Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 1, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Improving Federal Contract Auditing.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on February 1, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 1, 2011, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Iraq: The Challenging Transition to A Civilian Mission.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 1, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Foreclosure Mediation Programs: Can Bankruptcy Courts Limit Homeowner and Investor Losses?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 1, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to honor the life of Rebecca ``Becky'' Wood Watkin, a dedicated progressive advocate for the environment and affordable housing. Ms. Watkin passed away peacefully on December 19, 2010. She was 97 years old.

Born in 1913 in Portland, OR, to Erskine Wood and Rebecca Biddle Wood, Becky earned a bachelor of arts from Bryn Mawr College in 1933. Four years later, she earned a bachelor of architecture from the University of Pennsylvania's School of Architecture. At the time, Penn did not admit women to its Architecture School, so Becky and two other women blazed a trail--they took all the courses required for an architecture degree, and then insisted that the school confer a bachelor of architecture degree. They became the first women to receive that degree from the University of Pennsylvania's Architecture School.

After receiving her degree in architecture, Becky moved to Sausalito, CA, where she found work as a draftswoman. In 1944, after the required 4 years of drafting work, she received her California architectural license. At the time, there were very few women licensed to practice architecture in California; however, blazing another trail, Becky opened her own architecture practice in 1951.

Becky dedicated herself to helping those less fortunate than she was. In 1968, she helped found the Marin Ecumenical Association for Housing, which has provided hundreds of low-income housing units in Marin County. EAH, as it is now known, has successfully developed, managed and promoted quality affordable housing for 42 years. In addition to her work with EAH, Becky also served on the Marin County Planning Commission in the 1970s, where she was a leading advocate for environmentally sensitive development and affordable housing.

Becky also believed strongly in civic participation, and was very active with the Marin County Democratic Party. She cochaired Adlai Stevenson's local campaign in 1952 and 1956, and in 1960, she was John Kennedy's precinct chairwoman in Marin. In 1968, Becky cochaired Marin County's Eugene McCarthy for President Committee, and in 1972 she headed George McGovern's local Presidential campaign. Breaking a losing streak, Becky ran Jimmy Carter's primary campaign in 1976, also serving as a delegate to the National Convention.

In fact, Becky was one of the first people to give me a start in local politics: when I went to volunteer at the local Marin County Democratic campaign office in 1968, Becky put me to work typing address labels!

Becky left a deep impression on all who knew her. Whether in Portland, Marin, or San Diego, where she moved in 2003, her life was full of activity. She loved the outdoors, and was an avid hiker and skier. Always a lover of music, she sang with the Marin Chorus until she was in her eighties, and regularly attended and supported the symphony and opera both in San Francisco and in San Diego.

Throughout her life, Becky's commitment to her community was evident in the work she did every day. She was a true trailblazer and progressive advocate, working tirelessly to better her community. Her lifetime of contributions will not soon be forgotten.

Becky is survived by her daughter Lisa; sons Joseph and Peter, and their spouses Ye Wa and Trylla; grandchildren Joseph Scott, Christopher, Milena, Katrina, and Lisl; and five great-grandchildren. I extend my deepest sympathies to her family and I feel blessed that Becky was a mentor, and most important, a dear friend.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Helping Responsible Homeowners Act of 2011. This legislation will eliminate barriers that have prevented millions of borrowers who continue to make their payments on time from taking advantage of historically low interest rates and refinancing their mortgages.

Despite a recent uptick, interest rates for 30-year home mortgages remain at historically low levels--under five percent. Yet of the 31.5 million mortgages guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, nearly 13 million still carry an interest rate at or above 6 percent. This bill would allow non-delinquent mortgages to be refinanced at current rates, putting hundreds of dollars a month back in the pockets of struggling families.

The Administration's Home Affordable Refinance Program has resulted in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refinancing 520,000 loans through October 2010, far short of its goal of assisting four to five million homeowners.

One reason for the program's failure is that Fannie and Freddie continue to charge risk-based fees to refinance a loan they already guarantee. These additional fees can be as high as two percent of the loan amount, or an extra $4,000 on a $200,000 loan. In my home state of California, where prices are higher, that might be $8,000 on a $400,000 loan. For borrowers struggling to keep up with their payments, this is an additional cost they simply cannot afford.

Fannie and Freddie already bear the risks on these loans; yet this policy actually makes it less likely that borrowers will be able to take advantage of the low rates and increases the chance they will eventually default.

Many borrowers also have been blocked from refinancing by the owner of their second mortgage, even though reducing payments on the first mortgage would make it more likely the borrower would be able to continue making payments on the second.

To remove these barriers and allow borrowers current on their payments to refinance their loans, the Helping Responsible Homeowners Act would eliminate risk-based fees on loans for which Fannie and Freddie already bear the risk; remove refinancing limits on properties that lost value during the real estate crisis; make it easier for borrowers with second mortgages to participate in refinancing programs; and require that borrowers are able to receive a fair interest rate, comparable to that received by any other current borrower who has not suffered a drop in home value.

At a time when millions of Americans have been forced out of their homes, this legislation will ensure that homeowners who make their payments on time will be able to refinance their mortgages at current low rates so they can stay in their homes. I urge my colleagues to join me and to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Helping Responsible Homeowners Act of 2011. This legislation will eliminate barriers that have prevented millions of borrowers who continue to make their payments on time from taking advantage of historically low interest rates and refinancing their mortgages.

Despite a recent uptick, interest rates for 30-year home mortgages remain at historically low levels--under five percent. Yet of the 31.5 million mortgages guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, nearly 13 million still carry an interest rate at or above 6 percent. This bill would allow non-delinquent mortgages to be refinanced at current rates, putting hundreds of dollars a month back in the pockets of struggling families.

The Administration's Home Affordable Refinance Program has resulted in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refinancing 520,000 loans through October 2010, far short of its goal of assisting four to five million homeowners.

One reason for the program's failure is that Fannie and Freddie continue to charge risk-based fees to refinance a loan they already guarantee. These additional fees can be as high as two percent of the loan amount, or an extra $4,000 on a $200,000 loan. In my home state of California, where prices are higher, that might be $8,000 on a $400,000 loan. For borrowers struggling to keep up with their payments, this is an additional cost they simply cannot afford.

Fannie and Freddie already bear the risks on these loans; yet this policy actually makes it less likely that borrowers will be able to take advantage of the low rates and increases the chance they will eventually default.

Many borrowers also have been blocked from refinancing by the owner of their second mortgage, even though reducing payments on the first mortgage would make it more likely the borrower would be able to continue making payments on the second.

To remove these barriers and allow borrowers current on their payments to refinance their loans, the Helping Responsible Homeowners Act would eliminate risk-based fees on loans for which Fannie and Freddie already bear the risk; remove refinancing limits on properties that lost value during the real estate crisis; make it easier for borrowers with second mortgages to participate in refinancing programs; and require that borrowers are able to receive a fair interest rate, comparable to that received by any other current borrower who has not suffered a drop in home value.

At a time when millions of Americans have been forced out of their homes, this legislation will ensure that homeowners who make their payments on time will be able to refinance their mortgages at current low rates so they can stay in their homes. I urge my colleagues to join me and to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague and friend, Senator Barbara Mikulski.

Earlier today, when Senator Mikulski took the oath in this Chamber to serve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution, she became the longest serving woman in the history of the Senate.

Senator Mikulski is no stranger to making history, and today she has made history once again.

When Senator Mikulski was first sworn in as a Senator in 1987, she was the first Democratic woman Senator elected in her own right. And, along with Senator Kassebaum, she was one of only two women in the Senate at the time.

Today, 17 women were sworn in on the Senate floor and I know many of us might not be here today without Senator Mikulski's support and encouragement. She truly is the dean of the women in the Senate.

Senator Mikulski and I became very close friends when I joined the House of Representatives in 1983. She was always someone I respected because she was always focused on making life better for the middle- and working-class people she serves.

When I first thought about running for the Senate, Senator Mikulski was the first person I went to see, and she gave such sage advice. She said ``You'll love it here in the Senate because you have an ability to help the people you serve.'' Senator Mikulski told me it would be the toughest thing and the best thing I would ever do.

I give Senator Mikulski such credit. That is the role she has played with so many women Senators from both sides of the aisle. She regularly brings the women of the Senate--together Republicans and Democrats--for a friendly dinner.

One of Senator Mikulski's wonderful gifts is her humor. When she and I served together in the House, women were unable to use the main facilities of the House gym. Along with Geraldine Ferraro, Olympia Snowe, Barbara Kennelly and others, we worked together to ``integrate'' the House gym.

