Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the introduction of the Southern Sea Otter Recovery and Research Act.

The southern sea otter is a keystone species that plays a critical role in central California's kelp forest ecosystem. By maintaining a healthy and productive ecosystem capable of supporting many other marine species, they also contribute to California's $22 billion ocean tourism, recreation, and fishing industries.

Already listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, southern sea otters recently experienced their largest population decline in over a decade. They face a variety of threats, including food limitation, disease, and habitat degradation--but the exact causes of their decline are unknown.

Sea otters are a sentinel species that serve as an indicator of ecosystem health, so this population decline is extremely alarming. Understanding and addressing the causes of this decline would help us protect the health of our kelp ecosystems as a whole.

My legislation would require the Department of the Interior to monitor the population of southern sea otters and assess the major factors limiting their recovery. It would also establish a competitive grant program for research and recovery projects.

The language has been drafted in consultation with numerous scientists, agency officials, conservation groups, and fishermen. Companion legislation was reported by the House Natural Resources Committee by voice vote in May, and passed the full House of Representatives in July. I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve a successful outcome in the Senate.

With this legislation, we can finally put the southern sea otter on a path to recovery--and restore central California's magnificent kelp forests to a healthy, thriving condition.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the introduction of the Southern Sea Otter Recovery and Research Act.

The southern sea otter is a keystone species that plays a critical role in central California's kelp forest ecosystem. By maintaining a healthy and productive ecosystem capable of supporting many other marine species, they also contribute to California's $22 billion ocean tourism, recreation, and fishing industries.

Already listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, southern sea otters recently experienced their largest population decline in over a decade. They face a variety of threats, including food limitation, disease, and habitat degradation--but the exact causes of their decline are unknown.

Sea otters are a sentinel species that serve as an indicator of ecosystem health, so this population decline is extremely alarming. Understanding and addressing the causes of this decline would help us protect the health of our kelp ecosystems as a whole.

My legislation would require the Department of the Interior to monitor the population of southern sea otters and assess the major factors limiting their recovery. It would also establish a competitive grant program for research and recovery projects.

The language has been drafted in consultation with numerous scientists, agency officials, conservation groups, and fishermen. Companion legislation was reported by the House Natural Resources Committee by voice vote in May, and passed the full House of Representatives in July. I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve a successful outcome in the Senate.

With this legislation, we can finally put the southern sea otter on a path to recovery--and restore central California's magnificent kelp forests to a healthy, thriving condition.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, before we recess--I know there is an order--I ask unanimous consent that I have 1 minute and Senator Inhofe have up to 2 minutes to address the Senate on an issue unrelated to the conference report that was just adopted.

Mr. President, I wish to let colleagues know on both sides of the aisle that Senator Inhofe and I are working very closely together as chair and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee to resolve an issue which, if we do not resolve, is going to result in job losses. Senator Inhofe will expand on that.

We have to repeal a recision that was put into the last highway bill, SAFETEA-LU. We know what we want to do. We know how we are going to fund it. It will be deficit neutral. It will keep people working. It will help our States. If we do not do it, we are going to see layoffs, and nobody wants to see layoffs when we are in this difficult economic time.

So I am very pleased to be here to inform colleagues we are working very hard, and we have very few objections, if any. We will get back to colleagues later in the evening on this issue.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and will listen with great interest to my colleague from Oklahoma.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my continued support for the C-17 cargo aircraft program and urge my colleagues to retain funding for 10 additional aircraft in the fiscal year 2010 Defense appropriations bill.

The C-17 is critical to our national security and our ability to efficiently carry out important missions around the world. Not only is this aircraft an indispensable asset in supporting military and humanitarian missions in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan; it has a proven record of versatility and high performance, and it sustains jobs that are essential across 43 States--including my home State of California.

First, I would like to talk about the types of missions where we use the C-17. According to the Air Force's budget justification for 2010, the C-17 ``is a major element of America's National Military Strategy and constitutes the most responsive means of meeting U.S. mobility requirements. . . . The C-17 will perform the airlift mission well into this century.''

The C-17 is essential to our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan particularly because of its versatility. It is used to transport equipment, supplies and our service members. For example, the C-17 can land on a dirt runway to deliver needed supplies in remote regions of Afghanistan.

We also use the C-17 to evacuate our wounded men and women from Iraq to Germany, and then back to the United States for treatment. And in some instances, it has even been used to transport our service members across a combat zone, reducing the risks that they face when they travel on land by convoy.

And the uses don't stop there. The C-17 is used to deliver humanitarian supplies. In January of this year, a C-17 delivered 18,000 pounds of supplies to Nicaragua, one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere.

The C-17 has also been used to bring relief to Americans, including during Hurricane Katrina. It can deliver a 100-bed, fully equipped hospital to nearly any area with an unimproved airstrip.

This is an amazing capability, and one we cannot afford to lose.

Second, the C-17 has a proven record of performance. Quite simply, it is the workhorse of our military. And we are using them at a much higher rate than the Air Force originally intended.

C-17s have flown over 1.3 million flight hours since 2002. Many are flown at 150-180 percent of their anticipated flight hours.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the C-17 was designed to fly 1,000 hours per year over 30 years, but the fleet has averaged 1,250 hours per aircraft over the last ten years. Some have even reached 2,400 flying hours in a single year.

And finally, the C-17 is the last strategic airlift production line in the Nation. Every day 30,000 employees from 43 states go to work in direct support of the C-17. In addition to those 30,000 direct jobs, over 100,000 workers depend on this production line. In my home State of California, 13,800 people work on the C-17. And 19,200 worker's have an affiliation with this aircraft.

Too many American jobs depend on this vital program. Before we take any action to shut down the line, we must be absolutely certain that we have all of the aircraft we need.

We cannot take the chance that we ``may'' have enough aircraft, particularly without reviewing two studies that are due by the end of the year.

The Department of Defense Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study and the congressionally mandated study being done by the Institute for Defense Analyses will determine if our airlift requirements are being met.

We expect these studies to be complete by the end of this year. Without the results of these studies, we cannot determine that our Nation's airlift capability has been met. It would be incredibly shortsighted to shut down this production line without that information.

I urge my colleagues to join me in maintaining funds for the C-17, and to defeat the McCain amendment.

