Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I know you and I and others in this Chamber are focused like a laser beam on getting this economy turned around. Although we see some promising signs--for example, in my State of California it turns out that last month 32,000 new jobs were created--we still are not moving quickly enough on the jobs front. That is why I am particularly pleased that Leader Reid is focused on jobs, jobs, jobs, and we are going to finish, hopefully, the bill that is before us which is very critical to jobs.

Then we are going to move on to the FAA reauthorization--the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization--which is going to create 160,000 new jobs as we modernize our Nation's airports. After that, we are going to stop for a brief moment and take up the HIRE Act that we passed over here, and it has been passed in the House with a couple of pay-go changes. That will extend the highway trust fund until the end of this year and will save 1 million jobs.

Mr. President, we can't play politics with the highway trust fund. The Nation needs us to build our highways, our bridges, and our roads. So we are doing the right thing.

There is one piece of unfinished business that is directly related to our economy. There is no question that health care is directly related to our economy, and we need to fix a health care system that is broken.

Now, I have listened to my Republican friends on this for a very long time, and they have a message for the American people. I would like to distill that message.

That message is, when it comes to health care reform, when it comes to fixing the health care system, be afraid. Be very afraid.

Mr. President, that is not the American way. When there is a challenge in front of us, we act. We don't cower in the corner in fear. I think it is important to note that if one were to be afraid, it should not be of fixing the system--which, in our mind, means if you like your health insurance, you can keep it, and we are going to make sure that it is affordable and that more people can obtain it. If there is one thing to be fearful of, it is doing nothing. It is the status quo.

Let me explain why. Every day in America 14,000 people lose their health insurance. That could be any one of us, for any of a number of reasons. We might lose our job, or our spouse might lose their job, and that means we can't have health insurance anymore.

An insurance company can rescind your policy. They can walk away and say: Oh, by the way, 10 years ago when you signed up, you didn't mention that you had one blood test that was a little awry and, therefore, we are walking away from you.

You may have a cap on your policy and reach that cap, because you didn't read the fine print and so you are out; it is over. Any one of us could be one of the 14,000 people who loses their health insurance.

Now, that would not happen in the Senate. Oh no. Every one of my colleagues is protected because we have a system that, yes, is a public option, where the rules are made by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and people can't mistreat us. But for some reason, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't seem to believe it is fair to give that kind of protection to ordinary families, so they are scaring people to death.

So let me say again: If there is anything to be afraid of, it is doing nothing because you could be one of the 14,000 people--in my State about 1,400--who every day lose their insurance. Or, Mr. President, you could be one of the people who goes bankrupt because of a health care crisis. Sixty-two percent of bankruptcies in America today are directly linked to a health care crisis and most of those people have insurance. I repeat: Most of those people have insurance.

I read a little story--I don't know if it is true--that Sarah Palin, the former Republican Vice Presidential nominee, said when she was young her family went to Canada to get their health care. I don't know if it is true, but I find it interesting if it is true. But here is the point: Doing nothing is not an option.

Let me tell you what is happening. In California, a company--Anthem Insurance--has increased rates in the individual market by--hold on to your hat--29 percent. Imagine, 29 percent in one clip. This leads me to a study that was done by a nonpartisan group. That study showed what happens if we do nothing--which is, in fact, my Republican friends' idea because they say start over. Well, we started this under Teddy Roosevelt. It is time we acted. But this nonpartisan group said if we do nothing, the average cost of insurance would be 45 percent of a family's income by 2016. Imagine that. Yet my colleagues on the other side say: Well, if you go with the President's bill and the Democrats' bill, insurance rates will go up.

The fact is, rates would not go up as much if you have the same policy. If you have a better policy, they may go up a little over time, but they are never going to be--never, never, never--45 percent of your income. There are two reasons for that: No. 1, we are going to watch insurance companies like a hawk, and that is the right thing to do. They are not selling us something that is a luxury. They are selling us a product that is a matter of life or death, and we ought to look over their shoulder a little more to make sure they are fair. So that is one reason.

The other reason is, we are going to help people--the middle class-- families making up to $88,000 a year. We are going to make sure you get tax credits to help you pay for your premiums. That is a big deal. That is a good thing.

So, remember, when the Republicans say: Be very afraid, don't be very afraid of reform, be very afraid of doing nothing. That is a reason to be very afraid.

Then my Republican friends will say: They didn't take any of our ideas. Well, it turns out when the bill was being written in the Senate, well over 100 amendments--I think it was 160 amendments--of the Republicans were incorporated into the work of the HELP Committee. Oh, that is not good enough for them. We took 160 of their ideas, why can't they take an equal amount of our ideas? Why can't we work together, come to the table across party lines? It doesn't work that way.

Then the President had them up for, I thought, a very instructive meeting, and the President took three or four more very big ideas of the Republicans--dealing with HSAs, dealing with medical malpractice, dealing with selling insurance across State lines, and a couple of other things. Yet they still say: It is not enough.

Then they say: Be very afraid, people. Be very afraid because the Senate might do this with a majority vote. Well, I would suggest that all of us are here because we won a majority vote. I don't hear any of my colleagues suggesting we need 60 percent of the vote to win. We are here.

I support minority rights very strongly, but there is a point where something turns and it becomes obstruction. I can't look into the faces of any of my constituents who are having all of these problems and tell them: I am sorry, I couldn't do anything even though we had a majority in the Senate.

So they are scaring people about using a procedure they have used over the years. Out of 22 times, they have used the reconciliation procedure requiring a majority vote 16 times. I need to say that again. My Republican friends, who abhor the use of a majority rule, used it 16 times out of the 22 times it was used, and mostly it was used for health care.

Then they say: Oh, no; when we used it, it was for much smaller things. Well, no, I checked it out. The whole Reagan revolution was done by reconciliation--all the Bush tax cuts, health care and all. So the very slippery slope of their argument, whatever the argument of the day is, at the end of the day it is about scaring people. It is all about scaring people.

So I am going to close with this. I am going to talk about the 8 or 10 things that happened within 6 months to a year that this bill was signed into law--real things. For all new policies, you can keep your child on your policy until he or she is 27 years of age--27 years of age. I know a lot of people whose kids have been thrown off their policy. They may have had asthma, for example, and the insurance company says they have a preexisting condition and so they can get no insurance. We fix that in this bill.

If you have a preexisting condition and you are an adult, and you can't get insurance, you can join a high-risk pool and get insurance very soon--within 90 days. If you run a small business that is struggling to find affordable health insurance, or you are self- employed--and I have spoken to so many people in that situation in California--there will be many billions of dollars for small business and self-employed people in tax credits to help them get insurance.

The President has also proposed increasing funding for community health centers by $11 billion so they can provide affordable, high- quality care to even more families in need.

There will be no preexisting conditions for children. If you have a child who has a preexisting condition, they still can get insured. I think about the story Harry Reid told about the couple who had full insurance, and the woman gave birth to a baby and the baby had a cleft palate. The couple was distraught, but the doctor said: Don't worry. We can fix that baby right up and no one is going to know there was a problem.

