Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Gold Hill-Wakamatsu Preservation Act. This legislation would authorize the Bureau of Land Management to acquire and manage the Gold Hill Ranch near Coloma, California. This site was the location of the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Colony from 1869 to 1871, recognized by the State of California and Japanese American Citizens League as the first Japanese settlement in the United States.

After Commodore William Perry opened Japanese ports to U.S. trade, the weakness of Japan's shoguns was exposed, leading to a revolution and return to imperial rule under the Meiji emperor. In 1869, seven Japanese individuals and a European expatriate fled the turmoil in Japan and sailed across the Pacific to San Francisco aboard a side wheeler called the ``China.'' The group made their way eastwards and purchased land in Gold Hill. Within 2 years, the colony grew to 22 Japanese settlers and began producing traditional Japanese crops such as tea, silk, rice, and bamboo. The Japanese colonists and surrounding community

learned about each others' culture and agricultural techniques. Local and San Francisco newspapers wrote about the colony, and the settlers began to receive acceptance in American society.

Unfortunately, the colony was short-lived--drought and financial problems forced the group to disperse and settle throughout California beginning in 1871. The Veerkamp family, which owned neighboring lands, purchased the property in 1875. Despite the short history of the colony, it was an important milestone that helped bridge Japanese and American cultures and paved the way for large-scale emigration of Japanese settlers to the United States. It also contributed to major Japanese influences on the agricultural economy of California.

Many of the original structures on the site remain intact, including a farmhouse, the grave of a young girl named Okei, numerous artifacts, and agricultural plantings. Japanese-Americans and other visitors come to see the site and place offerings on Okei's grave. As a testament to the cultural exchanges that occurred at this site, the Gold Trail Middle School, located on an in-holding carved out of this site, now maintains an exchange program with a sister school in Wakamatsu, Japan. Governor Reagan recognized the property as a State historic site in 1969, and the site is currently being considered for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

The 272-acre ranch encompassing the original colony site has been passed down for generations through the Veerkamp family. Thanks to the hard work of the American River Conservancy and Wakamatsu Gold Hill Colony Foundation as well as the generous accommodation of the Veerkamp family, the site has been preserved for visitors to come and learn about the history of the Wakamatsu colonists and Japanese-American culture. The site provides multiple other benefits, including wildlife habitat, open space with hiking trails and picnic areas, and grazing and pastureland. The family and non-profit partners agree that federal acquisition would help guarantee that the site's cultural history, agricultural character, and open space are permanently preserved for generations to come. The Bureau of Land Management is well-suited to manage this site since it has an excellent relationship with the local community and manages several other sites nearby.

This project is supported by the Japanese American Citizens League, the National Japanese American Historical Society, the Consul General of Japan, the Governor of Fukishima Prefecture and the Mayor of Wakamatsu in Japan, People-to-People International, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, the El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce, numerous elected officials including Assemblyman Ted Gaines, who represents this district, and numerous other members of the local community.

The significance of this site for Japanese Americans has been compared to the significance of the Mayflower journey and Plymouth Rock landing for European Americans. This site is testament to Japanese history, California's agricultural economy, and the American tradition of bringing together people of diverse cultures in the common pursuit of freedom and prosperity. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to move this legislation and preserve the story of the Wakamatsu colonists for future generations.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Gold Hill-Wakamatsu Preservation Act. This legislation would authorize the Bureau of Land Management to acquire and manage the Gold Hill Ranch near Coloma, California. This site was the location of the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Colony from 1869 to 1871, recognized by the State of California and Japanese American Citizens League as the first Japanese settlement in the United States.

After Commodore William Perry opened Japanese ports to U.S. trade, the weakness of Japan's shoguns was exposed, leading to a revolution and return to imperial rule under the Meiji emperor. In 1869, seven Japanese individuals and a European expatriate fled the turmoil in Japan and sailed across the Pacific to San Francisco aboard a side wheeler called the ``China.'' The group made their way eastwards and purchased land in Gold Hill. Within 2 years, the colony grew to 22 Japanese settlers and began producing traditional Japanese crops such as tea, silk, rice, and bamboo. The Japanese colonists and surrounding community

learned about each others' culture and agricultural techniques. Local and San Francisco newspapers wrote about the colony, and the settlers began to receive acceptance in American society.

Unfortunately, the colony was short-lived--drought and financial problems forced the group to disperse and settle throughout California beginning in 1871. The Veerkamp family, which owned neighboring lands, purchased the property in 1875. Despite the short history of the colony, it was an important milestone that helped bridge Japanese and American cultures and paved the way for large-scale emigration of Japanese settlers to the United States. It also contributed to major Japanese influences on the agricultural economy of California.

Many of the original structures on the site remain intact, including a farmhouse, the grave of a young girl named Okei, numerous artifacts, and agricultural plantings. Japanese-Americans and other visitors come to see the site and place offerings on Okei's grave. As a testament to the cultural exchanges that occurred at this site, the Gold Trail Middle School, located on an in-holding carved out of this site, now maintains an exchange program with a sister school in Wakamatsu, Japan. Governor Reagan recognized the property as a State historic site in 1969, and the site is currently being considered for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

The 272-acre ranch encompassing the original colony site has been passed down for generations through the Veerkamp family. Thanks to the hard work of the American River Conservancy and Wakamatsu Gold Hill Colony Foundation as well as the generous accommodation of the Veerkamp family, the site has been preserved for visitors to come and learn about the history of the Wakamatsu colonists and Japanese-American culture. The site provides multiple other benefits, including wildlife habitat, open space with hiking trails and picnic areas, and grazing and pastureland. The family and non-profit partners agree that federal acquisition would help guarantee that the site's cultural history, agricultural character, and open space are permanently preserved for generations to come. The Bureau of Land Management is well-suited to manage this site since it has an excellent relationship with the local community and manages several other sites nearby.

