? Since 1995, the wealthiest 400 Americans have seen their tax rates fall by 40 percent, while their average income has quadrupled. Let me say that again. The wealthiest 400 families saw their income go up by four times and their tax rates went down by 40 percent. Why do they have to cry for that situation? Why the tears?

Here is another fact and this is amazing. The wealthiest 400 families are worth more than 50 percent of American families. Let me say that again. The wealthiest 400 families in America are worth more than 50 percent of America's families. Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont brought that fact to us. Why the tears for those 400 families?

One of those people, Warren Buffett, came forward. Bless his heart. He said his effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's. His effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's. Why are we crying for people who earn millions and billions and pay a lower effective tax rate than their secretaries? I thank Warren Buffett for coming forward and other millionaires and billionaires have come forward and basically underscored that. Here is what he said:

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a

billionaire-friendly government. It's time for our government

to get serious about shared sacrifice.

I think he is right. Why should a millionaire or billionaire pay an effective lower tax rate than firefighters who risk their lives every day, than nurses who save lives every day, than their own assistants and secretaries who are so important in running their enterprises? Our President Obama has suggested millionaires and billionaires pay the same effective tax rate as their employees. That should be embraced, not attacked as class warfare.

I ask, is it class warfare to say to a millionaire or a billionaire they should pay the same effective tax rate as their secretary or is that just the moral thing to do? It is the moral thing to do. Is it the fair thing to do? It is the fair thing to do. Our country needs everyone to help us as we tackle the deficit. So why the tears? Why the tears? These are not the job creators. These are not people who have given the last 10 years. We have seen their incomes rise exponentially and their taxes go down.

So I don't think it is class warfare at all. It is just a talking point for Republicans. But since they have raised it, I would say this. I don't think it is class warfare to ask millionaires and billionaires to pay the same effective tax rate as their secretaries, but I think Republican policies are class warfare on the middle class. Look at their policies. They would end Medicare and put middle-class senior citizens in jeopardy. They want to privatize Social Security and put middle-class seniors in jeopardy. They want to cut one-third of the funds from transportation, which would mean 600,000 layoffs for middle- class workers.

They stopped us from helping small business by blocking Senator Landrieu's Small Business Innovation Act. They blocked the EDA--the Economic Development Act--which would have created 1 million jobs over 5 years. They have taken no action on the FAA bill. They have not appointed conferees, and we can't get that bill done that is hundreds of thousands of jobs.

When Republicans took control of the House, gross domestic product had grown at an average of 2.5 percent after the Recovery Act. Now it is down to 0.7 percent--from 2.5 percent of growth to 0.7 percent. The Republican Congress put the brakes on job creation, and that is a strong reason why this economy has slowed.

Even before they have read the fine print of President Obama's proposal, they say it is dead on arrival. So let us be clear: Again, asking millionaires and billionaires to pay the same as their secretaries is not class warfare, it is moral. Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, says it is the most patriotic thing we can do.

So instead of crying for millionaires and billionaires, I am thinking of sending a box of Kleenex tissues over there to Paul Ryan, who is lamenting this attack on millionaires and billionaires. Poor thing. Poor guys, poor gals. Instead of doing that, let's fight for the middle class around here. Let's get our arms around deficit reduction by asking everyone who can to pay their fair share.

By the way, let's give tax breaks to the middle class. Do you know these same Republicans who are crying their tears for the millionaires and billionaires say they do not want to give a tax break to working people? They are against the payroll tax proposal which would suspend that payroll tax for a period of time. I ask them to stop blocking bills that would create jobs. Stop blocking tax breaks for the middle class. Stop going after middle-class seniors. Stop crying for billionaires and help us pass elements of the Obama jobs plan which include bipartisan proposals all of us have supported in the past.

I think that is critical. We did this before with Bill Clinton--we created jobs, we strengthened the middle class, and we created surpluses by asking everyone to pay their fair share. Remember, when our President took over, this country was bleeding 700,000 jobs a month. I remember that--700,000 a month. We were on the verge of losing our automobile industry. This President took action. He doesn't get the credit for that, and that is OK. There will be time enough to spell it out. But all we have to do is look back to those days. Credit was frozen.

The Presiding Officer remembers that. Capitalism was coming to an end. This President acted. I have to say this: I don't want to go back to those days of bleeding 700,000 jobs a month. I don't want to go back to the days of credit freezes. I don't want to see these deficits continue. I want everyone to pay their fair share. Most of all, I want jobs for the American people.

So if we can stop crying tears for the people who have it all and we can roll up our sleeves and work together for the middle class, we will strengthen this Nation. We will solve our problems, just as we did when Bill Clinton was President. We have the roadmap. President Obama has taken steps to follow that roadmap. We know it works. We will get these deficits down, we will get the debt down, we will help the middle class and, yes, the wealthiest among us will pay the same tax rate effectively as their secretaries. You know what, if we do that, Democrats and Republicans can feel good about this country again. Let's work together and let's not say now that we can't ask billionaires to pay their fair share and let's not keep the middle class from getting their tax cuts and their jobs. That is what is important.

I wish to thank the leaders on this issue for letting me have the time to talk about this middle-class attack that we are seeing, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in reflecting on the life, accomplishments, and service of the late Jackie Lee Houston--a prominent businesswoman and philanthropist in the Coachella Valley. She passed away on September 14, 2011.

Jackie Lee Houston was born and raised in Seattle, WA. She began modeling as a pre-teen and continued to do so through graduation from the University of Washington, from which she earned a degree in economics and fashion design in 1956. Her modeling led to a television career as Seattle's first female weathercaster, as well as hostess of the ``Hoffmann Easy Vision Talent Show.'' For a brief period, she pursued a professional career in Los Angeles as a model for Oscar- winning fashion designer Edith Head; but eventually she returned to Seattle to marry her college sweetheart, James Houston.