So they wrote to their insurance company. You know what their insurance company said, even though they gave full coverage to that pregnant woman. They said: Your baby has a preexisting condition. You are out of luck.

Mr. President, that is morally reprehensible. So if you want to be scared about something--and I don't believe in being scared about anything--be scared about the status quo. Be scared about what your insurers could do to you in today's world.

What else will happen with this bill? Well, prevention is pretty much free. As soon as this bill is signed into law, you get to go to your doctor and get preventive treatment pretty much for free.

If you are a senior and you are on a prescription drug plan, we are going to close that gap--that payment gap where you get to a certain level and then your insurance company stops paying until you reach yet another level. This creates the situation where at the time you need your medicine the most, it is not there for you. We are going to close that doughnut hole. By the way, that impacts 794,000 Californians. The President wants to give about $250 to help our seniors who fall into that doughnut hole right away.

Also, there will be insurance reform. The minute this bill is signed into law, an insurance company must use 80 percent of their income on you--on the people who have insurance--not on them, not putting it in their pockets, not on these outrageous bonuses and paying their people millions of dollars. So 80 to 85 percent will have to go into the business of helping their people by expanding coverage or lowering premiums.

There are a couple more things that will kick in--no more caps on new plans. I remember my husband and I once had a plan that had a cap. We didn't even know it, but somebody warned us and we realized it was a bad plan and there was a cap. I forget the amount, but it wasn't that high.

Also, you will be protected from your insurance company walking away from you. No more rescissions in all new plans. There are other benefits to retirees. In 2014, we will have these exchanges, and you will be able to shop for the best insurance in an exchange online. It will be very clear.

So we are moving in the right direction, Mr. President. At the end of the day, by the way, this bill saves money. Not only is it deficit neutral, it helps the deficit. Why? Because we take the fraud, waste, and abuse out of the system.

My message to the people of this great country is, don't listen to the fear mongering. Learn the facts. Understand how life will be better if we move forward with this reform--but not in 3 years, right away. I think if we do that, and we realize we are going to do it in a way that actually reduces the deficit, there should be strong support for this bill.

I hope we will be able to get to that day as we focus on getting this country on track: jobs, jobs, jobs. We also fix this problem of unaffordable health care, tenuous health care. It has to become something we can count on.

I yield the floor and suggest absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of two respected and dedicated public servants, Fresno County Sheriff's Deputy Joel Wahlenmaier and

Reedley Police Officer Javier Bejar. Deputy Wahlenmaier and Officer Bejar were tragically killed in the line of duty while helping officers with the California Fire Marshal's office serve a warrant on a suspected arsonist in Minkler, CA.

Deputy Wahlenmaier was born in Bakersfield, CA, and raised in Fresno. After spending his early career in construction, Deputy Wahlenmaier joined the Fresno County Sheriff's Department in 1998. During his tenure with the department, he worked as a detective in the homicide and property crime bureaus and he was a longtime member of the department's search and rescue team.

Deputy Wahlenmaier is survived by his wife Beverly and children Amy and Austin. He had a profound love of the outdoors. He was a skilled fisherman and hunter who enjoyed skiing and water sports. Those who knew Deputy Wahlenmaier will always remember him as a trusted, caring, and kind colleague and friend, and above all else, a devoted family man.

Officer Bejar was born in Mexico and moved to the United States with his family at the age of 3. He grew up in Orange Cove in Fresno County. While a student at Reedley High School, he became an Explorer Scout in the Reedley Police Department Police Explorer Program, which teaches young people interested in pursuing a law enforcement career the fundamentals of police service. After graduating from high school, he joined the U.S. Marine Corps, during which time he served a 14-month tour in Iraq and Kuwait and earned the rank of sergeant before he was honorably discharged. Officer Bejar joined the Reedley Police Department in 2005. He was named the Reedley Police Department Officer of the Year in 2007 and he received a life-saving medal in 2009.

Office Bejar is survived by his wife Miriam, his parents, and seven siblings. He will always be remembered as a gentleman with an engaging personality who was committed to his job and family.

Deputy Wahlenmaier and Officer Bejar dutifully served the residents of Fresno County with great selflessness, integrity, and valor. Their devotion to help others and passion to make a positive impact on the community epitomize the best ideals of law enforcement. Their lasting contributions to public safety and law enforcement are greatly appreciated. They will be sorely missed.

We shall always be grateful for Deputy Wahlenmaier and Office Bejar's heroic service and the sacrifices that they made while serving the community and the people they loved.

Mr. President, first, I wish to thank Senator Thune. He gave me permission to speak before him. I will be brief in my strong support for the Murray amendment to provide $1.5 billion for youth jobs programs through the Workforce Investment Act for summer and year-round employment.

This amendment will help create up to 500,000 temporary jobs for young people.

We know the youth jobs program works. Funds included in the Recovery Act for youth jobs provided over 300,000 young adults with employment opportunities last summer, stimulating local economies all across the country. Young adults who work not only help supplement family incomes, they also spend the money they earn in their communities. According to the Northeastern University Center for Labor Market Studies, every dollar earned by a young adult returns $3 to the local economy.

Youth jobs programs also help disadvantaged young adults become active members of their communities.

The many local workforce investment groups in my State of California not only provide disadvantaged young adults with short-term employment, they also offer job training and mentoring programs, help them advance their careers with educational opportunities, and teach critical life skills.

We also know right now there are not enough work opportunities for teens and young adults. The unemployment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds is above 25 percent. For 16 to 19-year-old African Americans, the unemployment rate is

nearly 50 percent. Youth jobs programs help keep our kids off the streets, which is important to all our communities.

I wish to highlight one of the many Recovery Act youth jobs success stories in California. The Placer Herald reported that last summer the Golden Sierra Investment Board worked with 23 disadvantaged teens in Rocklin, CA, to construct a permanent storage facility at a local high school. The participants helped design the facility using computer design technologies. They built the mainframe, painted and dry-walled and installed solar lighting. Without Recovery Act youth job funds, this program wouldn't have been possible.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from the Rocklin, CA, Placer Herald. It is a wonderful story about the high school students taking on this building project.

So this amendment is very important. As our economy continues to recover, we all know jobs are lagging. We need to do all we can to try to replicate what happened in Rocklin, CA.

When you give a young person opportunity, a job opportunity, I think it stays with them the rest of their life. I remember the jobs I held when I was a teenager. One gave me a sense of self that I could help the company I was working for. I did many different jobs as a youngster in the summer. I was very fortunate to have that experience that I brought to other jobs later in my career.

So this amendment will create up to 500,000 summer jobs. It will strengthen local economies.

I do thank Senator Murray and the other cosponsors in the Senate. In closing, I wish to acknowledge Congresswoman Barbara Lee and the Congressional Black Caucus, who are leading the fight in the House to support critical youth job programs for our disadvantaged young people. When I talked to Congresswoman Lee, she said: Barbara, can you do something in the Senate. I remembered Senator Murray had this bill, and I called Senator Murray. We have this amendment here. I think the fact that it has been offered early in this bill is good because this is something we can do for our young people. They want so much to get job experience. They are struggling so much in this recession.