This project is supported by the Japanese American Citizens League, the National Japanese American Historical Society, the Consul General of Japan, the Governor of Fukishima Prefecture and the Mayor of Wakamatsu in Japan, People-to-People International, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, the El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce, numerous elected officials including Assemblyman Ted Gaines, who represents this district, and numerous other members of the local community.

The significance of this site for Japanese Americans has been compared to the significance of the Mayflower journey and Plymouth Rock landing for European Americans. This site is testament to Japanese history, California's agricultural economy, and the American tradition of bringing together people of diverse cultures in the common pursuit of freedom and prosperity. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to move this legislation and preserve the story of the Wakamatsu colonists for future generations.

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

Mr. President, could the Presiding Officer let us know how much time remains on the Vitter amendment and general debate?

Mr. President, thank you very much.

Mr. President, of all the times to stop job creation in its tracks, I will tell you, this is not the time to do it. The Republican response to the bill that has come over from the House--the bill that would restore the funding, make sure there is funding in the highway trust fund to get us through September 30, and also make sure we can handle unemployment insurance and also ensure that our families can get mortgages, those who qualify--the answer from our Republican friends, and they have a right to do it, is to take that funding from the unobligated stimulus package.

Now, here is the thing. We know we are starting to finally get those dollars for our economic recovery out the door. We know that. Yes, they are not flying out the door because the administration wants to make sure these are worthy projects. But I will tell you right now, the Republicans are putting at risk the very program they say they embrace: the highway program. The fact is, we still have $10 billion for highway-related jobs that would be subjected to the Vitter amendment. So, irony of ironies, they say they are extending the highway trust fund, but that amendment puts these funds at risk, puts these jobs at risk.

The stimulus is designed to create those jobs. The funding is getting out the door. I have gone to my State and seen it at work. Yes, we know employment is lagging. So what do you do when employment is lagging? You do not go to a program that is designed to put people to work.

I think it is important to note that the House bill is not only deficit neutral, it actually reduces the deficit. According to CBO, not only does it do it in 2010 but over the next 5- to 10-year period. That is because of the way they are funding the trust fund and the way they are funding the housing priority.

What the Republicans are doing is they are taking a deficit reduction measure that keeps the highway trust fund solvent through the end of September, that makes sure people can continue to get unemployment insurance, that makes sure people can get mortgages--those who qualify--and they are saying that, instead of reducing the deficit, let's slash the stimulus program, take funding away from our States, away from our counties, our cities, and our businesses back home when it is not necessary.

Clearly, it is not even moving funds, it is slashing funds from the stimulus program, which has one purpose, and that purpose is to create jobs.

We have heard from our Republicans friends over and over again, who voted against the stimulus--although I have to say some of them are standing in front of projects built with stimulus dollars, but we will forget that for now--we are hearing from them that the stimulus isn't working fast enough. What do they want to do today but cut the funding?

What I have suggested--and I want to get my friend's reaction to this--to my friends on the other side--because I agree we ought to extend the highway trust fund for 18 months; I don't like the way they are paying for it--is to wait until the end of the stimulus program, and if there is funding at that time that hasn't been obligated, that has been left on the table, take those funds and add them to the highway trust fund.

I will yield to the Senator from Louisiana on his time, but I will keep my time right now. It is very important we thread this needle in the right way. We want those jobs out there, and we want them out there as fast as they can get there.

Out of the $27 billion for highway projects, there is $10 billion remaining. I can assure both my friends that it is very important to be careful in the way you do it. If you do it too quickly, you know what will happen on the floor of the Senate. We will have our friends on the other side saying: `` they rushed.'' We want to be careful, but we don't want to, at this point, as we see this recovery starting to take hold--we all believe and hope it is true--we know employment is the lagging indicator. This is not the time to throw a dagger into the heart of job creation. That is what the Senator's amendment will do.

I believe the Senator's amendment--and he can explain it--deals with the trust fund, and others will have similar amendments for UI and mortgage insurance.

My understanding is it is 100 percent because it is the stimulus. We are trying to do that because our States are suffering-- yours is and mine. We saw our Republican Governor talk about how heavy our hearts are back there, and we decided to help our State. This is very different. It is 100 percent offset.

That is correct; 20, 30 percent.

I say to the assistant majority leader, he is absolutely correct. I understand the need to extend the trust funds to 18 months. On that part, Senator Vitter and I are in agreement. But the way he funds it is hurtful to the American people, to the American workers, to our businesses, and to our contractors. Even though we know a lot of us want to see these funds get out there quicker, they are on the verge-- Vice President Biden has said we have committed more than a fourth of the Recovery Act total funds. We are on track to meet the deadline set when the act was passed in February, spending 70 percent by the end of September of 2010. He points out that the purpose of the stimulus was the jolt for immediate help but then a long-term economic recovery.

This kind of amendment--and the others we will see--which says to the American people: Gee, it is 4 months and we want to forget about this whole notion--doesn't make sense. The timing of this is way off. If at the end of the 2-year period, within which the stimulus is supposed to act, there is money left over, I will be the first one saying: Let's either reduce the deficit with it or let's put it into the highway trust fund. I do believe infrastructure should have gotten more funds from the stimulus, but that is another point.