In 2005, Jackie and James purchased CBS affiliate KPSP located in Thousand Palms--at the time, Jackie was one of only two women in the United States who owned a television station. Through public service announcements and profiles, they utilized their community-focused station to promote causes across the Coachella Valley--from helping the homeless to supporting food banks to AIDS research.

A passionate philanthropist, Mrs. Houston quietly helped struggling individuals and her efforts benefitted a wide array of organizations, projects, and endeavors--including Angel View Crippled Children's Foundation, Palm Springs Stroke Recovery Center, Desert AIDS Project, Palm Springs International Film Festival, Palm Springs Art Museum, McCallum Theatre, Fashion Week El Paseo, and December Festival of Lights parade. She also gave unstintingly of her creativity and time-- using her Rolodex and her home to groom a new generation of philanthropists and to organize distinctive red-carpet events that raised millions for charity.

In recognition of Mrs. Houston's profound influence on the Coachella Valley and the inspirational legacy she leaves for the community, the city of Palm Springs will name the new main entry plaza of the Palm Springs Convention Center in her honor.

On a more personal note, it was an honor for me to have known Jackie. She and her husband founded an extraordinary food bank called FIND, which is run by Jackie's daughter-in-law, Lisa Houston. I was honored to visit FIND with Jackie and Jim at FIND's original Cathedral City location in 2009 and again in 2010 at its new home in Indio. I saw her great pride in this particular project which helps so many survive, particularly in this tough economy.

I extend my heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Mrs. Houston. She will be sorely missed by so many, including me.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Beauty Mountain and Agua Tibia Wilderness Act of 2011. I am pleased to have worked with Representative Darrell Issa on this legislation.

My bill would add 13,635 acres to the Beauty Mountain Wilderness and 7,796 acres to the Agua Tibia Wilderness in northern San Diego County, preserving thousands of acres of natural habitat that are home to golden eagles, mountain lions, and other iconic species. The bill complements the Riverside County wilderness designations in the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act, which I authored with Representative Mary Bono Mack and which was signed into law in 2009.

In addition to designating new wilderness, my bill would require the Bureau of Land Management to work

with The Conservation Fund to construct new recreational facilities at the Beauty Mountain Wilderness, promoting increased visitor access and enjoyment of this wonderful resource.

The proposed Beauty Mountain Wilderness additions in northern San Diego County serve as a vital biological corridor connecting the Palomar, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa Mountains. With its captivating rock formations, rich chaparral, oak woodlands, and rolling hills, the name ``Beauty Mountain'' is only fitting to describe this area. These lands afford visitors many opportunities for recreation. The California Riding and Hiking Trail crosses the area, and during spring, aromas of sage, manzanita, and California lilac delight visitors.

The proposed Agua Tibia Wilderness additions span much of the scenic northern portion of the Palomar Mountain Range in the Cleveland National Forest. The landscape in this area is marked by deep canyons blanketed in coastal sage and chaparral. Seasonal streams wind through canyon valleys lined with willow, oak, and cottonwood trees, providing a cool haven for native species. Stately big cone Douglas firs and other conifers stand tall against the north-facing slopes of the area. The Cutca Trail passes through the wilderness for visitors to enjoy outdoor activities.

Protecting these areas is not only good for the environment, but also good for the economy. The Outdoor Industry Association estimates that outdoor recreation supports more than 400,000 jobs and contributes $46 billion annually to California's economy. Based on the models of Colorado State University resource economists John Loomis and Robert Richardson, the relatively modest wilderness additions in my bill could generate nearly $330,000 per year in local revenue.

That is why my bill has earned support from a diverse group of stakeholders, including the Cities of Oceanside, Perris and Vista; Chambers of Commerce in Canyon Lakes, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Oceanside, Temecula, Vista and Wildomar; Off-Road Business Association; American Motorcycle Association District 37 Dual Sport; California Wilderness Coalition; The Wilderness Society; The Conservation Alliance; San Diego Audubon Society; San Diego River Coalition; Friends of the Santa Margarita River; and Sierra Club Santa Margarita Group.

By permanently protecting these natural treasures, we can preserve important habitat and migratory corridors, ensure that future generations can come to visit these places to recreate and revel in their scenic beauty, and help stimulate the local tourism and recreation economy in San Diego County. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Beauty Mountain and Agua Tibia Wilderness Act of 2011. I am pleased to have worked with Representative Darrell Issa on this legislation.

My bill would add 13,635 acres to the Beauty Mountain Wilderness and 7,796 acres to the Agua Tibia Wilderness in northern San Diego County, preserving thousands of acres of natural habitat that are home to golden eagles, mountain lions, and other iconic species. The bill complements the Riverside County wilderness designations in the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act, which I authored with Representative Mary Bono Mack and which was signed into law in 2009.

In addition to designating new wilderness, my bill would require the Bureau of Land Management to work

with The Conservation Fund to construct new recreational facilities at the Beauty Mountain Wilderness, promoting increased visitor access and enjoyment of this wonderful resource.

The proposed Beauty Mountain Wilderness additions in northern San Diego County serve as a vital biological corridor connecting the Palomar, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa Mountains. With its captivating rock formations, rich chaparral, oak woodlands, and rolling hills, the name ``Beauty Mountain'' is only fitting to describe this area. These lands afford visitors many opportunities for recreation. The California Riding and Hiking Trail crosses the area, and during spring, aromas of sage, manzanita, and California lilac delight visitors.