I wish to congratulate Senator Murray and the other cosponsors. I hope we have strong bipartisan support for this amendment.

Again, I thank Senator Thune for allowing me to speak, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Webb for offering this amendment, which is the same text as our bill that we introduced about a month ago. I think Senator Webb has made an excellent case for this very important amendment which will reduce the deficit. It is an amendment that I believe reflects fairness and justice and the American way.

In 2008 and 2009, the financial sector, as well as the automobile industry, received generous and unprecedented aid from taxpayers. It was done in order to stave off another Great Depression. It was a tough vote to make, and we did it because we believed we were on the brink of another Great Depression and, frankly, a financial collapse. If we remember back to those days, credit was frozen, businesses couldn't borrow, and we were hearing predictions that this could be the end of capitalism. We heard that from Republicans and Democrats alike. So what we did has worked. We have avoided a Great Depression. The economy is growing, although we are very worried about the slow pace of job creation, which is why we are working so hard to continue to create new jobs.

But if we take a look at the financial institutions which received this huge bailout, what we see is they showed a resounding economic recovery in 2009. Thanks to taxpayer assistance, many of these companies are posting record profits. So you have these companies posting record profits, that benefited when times were bad with taxpayer help, and now they are paying out multimillion dollar bonuses to their top executives.

The United States pays its President--our highest paid Federal official--$400,000. These company leaders are earning millions of dollars, and then, on top of that, bonuses. So what Senator Webb and I are saying is this: If you have received a bonus of $400,000 or more from one of the top recipients of the taxpayer bailout, you should pay a special one-time fee--50 percent of that bonus, which is on top of your salary. Fifty percent of the bonus of $400,000 or more should go back to the taxpayers and reduce our deficit.

It is hard for me to imagine how these financial companies, which were bailed out by taxpayers, could have such a deaf ear to the plight of America's workers and why they would embark upon these enormous bonuses, especially since they are not lending the monies that we think they ought to lend to businesses. They are actually cutting back on lending to qualified businesses--I think it is an 18-percent reduction in loans to businesses--yet they are paying out these enormous bonuses. So what Senator Webb and I are saying is we want a one-time, 50-percent fee paid on the bonus that exceeds $400,000. This fee would only affect those recipients at the largest and most major companies who received this bailout.

I want to reiterate this. The fee is paid on the bonuses that exceed $400,000. We don't touch the bonuses $400,000 or less. We are making a point. And even though we have been fair, it will return to the Treasury about $10 billion, is our estimate, over time.

It is only fair that these institutions, which were so greatly assisted in 2009, should help our Nation with our fiscal problems. We inherited those problems from this economic collapse. We know that when President Bush handed the keys over to President Obama there already was a huge deficit in place, but President Obama had to act. We had to pass an economic recovery act. We had to make sure credit was flowing. So it added still more to the debt, and it seems to me only fair that people who are at those institutions that were bailed out--which only exist because of the generosity of taxpayers, because we knew if they failed there would be big trouble--if their bonuses are over $400,000 they ought to pay this special one-time fee back to taxpayers.

Reducing the deficit is important and fairness is important. I want to thank my colleague from Virginia for working with me on this legislation, and I urge the Senate, in a bipartisan way, to join us in supporting this commonsense measure. We hear a lot of talk around here about the deficit, the deficit, the deficit. That is a very important priority for us--to reduce this deficit. Here is a way to do it that is totally fair and just. People who work at the institutions that got the biggest bailouts from Uncle Sam to save them, and those people who are now getting these enormous bonuses, ought to make a contribution to deficit reduction. We need it, we think it is right, and we hope there will be a big bipartisan vote in favor of the Webb-Boxer amendment.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 3338

Madam President, I came here in the hope that, as we begin work on this very important bill that is going to help reinvigorate our economy, we are making progress on getting Senator Bunning to step down from his objection to a short-term extension of the number of programs that

are essential to the well-being of our Nation.

Senator Bunning says he is objecting to an extension of unemployment benefits and health subsidies for the jobless and, by the way, highway and transit programs and other programs because he wants to offset that extension with cuts in funding from the Economic Recovery Act.

I want to make the point that at a time when jobless rates are soaring, certain of these actions that we take are emergency actions. They are actions we take because the long-term unemployed are in big trouble. If we pay for this by slashing economic recovery funds that are already obligated or are about to go out, and they are about to start hiring people, then it seems to me we are taking one step forward and two steps back. I am willing to vote on this matter, and I hope Senator Bunning will lift his objection if we get to vote. It is not a problem. Let's vote on it.

I have written to Senator Bunning on a couple of occasions on behalf of the 201,000 Californians who have already seen their unemployment insurance benefits expire if we don't renew this. This is a very dangerous precedent to set. I noted to him that not only is he hurting people who are doing everything in their power to get work, but he is also shutting down transportation projects in California and in 16 other States because he will not agree to reauthorize the highway trust fund for just 30 days. This is an impossible situation.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the States already impacted by Senator Bunning's objection to a 30-day extension for the highway trust fund.

Madam President, in California, we are already seeing layoffs because the department of transportation had to lay off and furlough--they furloughed, temporarily I trust--2,000 Federal inspectors who are overseeing in 17 of our States a number of important projects; for example, in Alaska, the Tongass National Forest road cleanup. Another project in Arizona is the Coronado National Monument main park entrance. In Arkansas, there is a shutdown. In California, there is the Sequoia National Park main entrance, the Southfork Smith River, and Golden Gate National Recreation Area road construction. In DC, there is the 9th Street Bridge replacement.

One Senator is stopping these important construction projects. They are crucial safety projects that have been stopped in their tracks because one Senator has decided that it is his way or the highway.

We have to stop bringing this Senate to paralysis. We all have our opinions. I have mine and I know the Senator from Montana has his and the Senator from New York has his and the Senator from Michigan has hers; and we think we are right and we make our case. Once we have argued our cases, the will of the Senate has to go forward.

Senator Bunning doesn't seem to think it is an emergency that the highway trust fund has run out of funds. He doesn't think it is an emergency that there are long-term jobless Americans. He doesn't agree. He doesn't agree that it is an emergency, I gather, that people cannot pay for their health care extension.

By the way, he also stopped--this is very important, and I know the Senator from Montana knows this well--the 21 percent to our doctors who take Medicare. I met with my doctors from California today. They cannot believe this is happening. In Ventura County our doctors are saying that because of this 21-percent cut they are facing in their reimbursements, they are only going to see emergencies. They are not going to see someone who has a nonemergency. This is gamesmanship.

I call on Senator Bunning to remove his objection to the extension of the highway trust fund and the transportation programs and the unemployment benefits and the cuts in Medicare reimbursement to our doctors. Each week that Senator Bunning maintains his hold, each week that he insists he will stop this, 6,000 California families will lose their unemployment benefits. Let's end this today. Each week that Senator Bunning maintains his hold, many California small businesses will not be able to get access to needed loans from the SBA and the flood insurance program was held up. Californians and Americans from every State will lose their health insurance coverage.