Before my friend leaves, I think I can put some specifics out to him. We already know there are $10 billion worth of highway projects that have not been obligated. That is at risk right away. We know there are Superfund cleanups that are long overdue. We have funds for that. We have $5.5 billion in construction-related activity that deals with cleaning up underground leaking storage tanks and the specialized, good-paying jobs that those activities create. We have $300 million to restore our Nation's wildlife refuges. We have $100 million in a great program Republicans and Democrats have been lauding in my committee--the Economic Development Administration--where you leverage those funds from business. That would be at risk. We have $5 billion available for flood control. It is ironic that my friend from Louisiana--I have been working with him and Senator Landrieu to do everything in our power to stop flooding. We have problems in our State, and Lord knows and the world knows about the problem in Senator Vitter's State; $5 billion was available for flood control, for water supply and harbor maintenance, all of which are focused on job creation, and the irony of ironies is that those funds could well be cut under the Vitter amendment.

Any funds not obligated out of the $5 billion available. As we know, Vice President Biden says, on average, 25 percent of the funds have been obligated. That means a good portion of the $5 billion for flood control would, in fact, be at risk.

I thank my friend for coming over and helping me explain to our colleagues and the American people why we oppose this amendment, even though it may be well intentioned. At the end of the day, it hurts our people and their chance to get good jobs.

I yield the floor and reserve my time.

Madam President, how much time remains on the Vitter amendment on either side?

And on the general debate?

Madam President, I am going to put a couple of items in the Record and make sure Senator Vitter can offer his budget point of order. I asked if Senator Durbin would be willing to take 10 minutes on our side on the general debate. I don't think I have to ask unanimous consent, but why don't I do that. I ask unanimous consent that after I conclude and after Senator Vitter makes his point of order, then we get to Senator Durbin for his 10 minutes.

Madam President, on the issue of the Congressional Budget Office score that scores the House bill as deficit reduction, I find it intriguing that my friend who supports the CBO when they say we are spending money--for example, on the health bill, they say: Oh, look. CBO says it costs money, but he derides it when CBO says this particular bill is a deficit reducer.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the CBO score that shows, in fact, the bill sent over from the House reduces the deficit.

Madam President, notwithstanding the order of July 29, I ask that it be in order for Senator Vitter to make a budget point of order against H.R. 3357 at this time, and that a motion to waive the applicable point of order be considered made, with the vote on waiving the point of order occurring at a time to be determined.

Madam President, I rise to speak against the Ensign amendment, and I want to explain why, so I will take my time off that discussion and retain the remainder of my time on the other amendments.

Let me say that Senator Ensign has come to the floor and he wants to talk about fiscal responsibility. I welcome that debate. He blames the Democrats for not doing anything to help us get a handle on deficits and debt. But let's go back to recent history--not ancient history, recent history.

Bill Clinton left the White House in the year 2000, and we had a budget surplus. That was very hard to get to, but we Democrats did it with him and with the help of some of our Republicans. We had a debt practically eliminated. It was on the way down. And I remember discussions about what do we do when we have no more Treasuries to buy.

Then we had George Bush elected, and we had the Republicans supporting him. In a nanosecond, the whole table turned. We went from budget surpluses as far as the eye could see to deficits as far as the eye could see. We went from a debt that was going to be extinguished to a debt that began climbing.

As a result of these policies, there was a call for change in this country. We had more Democrats elected. We have a Democratic President, and he inherited one giant mess. The chickens came home to roost.

So our President said to the Nation: I am going to do everything I can to get out of this economic mess. Help me. Help me pass a bill that will put people to work. He said: I know it is going to be hard. I know it is going to take time, but we need to do this because of the recession. And if we don't get out of this recession, we are not going to be able to attack the problem of deficit and debt.

Anyone who knows President Obama knows that when he was a Senator, he was always conscious of our fiscal issues and distressed about the course we had been on for the last 8 years.

So here is what happens. We are 4 months into the economic recovery package. I have been to places in California, I have seen people getting those jobs--highway jobs, water infrastructure jobs, cleaning up Superfund sites, restoring our wildlife refuges. Those are just some examples of the jobs. And we know, according to Vice President Biden, that about 25 percent of those funds have been obligated.

Senator Vitter came down here and said nothing is working; we are not getting those jobs out there. Let's go in and cut that stimulus program--put a dagger in its heart is what they want to do, when it isn't necessary to do so.

The Congressional Budget Office, as I have said--and I have put into the Record--tells us the bill the House sent us does nothing to increase the deficit. As a matter of fact, it is a small benefit to the deficit over 10 years. They figure it is about $40 million--not much, but it doesn't produce more deficits.

So they come to the floor and they are arguing the House bill at the desk causes deficits when the Congressional Budget Office says, after they had done a study, absolutely not. They still insist it does. Fine. They do not agree with the CBO.

By the way, they do agree with the CBO when the CBO says there are costs to health care reform. Then they embrace the CBO. But now they can't because it doesn't fit their political rhetoric.

So all I can say is, if you take all these amendments--and, look, I don't think they are meant to be mean-spirited. I think they are honest in their approach. They do not like the fact that we passed the stimulus bill. They do not believe in it, even though a few of them on the other side--a few of them--have gone to see some of the projects that are putting their own people to work. A few have done that. I find that a little disingenuous, but that is their choice.