Mr. President, I wonder if the managers would allow me to make a unanimous consent request on a totally other issue, the issue dealing with the highway trust fund, at this time. I will take about 2 or 3 minutes; is that all right?

Mr. President, we are in a very bad situation with the highway trust fund. We are working very hard on both sides of the aisle to resolve it. Senator Inhofe and I are absolutely in agreement on what we should

do. But yet still there is objection from the other side of the aisle, our Republican friends. I wish to explain where we are, and then I am going to make a unanimous consent request.

In the SAFETEA-LU program, which was the last highway bill, there was an $8 billion rescission that was made. The promise at that time years ago was that we would fix it in the days, months, and years ahead. It was not fixed, and if we don't repeal the rescission tonight, what will happen immediately is that there will have to be layoffs, there will have to be cancellation of contracts, and the order will go out from here to our States. Mr. President, 17,000 jobs are on the line. We have to repeal this rescission. It translates into about $300 million.

I have been working with Senator Inhofe, and we reached agreement and, frankly, the leaders, I believe, reached agreement that what we ought to do is repeal this rescission and, as a paid-for, cut the TARP money because we know that a lot of those funds have been paid back, cut that program by the equivalent of $300 million. We would repeal the rescission, everybody keeps working, the contracts are still going, and we pay for this repeal by cutting $300 million from TARP, the Toxic Asset Relief Program, not very popular in the country, I might add.

I have to say I asked the administration for some other ideas and they had none. I believe in pay as you go. So I said to Senator Inhofe that I was with him on this. He and I are in agreement.

At this time, I am going to make this formal unanimous consent request to repeal this rescission and pay for it by cutting TARP.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3617, received from the House and at the desk; that the Boxer substitute amendment at the desk be considered; further, that the Boxer-Inhofe second-degree amendment with an offset be considered and agreed to, the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record, without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, let me say how, frankly, shocked I am at this objection. We have the chairman of the EPW Committee, the ranking member of the EPW Committee--this is an amendment that was brought to us by Senator Kit Bond of the other side of the aisle. I do not understand how the Republicans can take this position when we can see these contracts abrogated as a result of our lack of action.

I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

I think, with due respect to the Senator from Nebraska, that he is saying that several of his colleagues will not allow this to go through. I don't want to blame him for this. He is the messenger.

But the bottom line is, the $8 billion in authorizing numbers translates to $300 million in contracting authority. So as of tomorrow morning, unless this is reversed, we are going to see cuts to the highway program of $300 million. And it has to be made from existing contracts, so people in your State, in my State, in Kentucky, in the State of the Senator from Nebraska--all of our States are going to suffer. There will be 17,000 people thrown out of work because the Republicans cannot agree with the chairman of the EPW, the ranking member, and both leaders.

The Republican side has objected to an agreement reached by myself and Senator Inhofe and I believe the two leaders that would say we are going to replenish the highway trust fund, we are going to repeal the rescission that was done and as a result the States will be shorted $300 million, and it is my understanding that starting tomorrow morning a lot of these contracts will be canceled or delayed unless we fix this. We could fix it at a later date, but every day that goes by, it makes it more difficult because we are operating under a midnight deadline tonight.

My friend is right. But I want to give credit to Senator Inhofe. He is with us. There are many Members on his side of the aisle, however, who are letting this happen. But my friend has it exactly right. The Republicans who are objecting to this are protecting the toxic asset relief program and they are jeopardizing 17,000 jobs across America.

I am as stunned as you are, and I guess I am going to try one more time. If I hear another objection, we will leave it for another day. I will try it one more time. Maybe I have convinced my friend. Maybe my friend needs to leave the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3617, received from the House and at the desk, and that the Boxer substitute amendment at the desk be considered; further, that the Boxer-Inhofe second-degree amendment with an offset be considered and agreed to, the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the measure appear in the appropriate place in the Record as if read, without further intervening action or debate.

Well, that is easy. If you believe we have a recession, if you believe the unemployment rate is too high, why in God's green Earth would anyone recommend cutting the economic recovery fund, the fund that is providing stimulus and that is putting people to work? I absolutely would not agree to that. That particular fund is giving money back to taxpayers in tax breaks. It is fixing highways and bridges and all the other. Why on Earth would we cut that when we can cut the toxic asset relief program--the TARP money--that went to the wealthiest banks? Why on Earth would we take away jobs from working people and allow the bankers to keep their little fund up there?

No way. We will object to that approach.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I think sometimes these debates go off on tangents and they are hard to follow. They get caught up in a lot of rhetoric. But I think this one tonight says it all to me. We have to ask ourselves a question: Whose side are we on? Whose side are we on? Tonight, we know what side the Republicans are on.

We are ready to save 17,000 jobs and to do it by paying for it out of the money that was given to the biggest banks in this Nation--the banks that got away scot-free while Americans suffered, whether they were shareholders or workers, taxpayers all. We want to take that money from the big banks; they want to take it from the working people, the working families of America, the ones who are out there getting their hands dirty and building the roads and the bridges. That says more about the differences here than many of the other things we do, and I am stunned.

I particularly want to again thank Senator Inhofe for stepping up. He tried his best. He spoke to all his Republican friends, and he couldn't get this. But you know what, we are not going to give up. We will have this battle on the floor. We will. We will get time for this, and we will get agreement on offering these two offsets. You just had a taste of what the debate will be, and it will be a tough debate, and I look forward to it. But I am very stunned that tonight we couldn't cross the aisle that divides us tonight. We should have. We should have done that for all the States--the red States and the blue States, all the States, the United States--because all are going to lose these jobs. We can say we stood here at 7:30 on this night and we had a program that would easily stop those layoffs, easily stop them, but our colleagues on the other side wanted to protect the big banks. I will take that argument back to my home State, but I am not happy we couldn't resolve this.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I am here to make a few comments addressing the points raised by Senator Thune and Senator Murkowski. They were going to offer an amendment.

I won't be taking that. At what point would the Senator like me to use the time?

That is fine. And how long is Senator Landrieu speaking?

I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following Senator Landrieu.

Mr. President, thank you very much.

I am on the floor, along with Senator Whitehouse--there may be some others--to respond to the remarks made by Senators Murkowski and Thune regarding an amendment they very much wanted to put before this body. That amendment, simply stated, would stop the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing the Clean Air Act as it relates to the pollutant carbon.