The proposed Agua Tibia Wilderness additions span much of the scenic northern portion of the Palomar Mountain Range in the Cleveland National Forest. The landscape in this area is marked by deep canyons blanketed in coastal sage and chaparral. Seasonal streams wind through canyon valleys lined with willow, oak, and cottonwood trees, providing a cool haven for native species. Stately big cone Douglas firs and other conifers stand tall against the north-facing slopes of the area. The Cutca Trail passes through the wilderness for visitors to enjoy outdoor activities.

Protecting these areas is not only good for the environment, but also good for the economy. The Outdoor Industry Association estimates that outdoor recreation supports more than 400,000 jobs and contributes $46 billion annually to California's economy. Based on the models of Colorado State University resource economists John Loomis and Robert Richardson, the relatively modest wilderness additions in my bill could generate nearly $330,000 per year in local revenue.

That is why my bill has earned support from a diverse group of stakeholders, including the Cities of Oceanside, Perris and Vista; Chambers of Commerce in Canyon Lakes, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Oceanside, Temecula, Vista and Wildomar; Off-Road Business Association; American Motorcycle Association District 37 Dual Sport; California Wilderness Coalition; The Wilderness Society; The Conservation Alliance; San Diego Audubon Society; San Diego River Coalition; Friends of the Santa Margarita River; and Sierra Club Santa Margarita Group.

By permanently protecting these natural treasures, we can preserve important habitat and migratory corridors, ensure that future generations can come to visit these places to recreate and revel in their scenic beauty, and help stimulate the local tourism and recreation economy in San Diego County. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I come to the floor frustrated, angry, and disturbed that our Republican colleagues are holding up three crucial bills. And America needs to hear this. They are stopping us from completing our work on our emergency FEMA bill, which contains the monies needed throughout this country to rebuild and repair storm damage, a lot of it infrastructure--sewer plants, waterplants, roads, bridges, and highways.

We see pictures of what is happening in places such as Vermont, where, as Senator Leahy told us yesterday, a woman he talked to has to drive 1-hour-plus for her chemotherapy because the road is gone, and it used to take her 5 minutes. We need to fix that road. We need to fix the roads, the bridges, the highways, the sewer systems, the water systems, the schools that get harmed in these natural disasters, and the Republicans are holding up the bill to let us do that.

We have holds--more than one--on the highway bill, known as the Transportation bill, and the FAA, our Nation's aviation bill. And here is the real shocker: The FAA and the Transportation bill, which have been merged into one bill, have come over from the House of Representatives, and the House relented on the numbers. They are at current levels of spending. They are clean extensions, which we wanted, but the Republicans over here will not let us get to those bills.

Tomorrow, the FAA authorization to fix up the airports, rebuild the airports, expires. So there will be no fee as of tomorrow, and we have to stop, midstream, our airport improvements that are going on. It is called the airport improvement fund. They already shut that down once. I went around my State and saw safety projects stopped midstream. Now they are doing it again right over here--the Republicans right over here--holding up the FAA bill again. It means 70,000 jobs lost on Friday night.

They are holding up the highway bill, the Transportation bill, which--I am so proud--in our committee, we got the extension. Everybody agreed to it, Republicans and Democrats, in the committee. Republicans are holding it up now on this floor. It is a clean extension. It is 1.8 million jobs, everybody. There are 1.8 million jobs relying on that extension. It has come over here from the House. Take it up and pass it. Oh, no. Oh, no. There they go again, stopping progress in this country.

I will tell you why I am so particularly frustrated. It has to do with the rebuilding that is going on and that has gone on in Iraq and Afghanistan with American dollars. Not one Republican ever objected. Let me show you the pictures. Let me show you the pictures.

This is a picture of a new water treatment plant that has been built in Nassiriya, Iraq, at a cost of 277 million American dollars. Not one Republican said: Stop this. Not one Republican said: Pay for it by cutting some other program. What is going on?

Let me show you the picture of a water treatment plant near the border of Mexico in my State of California. It is old. I visited this treatment plant. It got hurt in an earthquake, and FEMA--the bill they are holding up--will pay to finish this water treatment plant, which has to be fixed before another earthquake hits us. And we know that is what is happening.

So they were fine with building a water treatment plant in Iraq--not a complaint, not a murmur, not a word, not an amendment--but we have to fix our water treatment plants here with the FEMA bill, and they are holding up the bill, and everybody knows that because we could have taken care of that yesterday. So that is an example.

Here is another example. This is a picture of road construction in-- and I want to say this right--Kapisa Province, Afghanistan. Everyone is very proud that America has built a road there. We have spent a lot of tax dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am

happy for the people there that they have a road, and, God, we pray that nobody blows it up. But I have to tell you, if you are going to build roads in Afghanistan, you had better build roads here in America or the American people are going to rise up and say: Who are you fighting for?

I have never heard one Republican say: Oh, they are building a road in Afghanistan. That is an earmark. That is an earmark. Let's stop it. That is a problem. Let's stop it. We are spending X number of dollars. Let's cut another program. Never a word. But now we have our highway bill right now coming over from the House. They changed their mind over there. They did not cut it. It is current levels of funding. It is a good bill. It will last for 6 months' funding. It will preserve 1.8 million jobs. And the Republicans are holding it up right now.

Why do you think this Chamber is empty? Why do you think I am here letting off steam? Because we are not voting. Let us vote. If you don't like the highway bill, vote against it. If you don't like it, that is fine, vote against it. Let us vote. Ninety people will vote for it, probably. Let us vote.

So here you have a picture of the excitement around a new road. Let's take a look at another picture of a road in my home State.