Their argument just doesn't hold up. Look, if we take the funding out of the stimulus, we put at risk $10 billion of highway-related jobs. We put at risk millions of dollars that would otherwise be paid to our construction industry. We put at risk very important construction projects at military bases, long overdue Superfund cleanups, the creation of clean energy jobs in the future, improvements to outdated rural water systems. Why would we want to do this--Why, in the middle of a recession, when we have come up with a way to handle this that does not add to our deficit?

On the highway trust fund, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate agree we ought to do an 18-month extension. On that part of the Vitter amendment, you will find me on his side, but not to take the funds out of the unspent stimulus money that is on the ground and putting people to work and will continue to do so. It has only been 4 months since the funding has started to get out the door. Have a little patience. You know, for 8 years we saw the economy turn into a bad way. For 8 years, we saw this economy turning bad. For 8 years, we saw the recession building. For 8 years, we saw the deficit building. For 8 years, we saw the debt building. It is not going to take 4 or 5 months to turn this around. And why would we put a dagger in the heart of job creation at this point, no matter how noble the effort?

I believe it is very important that we don't play games with this bill that is at the desk. For example, Senator Bond is going to offer a very good amendment. It has nothing to do with cutting the stimulus; it just corrects a real problem, and it restores funding to the trust fund. He is absolutely right on that, and I absolutely will support his amendment. But here is the thing. We have until September 30 to make that fix, when we have to reauthorize the program. This is just a financial transfer into the fund. September 30, we need to actually reauthorize the highway bill. We take care of Senator Bond. But the reason I cannot support it is, as he well knows, the House has stated-- and I do not agree with their attitude, I don't agree with it but they have stated--this is it. We are giving you this quick influx of funds, and we do not want to have it come back with amendments.

We can put off the Bond amendment. We have time to deal with it. I praise Senator Bond for continuing to raise this matter before us because we do have to take care of it. Let's just get it straight. When people come down to this floor and rail against deficits and rail against the debt, just remember that little simple piece of history that is documented, that President Clinton left President George W. Bush a surplus as far as the eye could see and a debt going down. Now the other side of the aisle claims our President is not moving fast enough on all these fronts. Let me assure my colleagues our President cares a lot about the financial future of this country. He has two little kids. He knows exactly what their burden is. I do not believe that fiscal responsibility belongs to the other party because it was our party, under Bill Clinton, that got this country in the best financial shape it was in for decades. It only took a few short years to see all that go out the window.

Let's not lecture each other. If they continue to do it, I will just continue to bring up the facts. But, again, I see Senator Bond is here. I am going to repeat what I said before he got here. I complimented the good Senator because I think he is totally right on his amendment. However, I do know if it is attached to this bill what will happen because the House has told us. They will not take up the replenishment. We risk the highway trust fund running out of funds. I personally will work with the Senator from Missouri and my colleague, Senator Inhofe, to make sure the Bond amendment is part of the reauthorization which we will have to do in September. But I thank him because he perseveres. He brings it up all the time, and it is good that he does so. I support exactly what he is trying to do, but the timing, unfortunately, would undermine the replenishment of the trust fund.

I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.

Before Senator Bond leaves the floor, I wanted to thank him for his leadership on this issue. I wanted to assure him and all the people who support this amendment that this amendment will pass. It will not pass today, I do not think, for one main reason. We are fearful of playing these parliamentary games with the House on the highway trust fund.

We have until September 30 to address this issue. My friend is entirely correct, we must deal with this rescission. We have to repeal it and we are going to repeal it. I will work with him to do that.

I simply wished to say that on September 30, when we are faced with our next deadline, the entire bill has to be reauthorized. So it is not only this problem but many other issues have to be addressed. Again, I wish to state this: I am not happy the House sent us this very short extension.

I and I know my colleague wanted to see the highway trust fund extended for 18 months. I think the places we differ have to do with how we pay for the extension. Senator Vitter and all my colleagues who are dealing with unemployment insurance and the rest want to cut funds out of the job-producing stimulus program. I think it is unnecessary.

I also would say to my colleagues who say we are borrowing and we are borrowing to do all this: Simply look at the CBO score which scores this as a positive. The House bill is scored as a positive because of some of the legislative changes in it. Again, I wish to be clear, I will work side by side with Senator Bond. We are going to reauthorize the highway bill. It might be for 18 months. Maybe we can get together and we can come up with a bill for 5 or 6 years. We have to find a funding source to do that. I hope we can. But we will deal with the Bond amendment. We have to deal with it. The Senator is exactly right-- exactly right.

He talks about taking shovels away from workers. The only place I disagree with him is that I think you are taking shovels away from workers by cutting the stimulus. I visited my State. I see people being put to work.

As Vice President Biden said: We have only seen 25 percent of the stimulus money go out the door.

So I also wanted to ask unanimous consent when Senator McCain comes to the floor he wanted some time to speak on the Bond amendment. So I ask Senator McCain be given up to 15 minutes to speak on the Bond amendment.

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

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

Mr. President, we are going to vote on a series of Republican amendments to a bill that has come over from the House of Representatives that funds the highway trust fund until September 30, that funds unemployment insurance, and that helps us with the housing crisis and allows us to see more mortgages go to qualified families of America.

It is important to note that if we don't accept the House package, we are really playing Russian roulette with the highway trust fund. As the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who works very hard with my colleague Senator Inhofe across party lines to ensure we have a robust infrastructure program, I want to be clear: If we don't pass this House bill, then we are up against the wall. We send a very bad signal to the people who are counting the contracts that go out for the highway program and the work that follows. We have many working people who count on these jobs.