Some of the things they said are so reminiscent of what was said before the Clean Air Act passed, that: Oh, this is going to be a terrible thing for our people; and the same thing that was said when the Clean Water Act was passed: Oh, this is going to be a burden on business. I have to say to this body, the day we turn our back on these landmark environmental laws is the day the health of our people will suffer. We do not want that to happen.

I wish to be clear, I know this amendment will come back again and again. I know there will be attacks on the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. That is an attack on our families. It is particularly an attack on our children and on our vulnerable senior citizens and our citizens who may have disabilities and who are ill. I will fight it with every ounce of my strength every time it rears its ugly head in this Chamber.

The interesting thing is, most of these environmental laws started with a Republican President named Richard Nixon. What happened to the days when environmental laws were supported on both sides? Those days appear to be gone.

What I would like to do is--I am going to yield up to 20 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island. He is so eloquent on this point. Before I do, I wish to place some letters in the Record.

One letter is from the Environmental Protection Agency, saying they would have a very difficult time making sure the air was clean if that Murkowski amendment had been offered and passed and become law.

Interestingly, we have a letter from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, also opposing that Murkowski amendment.

We have two more letters to put in the Record--and this just happened in 24 hours--one from a coalition made up of the Alliance for Climate Protection, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Auto Safety, Center for Biological Diversity, the Clean Air Task Force, Clean Water Action, the Defenders of Wildlife, Environment America, the Environmental Defense Fund, League of Women Voters of the United States, National Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana, the Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Southern Environmental Law Center, and Union of Concerned Scientists-- all saying they oppose this amendment, which concerns not enforcing the Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon dioxide.

Lastly, we have a very well put together letter by the National Wildlife Federation, in which they quote a poll that says 75 percent of Americans believe our government should, in fact, regulate global warming pollution, which, of course, is mostly carbon.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent those letters be printed in the Record.

So here we had a situation where I am very pleased the rules of this Senate did not allow this very dangerous amendment to be brought before the body. We would have talked about it for days because, before I would allow a vote on that, I would want to make sure every single Senator understood it is a repeal of the Clean Air Act through the backdoor, even after the Bush Supreme Court said the Clean Air Act covers carbon and greenhouse gases.

With that, Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Rhode Island. He gets us to where we need to be, which is focusing on what happens to our people when we walk away from protecting them from pollution.

I know Senator Brown is in the chair. I wanted to share with him the fact that he knows well that after the Cuyahoga River caught fire in Ohio in 1969 and many of our lakes and rivers

appeared to be more like sewers, the committee, which I now chair so proudly and on which Senator Whitehouse sits, responded by enacting the Clean Water Act. That was 1972. I don't know if Senator Brown was born yet. The fact is, that incident of a river catching fire really caught the attention of the people of this Nation. Whether it was our water or our air or endangered species, we decided to take control of our communities, of our health, of our environment.

There is a lot about America that makes us proud. There is a lot about America that makes us great. I believe one of our values is caring about the health of our families. I thought Senator Whitehouse was very clear that we are not just debating a regulation on page 4 or 5 or 20 or 50. We are talking about the ability of our kids to breathe the air. We are talking about the ability of this planet to survive without the ravages of global warming, which the Bush administration's CDC told us would have unbelievable effects on the health and safety of our people.

The laws we passed are the landmark laws. So therefore I just want to be put on record, along with Senator Whitehouse, that if this amendment that wasn't offered today comes back in any other form, we are going to have to open up the debate pretty wide--pretty wide--because a repeal of an environmental law can't be done on an appropriations bill. In essence, when you don't enforce a law--that is what the Murkowski amendment would have done--when you don't enforce it, it is the same as not really having it. But you don't have to look in the eyes of your constituents and say: Oh, by the way, today I repealed the Clean Air Act. What you say instead is: Today I fought to have a pause--no enforcement. Well, let me tell my colleagues, when that child gets asthma, she is not going to ask her mom: Did I get asthma because there was a pause in the Clean Air Act or because they repealed the Clean Air Act? That child will get asthma. I swear to my colleagues that I am not going to let more kids get asthma, not on my watch. It is wrong. It is wrong.

Here is the great news. The great news is, if we decide to be the leader in this clean energy revolution, we will see our people get healthy. We will see millions of jobs created. We will move off of these dirty energy sources. We will create American jobs, 21st-century jobs, building wind turbines, installing solar panels, producing a new fleet of electric cars, hybrid vehicles. We see it in Ohio already where they are building solar panels. This is the one area of growth.

We are having a tough time in our State--people laid off, terribly high unemployment rate. The stimulus is helping us. We are getting some jobs back, but we are suffering. The one area of growth, I say to the Chair, 125,000 new green jobs that can't be taken away. You can't take a job of putting a solar rooftop on a home in Los Angeles or Riverside or San Bernardino or San Diego or Akron, OH--you can't have that person in China putting on a solar rooftop. They have to be here. These are good jobs. That is what we ought to be doing, not repealing the laws that protect the health of our citizens but trying to figure out a way to work together to have a bill that will create these new clean energy jobs, that will protect our kids from carbon pollution, and that will make sure the ravages of global warming won't occur.

At the end of the day, our competitiveness depends on how we face this challenge. I believe Thomas Friedman got it right. If you haven't read his book ``Hot, Flat, and Crowded,'' I think you should read it because he is so eloquent on the point. He is not on the defense on this, he is on the offense. He says that if we don't grab this mantle of leadership on clean energy, then other countries will grab it and they will create the technologies, they will create the jobs, and we will fall behind.

America is a leader. We are not a follower. We will have many more opportunities to debate this in the future, but, my goodness, if we are facing legislation that does not move us forward but takes us back to before Richard Nixon was President by not enforcing the Clean Air Act-- I have heard of the party of no, but this is the party of yesterday if those are the kinds of amendments we are going to face, dangerous amendments that will hurt the health of our children.

So I wanted to make sure that America takes control of its energy future and that it doesn't cower in the corner and repeal laws that protect our citizens, landmark laws such as the Clean Air Act. I am so glad that today we avoided having to have this long debate. I am glad this amendment was disallowed because it doesn't belong on an appropriations bill. It is a repeal of the Clean Air Act. Let's face it, you don't do that in 15 minutes on the floor of the Senate and call it a timeout. Call it whatever you want, but when you tell an agency: Don't enforce the law that protects the health of our children and our families, that is a repeal through the back door.