At the House gym, a friend would lead us in exercises. One time, she said to us: ``OK everyone, hands on your hips.'' Senator Mikulski retorted, ``If I had hips, I wouldn't be here.''

That is so typical of her style--warm, funny and to the point. It brought us all together.

And it is one reason why this daughter of east Baltimore has been such an inspiration to millions of women across our country.

Senator Mikulski is an accomplished legislator and leader who knows how to get the job done.

She has long fought to protect the health and well-being of women and their families.

Not only did she support the historic health care reform legislation that is making sure every American has access to quality, affordable insurance, but Senator Mikulski fought to make the legislation stronger for women. I was proud to stand with her to pass an amendment that guarantees women will have access to the preventive care they need such as screenings for breast, ovarian and cervical cancer.

Senator Mikulski championed the Mammography Quality Standards Act, which requires mammography facilities across the Nation to meet uniform quality standards. This law has saved lives by improving preventive care that can lead to early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.

When we saw how little health science and research addressed women's health, Senator Mikulski and I helped lead the fight for health equity. We helped create the National Institutes of Health Office of Women's Health to study women's needs and health issues.

Senator Mikulski believes everyone should be fairly paid for a hard day's work. We stood together as vocal advocates for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act--a historic bill by Senator Kennedy that is now the law of the land.

And, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski has fought for critical funding to clean up and protect Maryland's treasured Chesapeake Bay.

Senator Mikulski's tenacity is undeniable. Several years ago, she was mugged one evening outside her home in Baltimore. A man pushed her to the ground and grabbed her purse.

Even though she is only 4 feet 11 inches, Senator Mikulski fought back and defended herself.

Yes, Senator Mikulski stands up for herself and stands up for the people of Maryland. She has fought hard for change and equal rights. As she likes to say, there are times when you need to ``(s)quare your shoulders, suit up, put on your lipstick and get ready for battle.''

Senator Mikulski has always been out in front. She has used her role as the senior woman in the Senate to focus on issues that matter to her constituents. Her power lies in her ability to organize people. That is one reason she is so beloved by her colleagues--we love it when she brings us together on issues.

I stand today to honor my good friend, a trailblazer and a mentor, Senator Mikulski.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: My understanding is that the Senator from Washington had 10 minutes. My understanding is she had completed that 10 minutes; am I incorrect on that?

I didn't hear the Chair say that. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague and friend, Senator Russ Feingold.

I have had the privilege of serving with Senator Feingold since he and I were both elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992. Over the past 18 years, Senator Feingold has been an independent, passionate advocate for his State and his Nation. He was consistently a voice of conscience in the Senate, never afraid to ask the tough questions or to speak out against policies he believed were flawed.

Over the years, Senator Feingold has distinguished himself as a leading expert on foreign and domestic policy who is willing to work across party lines to get the job done, whether it was reforming our Nation's campaign finance laws or working to end the atrocities committed by Ugandan rebels in the Lord's Resistance Army.

I have had the privilege of sitting next to Senator Feingold in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I have been proud to witness how, as the chair of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, he has led the Senate in recognizing and addressing many of Africa's unique issues and challenges. He was one of the first to speak out about the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. He has advocated for an end to the illicit mining of conflict minerals that support armed conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. And he has placed a spotlight on drug trafficking in West Africa, the threat of terrorism in Somalia, and the affects of global diseases such as malaria on African populations.

Senator Feingold is a great reformer, taking the lead on campaign finance reform and on the Army Corps of Engineers.

Senator Feingold has been such an incredible champion for human rights, and I am personally grateful for his work on women's rights, particularly his commitment to combating violence against women and girls worldwide.

His passion, expertise, and dedication to these issues are unmatched and will be greatly missed.

Byron Dorgan

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague and friend, Senator Byron Dorgan.

It has been an honor to serve with Senator Dorgan since he and I were both elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992.

Nobody can get to the heart of a matter like Byron Dorgan. He has an unbelievable ability to lay out both challenges and solutions with clarity. He is a populist in the best sense of the word, and our country is better for his service in this Chamber.

Senator Dorgan has always been a champion for the people of North Dakota, for our workers, and for rural Americans. For the last 18 years, he has devoted himself to supporting family farms and promoting economic development across our country.

Senator Dorgan has been a leader in the Senate in fighting to preserve jobs here in America and end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. No one has fought harder for the middle class.

He used his position as chairman of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee to advance important projects and create jobs, and I will always be thankful for his support in our efforts to protect California communities from flooding.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Dorgan has worked tirelessly to improve health care and economic opportunities for Indians. He has helped streamline the bureaucracy of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. He developed the landmark Tribal Law and Order Act, which helped give tribal justice officials the tools they need to protect their communities. I was so proud to cosponsor that bill and so pleased that President Obama signed it into law this year.

He leaves a distinguished legacy and will be greatly missed by all of us.

Arlen Specter

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to our friend and colleague, Senator Arlen Specter.

Senator Specter has spent five terms serving the people of Pennsylvania here in Congress--longer than any other Pennsylvania Senator. All of us can take a lesson from his dedication and passion for fighting for the people of his State.

A member of the Judiciary Committee since he joined Congress, Senator Specter built on his background as an attorney and eventually assumed the chairmanship of the committee. His expertise on constitutional issues has long been admired by his colleagues.

Senator Specter was always a leader on issues relating to our National Institutes of Health, championing investment in scientific research to find lifesaving treatments and cures for a range of diseases. He understood firsthand how crucial such funding could be, having fought his own battle with cancer. When we passed the Recovery Act, it was Senator Specter who ensured that it would include significant investments in NIH. His efforts to help double NIH's budget have contributed to advances in treatments for Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work closely with Senator Specter on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He has been a thoughtful and constructive member committed to addressing climate change and fighting for clean energy jobs.

Senator Specter loves this institution, and he will be missed. He has left his mark, and I thank him for his decades of dedicated public service.

Chris Dodd

Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me today in recognize the extraordinary leadership and service of our friend, Senator Chris Dodd.

Senator Dodd has served the Senate with grace, intelligence, and compassion for three decades. The son of a U.S. Senator, he loves this institution and has done everything he could to preserve its best traditions. Senator Dodd has always encouraged all of us to keep our disputes and differences from becoming personal.

He leaves behind an incredible legacy of accomplishments that have touched the lives of virtually all Americans.

I will never forget the leadership role he played in helping to pass health care reform last spring--a fitting tribute to his close friend Ted Kennedy, whose vision finally became a reality.

As chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Senator Dodd led the effort to pass Wall Street reform legislation. He was a forceful advocate for holding banks accountable for their actions, and we could not have enacted this landmark accomplishment without his leadership.

Senator Dodd has devoted his career in public service to making life better for our families and our children. I saw this firsthand as we worked together to ensure that our children have safe places to go after school. As chairman of the Senate Afterschool Caucus and the founder of the Senate's first Children's Caucus, Senator Dodd worked hard to expand the Head Start program, to reform the No Child Left Behind Act, and to make college more affordable for students and their families.

In the face of Presidential vetoes, Senator Dodd dedicated 8 years to enacting the Family and Medical Leave Act, which has helped ensure that 50 million Americans can care for their loved ones during difficult times without fearing for their jobs.

Senator Dodd is a fluent Spanish speaker and has been the Senate's leading expert on Latin America. I have been proud to work closely with him to reform our Nation's drug certification laws.

His own years of service in the U.S. Peace Corps inspired Senator Dodd to support and promote President Kennedy's call to service in this Chamber. In the Senate, he has helped expand and modernize the Peace Corps and worked to provide loan forgiveness to Peace Corps volunteers, teachers, and others who devote themselves to public service.

All of us in the Senate will greatly miss Senator Dodd.

Blanche Lincoln

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague and friend, Senator Blanche Lincoln.

Senator Lincoln has spent her entire career serving the people of Arkansas, and she has been a passionate and effective leader for her State.

She has been an inspiration to so many women. Senator Lincoln made history as the first woman to chair the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, and I will never forget how Senator Lincoln led by example, showing us you could be a young mom in the Senate, dedicated to your children, while also being a strong advocate for your State.

She has been a leader in the Senate on child nutrition and has worked tirelessly to pass important legislation, including the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act that was just signed into law by President Obama. The measure will help combat the nationwide epidemic of obesity by making sure our schoolchildren have access to healthy, nutritious meals.

As a cofounder of the Senate Hunger Caucus, Senator Lincoln has played a crucial role in shedding light on a problem that affects so many, both at home and abroad.

Senator Lincoln was never afraid to stand up for what she believed in. She showed her tenacity in fighting for greater transparency and accountability in derivatives markets during the debate over Wall Street reform.