I support one of these amendments. The Bond amendment makes eminent sense. I do take issue with the timing because we have been told by our House colleagues that this is all we are going to do; if we amend this bill, then we are stuck. So it is one of those awkward and difficult moments.

Truth be told, the people out there who are working hard are not going to get all the subtleties of the moment. They want to make sure their job is there in the morning.

So even though I support one of these amendments, the Bond amendment--and I have stated and Senator Bond understands that I will be supporting him when we reauthorize this bill September 30; we will take care of this rescission--we don't have to take care of it now. What we must take care of today is the highway trust fund. It is running out of funds. We have to act. I hope we can do it across party lines.

The other thing I support is an 18-month extension of highway programs. That is, again, something I have done with my Republican colleagues. We passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on a unanimous vote, an 18-month extension. Senator Baucus, over on Finance, was able to come up with an intergovernmental transfer that does not add to the deficit of about $27 billion to ensure that we can go forward for 18 months while we sit down across party lines and figure out the long-term answer to funding our highway and transportation needs over the next 5 years.

There is a split between the Senate approach and the House approach. The House approach, which I don't agree with, is to keep making short- term extensions as a way to force us to act in the long term. But we all know we have to figure out a funding source that will take us through the next 5 or 6 years. It is going to take time, and we need to do it right. I believe in making sure we have a pay-go system. I am not willing, as the chairman of the committee, to simply hand off a huge bill to the Finance Committee without any recommendations. So it will take us a little while. We have a difference between the House approach and the Senate approach.

But here is the point and why I believed it was important to be heard before we vote. The House has a very short-term extension. That is what they have given us. They have told us that if we don't take this, we are not going to be able to ensure that the highway trust fund is solvent. I, for one, am not willing to play games with this. It is too serious. Even though I don't agree with the House approach, we have other days left to make the case.

The other point I want to make is that the Republican approach to this is the 18-month extension, which I fully support, and the way they pay for it is by saying: We are going to take money out of the stimulus program, the economic stimulus program that has just begun to take hold in the country. The Republicans didn't vote for it, most of them--three of them did, but the others didn't--and they want to stop it. It is counterproductive, in a time of recession, to stop a jobs program right in the middle. These are jobs for highways, transportation, cleaning up Superfund sites. These are jobs that are dealing with water infrastructure, with education. Of all the times to come up here and recommend that we stop this jobs program now, this is wrong.

I am totally willing to work with my colleagues so at the end of the stimulus bill, at the end of that time, which is in about 18 months, if we have not spent some of those funds, we should take a hard look at putting those funds into the Treasury to reduce the deficit, perhaps. Perhaps we need at that point to use some of it for the highway trust fund. But today is not the day.

If I could summarize where I see things today, we have a series of Republican amendments that basically say we should stop this, we should take funds out of the stimulus package now in order to pay for unemployment insurance, in order to pay for the highway trust fund, and in order to pay to help our people with their mortgages. And it is counterproductive.

On the one hand, they are doing something to help the economy by helping our people with mortgages, by ensuring there is unemployment insurance, and ensuring there is money in the highway trust fund. On the other hand, they are stopping jobs to do it, and it is not necessary. The House bill, although I do not appreciate the fact that it is a very short-term extension of the highway trust fund, is deficit neutral. CBO has so scored it. So we do not have to do this, and we should not do this.

As I understand it, it is time now to have that series of votes. So I make a parliamentary inquiry as to what time we are having those votes.

All right. Then I would yield the floor, and I hope we would be voting at this point.

Mr. President, I urge strong bipartisan support against the Vitter amendment. There is nothing about reckless borrowing going on. I have already put into the Record today the CBO analysis of the House bill that is before us that says it even creates a little bit of surplus because of how this is handled. This is not going on the debt. So let's not stand here and say what it is about.

The second point is, there are tens of billions of dollars in unspent funds that we authorized on a bipartisan vote on the stimulus package. I know most of my colleagues on the other side never wanted to do that stimulus package. I understand that. I respect it. But the fact is, we finally see these funds going out and hiring the people we want to make sure have jobs. We see and we hear from our Governors that the funding is helping them retain teachers, police officers. We see funding is helping them move forward with shovel-ready projects.

OK. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I hope colleagues will listen. What this Sessions amendment does, it takes all the corrections that are in the underlying bill--making sure the highway trust fund does not go bust, making sure the unemployment trust fund is full, making sure we have help for our middle-class families seeking to get mortgages--and it funds it instead of in a deficit-neutral way that is in the underlying bill which I put in the Record, the CBO score which actually scores positive in terms of the surplus over the 10 years, it slashes the stimulus funding right as it is beginning to take hold.

If you want to take care of all these things, and I think we all do, let's do it the right way. Let us not do it the wrong way and slash funds from the stimulus bill as we are beginning to see it take hold.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the Sessions amendment.

Madam President, I yield 30 seconds to Senator Inhofe.

Madam President, I thank my ranking member. He and I, as everyone knows, don't always agree. But when we do agree, we hope our colleagues will follow. We do not want to play Russian roulette with the highway trust fund. We have to make sure it stays solvent. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I wish to take a moment to thank everyone. This was a very complicated series of amendments. It was daunting to figure out what each one of them meant.

The bottom line is that we did replenish the highway trust funds until September 30. Most of us would have liked to have done better than that. We helped with unemployment insurance, and we helped families get mortgages. We also made a commitment to Senator Bond that we are going to take care of his amendment at the appropriate moment.