I can only marvel at this turn of events--and not marvel in a good way. It takes obstruction to the next level. It is a bridge too far. I think there are Members on the Democratic side who are willing to stand on their feet for as long as it takes to try to get this done today. We hope Senator Bunning will back down. If he continues and keeps this up, if the highway program is shut down for just 1 month, tens of thousands of jobs are at stake.

I want to say what those jobs would be. In Arizona, it would be 1,400 jobs; in California, it would be 6,000; in Florida, 3,000; in Illinois, 2,000; in Kentucky--the home State of Senator Bunning, who is stopping the highway trust fund from being funded--it would be 1,198 jobs, if he keeps this behavior up for 1 month.

Senator Bunning says he has every right to do this. Sure he does. He is a Senator and he can do it. But it is wrong. If each of us decided to throw a fit every time we didn't like something around here, who gets hurt? Not Senator Bunning. He has a job and he has health care. He is not worried. He is not a physician who is getting held up either. He is fine and I am fine. It is the people of Kentucky, his State, and it is the people of California, my State, who get hurt.

If this keeps up for 1 month, there will be 6,000 job losses in Texas and 1,300 in Wisconsin. If this keeps up and we do not get our work done and we do not reauthorize the highway trust

fund, as we did in the HIRE Act, we will lose 1 million jobs in America. That gets to be inexplicable in terms of ``a world of hurt.''

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart prepared by AASHTO listing the impact of reductions in funding in all 50 States.

Madam President, as I stand here today, it would be pretty easy to solve this problem. Senator Bunning needs to stand down. He just needs to stand down. He made his point. He argues that we should pay for emergency funding. I voted for pay-go, but we do have a clause that says if it is a real emergency, we do not have to pay for it.

The reason that is important is if we do what Senator Bunning wants and we extend this jobless help and we extend the highway trust fund and, on the other hand, we cut the economic recovery moneys which are all obligated and on which work is about to start, we are not doing anything for the country.

Let's do this right. Many of us who are standing here saw terrible deficit and debt problems during the Clinton years. You know what we did? We fixed it. We had room for emergencies. But we fixed it by going to pay-go. When there were emergencies, we stepped back.

I think it is fair to note that Senator Bunning is very agitated about the fact that we would extend jobless benefits without cutting spending in job creation. Yet when it was time for him to vote for tax breaks for the wealthiest people who earn over $1 million, he could care less that it was put on Uncle Sam's credit card. When it was time to pay for the war in Iraq, oh, put it on the credit card of the country. But all of a sudden, it is help to our families who need it so desperately and we are going to have to cut other programs that are providing jobs. It does not make sense. It is not fair, and it is not consistent.

I renew my request that I have made twice now to Senator Bunning. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my letters to him.

Madam President, I wrote to him on February 26 ``On behalf of the 201,000 Californians who will see their unemployment insurance benefits expire'' and telling him that the benefits will expire on Sunday, which was 2 days ago; that unemployment insurance is a lifeline to the long-term unemployed whose families have been hit hard by this recession. I thanked him for his immediate attention, and I hope he did, in fact, read this letter. And I hope he read my letter of March 1.

I wrote to him as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I wanted to make sure he knew that he also objected to reauthorizing the highway trust fund expenditures, and that means the Department of Transportation is starting to lay off people. They laid off inspectors, furloughed them. They will go back to work when we fix this mess. But what a mess.

Do you know what it is to shut down construction jobs midway? By the way, these are private sector employers, private sector workers who are doing this work. It is unacceptable. I told him, ``It is hurting people in your State, in my State and all across the country.'' These Federal inspectors will be removed from critical projects across the Nation. Work is shutting down. I attached the Department of Transportation's list of the affected projects. I said:

We can't have an economic recovery if people can't make

ends meet and if transportation projects grind to a halt.

We all know the housing sector is so weak. That construction is not going well. We need to construct the infrastructure of this Nation. These are not make-work projects. These are projects fixing bridges and highways and making sure our roads are safe. I asked him to stop his gamesmanship and remove his objection to the extension of the transportation authorization and the unemployment benefits.

As I said today, I add to that the extension of the funding for our physicians who are relying on us not to allow a 21-percent cut for Medicare to go into place. The fact that we do not have a lot of leadership down here says to me they are working on this now. It says to me they are reaching out to Senator Bunning and my Republican colleagues to see if they will stand down.

I want to say I hope he does. These are real people. These are real people who are suffering. There is no need for them to suffer. We are not going to turn our backs on the long-term jobless. We are not going to turn our backs at all. This is just political maneuvering which is making life very difficult for people whose lives have been pretty much shattered if they are long term unemployed and looking for work and trying desperately to get it.

Hopefully, Senator Bunning will back down, and my Republican friends will agree that we can move forward. If they want a vote on Senator Bunning's plan to cut economic recovery funds that have already been obligated to put people to work to pay for an emergency, I am willing to take that vote any day of the week.

I hope to be back later and have some comments. I hope those comments are: Good, we got past this crisis. But at the moment, it is 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and we are not through it yet. I am hopeful that maybe later we will get through this and extend these vital programs to the people who need them.

I am going to close. I thank the people who have worked so hard with me on getting this highway reauthorization done. It is Republicans and Democrats. It is the Chamber of Commerce. It is AASHTO. It is the general contractors. It is the construction unions. This is an amazing team of people. It is the AAA. It is the car riders associations. It is everyone--Republicans, Democrats, Independents. They want an end to these games. I hope today we will see the end. If we do not, then we are going to have a long, long night ahead of us to make the point that it is wrong for one Senator to stop our people, our American people from getting the help they deserve, from getting the jobs they deserve to have in the highway fund and the help they need while they are looking for work.

I yield the floor.

How much time remains?

I want to say, on behalf of many of us on this side of the aisle, how glad we are that Senator Bunning has changed his mind and taken the option he was presented with on Thursday; that is, to offer an amendment and then for us to get this done. Too much pain is out there with the unemployed. A lot of workers in my State and in States all across this Nation who are unemployed suffered a great deal of anxiety over this long weekend.

Mr. President, 2,000 Department of Transportation inspectors were furloughed. That led to stoppage of work on bridge and highway construction in 17 States, because Senator Bunning didn't take the deal he is taking now. I am glad he is taking it.

I raise a point of order that the pending Bunning amendment violates section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act.

I raise a point of order that the pending Bunning amendment violates section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Soledad Canyon High Desert, California Public Lands Conservation and Management Act of 2010. This bill would resolve a twenty-year-old mining dispute between the City of Santa Clarita and CEMEX USA, and have numerous other benefits for communities in Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, CA.

In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management awarded CEMEX two 10-year consecutive contracts to extract 56 million tons of sand and gravel from a site in Soledad Canyon. The City of Santa Clarita strongly opposed CEMEX's expansion of mining in this area. After 2 decades of conflict and nearly a decade of litigation, the two parties announced a truce in early 2007, and started working out an agreement.