So I thank you very much for the time. I know I have additional time. I will not be using it. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, tonight the Senate has approved a 3-month extension of the FAA Reauthorization Act.

While I understand the importance of passing a short-term extension of this law, I am disappointed that the full Senate has yet to act on the FAA reauthorization bill that was ordered reported by the Senate Commerce Committee in July. That bill, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, includes long overdue legislation known as the Airline Passenger Bill of Rights.

Too often, airline passengers are trapped on airplanes without basic needs such as food, water, medicine, working restrooms or proper cabin ventilation.

Just last month, passengers on a flight from Houston to Minneapolis- St. Paul were diverted to Rochester, MN, and forced to spend the night trapped in a small commuter airplane.

Two weeks later, a flight carrying more than 100 passengers bound for Minneapolis was forced to sit on the tarmac at JFK airport in New York for 6 hours before finally departing. The passengers, including parents traveling with infants, were forced to endure overflowing bathrooms and had no real food or water to speak of.

These are not isolated examples of a few airlines with ineffective policies. USA Today recently reported that since January 2007, 200,000 domestic passengers on 3,000 flights have been stranded in airplanes on the tarmac for 3 hours or more.

This is unacceptable. We must pass the Airline Passenger Bill of Rights this year--before the 3-month extension of the FAA reauthorization bill expires. The Passenger Bill of Rights, which I have introduced with Senator Olympia Snowe, would require airlines to offer passengers the option of safely leaving a plane they have boarded once that plane has sat on the ground for 3 hours.

Americans deserve a safe and efficient aviation system. We cannot afford to wait another year to pass long overdue legislation that will make our skies safer and protect passengers from excessive tarmac delays. No American should ever be forced to spend the night in a plane on an airport tarmac. We can prevent this and we must.

I know the Senate is working to address many important challenges at this time. But, we cannot lose sight of the aviation challenges facing our country. It is time for Congress to meet its responsibility to the flying public.

Mr. President, today is World Alzheimer's Day, a day to raise awareness about this neurodegenerative disease that afflicts over 5 million Americans, including about 600,000 people in my home State of California.

Mr. President, what is the order right now? How much time remains before we vote?

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for setting aside some time for me because, as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am concerned about the Coburn amendment. I want to discuss why.

The particular program that the Senator is going after is the transportation enhancements program, created in 1991, in a very bipartisan way in the transportation bill. The purpose of the program is to encourage investment in some very important priorities for the Nation. I want to talk about that.

I particularly want to say that, on average, this program provided $650 million for these important activities each year. I want to point out that if you relate that $650 million to jobs, we are talking about many jobs, because $11.5 billion was made available since 1992, and that translates to 400,000 jobs--good-paying jobs, jobs that do important things, jobs that can't be shipped overseas. And of all the times to come to the floor and go after a program that is a job creator and, in addition, does many important things that actually save lives, I don't think this is the time. Frankly, I don't think there is any time for that.

For example, one of the uses of these funds is that we try to stop highway runoff--runoff that has very harmful chemicals and pollution in it, and it goes right into waterways. That is something we should not stop. That is something we owe to our children, to protect them from pollution.

We also use the funds to reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality. Anybody who has seen the result of a collision with a deer or other large animal, as I have in the county where I have lived for 40 years, knows you are dealing with danger for all the parties involved. Why on Earth would we come down here and strike the funding for a program that protects our kids from pollution and saves lives by making sure that our local people do the right thing and make sure these animals don't have ready access or easy access to our freeways?

Let me put this into exact numbers. I know my friend is an exacting debater, and he is a great debater. A study under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program estimated that each year wildlife collisions are responsible for 200 human deaths, 29,000 injuries, and more than $1 billion in property damage. So even with the funding that we have, this is an issue, and we don't want to make matters worse.

I am going to be specific. In Washington State, $75,000 in TE funds, which my friend wants to strike, provided in 1999 for radio collars for elk and an alert system for motorists to reduce elk-vehicle collisions on Highway 101 in the Sequim Valley. As a result of the project, elk- vehicle collisions have dropped from an average of 2.5 every year to only 1 in the past 7 years. Why on Earth do we want to pull money from a fund that saves lives?

In Colorado, $108,000 in TE funds were provided in 2007 to remove broken one-way deer gates and replace them with escape ramps and extend the fencing, which was first set up in 1980, to guide wildlife off of U.S. 550. So those funds certainly are improving safety and saving lives.

Bicycle paths, pedestrian facilities are provided, and the chairman spoke about that. In Georgia, TE funds helped transform the 5th Street bridge span over Atlanta's I-75/I-85 into a pedestrian/bicycle-friendly park, hovering 17 feet above the highway that safely connects buildings of Georgia Tech's campus. The bridge was widened to incorporate bicycle paths, landscaping, lamp posts, trellises, and benches.

I guess there is a different view of what is essential. I think saving lives is essential. These funds are used to save lives. Also, if I could say it, because I know my friend doesn't think it should be a priority to beautify our highways, freeways and roads, I point out that the taxpayers of this country care about their communities, care about how their highways and freeways and their roads look. It is a big difference when you have a highway and a freeway that is taken care of, just as we take care of our homes. That is our job.

In Illinois, a tunnel was constructed beneath the busy Center Grove Road that will provide safer passage for students walking between their school and a nearby sports complex. The tunnel was constructed with the help of TE funds--the very funds my friend wants to cut.

In Plymouth, IN, they can now enjoy 2.2 miles of paved trails that meander throughout the community, connecting schools, parks, rivers, and neighborhoods. And a TE award of $1.2 million helped fund the trail. It was matched by local dollars.

In Minneapolis, TE funds helped construct the Midtown Greenway project that provides a safe bicycle commuter freeway for up to 4,500 cyclists a day.

In Oklahoma, new and existing businesses and shops are thriving after a streetscaping project in downtown Norman. TE funds helped to renovate the downtown area, which included improvements in historical lighting.

I hope we will vote against the series of Coburn amendments. I think they hurt, they will stop creation of jobs, and they will make us less safe.

Will the Senator yield?

Yes. I object.

Mr. President, the Senator does not describe his amendment properly. I ask colleagues to read it. The amendment says:

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to

implement section 133(d)(2) of title 23, United States Code.