I particularly thank Senator Durbin for all his help on the floor. Again, this was a confusing series of amendments. I am pleased with the outcome.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to remember U.S. Border Patrol agent Robert Rosas, who was killed in the line of duty at the age of 30.

On July 23, 2009, Agent Rosas was shot and killed after responding to a call in Campo, CA. Every day he placed duty ahead of his personal safety while protecting our Nation's Southwest border. In spite of the known dangers, Agent Rosas and thousands like him answer the call to service.

Agent Robert Rosas was born and raised in El Centro, a border city in Imperial County. He joined the U.S. Border Patrol in May 2006, and was assigned to the Campo Station in the San Diego sector. Agent Rosas was also a reserve officer for the El Centro Police Department, known as an outstanding officer and a positive role model in the community.

Agent Rosas is survived by his wife Rosalie, a son, Robert, age 2, and a daughter, Kayla Alisa, 11 months.

My thoughts and prayers are with Rosalie, Robert, and Kayla Alisa Rosas at this tragic time. They have lost a husband and father. I also send my deepest condolences to Agent Rosas' colleagues in the Border Patrol service. Theirs is a difficult and too often dangerous job. I commend their service, protecting our Nation, and our people.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to spend about a minute to explain why I will object.

Mr. President, I know Senator Vitter serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee with me. We have worked closely on many issues. I know he is aware that our committee has already voted out an 18-month extension of our highway program, our transportation programs, and he also knows other committees have acted on that same extension--the Banking Committee as well as the Finance Committee.

The Finance Committee has already made sure they can find about $27 billion and they have acted on that. So the first thing I wish to say is nobody should worry about this. This Senate is acting and we have acted responsibly to extend the fund for 18 months while we write a transformational bill.

I think the Senator knows there is a lot of what he says that has merit.

I certainly say that at the end of the 18-month period, after which the stimulus program was supposed to act, if there are funds left over, I think it makes eminent sense to put them into the trust fund. But to take them out at this time, while we are in this deep recession--and my friend says what better way than to put it in the highway trust fund. We have billions going to highways that have yet to be spent. There could be money taken out of that.

I am going to object to this. The Senate is doing its work. We voted for the 18-month extension. The Finance Committee has come up with $27 billion of the trust fund assigned. We always have the opportunity to look back when the stimulus program is set to complete and see if there are leftover dollars. Why would we want to take money out of this economy right now, when we still have the job loss rate going up, when we found the money--Senator Baucus did--as an intergovernmental transfer of funds.

Therefore, I object to this.

Sure.

Mr. President, I respond to the Senator this way: I agree we should take up the highway bill now with the fix as proposed by Senator Baucus. I think it is totally responsible. We have hotlined this reauthorization. If we can get some cooperation on both sides of the aisle not to load that measure with extraneous amendments and we can reach a time agreement, Senator Reid has told me to come to him. So we have, in fact, sent out a hotline on both sides.

I would be happy to work with Senator Vitter to see if we can clear the way for a time agreement because, as he knows, these appropriations bills are very important. The first people to object that we are not doing our appropriations bills are some of my friends on the other side. So if we are going to take time out and do the highway bill reauthorization--and I hope it would be 18 months--believe me, I want to do it as much as anybody here, if not more, given that I am chairman of the committee responsible for ensuring that the fund is viable. I hope the Senator can help me.

I ask him, through the Chair, if he would be willing to work with me to get a clean bill forward and a time agreement that we can get moving on this. I agree it is a great idea to do it.

Reserving the right to object, first, I asked if we could get something done without amendment, and now my friend says we have to have the Vitter amendment. What about the Boxer amendment, the Landrieu amendment, and the rest of the amendments?

Maybe my friend misunderstood me. I said I want to go to a clean 18- month extension, the way it passed out of all the committees, get this done, and have a time agreement on both sides. What my friend is proposing is that we allow amendments, and we don't have the agreement.

I will object to this in the hopes that we can work it out between us and the leaders--a time agreement, hopefully, with no amendments; and that if we have to have one or two, we have agreements on those, with side by sides. Then I think Senator Reid would be very open to it.

Obviously, if we are going to bring this up and have 30 Senators filibustering here, that will not help the highway trust fund. I think what we need to do is work together to get a bipartisan agreement, where we can get a time agreement, a couple narrow amendments, if we have to, and then have a vote.

So I will object. I will not object if we can come back with a time agreement, but I object at this time.

Mr. President, to tie this up, let me make it clear that I have been working with the majority leader. He is very anxious to get this done. If we can get cooperation on both sides of the aisle on a time agreement, we can move this very quickly.

I think Senator Vitter makes the point that is urgent and important. I agree. That is why we hotlined this, and any Senators listening, please don't object to letting us go to this 18-month extension. We have it figured out and paid for. Let's move forward on it.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss amendment No. 1859.

This amendment, cosponsored by Senator Feinstein, would allow for critical water transfers to agricultural users in California's San Joaquin Valley.

Three years of below-average precipitation have restricted water supplies for much of California. Drought conditions have particularly affected agricultural communities in the San Joaquin Valley.

In Fresno County alone, the drought has impacted more than 450,000 acres of cropland, contributed to the loss of 3,265 jobs, and may jeopardize an additional 2,200 more jobs in the near future.

Some cities on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley are facing nearly 40 percent unemployment, and people wait in line for hours at food banks to secure basic staples to feed their families.