She has been a fighter for her State and her legislative accomplishments will have a profound impact on the lives of so many children and communities across our country.

I want to thank her for her years of friendship and for her dedicated service here in the Senate. We will all miss her.

christopher dodd

Mr. President, as we end this year, I wanted to look back at what we have been able to accomplish--and look ahead at some of the important priorities we must tackle next year.

The 111th Congress has been one of the most productive in our Nation's history.

Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein has said the legislative achievements of this session are ``at least on par with the 89th Congress'' of 1965-1966, under President Johnson, which produced landmark civil rights legislation as well as Medicaid and Medicare.

We should take a moment to reflect on some of those accomplishments.

After years of unsupervised gambling on Wall Street fueled an unsustainable housing bubble, we inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We helped bring our economy back from the brink by taking bold action.

We passed the Economic Recovery Act, which has created or saved more than 350,000 jobs in my home State of California alone.

We approved the bipartisan HIRE Act--a jobs package that cut taxes for companies that hire unemployed workers and extended the highway trust fund. As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I was pleased to help advance this critical measure to protect more than 1 million jobs nationwide building our roads, bridges and transit systems.

We helped small businesses--which are the true engines of our economic growth--by passing the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act. I was proud to join with Senator Jeff Merkley to create the new $30 billion small business lending fund, which will help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

We approved legislation to help save up to 16,500 teacher jobs in California--and nearly 160,000 teachers' jobs nationwide--and paid for it by closing tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas.

We worked across the aisle to give much-needed tax relief to millions of middle-class families and extend unemployment insurance for 2 million out-of-work Americans and 400,000 Californians who would otherwise have lost their benefits this month. And I was proud to work with Senator Feinstein and others to make sure this tax-relief package invests in clean energy, which will create tens of thousands of jobs in California and across the country.

And to ensure that we never again face a similar financial crisis, we passed landmark legislation to crack down on the reckless gambling on Wall Street, enacting tough reforms that will curb abuses, shine a light on dark markets and put a new cop on the beat to protect consumers. I was proud to offer the first amendment, which will ensure that taxpayers are never again on the hook to bail out Wall Street.

The 111th Congress was a landmark Congress for advancing civil rights for all Americans.

We approved the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to help ensure equal pay for equal work--regardless of age, race, gender, religion or national origin. It was the first bill signed into law by President Obama last year.

We passed the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act to strengthen the ability of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. The law adds gender, sexual orientation, disability and gender identity as protected categories under Federal hate crimes law.

Last week, in a historic step, we repealed the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell policy that has banned gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military. Back in 1993, I offered an amendment on the Senate floor to keep this unjust policy from being codified into law. Now, 17 years later, I am so proud to witness this incredible victory for civil rights, equality and a stronger nation.

I was also proud to join in confirming two new Supreme Court Justices--Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina to serve on the high court, and Elena Kagan. When Kagan was sworn in this fall, it marked the first time our country has had three women serving together on the Supreme Court.

We also confirmed some highly qualified and historic judicial nominees from California this Congress--including Judge Lucy Koh for the Northern District of California, Judge Jacqueline Nguyen for the Central District of California, Judge Dolly Gee for the Central District of California, and Judge Kimberly Mueller for the Eastern District of California.

The 111th Congress also took momentous steps forward in protecting consumers, children and all our families.

We passed a landmark health care reform bill that will extend coverage to 7 million uninsured Californians, help seniors pay for prescription drugs, provide tax credits to help small business owners afford coverage, and ensure that insurance companies can no longer deny coverage because of preexisting conditions.

We approved legislation to allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco and crack down on cigarette marketing and sales to kids.

We approved major reforms to the student loan system--ending subsidies to big banks, saving taxpayers money and providing Pell grants to 63,000 more students in California over the next decade.

We passed credit card reform legislation to protect consumers from excessive fees and deceptive practices.

And this month, we enacted a food safety bill that will help consumers and California's agriculture industry by protecting our Nation's food supply from outbreaks of foodborne illnesses.

I am also pleased that the Airline Passenger Bill of Rights that I have championed with Senator Olympia Snowe is now being implemented by the Department of Transportation. As a result, we are already seeing fewer long tarmac delays for airline passengers.

The 111th Congress has also taken great strides to protect public health and our environment.

We passed legislation protecting more than 2 million acres of wilderness and creating a national system to conserve land held by the Bureau of Land Management. The legislation included three bills I sponsored designating 700,000 additional acres of wilderness in California, from the Eastern Sierra Nevada to the San Jacinto Mountains in Riverside County.

I have been honored to serve as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee during a period of extraordinary accomplishments. In the 111th Congress, the EPW Committee held more than 80 hearings and approved more than 70 pieces of legislation. More than 20 EPW bills have gone to President Obama for his signature, including legislation to create jobs and accelerate economic recovery, to protect children and families from dangerous chemicals in the environment, and to address the dangers of unchecked climate change.

The committee has played a critical oversight role. While the oil was still gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, we held hearings to demand answers from oil company executives and Administration officials on the causes and impacts of the BP Deepwater Horizon oilspill disaster. As a result, BP provided the committee with previously unavailable video records gathered since the incident. EPW then provided scientists, the public and the media with access to this important underwater video.

One of our most basic responsibilities is to protect children and families from dangerous toxins in the air they breathe and the water they drink.

Parents have a right to expect that their children are safe from environmental hazards when they are at school. But following reports that found toxic air pollution levels at schools across the country, our oversight efforts led to additional EPA monitoring of air pollution at schools in California and in other States.

Emissions from ships' engines are a major cause of persistent air- quality problems at California's ports, including the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, and at other ports around the Nation. EPW oversight helped shine a light on the importance of setting strong safeguards to reduce air pollution from marine vessels, and earlier this year international authorities officially designated waters off North American coasts as subject to strong international emission standards for ships.

I was also pleased when the Senate passed a bipartisan bill I sponsored with my ranking member, Senator James Inhofe, to protect people from toxic lead in drinking water pipes, pipe fittings and plumbing fixtures. The bill is now on its way to the President's desk.

I was also pleased to work with Senators George Voinovich, Tom Carper and Inhofe to pass bipartisan legislation to strengthen efforts to reduce pollution from diesel engines. Diesel exhaust contributes to pollution that threatens the health of millions of people in California and contributes to asthma, heart disease, cancer and other illnesses.

We also enacted legislation to study the impact of black carbon pollution, and bipartisan legislation to enforce more protective standards on cancer-causing formaldehyde in wood products.

After the Tennessee Valley Authority, TVA, coal ash disaster 2 years ago released more than 1 billion gallons of toxic material, EPW held hearings into the incident and we initiated an investigation of the dangers of coal combustion waste. We succeeded in ensuring that the Obama administration publicly released the list of other high-hazard ash sites because families have a right to know about dangers to their communities.

Making the transition to the clean energy economy is one of the best ways to create millions of jobs and protect our children from dangerous pollution, and it will help break our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, which costs us a billion dollars a day and threatens our national security.

Thanks in large part to the groundwork laid by the EPW Committee's vigilant oversight during the 110th Congress, the EPA finally in 2009 granted California's request for a waiver to tackle tailpipe emissions of global warming pollution and incorporated the waiver into a landmark agreement that will boost fuel efficiency, save consumers money, cut carbon pollution, and save billions of barrels of oil.

As chairman, I am committed to continuing to work on legislation that reduces pollution, promotes energy efficiency and creates incentives to speed the transition to clean, renewable sources of energy.

President Obama has already signed EPW legislation to train building operators and contractors to improve the energy efficiency of federal facilities, and our committee passed bills to make schools and other public buildings more energy efficient, and to provide incentives for clean energy development on abandoned or formerly contaminated sites. In the new Congress, I plan to continue to work to ensure that the U.S. Government facilities are models of clean-energy technology and energy efficiency

This Congress has also taken action to protect our national security and support our troops and our veterans.

We just came together in a bipartisan fashion to ratify the New START treaty, which will help protect the national security of the United States by ensuring there are mutual reductions in nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and ensuring that our nuclear inspectors are on the ground in Russia.

We enacted tough new sanctions against Iran--another bipartisan vote that sends a clear and resounding message to Iran that it will pay a heavy price for its reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons.

We also passed legislation to improve the way the VA is funded, helping veterans get timely access to services and care. And we passed important legislation to compensate the family caregivers of our severely wounded service men and women. No one should have to face financial hardship for choosing to care for a loved one who was wounded in war.

As chair of the Senate Military Family Caucus, I was pleased to see the Senate approve my legislation to help reimburse military families for the cost of traveling off base to obtain needed specialty medical care.