In January and February of 2010, California was hit by terrible winter storms and flooding and mudslides. This picture shows a road that was blocked after these storms. These storms hit us in many counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Riverside, Calavaras, San Bernardino, Siskiyou--all of these counties declared emergencies. They are all waiting for the funds to rebuild a road that looks like this. It is impassible, shutting people down--a lot like the roads in Vermont now and other places.

They are holding up the FEMA bill, they are holding up the highway bill, they are holding up the Federal Aviation bill, and it is wrong. I have never heard them say: Strike that road we are building in Afghanistan; it is an earmark. But they are holding up, they are holding up the three bills we need to do.

So now I am going to show you another program. This is a brandnew air traffic control tower being built in Mosul, Iraq, at a cost of $10 million. You can see it is almost ready. The scaffolding is on it. It has been built. I never heard one Republican say: Oh, wait a minute, let's strike some other money somewhere else to pay for this air traffic control tower. I never heard one Republican object to building this air traffic control tower in Iraq--not a word--but when it comes to our air traffic control towers, you hear plenty.

They stopped us from moving ahead with the FAA reauthorization before we left for the summer break. It resulted in 70,000 people being laid off. And here is one of my towers in Palm Springs, stopped in the middle, shut down in the middle. The workers had to leave. They lost money, the contractor did. The workers--some of them went off to other jobs, and they had to hire new workers. I stood in front of this tower. I stood in front of the tower in Oakland. I went to Los Angeles and saw the work stoppages that occurred on the new Tom Bradley terminal because the Republicans shut us down.

Now, today, we come back. We all think we have a new attitude around this place, but we are shut down again. And we have 24 hours to get this FAA bill done or 70,000 workers will be out again. And we have until September 30 to pass the Transportation bill or 1.8 million workers will be out of work.

Now, we have heard complaints from the other side as to why they are holding it up, so let me give you some of that argument.

One of our Senators from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, says he wants to hold up the Transportation bill, which includes Transportation and FAA, because he doesn't like one part of the program. Two percent of the funds go to things he doesn't like. Well, he has every right to that opinion and every right to work with us on an amendment and get it done, but he is holding it up. We could have had that amendment yesterday.

He doesn't like the transportation enhancements program. For the record, there are a number of things in that portion--which is a relatively small amount of the bill, 2 percent of the bill--and we are reforming that section next year when we get to the new bill, but he is holding it up. Now, he is wrong to hold it up because of what I told you. He is putting at risk all of these safety improvements at our airports, he is putting at risk 1.8 million jobs on the Transportation bill, and he is putting at risk 70,000 jobs at FAA because he doesn't like this program.

He also misled people. He said we spend 10 percent of our transportation money on this transportation enhancements program. We do not. We spend 2 percent. Ten percent is not 2 percent.

He went on to say that safety should be a top priority. And we agree. But he doesn't understand what the transportation enhancements program is. It is about safety. It is about safety. The transportation enhancements program is mainly about saving lives by preventing bicycle-and-pedestrian fatalities. That is what it does. It says to the States: We have a pot of money here. If you want it, you need to make sure you make safety improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Pedestrians and bicyclists account for 13 percent of traffic fatalities nationwide, with more than 47,000 pedestrians killed in the 9-year period 2000 to 2009. That is the equivalent of a jumbo jet crashing every month. So the safety enhancements supported by the program Senator Coburn wants to eliminate are needed to prevent these deaths.

Bike paths and pedestrian walkways are important. Fifty percent of trips are 3 miles or less, 12 percent of all trips are made by bicycling and walking, and bicycle commuting has increased by more than 40 percent between 2000 and 2008.

So why on Earth does he want to hold up this critical bill and the FAA bill--because they are married together--to say he is for safety when he wants to eliminate this whole program, which is dedicated to safety for our pedestrians and our bicyclists, 47,000 of whom perished because we don't have these safety enhancements in place? All Americans benefit from the program he wants to eliminate.

We strengthen local economies, we improve the quality of life, we protect the environment, and he is willing still--because that is what he is doing by holding this up--to risk shutting down our Nation's entire surface transportation system as well as critical FAA programs and more than 1 million jobs because he doesn't like this program.

Well, do you know something, every one of us here has a pretty big ego. You get here and, yeah, it is important. Set it aside. You don't like something? Offer an amendment. Don't hold up all of these bills. It is wrong because if we do what they did--shut down the FAA--it makes a rough economy rougher, and it stalls us from doing the work we have to do. No one stalled the airport improvements in Iraq. No one stalled over there, on the Republican side, the road improvements in Iraq. No one stopped improvements in Afghanistan. No one stopped water system improvements in the war zones. But somehow, when it comes to America, well, we had better cut this and cut that and offset this and offset that.

We have a budget. We are going to live by it. We have an emergency. If we look at the explanation in Webster's dictionary of an emergency-- here it is, an emergency:

No. 1, an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the

resulting state that calls for immediate action

Webster's dictionary has it right. This ought to be put on the desk of every one of my Republican colleagues. Another definition:

No. 2, an urgent need for assistance or relief.

When there is an emergency, one steps to the plate and solves the problem. Just ask Senator Landrieu, who has been leading the battle on this FEMA bill. We cannot tell people out there that they only have 30 days' of funding because they have to enter into a contract. It may take 3 or 4 months to rebuild a bridge. It may take 6 or 7 months to rebuild a water treatment system. But that is the way they approach it over there--when it comes to America.

When it comes to funding wars and rebuilding the war zones, I don't hear a peep out of them, not a peep. I say it is time for America. We have a choice.

We can stand up for America right now, today. We can pass these three bills.

The FEMA bill gives our Governors and our people in the States the assurances that FEMA will team up with them and do what it takes to rebuild after these horrifying emergencies--which, by the way, are becoming more and more frequent because of climate change. But that is another matter for another day. That is another battle for another day.