This legislation would implement the terms of that agreement. It would require the Secretary of the Interior to cancel CEMEX's mining contracts in Soledad Canyon and prohibit future mining at this site. The BLM would sell lands near Victorville, CA, that are currently on its disposal list, and would use the proceeds to compensate CEMEX for the cancellation of its mining contracts. The City of Victorville and County of San Bernardino would have the right of first refusal to purchase many of these parcels, which would help satisfy their future development needs. Some of these funds would also go towards the purchase of environmentally-sensitive lands in Southern California.

My legislation would settle a twenty-year-old dispute to all parties' satisfaction, complement future development plans in Southern California, help secure important lands for conservation, and do all of this without any cost to taxpayers. That is why it has already won the support of a diverse group of interests, including the City of Santa Clarita, CEMEX, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, and the Sierra Club.

I have worked with Representative Buck McKeon in introducing this measure and look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to secure its passage.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Soledad Canyon High Desert, California Public Lands Conservation and Management Act of 2010. This bill would resolve a twenty-year-old mining dispute between the City of Santa Clarita and CEMEX USA, and have numerous other benefits for communities in Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, CA.

In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management awarded CEMEX two 10-year consecutive contracts to extract 56 million tons of sand and gravel from a site in Soledad Canyon. The City of Santa Clarita strongly opposed CEMEX's expansion of mining in this area. After 2 decades of conflict and nearly a decade of litigation, the two parties announced a truce in early 2007, and started working out an agreement.

This legislation would implement the terms of that agreement. It would require the Secretary of the Interior to cancel CEMEX's mining contracts in Soledad Canyon and prohibit future mining at this site. The BLM would sell lands near Victorville, CA, that are currently on its disposal list, and would use the proceeds to compensate CEMEX for the cancellation of its mining contracts. The City of Victorville and County of San Bernardino would have the right of first refusal to purchase many of these parcels, which would help satisfy their future development needs. Some of these funds would also go towards the purchase of environmentally-sensitive lands in Southern California.

My legislation would settle a twenty-year-old dispute to all parties' satisfaction, complement future development plans in Southern California, help secure important lands for conservation, and do all of this without any cost to taxpayers. That is why it has already won the support of a diverse group of interests, including the City of Santa Clarita, CEMEX, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, and the Sierra Club.

I have worked with Representative Buck McKeon in introducing this measure and look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to secure its passage.

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

Mr. President, we all went home over this recess--most of us did--and we heard very clear messages. At least I can tell you I did. The messages are: Address the problems that face us and reach out a hand across the aisle and do it together. Pretty simple.

Today we have a chance to do that. Today we have a very clear chance to do that and to lift the spirits of the American people. The bill we will be voting on--actually we are voting to take it up, in essence; we need 60 votes to do that, unfortunately, because there is a filibuster again on this--is a very simple, straightforward jobs bill.

It has four parts. Two relate to tax breaks for business for doing good things. One is buying new equipment and getting a break on the expensing. The other is hiring people who have been unemployed for 60 days or more. The other two pieces involve the extension of the highway trust fund and the Build America Bond program, and that relates to building our infrastructure. In the case of the highway trust fund, of course, it does fund transportation of all kinds: transit systems as well as highways, bridges, roads. Very important.

Build America Bonds is a way to help the States issue bonds that they have voter approval to do, and helps them with the interest rate. In California, that program--Build America Bonds--resulted in billions of dollars of bonding to build roads and schools and all kinds of important necessities for my people back home.

So we have four things before us in one package: two tax breaks very important to businesses and two very important infrastructure measures.

I want to have printed in the Record--and I ask unanimous consent to do so--a very important letter sent to us by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the Associated General Contractors of America, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Laborers International Union, and the International Union of Operating Engineers.

I have to say I have worked with these organizations over the break to talk to them about what will happen if we vote this measure down and we do not continue our funding through the highway trust fund. They are very clear, and I am going to give you the information they told me about job losses that will happen if we do not act today.

As I read this list, I hope, Mr. President, you realize these organizations are Republican organizations, Democratic organizations, bipartisan organizations. They have Independents, Republicans, and Democrats. The Chamber of Commerce, we all know they

tend to go with the Republican side most of the time. They want a ``yes'' vote. The general contractors, they generally go--generally go--with the Republicans. They want a ``yes'' vote. Then you look at the unions, the workers, they generally go with the Democrats. They want a ``yes'' vote.

And why? Because they are fearing if we do not act, we are going to hurt business and we are going to hurt the working people of this country. They say:

Passage of [this] legislation . . . will provide much

needed certainty and stability within the States, local

transportation authorities and transit agencies to make long-

term capital commitments and plan for a full season of work.

. . . Without an extension that . . . stabilizes the Highway

Trust Fund--

Which, by the way, this does--

the transportation construction industry will continue to

decline and much needed transportation investments cannot be

made.

I want to repeat that. This is not a quote from a Senator, Republican or Democratic or Independent. This is a quote from the Republicans and the Democrats and the Independents who are represented by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the Associated General Contractors of America, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Laborers International Union, and the International Union of Operating Engineers. They are telling us this is critical. They say: ``The Nation needs these investments now.'' They put the word ``now'' in bold letters. Not tomorrow, not next week but now.

We urge the Senate to act to move this critical legislation. It is critically important, given the urgency of the investment in jobs issues that these provisions be included in the Senate jobs bill and they are.

Today, we have a chance to have a fresh start by voting for cloture-- in other words, ending a filibuster--on this package of four bills, two tax breaks for businesses and two very important investments in our infrastructure.

I wish to give the numbers that were given to us by the American Association of State Highway Officials.

We have asked the State highway officials in our States--and I see Senator Casey here; in his State--we have asked them all to give us an idea of the jobs we would lose if we do not make that $20 billion transfer into the highway trust fund that is included in the Reid jobs bill. In Arizona, it is estimated we would see 6,800 jobs lost; in California, 31,000; in Florida, 17,000--I am rounding these off--in Illinois, 11,000; Iowa, 4,000; Maine, 1,400; Massachusetts, 5,300; Michigan, 9,300; Missouri, 7,800; Nevada, 2,590, to be exact; Ohio, 12,000 jobs--let me repeat, 12,000 jobs would be lost in Ohio--in South Carolina, 5,000; Texas, 29,000-plus jobs would be lost if we don't get moving on this bill; in Utah, 2,600; and in Wisconsin, 6,500.

I just picked these States out for purposes of explanation.

If we fail to pass an extension, period, we would lose 1 million jobs in this great Nation.

So there are two scenarios. One is if we fail to extend the program, this is what will happen. The States will lose jobs immediately. If we don't authorize this program, we will lose 1 million jobs. Without the transfer, this highway trust fund will not have any funds by the summer. Some people say June. Some people say August. I ask my colleagues who may be watching this debate: Please consider what it will be like when you have your contractors come and tell you they have had to stop a project in midstream--a highway, a bike path, a freeway, fixing a bridge that is perhaps in danger of collapsing.