Senators Kit Bond, Joe Lieberman and I also worked to expand the use of veterans centers to active, Guard and Reserve U.S. military personnel.

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I was proud to help secure $30 million to help women-led nongovernmental organizations in Afghanistan provide direct services such as adult literacy programs, vocational training and health services.

And I was proud to join Senator Bond to help secure funding for an additional eight C-17 aircraft, which are built in Long Beach and are critical to our national defense.

While we have made significant progress, there is still more to be done to create jobs, get our economy back on track, protect consumers and the environment, and make life better for all Californians and all Americans.

We must ensure that California and other states can continue to lead the way toward a clean energy future, which is already creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

We must continue to put Californians and Americans back to work by rebuilding our road, bridges and transit systems.

As we look to the 112th Congress, the Environment and Public Works Committee will continue to focus on creating jobs and turning our economy around through the next surface transportation authorization and through a new Water Resources Development Act.

And we will continue to shine a spotlight on the need to ensure the air our families breathe and the water our children drink is clean and safe. After the recent reports that found toxic chromium-6 contamination in drinking water in California and across the Nation, we have planned hearings on chromium-6 for early 2012. Senator Feinstein and I sent a letter urging the EPA to act, and the agency has already begun to respond by offering assistance to affected communities.

We will also work to ensure communities that suspect they have a cluster of environmentally caused illness have access to the federal experts and other resources that can help them get the answers they deserve.

We must provide incentives for U.S.-based companies to bring home billions of dollars sitting offshore from foreign sales. Bringing those funds home could be major boost to our economic recovery from the private sector.

While I was disappointed that our efforts to pass the DREAM Act were blocked, we must continue to work to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Our broken immigration system tears families apart and hurts our economic competitiveness, and we must

work together to fix it. I will keep fighting for these young people who are raised in America and I will continue to work to pass AgJobs.

And we cannot rest until other important judicial nominees are confirmed, including professor Goodwin Liu for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Edward Chen for the Northern District of California, Judge Edward Davila for the Northern District of California, and Judge Anthony Battaglia for the Southern District of California.

While we passed legislation to help the 9/11 first responders, now we must finish the work of making sure our firefighters and public safety workers have fair working conditions.

I will also keep working to pass important bills that we approved in committee this year to protect our public lands, waterways and ocean resources, including legislation to help restore the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, Lake Tahoe, and the San Francisco Bay.

I am grateful to the people of the California for the opportunity to represent them in the United States Senate. I look forward to hearing their ideas as we continue our work in the 112th Congress next year.

Mr. President, I take this time to recognize the 75th anniversary of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, SFMOMA. For 75 years, SFMOMA has engaged and inspired Bay Area residents and visitors alike through first-rate exhibitions, public programs, and special events that enrich and educate the community.

SFMOMA was founded in 1935 by Dr. Grace Louise McVann Morley. At the time of its founding, SFMOMA was the first and only museum on the west coast dedicated solely to modern and contemporary art. Dr. Morley, a visionary and committed leader, went on to serve as the museum's director for 23 years. Under her guidance, SFMOMA showcased innovative and challenging art by both new and established artists, helping to cement San Francisco's position as a leader in the world of modern art.

SFMOMA's leadership has never been limited to art alone but also extends to influencing public policy, establishing avenues to success for local and regional artists and exhibiting work that addresses current political and social movements.

To accommodate the expansion of the museum over the years, artwork was divided into four different departments: architectural and design, media arts, painting and sculpture, and photography. In addition to traditional exhibitions, SFMOMA now offers film festivals, live art performances, and educational programs for children and teens. The museum has also recently developed a new Web site and blog incorporating podcasts, an online tool for browsing the collection, and additional interactive features that make the museum more accessible than ever before.

Last year, SFMOMA entered into an exciting partnership with Doris and Donald Fisher, founders of the Gap, enabling the museum to exhibit the Fishers' personal art collection, known internationally to be one of the most comprehensive and extraordinary collections of modern art in the world. The collection is comprised of more than 1,100 works by 185 20th and 21st century American and European artists.

Today, SFMOMA retains more than 26,000 pieces of art in its permanent collection, including photographs, design objects, sculptures, and other artworks. The museum is currently planning a major expansion to support its ongoing growth and to showcase the Doris and Donald Fisher Collection. The additional space will allow SFMOMA to continue evolving and offering additional programs for the community to learn, engage, and interact with each other and with some of the greatest works of modern art.

Earlier this year, SFMOMA marked its 75th anniversary by offering 3 free days of special programs entitled ``75 Years of Looking Forward.'' As a result, thousands visited the museum, eager to take advantage of the opportunity to honor and celebrate this cherished institution. SFMOMA hosts 800,000 visitors annually and boasts the largest member base of any modern or contemporary art museum in the United States. I commend SFMOMA for serving the community superbly for the past 75 years. Audiences have been captivated and inspired by SFMOMA's collections and special exhibitions, and I wish this venerable cultural institution much success in the decades to come.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next two Democrats on the list be Senator Leahy, followed by Senator Shaheen.

Mr. President, I want to respond to the comments of my friend from Texas, who was very passionate in her remarks, by saying it interested me that she raised the name of President Ronald Reagan, because a lot of major players in his administration support this treaty--George Shultz, for one, and also James Baker. In addition, the current Director of National Intelligence, who is responsible for verification, supports this treaty. And LTG Patrick O'Reilly, head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, says that the New START treaty actually reduces constraints on the development of missile defense.

I think her comments were very articulate, but they are not correct, because, again, I will place into the Record the many leaders from former Republican administrations who are pressing us hard to get this treaty done. As a matter of fact, we haven't had boots on the ground to verify what the Russians are doing for a long time now. This treaty will make sure we can verify. But whether it is Defense Secretary Robert Gates, or Patrick O'Reilly, as I said, head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, or the Director of National Intelligence--you also have former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger saying he doesn't believe this inhibits missile defense. You have the former Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, William Perry, being very strong on this, along with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and so on. In the Washington Post, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, and Colin Powell made the following statement. ``New START preserves our ability to deploy effective missile defenses.'' The testimonies of our military commanders and civilian leaders make it clear that the treaty does not limit U.S. missile defense plans.

I think the biggest danger to our country is not acting on this. If we don't act, it is a danger to the national security of this Nation. I am very pleased to see the incredible bipartisan support outside of this Chamber and, I hope, inside this Chamber. I am very hopeful. But we will find out in the coming days.

I want to also talk about the two very critical votes we cast here moments ago, which are so important to large segments of our communities. The DREAM Act, which would give a path of legality to students who are outstanding in their communities and who want to join the military, or go to college, is an important bill. Because of the filibuster we needed 60 votes. We got 55 votes--a majority--but the Republican filibuster stopped us from passing it.

Today the dreams of young, talented students who grew up in America were crushed because of a filibuster. We have to make it clear to the people who follow this that the Republicans stopped us from passing the DREAM Act, even though we had a few of them join us. I say thank you to those on the other side. We got 55 votes. We had 90 percent of Democrats voting for it and less than 10 percent of Republicans--90 percent of Republicans voted against it. Today, dreams were crushed.

I believe in America. My mother was born in a foreign land and, by the grace of God, she was naturalized, and she kissed the ground of this country. I often think to myself, what if she had a foul-up in her papers somehow, what would have happened to me? Would I be a different person? No, I would be the same human being. America would be my country.

The reason I am so passionate on this is these are young people who would make our country stronger. As a matter of fact, our military says the DREAM Act is a recruiter's dream, because we get the best and the brightest to sign up for the military. In my State, where I am so proud of our incredible diversity, we have a group of young people who are ready to go to college there, start their own businesses there, get jobs there, form their families there, work in their communities. They already are.

I have shown on the floor of the Senate many times individuals who were caught in this limbo state. A lot of them are presidents of their student bodies, A students, leaders in their communities. Studies show that if the DREAM Act passes, the gross domestic product of our Nation will increase. There is a very good study, a recent study by USC, the University of Southern California, that is very clear on the point.

It seems to me what we did today by failing to end the filibuster, even though we had a strong majority vote, we hurt our country. Why did we hurt our country? Because our children are our future. These are very bright young people, who are very motivated. They would be the only ones to benefit from the DREAM Act.

I am here today with a message: I will never give up until we pass the DREAM Act.

On the good side today, from my perspective, we made some history. We did break a filibuster--a Republican filibuster--on the issue of ending discrimination in the military against gays and lesbians. We voted to end that filibuster and take up the issue of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. I do believe, in a few hours, that policy will be gone.