That means none of the funds could be used for this very important part of our transportation program which has created 400,000 jobs since 1992. This is not the time to cut these good jobs. This is not the time to say to the States: In your purpose, you can do whatever you want, but then in the real amendment they cannot get any Federal funds anymore to keep wildlife off the freeways, they cannot get funds anymore to do highway beautification, they cannot get funds anymore to stop runoff from highways that will pollute our waterways.

I say the purpose may be what the Senator says, but because he is forced into doing this on an appropriations bill, he says none of the funds can be used for these TE programs, and that will cause injuries and death.

I move to lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2366, as Modified

Madam President, I rise in opposition to Senator Gregg's amendment and I wish to say why I think there are many reasons not to support it. I started off my political career as a county supervisor. It is through that agency that when we are undertaking a major road project, we put up a sign first of all to let people know work is underway and what it is about because a lot of times people don't know if it is going to be a month-long project or a day-long project. We would put up a sign to let people know who is funding the program, to let people know whether it is a State project, a local project. No big deal. We did this--and we do this--under Republican leadership, under Democratic leadership. It is information.

I think the true source of this amendment is a frustration. This is my own opinion. I am sure my friend absolutely would not agree with me, but it is my sense that there is a frustration by the people who voted no on the Economic Recovery Act, the stimulus bill; there is a frustration that it is working. They predicted gloom and doom.

Let me tell you what is happening in this great Nation of ours. We have a long way to go to get jobs up and running, there is no question about it, but the stimulus bill has already saved or created a million jobs. Let me tell you what else. We are looking at growth for the first time in this economy. When we were faced with the worst recession since the Great Depression--and I know it because the Presiding Officer had the same issue as she looked at what to do--we had to decide whether it made sense to do some job creation here, and we didn't get many Republican votes, but thank goodness we got three. Thanks to those good people for joining us because I can tell you this: In my home State, we are starting to see it happen. We are going to get tens of billions of dollars.

So now I think the issue is a frustration with the fact that we won that vote and we got that done and those jobs are being created as we speak. Slowly but surely we are being lifted out of this darkness.

Here we have a small amendment, I agree. You know what. If it passes, no harm. But I have to say, why on Earth would you want to hide from the American people the fact that the recovery package we passed is putting people to work? People want to know. Not everybody has a computer. Not everybody is going to follow up on the transparency this administration has put in place. They are showing that every day it is working, where it is happening, and so on and so forth--not by name but how many jobs are created and the like.

It seems to me, if you are improving our highways, our transit systems, our water infrastructure, our government buildings, and the source of funding is the stimulus program, the Economic Recovery Act, let people know. Why would we prohibit funds under this act from being used for these signs that simply inform taxpayers that a project is being made possible by taxpayer dollars from the stimulus program? I think it is a question of making our people more informed, giving them information.

My friend says it costs money to do a sign. I couldn't agree more. Everything costs money. It costs money to do a sign. Guess what. People work in those places where those signs are made. People proudly work on those jobs and get paid a good amount and can support their families. So this is a jobs program. Part of it is to tell the people, yes, the funding for this project is paid for by the stimulus program, the economic recovery program, and, yes, people were paid to work in places that make these signs. I don't think it is logical to keep this information from the people. What purpose is served? It is going to save a little bit of money, but the fact is, the purpose of the stimulus bill was to create jobs, and you are going to take away jobs from people who are making those signs. I think this is an antijobs amendment we have before us.

Look, the Recovery Act is working. I think it is frustrating those who predicted it would never work, and they will predict it will never work until they have their last breath because that is the nature of politics; you have to spin it one way or another. But we know the economy is turning around. We also know we need to create many more jobs, and this amendment will not create one more job. I don't believe it will. The fact that we are doing some good things with this funding, including making buildings more energy efficient, upgrading flood protection, let the American people know that their funds are being spent well. I think that is money spent well.

Some people may see a program, by the way, I say to my good friend, and they don't like it. They say: Why on Earth are they using my money to do this particular project? Let them know. Let them know. So if they like what they see, they understand where it came from. If they don't like what they see, they understand where it came from.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gregg amendment. I agree with my friend, it is not a major amendment, but I think it speaks to the point that the American people should have an easy way of knowing where these funds are going and the projects they are building. We certainly had a big enough battle on the floor of the Senate--oh, boy, did we have a battle--trying to find those three votes. So it passed. It was controversial. Some in America don't support it; others in America do. I think they should have a right to know if a project is being brought to them by way of this important bill that I think is helping turn our economy around.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is a most political amendment. I got to thinking, after Senator Gregg said we can't show a sign where economic recovery funds are being put to use on a road or a bridge or highway. We should keep it from the people because he says it is self- congratulatory.

It is not self-congratulatory. Some people may not like the project; some people may. It is about transparency and openness.

I have to say to you, this makes no sense. Where were Senator Gregg and his friends on the Republican side when George Bush and the Republican Congress spent $33 million to send out a letter telling everyone their Economic Recovery Act was working by way of refunds? I never heard one word out of the Senators from the other side of the aisle. That cost $33 million.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the tax rebate letter that went to every American be printed in the Record.

I would say to you, this is politics. This is going to save--Senator Gregg's amendment--$4 million. This cost $33 million.

I yield the floor. I hope we vote ``no.''

Mr. President, I ask for a rebuttal.

This is not about whether you voted for the stimulus. It is about whether you objected to spending money to tell people what the stimulus does. It seems to me, under Republican leaders we did not hear anything. Now we hear it.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, I have decided to come to the Chamber in my capacity as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee to address a number of Coburn amendments that he has either laid down or intends to lay down, and I hope we can work to defeat these amendments, as I understand them, and I want to say why.

We have a very important relationship with our States when it comes to transportation and highway programs, and we work with them on many aspects of transportation. We have something called the Transportation Enhancement Program. It is a TE program. It was created in 1991 in the ISTEA bill, and one of the purposes was to encourage investments in many areas that have been overlooked. I want to give you an example of those.

Since 1992, because of this TE Program, over $11.5 billion has been made available to the States for some very important purposes that deal with safety, that deal with making sure our highways are kept in a condition we want to see them kept. I will give more examples of the funding. But over that period of time, that $11.5 billion has created 399,000 jobs. Let me repeat that. This special program Senator Coburn wants to strip--and he wants to strip parts of it--is responsible for 399,000 jobs since 1992. I am here to say--because I know my friend, Senator Murray, agrees with me--of all the times not to visit more job losses on our people, it certainly is now. Jobs are key, and the Coburn amendment is a jobs killer.