Unfortunately, in this body science takes a back seat to politics and the special interests that want to say: Oh, climate change; no big deal. We need to protect our turf. That is what they say. And we have done nothing.

The President has done what he can, and bless him for it--fuel economy, all these things. But it gets worse and worse. We have done nothing. I have four grandkids, and I am so hoping in the rest of the time I have to be in this body and on this Earth that I can get us moving on this climate change. But, oh, no. So I guess we sit back while we see more and more extreme weather emergencies, while we see extreme weather emergencies.

If the other side doesn't want to do anything about the cause of it, fine. That is their choice. They have to live with themselves. They can at least help us adapt to these problems, and that means paying to fix our roads, bridges, highways, our water systems, our sewer systems, all these things that get exposed to these weather emergencies.

Do you know 70 percent of our bridges are deficient? I thank my ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe. He and I don't see eye to eye on the environment. That is an understatement. But when it comes to the infrastructure, we agree. He talks about the tragic death of a young woman who was walking and a bridge literally fell apart. It fell and killed her.

This is America. Seventy percent of our bridges are deficient, and we have colleagues holding up this bill? I say shame on them. Shame on them for doing that. It is outrageous. We finally got the House to come to us, to come to our number to freeze spending. I thank them for that. They came to their senses. They realized we need to build our highways. We need to maintain our airports. They sent us a bill that is good.

On FEMA, they are not so good. On FEMA, they are doing a bad thing over there. They are trying to cut programs that create jobs to pay for these emergencies. That is a whole other deal. But today we have a bill for FEMA that would do the job.

I said in my last talk about FEMA and the emergencies that we face: If your neighbor's house is on fire, don't waste time and fight about the cost of the garden hose. You will get that later. Your garden hose helps them, and you feel they are a part owner. You can discuss it later. Get out the garden hose, put out the fire, and everybody is going to be OK.

Playing games with these things is not right. It is beneath the dignity of the people of America who think we are a bunch--let me rephrase that--who do not rate us very highly. That is an understatement too. How much lower can you go than 13 percent?

I would say this: If we cannot do these bills we do not deserve to be 13 percent popular. We do not. We have certain basic responsibilities, and I am sick and tired of paying for roads and bridges and embassies and buildings and everything else in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have given those people our finest. They have bled, they are still bleeding, and they have to take responsibility for their own nation. We have to take responsibility now for our Nation.

Time is short. If the Senate does not pass that highway bill, 1.8 million highway and transit jobs are at risk. If the Senate does not pass the FAA bill by tomorrow, 70,000 jobs are at stake.

We saw what happened. I visited the airports. It was tragic to see people saying: I had no job--because these are all private sector jobs mostly. There are some government jobs. For example, the FAA inspectors--some of whom paid on their own dime to fly across the country and inspect some of the projects. God bless them, and we better pay them for what we did.

My understanding is this bill does not do that, but Congressman Mica claims he is going to take care of that. But we are about to do it again over here if Republicans do not come to their senses.

In summing up, this is a day for us to make a clear point that America has to start taking care of its people. We all read the papers. We know what is happening to the middle class. We know what is happening to the poor. We know what is happening to our roads. We know what is happening to our bridges. We know our airport system is from the last century. We have to have NextGen. We need to move to a GPS system, away from a radar system. They say: No, no, no.

The message has to go out to the American people. They blame everybody, and I don't blame them. But right now it is clear: The Democrats in the Senate want to pass three bills right now. They are all very important. One of them is the emergency FEMA bill to pay for these terrible disasters that have been hitting us. Those are emergencies, and we need to go ahead and respond.

No. 2, a highway bill to fix our deficient bridges, to fix our highways and our roads that are 50 percent deficient. In other words, half of them are not up to standard. We are living off our grandparents' investments at this point. We have to invest in our infrastructure and all the jobs that come with it.

So we have those three bills. FAA and highway have been merged, and then we have the FEMA bill. We are sitting around not voting. Everybody, look at this Chamber. No one is here. No voting is taking place because we are the subject of a filibuster, which means a big stall.

Again, I ask my friends on the other side: Where was your outrage when we were building roads and highways and bridges and airports in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Where was your outrage about the money?

Where was your outrage about cutting something else to pay for that?

Where was your outrage?

I tell you I never saw it. I never felt it. I never heard it. It is, in a way, humiliating for the American people that somehow they are just not as important.

I am here to tell them they are important. Their jobs are important. Their work is important. America, as an economic leader, is important. So I will be back on the floor to debate any one of my colleagues on the other side who disagree with anything I said--and that is fine.

They may disagree. They may defend why they allowed projects to go through abroad but not here. They may say why they want to cut safety programs from the highway bill that will save lives. By the way, that transportation enhancements program they want to do away with was a bipartisan idea that came from Republican John Chafee and Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1991. That sounds like 20 years to me. Twenty years we have had that program.

Can we look at it? Can we reform it? Can we make it work better? Of course. But don't just stand here.

By the way, one of our Republican friends said just cut it, and we do not even need a vote. Just take it without a vote.

No. If we are going to vote on that, we are going to fight about it and have a vote. But let's have a vote. Every minute this Chamber sits idle, let me tell you what happens outside in the real world. This is the fake world out there. In the real world people are calling one another: What are they doing over there? We have a chance to get these bills done fast. What are they doing?

Finally, we get a bill that comes over from the House that is bipartisan that is a freeze, that has everything intact, that sends a message we can move forward with FAA for 4 months, 6 months on the highway bill, and we cannot get it done.