There are moments in history that come to us, and for me to be here at this time--and I know I speak for a lot of colleagues--and cast a right for civil rights, cast a vote for justice, cast a vote for equality, and to cast a vote against discrimination is a high honor.

I have to say as a point of personal privilege, I was here when that policy went into effect. It was 1993 and I was a new Member of the Senate. I thought this was the wrong policy at that time. So I said to my staff: Can't we do something and stop this? We decided the best way to try to stop it was to say let's not codify this policy. Let's not put it into law. Let's have an amendment that says it is up to the executive branch. That way, the executive branch could repeal it if it didn't work, and it would be easier.

It is interesting because our thoughts were right on target, because our President does not support don't ask, don't tell, and he would, in a heartbeat, of course, remove it as a policy through Executive order. But because we had voted it into law, we had to act.

I decided to go back to the speech I made on that day, September 9, 1993, and take a look at some of the things I said about don't ask, don't tell. First, I said, on the question of codification--that is, putting don't ask, don't tell into law:

There is no historic precedent for the codification of the

military personnel policy that prevents a whole class of

Americans from serving their country in the Armed Forces.

I felt it was against precedent, and I said:

There is simply no compelling reason to believe we should

break with history and codify such a policy.

I mentioned that, over the past four decades, Congress had declined to impose restrictive personnel policies on the military. I quoted a former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Barry Goldwater, who stated:

Banning loyal Americans from the Armed Forces because of

their sexual orientation is just plain un-American.

I said the policy is a policy of outright discrimination, which flies in the face of the very American values that the military has sworn to defend.

I lauded the courage of those military personnel who were willing to come forward and testify before Congress way back then. And, of course, fast forward to today, it is incredible that brave men and women serving in uniform in Iraq and in Afghanistan, who put their careers on the line, can stand up and be counted and speak truth to power about this issue.

I think this is an important point. The military has a very strict code of conduct, which it must have. So everybody in the military must adhere to it, whether you are heterosexual, homosexual, or whatever your orientation is; you have to live by the code of conduct. In 1993 we had just come through this horrible scandal called Tailhook. It was awful. You had a series of rapes, and you had a very bad circumstance, which was brought out into the public. Action was taken. So, clearly, heterosexuals in the military, when they misbehave in a sexual way, are going to be punished. It is the same way for improper homosexual behavior. It will not be tolerated.

That is the point. I said that don't ask, don't tell is a policy of discrimination based on your status instead of your behavior.

Here is something else I said in 1993:

It is easy to lose sight of the impact that policies have

on people's lives. It is easy to label people that are

different from us as ``those people.'' We might be able to

temporarily fool ourselves into thinking that those people

are not part of our social fabric.

I read into the Record some writing of a German philosopher, who wrote about World War II, in which he said:

When the Nazis came for the Jews, I didn't speak up because

I was not a Jew. And when the Nazis came for the gypsies, I

didn't speak up because I was not a gypsy. And when the Nazis

came for the mentally defective, I didn't speak up because I

was not mentally defective. When the Nazis came for me, there

was no one left to speak up.

So I said: Let's not do this to gay and lesbian people. Let's have a code of behavior that affects us all and does not divide us. We fool ourselves when we say that the gay and lesbian community is not part of our social fabric; that they are not human; that they do not have an effect on our lives. That isn't right. We are all God's children and they are our sons and our daughters.

So in a couple of hours, for me, this issue comes full circle. I got 33 votes that day in 1993 for my amendment not to codify don't ask, don't tell. I got 33 votes, and I was proud of that. I remember Howard Metzenbaum--may he rest in peace--said at that time: The Boxer amendment is a civil rights amendment, and I was proud. But I was so sad to lose badly--33 votes. Today--today--we have come a long way, and we have come a long way because people have put their fear aside and they came forward and they told their stories. They took the light and they focused it on the truth. We have come a long way because of their families who love them and have spoken out. We have come a long way because the military itself, in the Pentagon's recently released survey, said it doesn't matter. Seventy percent of our servicemembers said we don't care about sexual orientation.

So this is America at its best--when we open our arms to equality and freedom and justice.

In closing, I would say there is more work we have to do on this whole issue. There is still a lot of unfairness in our laws--partners not being able to have the same rights as married couples. That is another whole issue we will work on. But I am confident that as Americans we will move forward. When we started out, only White men of property could vote. We have struggled. All this is a struggle. It is not easy. The struggle for freedom is not easy. People have died for freedom in all these communities. It is in our history. But this will be a day that will go down in American history as a day we lifted a barrier, and America is stronger because of it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I rise to object, and I will not. I just want to make sure that at 3:30 I will be allowed to speak.

So is 3:30 a good time or 3:40?

Mr. President, I wish to thank my chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Kerry, with whom I have worked closely. I thank also Senator Lugar, the ranking member, who at times has been my chair. It does my heart good to see them working closely on this matter. I was also elated to see the test vote we had on this already.

I hope that vote, that test vote, is indicative of where we are going. We were almost at 67. My understanding is that one Member wasn't there to vote. We should be at 67. I hope we can get this done at the earliest opportunity because despite some of the protests of

our colleagues saying there hasn't been enough time, my understanding is that we have been on this for 7 months. And no one could have worked harder than our chairman and our ranking member on making sure that every single objection to the New START treaty, every single problem and challenge was heard and that a lot of this was already worked out in the resolution of ratification. So, hopefully, we can get through this.

I have had opportunities, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee in particular, to ask national security experts what keeps them up at night, what is the one thing they worry about. Whether it comes from the CIA or any other place within the intelligence community, the answer comes back like this: What keeps them up at night is the possibility that a terrorist could get hold of a nuclear weapon.

I have to say, that worrisome possibility is on the minds of many Americans. The New START treaty makes this less likely. Therefore, ratifying the treaty is in our national interest and, frankly, it is in the interest of the world. The New START treaty requires a 30-percent reduction of deployed strategic weapons on the Russian and American side, with on-the-ground verification. That is key. It reduces delivery systems to 800 per side.

I am not going to speak for very long, I say to my colleagues who have come here, because so much has been said. I can't say it any better. So what I am going to do for most of the remainder of my time is quote from people, Republicans and Democrats, who have been quite eloquent on this issue, in addition to Senators Kerry and Lugar.

It is clear Democrats and Republicans alike support this treaty. We hear a lot of talk about not labeling each other and coming together. Look, this is an area where we have come together, and all we have to do is put the finishing touches on this ratification and complete this very important work that is in front of us.

In addition to all of our NATO allies supporting this, including those in Eastern Europe--which I think is very important to note--we have the support of all of these American leaders on both sides of the aisle. I will read some of their comments for the Record: ``I urge the U.S. Senate to ratify the START treaty.'' This is a statement from a few days ago from President George Herbert Walker Bush.

This is from Colin Powell, Secretary of State for George W. Bush:

I fully support this treaty and I hope that the Senate will

give its advice and consent as soon as possible . . . [T]his

treaty is in the best interest of the United States of

America, the best interest of the world, and frankly in the

best interest of the Russian Federation.

Howard Baker, former Senator, Republican from Tennessee, said just a few days ago:

A world without a binding U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control

treaty is a more dangerous place, less predictable, less

stable than the one we live in today. . . . Trust, but

verify. Ratify this treaty.

George Shultz, a constituent of mine, Secretary of State for President Reagan, wrote with Sam Nunn, a Democrat and former Senator from Georgia whom we all respect on these issues:

Noting the full support of the Secretary of State, the

Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

staff, and following our own review of the treaty, we urge

the Senate to give its advice and consent to ratification of

New START as early as is feasible.

I hope we don't have a lot of delaying, more delaying tactics around here because it is not necessary.

I heard colleagues say, What is the rush? What is the rush? We have had 7 months. Senators Kerry and Lugar have bent over backwards and done everything possible to accommodate Senators, such as Senator Kyl, who wanted certain assurances on the modernization of our nuclear weapons. They did everything to answer every question. By the way, they will continue to do that as we get to any other issues.

This is what James Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense for Presidents Nixon and Ford, said:

I think it is obligatory for the United States to ratify New

START. . . . For the United States, at this juncture, to fail

to ratify the treaty in the due course of the Senate's

deliberation would have a detrimental effect on our ability

to influence others with regard to, particularly, the

nonproliferation issue.

So James Schlesinger gets to the point of nonproliferation, the worrisome fact that a terrorist or rogue state could get one of these weapons.

Alan Simpson, an outspoken former Republican Senator from Wyoming, said this:

Nothing in the treaty constrains our ability to develop and

deploy a robust missile defense system as our military

planners see fit. The idea that this treaty somehow makes

major concessions to the Russians on missile defense is just

simply not true.