Let me tell you about the various areas that fall under this program he is taking the ax to.

Environmental mitigation. This includes projects that address water pollution due to highway runoff. We just read a front-page story in the New York Times where we see terrible water pollution affecting our children. They had a picture of a child who has been drinking water that really has not been tested in the right way according to the law. This child's teeth all have to be capped because his teeth rotted. So we want to make sure we do not let that runoff get into waterways.

Also, we hear about wildlife mortality. Anyone who has seen the result of a crash between a car and, let's say, a deer on a road knows this is a horrific situation for all parties, and it is a matter of life or death for drivers and their passengers. That is what some of this money is used for and that is what our friend, Senator Coburn, wants to take the ax to, as far as I understand it.

Then there are facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists and safety and educational activities for pedestrians. Residents of my State are strong supporters of spending transportation funds on bicycle paths and pedestrian facilities. We all know walking and biking are forms of transportation which should not be cut but, rather, encouraged.

Other categories of TE, the transportation enhancements, that it is my understanding Senator Coburn wants to cut: acquisition of scenic easements and scenic history sites, including historic battlefield sites. Does he think that little of the history of the country that he wants to take an ax to this, scenic or historic highway programs, including the provision of tourist and welcome center facilities? Again, tourism is one of the things we need to build up. There are many millions of jobs related to tourism, landscaping, and other scenic beautification. We all know and take pride in our communities. Highway beautification, to me, is a key part of our quality of life--historic preservation, rehabilitation, and operation of historic transportation buildings.

We have seen some of those. We have seen them in places as far flung as New York to places in St. Louis, MO, to San Francisco, CA-- preservation of abandoned railway cars, including conservation and use of the cars for pedestrian or bike trails; inventory control and removal of outdoor advertising and archeological planning and research. Senator Coburn would have us believe that transportation enhancements are a low-priority project. These are investments that put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work. These are investments that improve safety, prevent pollution, save fuel, and improve the quality of life for millions of Americans.

I wonder if Senator Murray and I can engage for a minute here through the Chair.

What is the timing of when these amendments will be voted on? Can the chairman tell me?

May I ask, through the Chair, if the chairman of the subcommittee would allow me to be heard for a minute before we have a vote on any of these amendments that deal with transportation enhancement programs.

I thank the Senator.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am deeply honored to pay tribute to Ted Kennedy today and to honor his extraordinary legacy.

I will always think of Ted Kennedy as many think of him--as the lion of the Senate. From that seat, in that seat in the back of this beautiful Senate Chamber, he used his powerful voice to speak out for those whose voices were rarely heard. I also have described Ted as the drummer in a large orchestra. Ted Kennedy was a steady drumbeat--a steady drumbeat for justice, for fairness, for compassion, and for progress. On days when the Senate wasn't that interested in listening; on days when maybe the polls were against him; on days when his compassion might not have been in fashion, that drumbeat got louder and louder and louder because Ted Kennedy knew that at the end of the day, the values he stood for would be embraced again.

Ted never let us forget why we are here--never. He always reminded us to be courageous. He always reminded us to be strong in fighting for the causes we believe in, not by lecturing us about it but by being brave, being strong, being courageous, taking on the tough issues. He spent 9 long years standing in the back of the Chamber talking about raising the minimum wage and explaining why people needed it--9 long years--but he knew the drumbeat would go on until we passed it. And we did.

Ted Kennedy had genuine and deep friendships in the Senate on both sides of the aisle. His greatest legislative skill was to know every Senator and to know their passions. When I first came to the Senate in the early 1990s, I had spent 10 years in the House and Senator Kennedy was already an icon, but he knew I was passionate about health issues and, in particular, women's health issues. So even though I was new to the Senate, he came to me when he was managing a bill on the floor to protect the rights of women who were trying to get into reproductive health care clinics. At that time, protesters were blocking the entrances to the health care clinics so the women could not get in and get treated. So Senator Kennedy wrote a bill that simply said: It is fine to express your views, but you cannot block women or individuals from entering those clinics. It is dangerous, it is wrong, and you are denying women health care. Senator Kennedy asked me if I would be his lieutenant--that was his word, his ``lieutenant''--and help him manage that bill on the floor of the Senate. Well, clearly, I was so pleased. It was such a thrill to watch him work and, as did so many of Ted Kennedy's bills, it passed and it became the law of the land and women can get health care without being intimidated and frightened and harmed.

Later, when he was championing the bill to increase the minimum wage--and he did it year after year after year--he asked me and the other women of the Senate to come to the floor and to organize and speak about the impact raising the minimum wage would have on women and families across the country. He said: Barbara, you know, 60 percent of the people earning minimum wage are women. A lot of our colleagues think it is teenagers. That is not true. It is women. They are supporting their families. Can you help me with this? I said: Senator, I am all over it. I am with you.

The women of the Senate had a special role to come to the floor-- unfortunately, for 9 years in a row--until we made the case that it was important America's families, working so hard, can actually afford to live in this, the greatest country of all.

Although Ted had deeply held views, he worked beautifully with Members across the aisle. We have colleague after colleague coming down to speak about their experiences. He was an expert at finding the thread of common ground. Sometimes it was just a tiny little strand of commonality, but he could weave it into something bigger and bigger and come to an agreement without losing his principles.

Ted's legislative work has touched the lives of every American, and I think it is going to take 5, 6, 7, 10 of us to pick up this void he has left. I am so proud that Tom Harkin, who has come to the floor, will be the chairman of the HELP Committee because Tom shared with Ted those deep feelings about us being here not to champion the voices of those who have a strong voice and are heard but for those who don't have a strong voice: the middle class, the workers, the working poor, the families, the children. They don't have a voice here.

Ted Kennedy worked to help get 18-year-olds the right to vote. He made it easier for Americans to change jobs and keep their health insurance. He expanded Head Start Programs. He wrote

the law creating Meals-on-Wheels. He was the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Many of these Senator Harkin and he partnered up on. He led efforts to reform the Nation's immigration system--never a popular issue, a tough, hard issue. He worked to increase competition in the airline industry. He worked to protect women from violent crime.