So I will tell my colleagues I don't think we have a choice.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the estimated job loss if there is no extension whatsoever of the highway trust fund.

Mr. President, this is a pretty straightforward vote for us today. In essence, everything in this jobs bill is bipartisan. Everything in it is bipartisan. I can tell my colleagues right now that my Republican colleagues tell me they want to reauthorize this highway trust fund through the end of the year. They want to make sure the trust fund has the dollars it needs. Well, then, what is the reason why one might not vote to end the filibuster?

Some say we didn't get everything we wanted in this bill. Well, neither did I. There are many things I would like to see in a jobs bill, believe me. I didn't get them in this bill because Senator Reid said we have to go slowly. We are going to have these smaller packages. They are more understandable. I think he has a point. But each of us could write our own jobs bill. Senator McConnell could write his. I could write mine. The fact is, what Senator Reid has done is to take four provisions that are bipartisan in nature and put them in this jobs package.

Frankly, I don't know how anyone could face their constituents in a time of unemployment that we are seeing now. Even though we have certainly gone from bleeding--600,000 jobs a month, 700,000 jobs a month--to very few in comparison, we have a long way to go. Building the infrastructure of this Nation is done by the private sector. We hear the Republicans on the other side say: Well, we want this to be built by the private sector. That is how this program works.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this time a notice that went out from the Missouri Department of Transportation, if I may.

Mr. President, I wish my colleagues to hear this because it is very shocking, and it could happen in Delaware, California, Pennsylvania, any of our States. It is a special notice to contractors, dated February 19:

All bidders take note. Unless the Federal Government takes

the necessary steps to ensure the availability of Federal

funds for the remaining fiscal year prior to 12 p.m. on

February 25, the scheduled February 26 bid opening will be

postponed or withdrawn until further notice.

This is real. This is real. I know this is a political season. I know firsthand it is a political season. But there comes a time when we have to put politics aside for 5 minutes--I would say 15 minutes--when we vote, put it aside for 15 minutes and let's not have a circumstance where we hear from the Missouri Department of Transportation that they are about to shut down their bidding process.

I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the American Highway Users Alliance.

Mr. President, it is signed by their CEO and President. They are asking us to support this bill. Here is what he says:

Our members represent millions of motorists, RVers,

motorcyclists, as well as hundreds of truck and bus

companies. It is critical that the Highway Trust Fund remain

solvent, that the expired bill be extended through the

current fiscal year, and that the rescissions that took

affect in September be repealed.

They get it. These are our constituents who drive on the highways and the freeways, and they are begging us to act and set aside our political games for 15 minutes and vote cloture. By the way, I am hopeful we can; I am.

I also have a letter to the Members of the Senate:

The current lack of funding certainty in the Federal

highway market is having a devastating effect on the

transportation construction industry. Our industry is in dire

economic shape. We urge the Senate to act promptly on passing

the Reid amendment.

Let me tell my colleagues who signed this letter. The President and CEO of American Concrete Pavement Association, the President of the National Asphalt Pavement Association, the President of the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, the President and CEO of Portland Cement, the President and CEO of the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, these letters are stark in their message to us. If we don't listen to this incredible group of people who are writing us these letters--these are Republicans, they are Democrats, they are Independents, they are Americans. They are saying: Set aside your differences and fund the highway trust fund. This vote will send a shiver through the spine of our entire business community and our working people if we don't get 60 votes today.

So we have an opportunity today to send the clearest of messages that we are ready to come together around a simple premise; that is, the transportation infrastructure of this Nation is not a political whipping boy. There is no time to play politics here--no time. We have one State already saying: Beware. We are putting off our contracting. What more do we need to see than that? This is just the beginning of what is going to happen. We know the Build America Bonds program, which will allow State and local governments to borrow at lower costs, is going to put people to work. Our treasurer, California treasurer Bill Lockyer, said Build America Bonds have enabled the State--our State--to sell more than $19 billion in general obligation funds to meet voter- approved mandates for more than 7,000 vital infrastructure projects, in turn creating or sustaining more than 100,000 solid, middle-class, private sector jobs and businesses, large and small, in California.

The Build America Bond program is something our local people want, whether they are in California or anywhere else in the Nation. This program can cover bonds for school construction, clean energy, and all the rest. It will allow us to put people to work, and the decisions will not be made here but in our cities, our counties, and our States.

Clearly, the two infrastructure pieces in the Reid bill are essential in both

saving jobs and creating new jobs. Investments in infrastructure are a crucial component of job creation in our Nation. As we work our way out of this recession, the last thing we want to do is create uncertainty about our transportation funding. Too many people are counting on it.

I wish to mention, as the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, that what we are doing today will give us the time we need to pass a larger authorization, and I am working on that authorization with Republicans and Democrats on our committee. I wish to commend, in particular, Senator Voinovich for reaching out to me in an extraordinary way. He is reaching out his hand and he says: Let's get started. I say to him, through my remarks on the Senate floor: Absolutely. We are going to start working. That bill is going to be transformational. It is going to, I think, be another boon to our economy.

There is one thing I can say after spending so much time back home. I have not heard one of my constituents in my State--and I traveled to every part of my State and I met with Democrats, Republicans, Independents, business, labor, nurses, firefighters, everybody--not one disagrees with this point; that is, a great nation must have a great infrastructure. Our infrastructure must be updated. That means our roads, our bridges, our highways, our transit systems, our sewer systems, our water systems. We have water systems with arsenic in them. We have water systems that are not healthful for our families. No great nation can be a great nation if our people are not at the top of their game. You can't be at the top of your game if your child is getting ill because they are drinking tainted water. These are the things we have to do, and they are done in the private sector. On the transportation side, there is a separate fund for that highway trust fund, separate funds that go into that user fee, and that is how we fund our highways and transit systems. It is a very sound idea.

Again, I say to all colleagues: If we turn our back today on this very straightforward proposal that extends the highway trust fund and gives it the funding it needs to spend at the authorized levels, we are going to see more State departments of transportation, such as this one in Missouri:

Special Notice: Unless the Federal Government takes the

necessary steps to ensure the availability of Federal funds

for the remaining fiscal year, then the bid opening will be

postponed or withdrawn until further notice.

That is not a threat; it is real.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, before the majority leader leaves the floor, I want to say to him that today jobs triumphed over politics. That is a great day around here. Jobs triumphed over politics. I want to say to Senator Reid, this idea you have to keep these bills very straightforward and very easy to understand, this bill, four parts to it, two parts dealt with infrastructure, two parts dealt with tax breaks that were related to making capital investments and hiring unemployed workers, is very simple for people to understand. I have to say to my Democratic colleagues, 57 of whom voted for this, thank you. And to the five Republicans who joined us, thank you so much. It means so much to the working families of this country, to the business community.