I will quote Pat Buchanan, former White House Communications Director for President Ronald Reagan:

Richard Nixon would have supported this treaty. Ronald

Reagan would have supported this treaty, as he loathed

nuclear weapons and wished to rid the world of them. And

simply because this treaty is ``Obama's treaty'' does not

mean it is not in America's interest.

I don't think I have ever in my life quoted Pat Buchanan on the floor. I am just proving the point that this particular issue is extremely bipartisan. It unites everybody, except apparently a few of our friends on the other side.

Brent Scowcroft, LTG retired, National Security Adviser to Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush, said this:

New START should not be controversial no matter how liberal

or conservative you are.

That also makes the point.

Chuck Hagel, a former Republican Senator, made this statement--and I will not read the entire statement. He ends it by saying:

This would be devastating not just for arms control but for

security interests worldwide [if we didn't deal with this

issue].

Henry Kissinger has a very long statement. I will not read the entire statement, but he said this:

. . . for all these reasons, I recommend ratification of this

treaty. . . . I do not believe this treaty is an obstacle to

a missile defense program or modernization. . . . A rejection

of this treaty would indicate that a new period of American

policy had started that would have an unsettling impact on

the international environment.

So here you have somebody who has been deeply involved in foreign relations for so many years saying, in essence--and I am not quoting him here, but I am summing up what I read, that it would be a radical departure from America's foreign policy if we were not to do this.

James Baker, former Secretary of State for President George H.W. Bush, writes:

New START appears to take our country in a direction that

can enhance our national security. . . . It can also improve

Washington's relationship with Moscow regarding nuclear

weapons and delivery vehicles, a relationship that will be

vital if the two countries are to cooperate in order to stem

nuclear proliferation in countries such as Iran and North

Korea. I agree with Secretary of Defense Bob Gates when he

wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal that the new

treaty provides verification that has been needed since START

I expired in December. An effective verification regime is a

critical component of arms control and I believe that the

world is safer when the United States and Russia are abiding

by one.

I will close with a couple of Democratic individuals who have also joined their Republican friends in this.

President Bill Clinton said this:

The START agreement is very important to the future of our

national security and it is not a radical agreement. This is

something that is profoundly important. This ought to be way

beyond party.

He said that a couple days ago. William Perry, we remember well; he was Secretary of Defense for President Clinton. He said:

The treaty puts no meaningful limits on our antiballistic

missile defense program. In fact, it reduces restrictions

that existed under the previous START Treaty. I recommend

ratification.

Former Senator Sam Nunn said this:

Delaying ratification of this treaty, or defeating it,

would damage United States security interests and United

States credibility globally.

He takes the same tack that I am taking. He is someone who supports this. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, former strategic nuclear commanders, and our intelligence community leadership all have stated that the treaty is essential to our Nation's security.

I am hopeful the Senate will put our Nation's security

first by providing its advice and consent to this important

treaty.

That was Sam Nunn.

I will close with two more quotes, one from Vice President Joe Biden:

Failure to pass the new START Treaty this year would

endanger our national security.

We would have no Americans on the ground to inspect Russia's

nuclear activities, no verification regimes to track Russia's

nuclear arsenal, less cooperation between two nations that

account for 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons, and no

verified nuclear reduction.

We all know Vice President Biden was the respected chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, and it was my honor to serve with him.

Finally, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said this:

Failing to ratify the treaty would not only undermine our

strategic stability, the predictability, and the

transparency, but it would severely impact our potential to

lead on the important issue of nonproliferation.

I end where I started. What keeps the intelligence community people up at night is the fear that we don't wrap our arms around nuclear proliferation, and that a weapon gets into the hands of a terrorist or rogue nation. New START is--as our chairman has said many times--not a very broad treaty. It is pretty narrow. It is essential, but it doesn't cover that much new ground. It ensures that we are going to have a mutual reduction in these arms that we will be able to verify, and it makes it less likely that we are going to have the type of proliferation that keeps a lot of us up at night, including the American people, I am sure. We need to take steps in this holiday season toward peace. We need to take steps every day to make sure that the threats we face in this difficult world, with all of our challenges, are diminished.

Once again, I say to my chairman, his leadership has been extraordinary on this. I was beginning to give up hope that we would be able to get this done. He constantly said that we don't give up, we keep pursuing this. It is the right thing to do. And he has done it with Senator Lugar by his side.

This is a good day. I feel good that we are doing this. I feel that the people, particularly at this time of the year, will feel much better when we get this done in a bipartisan way. I know we will.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to make a unanimous-consent request that after Senator Kyl has 10 minutes----

Fifteen minutes--I be recognized for up to 25 minutes.

Madam President, I have a number of issues I want to bring up today for the record to explain a lot of the things we are faced with here as we wind down before Christmas Eve--maybe.

The first thing I am going to do is ask to have printed in the Record a list of the California-connected servicemembers who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have put their names in the Record continually. And sometimes, if I have time, I read them. I want to say this: Since August 5, 52 more California-connected servicemembers have died in Afghanistan, and 2 more have died in Iraq.

I ask unanimous consent to have their names printed in the Record.

Madam President, these heroes, these Americans have sacrificed and given it all for this Nation. I am humbled by their service. I am humbled by the service of their families, because this is a family commitment. I am so proud, along with Senator Burr, to be cochair of the Military Family Caucus. I pledge to continue what I can do to make sure that our commitment to our military families is constant and that we are fulfilling our role to make sure they get treated with honor and respect and that we lessen their hardships. We cannot take away the pain of their loss.

I also want to say I am working in every way I can to end this war in Afghanistan. I support bringing the troops home in 2011. There is some talk it might be extended another year. I don't support that. As someone who voted to go after Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and go into Afghanistan, we lost a lot of years because President George W. Bush turned and focused his attention on the Iraq war, a war I did not support because I didn't think it was based on truth. It turned out that it wasn't. History will speak to that. We have been in Afghanistan a long time and they are going to have to stand up and defend their own country, as all nations have to do to defend themselves. We have given so much, and today 52 more California-connected servicemembers since August 5--that is an ongoing sacrifice.

We heard yesterday about a tragic explosion against NATO forces there on a headquarters in southern Afghanistan, where we lost six. I support that withdrawal and doing it in a way that makes sense. We are not going to do it in 1 day, or 6 months, but we should start it.

Remembering Richard Holbrooke

Connected to that, the second issue I wanted to bring up is the passing of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke--someone I considered to be a friend, adviser, a brilliant mind, a warm personality, a man who lived for his work and his family. It is so ironic, in a sense. I saw him twice last week because he and his wife had gone to the Kennedy Center awards. He seemed fine, so engaged, and so well. It was a shock to read about what happened.

I send my love to his family, his wife, and his children. He will be missed so much, because he had a very unique approach to diplomacy. There was a love of what he did that you can't create. When you talked to him, he engaged you because of his deep commitment and love of his work, and his understanding that diplomacy is the answer, not war, and that you had to be tough. As he pointed out, you had to meet with people you would not want to be in a room with. But he had to do that as he negotiated the end of the war in Bosnia.

I will miss him both personally and certainly as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee with the occupant of the Chair.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I want to talk about a couple of other issues, to express my disappointment that because of an artificial line laid down in the sand by our colleagues on the other side, they would not vote on a civil rights matter to end don't ask, don't tell, which is a policy that makes our Nation weaker, not stronger. It is a policy that brings pain to so many of our fellow Americans. They have to keep a secret as to who they are and how they live their life, and that runs counter to what this country is all about.

The thing is, when you are in the military and you are side by side and you are in trouble, whether you are gay or straight has nothing to do with the mission you are facing. There is a very strict code of conduct in the military that says whoever you are, you cannot abuse your rights and privileges, whether it is about sexual harassment or anything else. That is very clear. So we already have a code of conduct that can apply to everyone.

I was proud that in the survey that was taken, our military said they didn't think it would harm us in terms of our ability to have a strong defense. Good for them. I read into the Record a number of cases of heroes who have been run out of the military because of their sexual orientation--heroes. A couple of them have been reinstated. The courts are going to do away with don't ask, don't tell. So I would rhetorically ask my colleagues: Why on Earth would we leave this to the courts when we could have the pride in standing for civil rights? It is unfortunate.

Some on the other side have flip-flopped on this issue and said: Oh, well, when the military leaders say it is OK, I will be there. But now they are not. They set the bar every day at a different height. It is wrong and we should get this done. There was an excuse that, well, let's do the tax cut first. OK, we did the tax cut. So I am hoping they will let us go to this and vote on this so we can be proud as Americans here, across party lines, that we can put aside partisan differences when it comes to civil rights.