Virtually every major health care advance of the last four decades bears his mark--Whether it is the CHIP program, the Ryan White CARE Act, COBRA, the mental health parity bill or increased funding for cancer research. The list goes on and on and on.

Senator Kennedy was once asked what his best quality was as a legislator, and he answered with a single word: ``Persistence.'' Persistence. That is a message to all of us on both sides of the aisle. If you believe something in your heart is right, you don't give up. You don't give up because progress takes time. Piece by piece, every year, for almost half a century, he advanced the causes he believed in: expanding access to health care, educating our children, extending civil rights, helping our society's least fortunate.

I will say, if we were in danger of losing our way in the Senate, Senator Ted Kennedy held steady. He stayed true to his ideals. That is why it is fitting that his new biography is entitled ``True Compass.'' In many ways, he was a compass in the Senate.

I wish to thank the people of Massachusetts for sending Ted Kennedy to us for these last 47 years. He loved his State. He fought for you and he fought for all Americans.

I wish to thank his wife Vicki, who gave him so much joy, and the entire Kennedy family for sharing Ted Kennedy with us.

I will miss his warm and engaging presence, his sense of humor, his bellowing laughter, and the way he reached out to all Senators in friendship. No one person will ever be able to fill his shoes. No one. He was one of a kind and irreplaceable. But we know how to honor his legacy. We know how to fill this void and that is by continuing his life's work. I believe the most fitting tribute we can give him is to carry on his fight for a quality education for all our children, affordable health care our families can rely on and an economy that works for everyone.

Ted Kennedy came from a privileged and renowned family, but he saw so much suffering in his lifetime, so much loss. He saw what happens in your family when two of your three children have cancer. Even though you have every bit of financial stability to give them what they need, he saw how hard it was. And then to have another child with an addiction and the pain of that. So what Senator Ted Kennedy understood is, if it is so hard for me to see my children suffer, what must it be like for someone without the financial resources or someone who had an insurance company walk away from them at the time they needed it the most, they needed help the most.

Ted Kennedy could put himself in other people's shoes, and that is what he did every single day. Even when it was hard for him to get up from his chair, he stood and he fought. As he said during his concession speech at the 1980 Democratic National Convention: ``For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.''

I say to Ted and to his family, I believe these words are true. The hope still lives and the dream shall never die.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to honor the life of Judge Robert M. Takasugi, the first Japanese American appointed to the Federal bench. Judge Takasugi passed away on August 7, 2009, at the age of 78.

Robert Takasugi was born in Tacoma, WA, on September 12, 1930, to Japanese parents who had immigrated to the United States in search of a better life. His family moved to Los Angeles in 1942 in the wake of anti-Japanese sentiment following the Pearl Harbor attack. That same year, Robert and his parents were sent to an internment camp at Tule Lake, CA, 3 of 130,000 Japanese Americans who were interned during the war. In the years since, Judge Takasugi often called the experience ``an education to be fair.''

After being released from the internment camp in 1945, Robert returned to Los Angeles where he resumed his studies and graduated from Belmont High School. He went on to earn a bachelor's degree from UCLA in 1953. Robert was then drafted into the U.S. Army during the Korean War, where he served as a criminal investigator. Upon discharge, he went on to earn a law degree from USC in 1959 with the aid of the G.I. bill.

After graduating from USC, Robert joined his only Latino classmate, future Superior Court Judge Carlos Velarde, and together they opened a law practice in East Los Angeles. The firm represented many indigent minorities, including arrestees from the 1965 Watts riots, East Los Angeles riots, and other civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s.

Robert's first judicial appointment, by then-Governor Ronald Reagan, landed him on the Los Angeles Municipal Court in 1973. Two years later, then-Governor Jerry Brown promoted him to the Los Angeles County Superior Court and in 1976, Judge Takasugi became the first Japanese American to be appointed to the Federal bench after being named by President Gerald Ford.

Throughout his career, Judge Takasugi was known for his fairness and compassion. In his spare time, he served as a mentor to thousands of young lawyers. He founded a free bar review course, which he taught from his living room for many years, for students who were having trouble passing the bar exam. In 1999, the Robert M. Takasugi Public Interest Fellowship was created by his colleague to honor Judge Takasugi and ensure that his courage and vision of equal justice are carried out by generations to come.

Judge Takasugi was a trailblazer for Asian Americans in the field of law. His dedication to justice and equality was evident in everything that he did throughout his 36-year judicial career on the Federal bench. His many years of service to the City and County of Los Angeles, to the State of California, and to our Nation will not be forgotten.

Judge Takasugi is survived by his wife Dorothy; his son Jon; his daughter Lesli; and his two grandchildren. I extend my deepest sympathies to his family.

Whether he was fighting for our country or fighting for integrity and equality under the law, Judge Robert

Takasugi was undeterred in his efforts to make America a better place to live. He will be missed by all who knew him. We take comfort in knowing that future generations will benefit from his passion and dedication to justice.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring the San Francisco VA Medical Center, SFVAMC, on the occasion of its 75th anniversary. Since its official dedication on November 11, 1934, the SFVAMC has been honoring America's veterans by providing them with accessible, quality health care. Today the center provides state-of-the-art medical, neurological, surgical, and psychiatric care for the more than 310,000 veterans living in northern California.

Were it not for the leadership and persistence of Congresswoman Florence P. Kahn, the SFVAMC might never have come to be. Congresswoman Kahn was the first Jewish woman to serve in the U.S. Congress, and the fifth woman ever to serve in Congress. She was also the first woman to serve on the House Military Affairs Committee. In 1930, Congresswoman Kahn made an appeal to the Federal Board of Hospitalization--the precursor to the Veterans Administration--to build a veterans hospital in San Francisco. At the time, the only facility for veterans in California was in Los Angeles. Congresswoman Kahn recognized that veterans in the northern part of the state were in dire need of services, and worked tirelessly to garner support for building a medical center in San Francisco. I would like to acknowledge and honor the work of Congresswoman Kahn, as her efforts have ultimately improved the lives of countless American veterans.

Today the SFVAMC serves veterans in Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Lake, Mendocino, Humboldt, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties. The center operates five community-based outpatient clinics that provide primary and mental health care. These clinics offer a variety of services, including those that place veterans in supportive housing, provide case management, and offer individual and vocational counseling.