I want to say a special word to Senator Lautenberg if he is watching. I know how strongly he supports transportation. He is kind of Mr. Transportation in New Jersey. We all wish him well. We know he would have been here if there was any way for him to be here. I will not say any more than I said before. I want to thank specific people out there around the country whom I talked to on several conference calls over this break. They were always there. Night and day we talked. I explained to them how close this vote would be. They explained to me that they understood what the stakes were, a million jobs at stake in relation to the highway trust fund, thousands more at stake in relation to the Build America bonds. This is a good day.

I thank the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; the American Road and Transportation Builders Association; the Associated General Contractors of America; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the Laborers International Union; the International Union of Operating Engineers; the American Highway Users Alliance; Faster, Better, Safer Americans for Transportation Mobility; the AAA, which wrote to us. I want to say to all of them, they made this vote work because they knew what was happening on the ground.

In closing, I have one more thank you. This is a strange thing to say but I want to thank the Missouri Department of Transportation for telling the truth. Listen to what they wrote:

All bidders--PLEASE TAKE NOTE!--Unless the federal

government takes the necessary steps to ensure the

availability of federal funds for the remaining fiscal year,

bid openings will be postponed or withdrawn until further

notice.

In other words, the Department of Transportation in Missouri, being the first State to be hit with this mess--by the way, followed closely by North Dakota, they are very close to this place, all of our States are--they came forward and told the truth that we had to act today. I hope the House will act with us, and we will get this resolved. In March we will start on the new bill. It is a good day.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Judge Myron Donovan ``M.D.'' Crocker. Judge Crocker passed away on February 2 at his home in Chowchilla. He was 94 years old.

M.D. Crocker was born in Pasadena on September 4, 1915. In 1918, his family moved to Caruthers in Fresno County and then to the city of Fresno in 1921. After graduating from Fresno High School, he earned a degree in political science from Fresno State College. In 1940, he graduated from Boalt Hall Law School at University of California, Berkeley, and passed the California bar.

Instead of beginning his career in the legal field, Judge Crocker joined the FBI serving in Albany, NY, where he specialized in deciphering codes during World War II. After a stint in the FBI's Los Angeles office, he returned to the San Joaquin Valley in 1946 where he served as assistant district attorney in Madera County. In 1953, he was elected to the Justice Court in Chowchilla. Five years later, he was appointed by Governor Goodwin Knight as a Madera County Superior Court judge.

When he was appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower to the Federal court bench, Judge Crocker, at 44 years old, became the youngest Federal judge in the United State at the time. For 8 years, he commuted to his job in Los Angeles. In 1961, he became the first Fresno based Federal judge with the creation of the Eastern District of California. For the next 12 years, Judge Crocker heard all the cases in the southern section of the Eastern District until a second Federal judge was authorized in Fresno.

Judge Crocker would serve under 10 U.S. Presidents during a remarkable career on the Federal bench. Despite earning senior status in 1980, he continued to work and hear cases until he retired in 2002 at the age of 87.

A man of keen intellect, Judge Crocker was also acknowledged by those who knew him for his gregarious nature and gentlemanly ways. He was admired by his colleagues for his sharp memory. A giving person, he lent his time and talents to a number of community causes, including Lions Club and coaching Little League baseball. In his spare time, he enjoyed golfing, tending to his garden and playing bridge with his friends. He will be missed.

Judge Crocker was preceded in death by his beloved wife of 68 years, Elaine. He is survived by his son, Glenn; daughter and son-in-law, Holly and Robert Longatti; grandchildren, Donovan, Justin, Todd and Adam; great-

grandchildren, Luke, Noveli, Brandon and Tyler; and sister, Janice Ahlf.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the city of Lindsay, a vibrant, family-oriented community located in California's San Joaquin Valley.

In the late 1880s, the Southern Pacific Railroad expanded into Tulare County and the development of the Lindsay townsite progressed. On February 28, 1910, the city of Lindsay was incorporated with a population of 1,500 people.

The beginning of the 20th century would see economic growth and an increase in population in the area. Attracted by the promise of Lindsay's growing economy and appealing living conditions, the city of Lindsay became a popular destination for people in search of a better livelihood. The city's rail cars would transport the region's agricultural products to new markets, allowing the citrus and olive industries to flourish.

Spanning the 20th century, the city of Lindsay thrived with the addition of businesses, churches, schools, and community organizations. The ingenuity and determination of new generations of farmers would continue to enhance the city's agricultural eminence. Even when faced with the hardships of the Great Depression, community members and the Lindsay Chamber of Commerce pulled together to establish the first Orange Blossom Festival in 1932, which promoted the city's prolific citrus industry. To this day, the Orange Blossom Festival continues to be a citywide celebration of the city's rich heritage in citrus growing.

In 1995, the city of Lindsay was awarded the prestigious All America City Award by the National Civic League. This well deserved recognition is a testament to the city of Lindsay's community spirit.

The city of Lindsay has grown from a town of 1,500 to a strong community of over 10,000 residents. The successful history of the city's first hundred years can be attributed to its vision, optimism, and an endearing sense of community. As the residents of the city work together to make their community a better place to call home, I congratulate them on their centennial celebration and wish them another 100 years of good fortune and success.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 22, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Clu Cotter, Kevin O'Conner, Tom Stolberg and Dennis Donovan. Clu Cotter, Kevin O'Connor, and Tom Stolberg, employees of the California Department of Fish and Game, and Dennis Donovan, a helicopter pilot, tragically lost their lives on January 5 as a result of a helicopter crash that occurred during an aerial deer survey in eastern Madera County.

Mr. Clu Cotter was the California Department of Fish and Game associate wildlife biologist stationed in Fresno. He studied the North Kings and San Joaquin deer herd populations, and rare carnivores in the high Sierra. He was often called on to hike or ski into remote rugged areas for his work. He was admired by his colleagues for his positive attitude and devotion to his family, as well as his humor and endurance. In his spare time, he was an avid outdoorsman with a keen sense of adventure and a deep love for nature. In 1985, he used his outdoor survival expertise to successfully rescue a group of hikers who were caught in a lightning storm in Yosemite National Park. A devotee of cyclocross, a form of bicycle racing that combines elements of cross country cycling and mountain biking, Mr. Cotter was renowned as one of the most accomplished mountain and distance bicyclists in Central California. Mr. Cotter is survived by his wife Marni Cotter and two sons Ren and Jamie. He was 48 years old.

Mr. Kevin O'Connor was a Supervising Biologist in the California Department of Fish and Game region 4 office. After graduating from the University of California at Davis in 1993, he worked for the U.S. Forest Service in central and northern California. He later joined the Department of Fish and Game and was promoted to senior wildlife biologist in 2005, a position in which he oversaw wildlife management in nine counties. He was a dedicated scientist who did extensive work on the ecological reserves of the San Joaquin Valley and with protected and game species in the southern Sierra Nevada range. He sought to elevate the quality of scientific information used for wildlife management and other activities, such as timber harvest. His expertise and leadership qualities earned him the respect of his colleagues. Mr. O'Connor is survived by his wife Keri; daughters Kayleigh, Michelle, McKenna; and son Aidan. He was 40 years old.