I was watching a TV special on the civil rights law that passed in 1964, and the beautiful part of it was the coming together of the parties, at the end of the day, on an issue that was so right for this country. I hope we can do this again. I just hope we can do this again. If not, I say to the courts: Do the right thing. You are doing it, but keep it up, because we are not any stronger as a Nation, we are weaker, when incredibly talented, dedicated, patriotic Americans are turned away for absolutely no reason.

DREAM Act

I wished to talk about that as well as the DREAM Act--another area where this country is made stronger. This act focuses on a child who may have been brought here by their parents. Their parents broke the law, brought a child here, say, at 3 or 4 months, and the child grows up and doesn't even know they do not have their papers until they get to be 18 years old. This is their country. They love their country. A lot of them are presidents of their student body. Since when do we pin the crimes of the parents on a child? We don't do that here. Again, what are we gaining? We are losing.

So the DREAM Act, which started off with huge bipartisan support, suddenly has gotten to the place where don't ask, don't tell has gotten, where we are moving away from justice. Everybody has their reason--oh, it can't be part of the military bill. If it is not part of the military bill, they say: Why isn't it part of the military bill? It seems to be a moving bar.

I read about this big meeting called ``No Labels,'' where people got together and said we are tired of the two parties not working together. It was sort of interesting because it was on the day when the two parties did work together and we got over 80 votes for a tax bill. But be that as it may, let's set that aside, here are two issues that have nothing to do with partisan politics because they are good for the country--they help our young people and they make sure people can serve in the military if they are qualified and their sexual orientation essentially has nothing to do with it. We have a chance to come together for the good of the country on these things.

9/11 Heroes

I still hold out hope that we can do that, and we can also take care of those heroes of 9/11 who went to that toxic pile in New York and looked for the survivors and then looked for remains and breathed in that toxic air, which in those days the EPA said was safe. Well, it wasn't safe, and now they are sick. Yet we can't seem to get the votes to help them. But I don't give up. I think we can do this. So let's work together on all these things.

Transportation

Another area where we have been able to work together in the past-- and where I hope we will continue to work together--is the Transportation bill. We usually enact our highway trust fund programs for about 4, 5 or 6 years at a time. The last time we extended it for 1 year, and now the extension is ending. So we need to extend again the existing transportation authorization. I am optimistic on this one because in the House it didn't seem controversial. They added it to the continuing resolution and extended it to the end of fiscal year 2011. September 30 is the date.

It is important to note that 900,000 jobs nationwide depend on this highway trust fund and the reauthorization of it and all those programs--with 85,000 jobs in my home State of California. It is very important we do this work, whether it is through an omnibus budget or through the continuing resolution, however it ends up.

This is an area again where the political parties have come together. My ranking member, Jim Inhofe, and I have been working very closely on this and we support this extension. It has the support of the members of the Americans for Transportation Mobility Coalition--and I will name some of them: The American Public Transportation Association, the American Road and Transportation Builders, the Associated Equipment Distributors, the Associated General Contractors, the Society of Civil Engineers, the International Union of Operating Engineers, Laborers International, the National Asphalt Paving Association, National Stone, Sand & Gravel, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Listen, that is quite a group. When you have unions and you have the employers and you have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--which is negative on so many things, unfortunately, but positive on this--that is a good matchup.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the Americans for Transportation Mobility.

Madam President, this extension will save jobs not only in the short term, but it gives certainty to our States. We know our Nation's highways, bridges, and transit systems need to be in good repair.

I will say this: With the construction industry still in a downturn, it is tough for them because of the housing crisis. Construction jobs are few and far between, and we have a very high unemployment rate in the construction industry. This extension is important. It gives certainty. It will save hundreds of thousands of jobs, it will improve our infrastructure, and provide that foundation we need for a solid recovery. So I look forward to taking that up.

The last topic I wished to talk about--and I ask how much time remains in my 25 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

The last topic I wish to talk about is my vote yesterday to move forward on a tax bill, the framework of which was sent to us by President Obama. There were negotiations with our Republican colleagues and then one very important addition was made to the bill. Many of us in the Senate wanted that--and I am grateful for that addition--and it was the 1603 program, which is critical to our clean energy businesses and will result in tens of thousands of jobs.

This will allow companies that are moving forward with solar, wind, and geothermal projects--clean energy projects--to essentially get a tax credit up front. That is essential because there are a lot of plans on the drawing board. If this hadn't been renewed, we would have lost those plans, and we would have lost those jobs. So I am very pleased about that.

So much has been said about this tax bill, and I don't know that I am going to say anything that is going to add to the debate, but I wished to lay out some of what compelled me to vote yes to move that bill forward. It is kind of summed up in a San Jose Mercury News editorial, where they say:

More than three-quarters of the spending will go to middle-

and lower-income families through tax cuts, tax credits for

working families, and unemployment insurance.

That is the San Jose Mercury News. One could quibble that maybe it is 50 percent, more than 50 percent or maybe 60 percent, but the fact is, this bill will be a help to the middle class.

When I was a kid in school, we had a big lecture on how a bill becomes a law, and it sounds so easy. You start in a subcommittee in one House or the other, the subcommittee marks up the bill, the full committee marks up the bill and then it goes to the other House and they do it. If there are differences, they all meet happily in a conference and chat a little bit, they find the differences and resolve them and the bill then goes to the White House. The President either signs the bill and everybody celebrates or he vetoes it and you have to get three-quarters of the Chambers to override.

It doesn't exactly work that way in real life. In real life--which you can't explain in a textbook--the different parties bring different passions to the table, and those passions are held deeply. If I tell you where I see the passion coming from on either side, it is my view. There is no science to this, it is just my view. But I think the passion the Democrats brought to the table was that we needed to make sure, first and foremost, the people who have been desperately hurt by this slow economic recovery aren't left in the lurch for the next year. Because technically, even though the recession has ended in terms of GDP growth, the fact is, it is a very painful, agonizingly slow recovery that is going on. Yes, jobs are being created--up to now about 900,000 since January--but it is not enough to make up for the millions of jobs that were lost in the recession. So it is painfully slow, and we are worried about it.

So we brought that passion we had to make sure middle-class families who lost their jobs didn't lose everything else--they didn't lose their homes, didn't lose the ability to send their kids to school, and they have this bridge of unemployment insurances, which, by the way, they pay for. They have to be actually looking for work in order to get it. That is the passion we brought to the table.

The other passion was to make sure the middle class didn't get a tax increase. We were passionate on that point, and we wanted tax credits for businesses that resulted in jobs. Those were the passions we brought to the table.

I think it is fair to say the passions the Republicans brought to the table were to help make sure the very wealthiest got taken care of in any deal. Why do I say that? It is a fact in evidence. Their nonnegotiable terms included the extension of the tax cuts to billionaires and millionaires. That was it. Passionate. Passionate. Just as we were passionate about helping the middle class, they were passionate on this point, and they were passionate--and they have been--about the largest estates in America. A lot of them don't even think estates ought to be in any way taxed.

In America, for many years, we have had what I would call an ethic that this American dream is crucial. We want everyone to have it. We are proud

when people get to be multimillionaires and billionaires. But we have a Defense Department to run, we have an education system to help, we have roads to be build, our national security costs money, our domestic security costs money. Social Security has to be taken care of, people pay into the system, and health care--therefore, we believed for years, and it was bipartisan, that for the wealthiest estates to have an estate tax was something that worked.

Frankly, somebody who inherits, let's say, a $7 million estate from their parents, they are going to be OK. By the way, that is a very small percentage. Democrats believe 99 percent of estates would not have any tax under our plan. But Republicans were passionate about this. They wanted a $10 million estate, and they wanted a lower tax rate.

Were I to write the book, ``How A Bill Becomes A Law,'' I would have a different way of writing it. I would say: Technically, this is what happens to get it to the President, to get the bill. But what you need to know is what the passions are. I think at the end of the day both sides could come away with this, saying what we felt passionate about in this bill was good.

The one thing that was not addressed in this bill is the deficit. A lot of us on both sides are passionate about that. But I think at the end of the day there was a decision, perhaps not voiced but certainly understood, that this is a stimulus bill, and we are going to have to do serious deficit reduction. Anyone who thinks we will not have to pay the piper for these tax cuts is living in another world. Of course we are. The question is, Do we do it now or do we do it when this economy truly turns around?

Then there will be another passionate debate about who is going to help solve the deficit. I have a feeling you are going to see the same thing. The Democrats are going to say: The middle class are not responsible for this; let's look to the upper income. Our Republican friends are going to say: It is class warfare. Don't look to the wealthy.