I urge my Republican friends to change their minds and change their tune and stand up for America. Let's get on with the business of taking care of this country: its highways, its bridges, its roads, its airports, its emergencies. If they do that maybe we will see the American people have a little more faith in us because right now

they have lost faith. And I don't blame them one bit.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the majority leader has asked that Senator Rockefeller have 2\1/2\ minutes of the time that remains on our side, which shall be divided, and I will have the 2\1/2\ minutes to speak about the highway amendment, which I would share that, if he wants to, with Senator Inhofe. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

That is what I said, 2\1/2\ minutes and 2\1/2\ minutes.

That is correct.

Mr. President, if you can tell me when I have finished with 1\1/2\ minutes, please.

I will reserve the rest of the time for the Senator to close. So tell me when I have used that 1\1/2\ minutes, and the Senator will have 1 minute left.

Today, Mr. President, was a very rough day for us to get to this moment. I thank everyone who came together to finally get this moving.

Let me tell you why we are at a critical moment. We clearly have to keep the FAA going, and we are. I think we are going to win that amendment. On transportation, Senator Paul has offered an amendment that technically doesn't do anything, but it is his intent, as he said, to cut the funding by one-third.

If that amendment were to pass, and if his intent was carried out, it would mean we would lose 608,000 jobs right away--608,000 jobs right away. We can't afford to do that.

The funding is in this bill. There is no need to cut this bill. It is paid for, and we are ready to go. Republicans and Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee are in agreement on a clean extension.

I thank my ranking member. As everyone knows, we do not see eye to eye on the environment, and that is an understatement.

On infrastructure, we are together. We want a clean extension. We fight for these jobs and these businesses.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member.

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 September 15, 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 September 15, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tax Reform Options: Promoting Retirement Security.''

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 ``The Future of Employment for People with the Most Significant Disabilities'' on September 15, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 106 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 September 15, 2011, at 2:15 p.m., in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tribal Transportation: Paving the Way for Jobs, Infrastructure, and Safety in Native Communities.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 15, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 15, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Disaster Recovery: Evaluating the Role of America's Small Business in Rebuilding Their Communities.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 15, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 15, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Improving Financial Accountability at the Department of Defense.''

Mr. President, I ask the majority leader, before he leaves, I didn't hear all he said. Is this the fact that we are going to vote again on proceeding to a bill that will allow us to take up this emergency FEMA funding?

Mr. President, taking back my time, I am very pleased we are having another chance at this because--just for the information of the public--we fell short of the votes required to take up this emergency bill. I just looked up the meaning of ``emergency'' in the dictionary. It says:

A serious situation or occurrence that happens unexpectedly

and demands immediate attention.

That was Webster's dictionary--no, it was dictionary.com. They have the best definition, and I want to repeat it. An emergency is a serious situation or occurrence that happens unexpectedly and demands immediate action.

That isn't a Democratic definition or a Republican definition or an Independent Party definition. That is what an emergency is. To anyone who says don't worry; if an emergency happens we can take care of it just from our existing funds, that is not true.

Senator Landrieu is our leader in the Appropriations Committee, and what she told us in a meeting we just had a few minutes ago is that there is support in her committee to fund FEMA--the Federal Emergency Management Agency. They are the ones, as everyone knows, who gets out there.

I will never forget the wonderful James Lee Witt who headed FEMA during the days of Bill Clinton. He was out there with Senator Feinstein and myself when we had earthquakes, floods, fires, and everything. There wasn't even a question. He knew we would rebuild. He knew he could make those commitments.

I will just say this: Senator Landrieu held up a map that shows 48 States having been hit by horrible emergencies, some that we never anticipated, such as a terrible earthquake right here in this area, floods that had not been experienced since the 1920s in Vermont, and California has had some horrible problems, and we have had some terrible emergencies. The President worked with the Governor, and we have these disaster declarations. But now, because the funds we set aside just weren't enough--and that isn't anybody's fault, it is an emergency, a serious situation that happens unexpectedly--we have to move.

I have heard one of the Republican leaders in the House say we have to cut spending to pay for this emergency. He has recommended a place to cut that will cut jobs. It will cut jobs and it will stop us from being able to reinvigorate our manufacturing sector. That is ridiculous, unnecessary, and unwarranted. We all know we are going to do

deficit reduction. We all know there is a smart way to do it. We did it when Bill Clinton was President. We stopped spending on things we didn't need, we invested in the things we knew would create jobs, and we asked the billionaires to pay their fair share--thank you very much.

So let's not get this mixed up with deficit reduction. We are on a path to cut the deficit. We will cut the deficit. We know how to cut the deficit. We did it under Bill Clinton. We balanced the budget, we created surpluses, and we had the debt on the downswing. But don't confuse that with making sure our communities are OK.

The Senators from Vermont spoke today at our luncheon, and one of them had tears coming down his face talking about a woman who was very ill in one of their communities who had to go to chemotherapy. It used to be a 5-minute drive in her car. Now she has to drive an hour and a half in order to get her treatment. So please don't talk about making someone like that suffer even more. Talk about what we can do as a nation when we pull together as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

I spoke at a memorial in my hometown on September 11, and when I put together my remarks, I kept harping on the unity we had then.

Well, we need to be true to ourselves and to our constituencies and to our beliefs, but there are moments in time when we come together as Americans. I don't know the party affiliation of that woman in Vermont, and I could care less. We need to help people who get stuck in these fires, in these disasters--in earthquakes, floods, and droughts. I do not believe the American people think when we have that kind of act of God--and that is the legal term as well as a true term--they are on their own.

Last night, our leader tried to move to a bill that would allow us to take up assistance to these people in desperate need and keep our promises to those who were the victims of disaster in my home State and other States. I believe I am correct that Senator Landrieu told us we have 48 States since January 1. So I don't know, but I think my caucus is going to stand on its feet until this is done. We are not going to back off.