Mr. Tom Stolberg joined the Department of Fish and Game in 2004 as a scientific aide in the wildlife management office in Fresno. Tom was the first person most people talked to when contacting Wildlife Management, and soon became expert in providing the public sound information on hunting, and wildlife in general. Tom also assisted with wildlife habitat projects, capturing deer for telemetry studies, and managing special public hunts. A man of many talents and interests, ranging across hunting, medieval reenactments, metalworking, gourmet cooking, and more, he was described by his mother as a walking encyclopedia who could speak with authority on everything from sewing to World War II history. An Eagle Scout, he remained active in the Boy Scouts by leading young people on trips through Yosemite National Park. He will be fondly remembered for his professionalism, intellect, and his warm and gregarious personality. Mr. Stolberg is survived by his parents, brother, and sister. He was 31 years old.

Mr. Dennis Donovan, a Navy veteran, was an experienced pilot who had been flying since 1964. He served three combat tours in Vietnam and worked as a naval flight instructor in Florida, and for the USGS and Mercy Air. He worked for Landalls Aviation for almost 30 years and had flown for State and Federal agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Game for survey flights. Mr. Donovan is survived by his wife Arlene; two sons Matthew and Douglas; and five grandchildren. He was 70 years old.

I offer my heartfelt condolences to the families, friends, and colleagues of Clu Cotter, Kevin O'Connor, Tom Stolberg and Dennis Donovan. They valiantly sacrificed their lives in the pursuit of science, conservation and public service. Their exemplary service epitomizes the commitment and courage that Department of Fish and Game employees exhibit on a daily basis, often with little or no fanfare, in their effort to enhance the public enjoyment of California's abundant and diverse native wildlife, fish and plant species and their natural communities. Their goodness, dedication and accomplishments are appreciated and will not be forgotten.

We shall always be grateful for the sacrifice that Clu Cotter, Kevin O'Connor, Tom Stolberg and Dennis Donovan made in giving their lives to help make California a better place. They will be missed.

Mr. President, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 calls for the Select Committee on Ethics of the U.S. Senate to issue an annual report not later than January 31 of each year providing information in certain categories describing its activities for the preceding year. Reported below is the information describing the committee's activities in 2009 in the categories set forth in the act:

(1) The number of alleged violations of Senate rules

received from any source, including the number raised by a

Senator or staff of the Committee: 99. (In addition, 26

alleged violations from the previous year were carried into

2009.)

(2) The number of alleged violations that were dismissed--

(A) For lack of subject matter jurisdiction or in which,

even if the allegations in the complaint are true, no

violation of Senate rules would exist: 58. (This figure

includes 12 matters that were carried into 2009.)

(B) Because they failed to provide sufficient facts as to

any material violation of the Senate rules beyond mere

allegation or assertion: 45. (This figure includes 5 matters

that were carried into 2009.)

(3) The number of alleged violations for which the

Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry: 13. (This

figure includes 8 matters from the previous year carried into

2009.)

(4) The number of alleged violations for which the

Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry that resulted

in an adjudicatory review: 0.

(5) The number of alleged violations for which the

Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry and the

Committee dismissed the matter for lack of substantial merit:

8. (This figure includes matters in which the Committee

subsequently lost jurisdiction. It also includes two letters

of public dismissal.)

(6) The number of alleged violations for which the

Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry and the

Committee issued private or public letters of admonition: 1.

(7) The number of matters resulting in a disciplinary

sanction: 0.

(8) Any other information deemed by the Committee to be

appropriate to describe its activities in the previous year:

In 2009, the Committee staff conducted 10 Member code of

conduct training sessions and 5 new Member sessions; 19

employee code of conduct training sessions; 12 Member and

committee office campaign briefings; 27 ethics seminars for

Member DC offices, state offices, and Senate committees; 3

private sector ethics briefings; and 7 international ethics

briefings.

In 2009, the Committee staff handled 12,667 telephone

inquiries for ethics advice and guidance.

In 2009, the Committee wrote 996 ethics advisory letters

and responses including, but not limited to, 752 travel and

gifts matters (Senate Rule 35) and 111 conflict of interest

matters (Senate Rule 37).

In 2009, the Committee issued 3,309 letters concerning

financial disclosure filings by Senators, Senate staff and

Senate candidates and reviewed 1,663 reports.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded 5 minutes of time off the Democrats' time.

Mr. President, I rise today to explain why I will not support the nomination of Ben Bernanke for another term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. But I also want to make it clear that I do not support a filibuster, because I believe he deserves to have a vote on his nomination.

I have not met anyone who doubts that Chairman Bernanke is very bright, he is very dedicated, he is very conscientious, he is an expert on the depression era. I am grateful for the work he did in those critical weeks when the American system teetered on the verge of collapse; that is, our economic system.

But I do think this is a moment to take stock, in many ways as President Obama did in his State of the Union Address: How did we get to this very difficult economic place? I think as we look at that, people have to be held accountable for their actions along the way. That means Chairman Bernanke must be held accountable for his record.

I asked my staff, could you get me the Charter of the Federal Reserve, because I know it has many objectives that it needs to fulfill. Here are the four main objectives to the Federal Reserve:

One, conducting the Nation's monetary policy in pursuit of maximum employment and stable prices.

Two, regulating the banking system to ensure the safety of the Nation's financial system, and protecting the credit rights of consumers.

Three, maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that might arise in the financial markets.

Those are three out of the four responsibilities we have to take a closer look at. I look at those three responsibilities, and, frankly, I don't see how the Fed met those responsibilities--remember, maximum employment, safety of the Nation's financial system, protecting the credit rights of consumers, maintaining the stability of the financial system, and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets.

Put on top of that the fact that in the 1990s, Congress gave the Fed the very important responsibility of overseeing the housing market to stop predatory lending. That was an added specific responsibility. I have to say that I think Chairman Bernanke vastly underestimated the dangers of the housing bubble and unconstrained subprime lending.

This is what he said in May of 2007:

We believe the effect of the troubles in the subprime

sector on the broader housing market will likely be limited,

and we do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime

market to the rest of the economy . . . The vast majority of

mortgages, including subprime mortgages, continue to perform

well.

That was Mr. Bernanke in May 2007. That is hard for me to look at and say that we should vote to confirm him. He failed to spot the dangerous banking practices, in addition to the mortgage practices that led to the crisis.

In February 2008, 7 months before the greatest financial collapse in 80 years, he said:

Among the largest banks, the capital ratios remain good,

and I do not anticipate serious problems . . . among the

large internationally active banks.

So until the crisis occurred, Chairman Bernanke was a major advocate for even more permissive banking regulation.

Now we see unemployment at 10 percent nationally and in my State a horrific 12-plus percent.

The American people have the right to ask whether the Fed is truly committed to supporting Main Street's economy, not just Wall Street. That is why I cannot support his reappointment. He sat by when President Bush put all the policies into place that led us to this crisis. He was George Bush's choice. He sat there and said everything was fine, everything was wonderful, everything was good, housing was