We are going to have this battle again. But I voted for this bill because I think our economy continues to be in a fragile state when it comes to job growth, and I think we had to move forward on this. I am glad we did because this has been the worst recession since the Great Depression.

I hate to remind people of what it was like, but when George Bush was President, he came to us with Hank Paulson, then-Secretary of the Treasury, and Ben Bernanke, and they said to us: This economy is going to collapse. Nobody is lending. Capital is frozen. We are in desperate shape.

I have to tell you when the stock market went down--at one point it was almost 50 percent down--those were tough times. We took many steps to get this economy back on track. I have to say things have stabilized.

Since January 10 we have added 937,000 jobs to this economy. But because 8 million jobs were lost in this great recession, that is just not enough. The President knows this. That is why he knew he needed to come to us with a framework that basically said we are not going to put a burden on the middle class. They have suffered enough. He had to swallow hard to do things that we know he did not want to do.

I will reiterate what the San Jose Mercury News said:

More than three-quarters of the spending will go to middle-

and lower-income families.

That is an important point.

I have talked about the importance of the extension of unemployment benefits. In my State of California more than 400,000 workers will lose their UI benefits by the end of December, 2 million workers nationwide. I have to say Mark Zandi, who was one of John McCain's top advisers, clearly says when you extend unemployment benefits, you get the best bang for the buck.

I ask for 2 more minutes, and then I will stop.

This tax bill I voted on will help our working families. There is a 2-percent cut in payroll taxes. I know some say: Is that going to hurt Social Security? We have a statement from the executive vice president of the AARP, the Association of Retired Persons, saying the proposal has no financial impact on Social Security because the trust fund is made whole. That is critical. When we had the administration at our caucus we made sure of that.

There is the extension of the child tax credit from the Recovery Act, the earned-income tax credit, the childcare tax credit, there is education relief and refundable tax credits for college, again, those clean energy incentives which were critical, the 1603 provisions, job creation tax incentives, R&D tax credit, bonus depreciation, veterans work, opportunity credit, small business capital gains exclusion.

In closing, do I feel passionate that the people who earn over $1 million do not need a tax cut? You bet I do. I am passionate. To me, to add to a deficit while we are in two wars to help people when so many of them say don't even do this--we had a letter put in the Record from 90 millionaires saying this is ridiculous.

I am passionate about that. That fight will go on. Frankly, it is a disagreement between the two parties. That is fine. We cannot be expected to agree on everything. But I think moving ahead with this was very important. Most economic forecasters estimate the legislation will increase GDP growth, and I think that is critical at this time. My State is struggling with 12.4 percent unemployment, and I did not agree with two major provisions--the estate tax, which is a giveaway to estates over $10 million, and it is a giveaway to the wealthiest few. It adds to the deficit because of that, and there is no reason to do it.

But on the whole I think this is something we should do, and I look forward to getting it done so maybe my colleagues on the other side will join us as we finish up a whole list of things we need to do before we leave for the holidays.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the service of a fellow Senator, and friend, Senator George Voinovich. He has spent over four decades as a public servant and has been a tireless advocate for the State of Ohio.

Senator Voinovich started his career in public service in 1967 when he served as a Member of the Ohio House of Representatives. He then went on to serve as a county commissioner, the mayor of Cleveland, and as the Governor of Ohio. In 1998, he was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Having worked extensively in local government, Senator Voinovich understood first-hand the importance of Federal investment in infrastructure before he ever arrived in Washington.

Senator Voinovich has served with me on the Environment and Public Works Committee since the 106th Congress, 1999. Throughout his career, he has been a great advocate for transportation. As the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee during the 111th Congress, he helped us ensure ongoing investment in Federal highway, transit and highway safety programs and the jobs that those investments create.

In hearings, Senator Voinovich has frequently highlighted the importance of investing in infrastructure at all levels of government and often called on his colleagues to support passage of a new long- term surface transportation authorization at increased funding levels.

He and his staff have contributed to the efforts of our committee to draft a new surface transportation authorization. Senator Voinovich's passion for these issues was influential among his colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and will help guide us as we move forward on new transportation legislation.

During his service on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Voinovich has also been an advocate for investing in America's water resources and protecting water quality. I was also pleased to join him as a cosponsor of the Clean Coastal Health and Public Health Act, which helps to ensure our Nation's beaches are safe for swimming and recreation.

I am also grateful for his partnership in supporting investment in America's ports, which are important economic drivers in both Ohio and California, and are vital to the national economy.

Senator Voinovich's service on the Environment and Public Works Committee will have a lasting impact both in the State of Ohio, and across the Nation. I want to extend my best wishes to Senator Voinovich and his family in his retirement, and express my gratitude for his many years of hard work and dedication to public service.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to recognize the extraordinary legacy of the late retired Riverside Superior Court Judge Victor Miceli, who passed away on September 16, 2010. He was a champion of justice, leader of city restoration projects, and preserver of the history of the city of Riverside, CA--his adopted hometown for which he worked diligently for nearly half a century.

After graduating from the University of Pittsburgh Law School in 1952 and serving as the judge advocate general in the U.S. Army, Vincent Miceli relocated to Riverside in 1961. He opened a private civil practice, which he maintained until he was appointed by Governor George Deukmejian to the Superior Court in 1986. Throughout his tenure, during which he served as a presiding judge, he rendered decisions in many high-profile cases, including those involving local politics, city growth, and environmental issues.

Judge Miceli's civic involvement included establishing Federal and State appellate courthouses in downtown Riverside, shaping this area as a justice center enhanced by $100 million in new construction. He also spearheaded restoration of the historic 1903 Beaux Arts courthouse on the city's Main Street and contributed to the restoration and preservation of the city's historic Evergreen Cemetery. In the words of retired appellate Judge John Gabbert: ``His contributions to the City and County of Riverside have just been beyond measure.''

I extend my heartfelt condolences to Judge Miceli's family, friends, and colleagues. He will be truly missed.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring the memory of Richard Goldman, a visionary philanthropist and extraordinary civic leader. Richard was a successful businessman whose dedication to his global community improved the lives of millions. Richard passed away peacefully at his home in San Francisco on November 29, 2010. He was 90 years old.

Richard Goldman was born on April 16, 1920, in San Francisco, CA. He grew up just down the street from his future wife, Rhoda Haas. Richard attended the University of California at Berkeley before serving 4 years in the U.S. Armed Forces. In 1946, Richard returned to San Francisco and shortly thereafter reconnected with Rhoda, a descendant of Levi Strauss, who served on the board of directors of both the apparel company and the Levi Strauss Foundation. Richard and Rhoda were married within the year.

In 1949, Richard founded Goldman Insurance Services, a major San Francisco brokerage firm that was sold to Willis Insurance in 2001. In 1951, Goldman and his wife Rhoda Haas Goldman created the Goldman Fund, which has since then given more that half a billion dollars to a range of philanthropic causes in the bay area, nationally, and internationally. The Goldman Fund recently made a $10,000,000 grant to the San Francisco Symphony and a $3,600,000 grant to the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy for the restoration of Lands End, a 1.6-mile coastal hiking trail with views of the Golden Gate Bridge and the Marin Headlands. The Goldmans focused their philanthropic efforts on the arts, cultural institutions, Jewish affairs, and of course, the environment.

As an expression of their lifelong commitment to environmental protection, Richard and Rhoda launched the Goldman Prize in 1990. Each year, up to seven individuals from each of the six inhabited continental regions of the world are selected to receive the $150,000 prize. Goldman Environmental Prize winners are announced each year in April, to coincide with Earth Day. Recipients participate in a 10-day tour of San Francisco and Washington, DC; an award ceremony in each city; and many opportunities to meet with elected and environmental leaders, news media, and other dignitaries. In addition to financial support, the prize provides invaluable opportunities for prize winners to raise awareness about the issue they are combating, and attract worldwide visibility for the work they're doing to address it. The prize has always been intended to honor grassroots environmental heroes who are involved in local efforts to protect the world's precious natural resources.

Richard and Rhoda created an environmental legacy that has reached all corners of the globe. The Goldman Prize has been awarded to a range of activists around the world from Swaziland to Romania, working on issues from shark finning to uranium mining. It has become the world's largest prize program for grassroots environmental activists, attracting intense international media attention. The Goldman Environmental Prize has a lasting impact; recipients continue their work long after the award ceremonies have ended and the public spotlight has dimmed. Many have gone on to win election or appointment to public office or to expand the reach and impact of their work in other ways. The 1991 Goldman Prize winner from Africa, Wangari Maathai, became the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize. In 2004, Ms. Matthai won the Nobel for her dedication to the environment, human rights, and peace.