In addition to providing direct care, the SFVAMC hosts some of the largest funded research programs in the Veterans Health Administration. The Center for Imaging of Neurodegenerative Diseases, for example, works to develop treatments to prevent the development and slow the progression of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, vascular dementia, post traumatic stress disorder, gulf war illness, depression, and other conditions associated with nerve loss in the brain.

Thanks to the Center for Imaging Neurodegenerative Diseases, the SFVAMC's three Medical Science Research Enhancement Award Programs, and partners such as the Veterans Health Research Institute, the SFVAMC is at the forefront of medical research and is working to extend and improve the lives of veterans across the country.

I applaud the staff and volunteers at the SFVAMC for the tremendous service they have provided to our veterans since 1934, and offer my best wishes for many more successful years of delivering care and advancing medical research. Please join me in celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the SFVAMC.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Thomas M. Marovich, Jr. This brave man lost his life while working to protect Californians from a forest fire.

On July 21, 2009, Thomas Marovich died during a rappel proficiency training exercise while he was assigned as an apprentice with the Chester Helitack Crew fighting the Backbone Fire in Humboldt County. He was 20 years old.

Those who knew Thomas recall that, since childhood, his dream was to become a firefighter. When he was a student at James Logan High School in Union City, he was honored as Student of the Year in the regional fire technology program. Shortly thereafter, he began his firefighting service as a member of the Cadet Program for the Fremont Fire Department at the age of 17 and became an emergency medical technician, EMT, by 18. He was hired on as a firefighter for the Modoc National Forest in the Big Valley Ranger District in Adin, CA, after working as a volunteer while completing basic fire training. In 2008, after two fire seasons, he was hired as a Wildland firefighter apprentice to train for fire management. Thomas is survived by his parents, sister, and three grandparents.

Thomas Marovich, like all those who fight fires across California, put his life on the line to protect our communities. My heart goes out to his family and loved ones and my thoughts and prayers are with them. We are forever indebted to him for his courage, service, and sacrifice.

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

Mr. President, I want to begin my remarks by introducing into the Record a letter I wrote with Senator Olympia Snowe in May, after Justice Souter announced he would be retiring from the Supreme Court.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, at that time, we wrote, in part:

The most important thing is to nominate an exceptionally

well-qualified, intelligent person to replace Justice

Souter--and we are convinced that person should be a woman.

That was the letter that was written by a Democrat and a Republican Senator who believe strongly that it does matter, when you only have one woman on a Court of nine, as we do right now--until we vote--it is just not enough.

President Obama has nominated an exceptionally well-qualified and intelligent woman. She has more experience on the Federal bench than any Supreme Court nominee in the last hundred years.

Judge Sotomayor received the highest rating from the American Bar Association, and she will be an outstanding addition to the high Court.

When she is confirmed, she will become only the third woman ever to don the robes of a Supreme Court Justice. She will make history as the Nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.

This is a proud moment for our entire Nation, and especially for the 13 million Latinos in California and the 45 million Latinos nationwide. She already is a role model for so many young women.

As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in a recent interview:

About half of all law graduates today are women, and we

have a tremendous number of qualified women in the country

who are serving as lawyers. So they ought to be represented

on the Court.

In the weeks since she was nominated, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has proven that she has the right judgment and the right temperament to serve on the Nation's high Court. This is a proud moment for our Nation, a very proud moment.

She demonstrated, during a week of intense questioning before the Judiciary Committee, that she is tough, she is smart and, most importantly, she knows the law.

During those hearings, she made clear that she understands the role of a judge, which is to apply the law to the facts of each and every case. She said:

In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my

judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The

task of a judge is not to make law. It is to apply the law.

Her 17-year record as a Federal judge demonstrates a respect for the law and for precedent.

Let me read some comments from Judge Sotomayor's many supporters. Robert Morgenthau, District Attorney for the County of New York, said:

Judge Sotomayor's career in the law spans three decades,

and [she] worked in almost every level of our judicial

system--prosecutor, private litigator, trial court judge, and

appellate court judge. . . . She is an able champion of the

law, and her depth of experience will be invaluable on our

highest court.

Kim Askew, chair of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, said:

[Judge Sotomayor] has a reputation for integrity and

outstanding character. . . . Her judicial temperament meets

the high standards for appointment to the court.

I have to say, having watched some of the very tough questioning of Judge Sotomayor--if I might say, questions that were asked and answered, asked and answered, and asked and answered--the judge showed she understood that the Senators had a right to be tough, had a right to ask her anything they wanted, and she stood her ground beautifully.

Second Circuit Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs said:

Sonia Sotomayor is a well-loved colleague on our court--

everybody from every point of view knows that she is fair and

decent in all her dealings. . . . The fact is, she is truly a

superior human being.

We all bring different experiences to our work. The judge has had experiences growing up as a young Latina that have shaped her life, and she has a firsthand appreciation of the American dream.

She was raised in a South Bronx housing project. Her father, a factory worker, died when she was only 9 years of age. Her mother worked two jobs to support the family. From this humble background, she graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and became an editor of the Yale Law Review.

As a woman, Judge Sotomayor will bring a different perspective than her male counterparts on the high Court. As we have said, those of us who feel it is important to have women represented, whether it is in the Senate, the House, or in corporate boardrooms or on the Supreme Court, a different perspective is important. I will give you an example of why I believe this.

During oral arguments in a recent Supreme Court case involving a 13- year-old girl who was strip-searched, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that her male colleagues didn't understand the humiliation a teenage girl would feel from being strip-searched. Justice Ginsburg said the obvious:

They have never been a 13-year-old girl. It's a very

sensitive age for a girl. I didn't think that my colleagues,

some of them, quite understood.

So Justice Ginsburg pointed out in that one case how important it is to have this type of diversity on the court. As the Nation's first Latina Supreme Court Justice, Judge Sotomayor will bring a unique set of experiences to her role; and the Court will be a richer place because of her perspective.

I commend our President for selecting such an outstanding, well- qualified nominee.

I congratulate Judge Sotomayor for the very dignified manner in which she carried herself throughout this long, grueling process.

As President Obama said when he nominated her:

When Sonia Sotomayor ascends those marble steps to assume

her seat on the highest Court of the land, America will have

taken another important step toward realizing the ideal that

is etched above its entrance: Equal justice under the law.

I look forward to seeing her sworn in as our next Supreme Court Justice.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2301, as Modified