Working with many Members of California's House delegation, Senator Feinstein and I have worked to identify solutions to the drought.

Senator Dorgan's subcommittee included funds in the underlying bill to expedite the timely evaluation of projects to improve operational flexibility of water management, such as the intertie between the Delta-Mendota Canal and the California Aqueduct, and ``Two Gates,'' the construction of two temporary gates in Old River and Connection Slough in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

And Senator Feinstein and I worked with the California delegation in the House to include language in their Energy and Water bill that would permanently allow voluntary water transfers among Central Valley Project contractors, providing operational flexibility to help get water to agricultural communities when they need it most.

The House provision would allow these transfers permanently--this is the outcome we want, and it is the outcome we will fight for in conference.

However, at this time we understand that allowing permanent water transfers is not an approach acceptable to the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee without first holding hearings on the subject.

I thank Senator Bingaman for working with us on an amendment that would allow Central Valley Project water transfers to occur for a 2- year period. This amendment ensures that the Senate is not silent, and instead is taking one step forward on this critical issue.

It is critical that we continue to work on solutions for farmers in California who have lost up to 90 percent of their expected water allocations this year.

These measures alone will not solve California's water crisis, but they are a good first step toward helping these communities as we develop long-term solutions to improve water management in California.

Thank you so much. Mr. President, I wanted to take a minute, on behalf of myself and Senator Feinstein, to thank the two managers. We had such an important amendment dealing with water transfers at a time of such severe drought, and both these managers have worked so hard with us to make sure we could get this done tonight.

Senator Feinstein and I are very grateful. We had support in the community for this, across party lines, and it wound up that we had support across party lines here. So I wish to say to both managers, from the bottom of my heart, you are making a difference tonight. In some of these towns, we have a 40-percent unemployment rate because of the drought. So you are making a difference. We hope to get this into conference and to make this final.

So, again, my deepest thanks.

Mr. President, the fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill would provide $629,000 for Yazoo Basin--Yazoo Backwater, MS. I want to clarify that nothing in the language is intended to: (1) override or otherwise affect the final determination that was effective August 31, 2008, and published in the Federal Register on September 19, 2008, of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act that prohibits the use of wetlands and other waters of the United States in Issaquena County, MS, as a disposal site for the discharge of dredged or fill material for the construction of the proposed Yazoo Backwater Area Pumps Project, (2) create or imply any exception with respect to the project to the requirements of the Clean Water Act, including any exceptions from the prohibitions and regulatory requirements of the Clean Water Act under section 404(r); or (3) affect the application of any other environmental laws with respect to the project.

As chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act and authorizations for the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers, I believe it is critical that our environmental laws be adhered to in the planning, construction, and operation and maintenance of all Corps of Engineers projects.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1862 to Amendment No. 1813

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to CDR Duane G. Wolfe, a sailor from my home State of California who paid the ultimate price in service to our country in Iraq.

Commander Wolfe, of Los Osos, CA, died on May 25, 2009, from injuries suffered when his convoy was hit by a roadside bomb southeast of Fallujah, Iraq.

He is the oldest Californian to have lost his life in either Iraq or Afghanistan to date, electing to continue to serve as a member of the U.S. military despite having the option to retire.

Commander Wolfe enlisted in the Navy in 1972 shortly after graduating high school and served on Active Duty for 5 years. In 1978, he joined the Navy Reserves, where he served until his death. He also worked for 24 years as a civilian employee at Vandenberg Air Force Base, rising to the position of civilian deputy commander for installation support for the 30th Mission Support Group.

As a member of the Navy Reserves, Commander Wolfe deployed to Iraq in December 2008 for a 6-month assignment. He served as the officer in charge of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Al Anbar Area Office, leading a team that oversaw nearly $300 million in construction projects including many that provide essential services to the Iraqi people. He was due to return home on July 10, 2009.

In addition to his military service, Commander Wolfe was a longtime deacon for the Los Osos Church of Christ where he taught Bible classes and occasionally filled in as a substitute preacher. He was a skilled lifelong athlete who loved golfing and playing basketball, and a talented mechanic, with a particular aptitude for both construction and car repair.

At the age of 19, Commander Wolfe met his wife Cindi, to whom he was married for 34 happy years. He and his wife have three children, Carrie, Katie and Evan, who remember their father for his kindness, warmth, and dedication to his family and country.

Commander Wolfe will be posthumously awarded the Bronze Star with ``V'' Device for Valor, the Purple Heart, the Navy Combat Action Ribbon, the National Defense Service Medal with Service Star, the Iraqi Campaign Medal, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal with ``M'' Device for Mobilization, and the Overseas Service Ribbon, commemorating his courage and extraordinary sacrifice in service to our country.

Nothing can fully account for the loss suffered by Commander Wolfe's family and all those who loved him.

But I hope they can take comfort in the knowledge that he will be forever honored and remembered by a grateful nation.

As we remember Commander Wolfe and honor his service to the United States, we are also reminded of the eight other Californians who have been killed in Iraq since April 21. This brings to 879 the number of servicemembers either from California or based in California that have been killed while serving our country in Iraq. This represents 20 percent of all U.S. deaths in Iraq.

SSgt Mark A. Wojciechowski, 25, of Cincinnati, OH, died April 30 while supporting combat operations in Al Anbar province Iraq. Staff Sergeant Wojciechowski was assigned to 7th Engineer Support Battalion, 1st Marine Logistics Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Sgt James R. McIlvaine, 26, of Olney, MD, died April 30 while supporting combat operations in Al Anbar province Iraq. Sergeant McIlvaine was assigned to 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.