This is one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I want to give justice to the people who are struggling, who are suffering, and who pay their taxes. I want to help the small businesses that are underwater. There is no liberty if someone is trapped in a house somewhere that is cut off because the road went out. The Senators from Vermont talked about the roads that are impassable-- impassable.

So last night we had a bad vote. We didn't have enough votes. We need 60 votes. I hope anyone listening to the sound of my voice will call their Senator and double-check how he or she voted because Hurricane Irene could cost more than $10 billion. It would make it 1 of the 10 most costly disasters in U.S. history. We have seen record flooding on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, and we have seen lives lost and farmland devastated.

Senators spoke in our caucus about what happened to their farmers. They do not have crop insurance for all these crops. These particular crops were not covered. One of our colleagues said: It is bad enough we have to import oil from other countries; do we want to start importing our food from China and be reliant on other countries for our food supply?

Right now, as I stand here, we have brave heroes--our firefighters-- battling wildfires in California and Texas. Here is a picture, because a picture is worth a lot of words--here is a picture of a fire raging out of control. The firefighters are as close as they can get to the flames. This one shows the Comanche Fire in Kern County. It has burned more than 29,000 acres and is threatening 2,300 homes in Stallion Springs, CA.

The firefighters have gotten this fire 60 percent under control because they have had help from FEMA. They have been able to get help from the Federal Government. But the fire season in California has just begun. A lot of people don't realize that in our State September and October are the driest and the hottest months. So every wildfire threatens our communities just as this one. Right now FEMA barely has enough funds to get through the next couple of months. FEMA is running low on resources, and funds are so low they can't provide assistance for communities that are rebuilding from past disasters let alone respond to what is happening right now on the ground as we speak.

I heard the Lieutenant Governor of Texas complaining--complaining-- about the situation in Texas, that they need more Federal help. Well, fine. He ought to call up his Senators and tell them to vote with us today to get that Federal help.

We have more than $380 million in disaster recovery projects on hold--several in California. We had a tsunami March 11, 2011. We need the $5.3 million that has been promised to help communities in Del Norte, Monterey, and Santa Cruz, CA. This tsunami did damage.

Let me show a picture from the 2010 mud slide. In January and February of 2010 in California we were hit by severe winter storms, with flooding and mud slides. You can see a very important road has been blocked, again, shutting off people. We have a lot of mountains, so we have to cut through those mountains. Calaveras, Imperial, Los Angeles County, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Siskiyou Counties were hit, and FEMA promised them funding. They met the criteria, they had the level of damage, and they are waiting. Right now they can't proceed without the $3.5 million they need to recover.

So that is what this impasse is about. This isn't about make-believe. This is about real people who are cut off, shut off, businesses shut down, people laid off, and suffering. So let's not have a political spat around here. This isn't a partisan issue. When your neighbor's house is on fire, you don't haggle over the price of a garden hose. You get the hose out, connect it, and put the fire out.

The good news is we have people from both parties who are starting to realize we have to do this. We have to send a message to the House. An emergency is an emergency. We have to put aside politics for the good of our country.

So I will close where I started, with the dictionary definition of ``emergency'': a serious situation or occurrence that happens unexpectedly and demands immediate action.

We all agree we have serious situations in our great land. We all agree we didn't expect all of this. Although, if I might say with a different hat on--my hat as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee--we better understand that climate change is coming. We better understand what we are seeing now is going to be a new normal. It pains me to say we have done nothing in terms of addressing some of the causes. But guess what. Regardless of our views, as my kids would say, we are where we are, and it is what it is, and this is what it looks like in too many parts of our great Nation.

So an emergency is a serious situation or occurrence that happens unexpectedly and demands immediate action, and I echo the call by our Democratic leader for immediate action at 4:15. I hope the phones will light up and everyone will call their Senators. It is time to vote yes on our vote at 4:15 and get on with this so people will know we stand with them in this greatest of nations; that we don't walk away from our people when they are suffering like this.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Mark Hatfield, a former Governor and U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon. Mr. Hatfield passed away on August 7, 2011, in Portland at the age of 89.

The son of a Baptist railroad blacksmith and a schoolteacher, Mr. Hatfield was born in Dallas, OR, on July 12, 1922. He graduated from Willamette University in 1943, having fast-tracked his studies so that he could enlist with the Naval Reserve.

As a young man, Mr. Hatfield served in World War II at the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa and later saw firsthand the devastation of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. These experiences shaped him personally and politically, and he became an outspoken advocate for peace, and a prominent opponent of the Vietnam war.

In 1966, Governor Hatfield stood alone in the National Governors Association when he voted against supporting the Vietnam war. And in 1970, as a Member of the U.S, Senate, he sponsored the McGovern- Hatfield amendment with Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, which would have created a deadline to end U.S. military action in Vietnam.

Senator Hatfield later was one of only two Republicans along with Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa--to vote against the 1991 Senate resolution authorizing the first gulf war.

Mr. Hatfield will also be remembered as a leader in the fight against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

In 1982, he introduced S.J. Res. 163--the nuclear freeze amendment-- with Senator Edward Kennedy, which argued that ``the greatest challenge facing the Earth is to prevent the occurrence of nuclear war by accident or design.''

Had it passed, the resolution would have urged the United States and the Soviet Union to ``pursue a complete halt to the nuclear arms race.''

Senator Hatfield told the Christian Science Monitor, ``We've developed the ability to destroy the planet, but that doesn't give us the right to destroy the planet.''

Throughout his career in public service, Mr. Hatfield fought for what he believed was right, rather than walking any strict party line. He fought for peace, for civil rights, for the environment, and for medical research.

As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee for two terms, he supported increased budgets for the National Institutes of Health; fought for crucial social programs in a time of shrinking government; and was an early supporter of the Endangered Species Act.

As a dedicated, remarkable and outspoken public servant, Mark Hatfield's life was filled with a wide range of service and accomplishments. Early in his career, he said, ``I pray for the integrity, justice and courage to vote the correct vote, not the political vote.'' It is clear he lived up to this principle and made extraordinary contributions to our nation and to the world. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family. He will be missed.

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the achievements and legacy of Peter Douglas, executive director of the California Coastal Commission, who will be retiring this November. Peter is truly a giant among California conservationists, and our State is a much better and more beautiful place as a result of his life's work.

Established by voter initiative in 1972, the Coastal Commission was created by the people of California and is sustained by their support and active participation. For nearly four decades, the California Coastal Commission has worked to protect, conserve, restore, and enhance the resources of the California coast and ocean for current and future generations.

Peter Douglas was there at the creation of the commission, and he has shaped and guided its work every step of the way. 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 commission a permanent public institution. After 7 years as the commission's chief deputy director, he was named executive director in 1985 and has served ever since.

Along with its stewardship of responsible development along the coast, the Coastal Commission has led the way in preserving public access to our State's coastline and beaches. From the beginning, Peter Douglas believed that protecting public access went hand in hand with protecting California's natural heritage, because the public would work to protect a resource that they could enjoy. Under Peter's leadership, the commission worked to create public parks in some key areas that might otherwise have been developed, including Crystal Cove, Malibu Bluffs, and Tomales Bay State Park.

Here is what Peter Douglas himself says about coastal conservation: ``The coast is what it is because a lot of people worked really hard and sacrificed to protect it. And if we want it to be there for our children, we have to keep fighting to protect it. In that way, the coast is never saved--it is always being saved.''

When asked if he had any idea when he started out 40 years ago what his legacy would be, Peter Douglas replied, ``Absolutely not. I never thought about it. I just thought it was noble work, and I wanted to make a difference.''

Peter Douglas has made a tremendous difference. From the bottom of my heart, I offer him my profound thanks and best wishes.

Mr. President, today I am honored to pay tribute to San Diego Police Officer Jeremy Henwood, who recently died in the line of duty at the age of 36. On August 6, 2011, Officer Henwood was shot by a suspect who pulled alongside his patrol car. He passed away several hours later.

In his 4-year career with the San Diego Police Department's Mid-City Division, Officer Henwood earned a reputation as a caring, dedicated officer, and committed leader. Everyday, he selflessly put his life on the line to protect the city he loved.

A strong believer in public service, Jeremy Henwood served in the U.S. Marine Corps for 15 years, first on active duty and later as Reservist. Major Henwood did two tours of duty in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. He recently returned from deployment in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, where he commanded a Marine logistics company.

Police Chief William Lansdowne has stated that Officer Henwood ``believed he was a protector and his job was to save others.'' One of his colleagues called him ``a true hero who not only served this country, but served this city.'' A generous and courageous man in life, Officer Henwood's organs were donated to save other lives.

Officer Henwood is survived by his mother Beverly, his father Robbie, and younger siblings Robbie Junior and Emily. My thoughts and prayers are with them during this tragic time. I also send my deepest condolences to Officer Henwood's colleagues in the San Diego Police Department, who continue to serve our community and protect our people.

Mr. President, I am honored to recognize the 100th anniversary of the founding of New Hope Missionary Baptist Church, the oldest African American church in San Bernardino, CA.

In 1911, New Hope Missionary Baptist Church opened its doors under the leadership of Minister James Hart.

It all began in response to African-American migrants who wanted a place of worship. In 100 years, New Hope Missionary Baptist Church never lost sight of its responsibility to creatively meet the ever- changing needs of the community it serves.

During the pastorate of Dr. David E. Campbell from 1950-1978, New Hope built a new building and became the first Black Baptist congregation in southern California to elect women to the board of trustees. Under Dr. LeMar Foster from 1984-1997, the congregation established numerous organizations, fellowships, and outreach programs. The church's current pastor, Dr. Robert E. Fairley who has served from 1978-1983 and from 1997-present, has introduced worship services to accommodate overflow crowds, added a van to support the new transportation ministry, and established new programs for hospitality, premarital, and marital counseling.

The year 2011 marks a significant milestone in the life of New Hope Missionary Baptist Church, which was ``Founded on Hope, Built in Love, and Sustained by Faith.'' I congratulate New Hope Missionary Baptist Church on this significant anniversary and 100 years of extraordinary service to the community.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to extend my best wishes and congratulations to the Ocean View Little League team from Huntington Beach, CA. On August 28, this team of 11- and 12-year-olds defeated Japan to win the Little League World Series championship in Williamsport, PA.

It was a dramatic victory. With two outs and the bases loaded in the bottom of the sixth and final inning, first baseman Nick Pratto delivered a sharp single to center to score the winning run for Ocean View.

Nothing could stop this team. Not their friendly rivals from Billings, MT, who pushed Ocean View to the brink of elimination by winning an extra-inning thriller earlier in the Little League World Series. And not Hurricane Irene, which brought rain to Williamsport and pushed back the final game by more than 3 hours. Ocean View defeated Billings on August 27 to win the U.S. championship and then outlasted a tough Japanese team 2-1 to win the final.

Orange County, CA, has produced scores of major league baseball players, the 2002 World Champion Angels, and the Cal State Fullerton Titans, four-time winners of the College World Series. Now, for the first time, Orange

County has a Little League World Series champion.

This was a great victory for Ocean View's players and coaches as well as their families and the Huntington Beach community that supported their long march to the championship.