SPC Jake R. Velloza, 22, of Inverness, CA, died from wounds sustained after he was shot by enemy forces in Mosul, Iraq on May 2. Specialist Velloza was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX.

SPC Jeremiah P. McCleery, 24, of Portola, CA, died from wounds sustained after he was shot by enemy forces in Mosul, Iraq on May 2. Specialist McCleery was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX.

PVT Justin P. Hartford, 21, of Elmira, NY, died May 8 at Joint Base Balad, Iraq, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident. Private Hartford was assigned to the 699th Maintenance Company, Corps Support Battalion, 916th Support Brigade, Fort Irwin, CA.

MAJ Jason E. George, 38, of Tehachapi, CA, died May 21 near Baghdad, Iraq of wounds sustained when his unit was attacked by enemy forces using improvised explosive devices while on dismounted patrol. Major George was an Army Reservist assigned to the 252nd Combined Arms Battalion, Fayetteville, NC.

CPT Kafele H. Sims, 32, of Los Angeles, CA, died June 16 in Mosul, Iraq, of a non-combat related incident. Captain Sims was assigned to the 18th Engineer Brigade, Schwetzingen, Germany.

LCpl Brandon T. Lara, 20, of New Braunfels, TX, died July 19 while supporting combat operations in Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Lara was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

I would also like to pay tribute to the nine soldiers from CA who have died while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom since April 21.

SSG Esau I. De la Pena-Hernandez, 25, of La Puente, CA, died May 15 at Forward Operating Base Shank, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when his patrol was attacked by enemy forces using small-arms fire in Chak, Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant De la Pena-Hernandez was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Light Infantry, Fort Drum, NY.

1SG Blue C. Rowe, 33, of Summers, AR, died May 26 in Panjshir Province, Afghanistan, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. First Sergeant Rowe was assigned to the 426th Civil Affairs Battalion, Upland, CA.

LCpl Joshua R. Whittle, 20, of Downey, CA, died June 6 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Whittle was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Kaneohe Bay, HI.

MAJ Rocco M. Barnes, 50, of Los Angeles, CA, died June 4 in Afghanistan of injuries sustained during a vehicle rollover. Major Barnes was a member of the Tactical Command Post, 40th Infantry Division, California Army National Guard, assigned as an individual augmentee to the 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force.

SPC Eduardo S. Silva, 25, of Greenfield, CA, died June 9 at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, of a non-combat related incident. Specialist Silva was assigned to the 563rd Aviation Support Battalion, 159th Combat Aviation Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, Air Assault, Fort Campbell, KY.

PFC Justin A. Casillas, 19, of Dunnigan, CA, died July 4 at Combat Outpost Zerok, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his outpost using small arms and indirect fire. Private First Class Casillas was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, Airborne, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Richardson, AK.

PFC Nicolas H. J. Gideon, 20, of Murrieta, CA, died July 6 at Forward Operating Base Salerno, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered earlier that day in Paktya, Afghanistan, when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. Private First Class Gideon was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 40th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team Airborne, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Richardson,

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 20th anniversary of the San Francisco Baykeeper.

Created in 1989 as the first ``waterkeeper'' organization on the west coast, Baykeeper has experienced many successes over the past 20 years in its efforts to reverse the environmental degradation of the past, and promote new strategies and policies to protect the water quality of the San Francisco Bay. The ``waterkeeper'' concept dates back to a 19th century English tradition, and today, the International Waterkeeper Alliance is 157 programs strong, with each organization working to enforce provisions of the 1972 Clean Water Act and other Federal and State laws.

Baykeeper fills a unique niche in the bay area by acting as the watchdog for the San Francisco Bay. Baykeeper has become the bay area's most effective advocate, working tirelessly to address the most pressing problems facing the bay.

In its 20 year history, Baykeeper has fought tirelessly to hold polluters accountable for illegal toxics, protect native fish and wildlife, keep pesticides out of the bay, and fight for an end to sewage spills in the bay. Today, as it gets ready to enter its third decade of defending the bay from pollution, Baykeeper is seeing progress toward its vision of a healthy, thriving bay.

For 20 years, Baykeeper has worked passionately and effectively to ensure a thriving San Francisco Bay for generations to come. I commend Baykeeper staff and volunteers for their continuing efforts to restore the bay to a teeming estuary that attracts millions of birds, fish, and marine mammals--as well as enchanted visitors, devoted residents, and passionate recreationists. I look forward to future generations having the opportunity to enjoy this special part of California for many years to come.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be yielded 7 minutes rather than 5. I have cleared that with Senator Durbin.

I ask unanimous consent for 6 minutes.

Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma on one thing. I hope the American people are watching this debate. I truly do. We are talking about a radical proposal that is opposed by Democrats and Republicans in my home State. I have never seen the phones ringing off the hook to this degree.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement by the California Police Chiefs Association.

The police chiefs, letter is so tough and so strong. It reads in part:

The California Police Chiefs Association is strongly

opposed to the Thune amendment. The legislation would require

California to honor concealed carry permits granted by other

States, even when those permit holders could not meet the

standards required by California law. The Thune amendment

would empower gun traffickers and threaten the safety of our

police officers.

If there is one thing we should do for our police officers, it is not make their lives any tougher than they are. We recently lost four police officers in Oakland. The whole community suffered along with those families. My police chiefs talk about this:

A trafficker holding an out-of-State permit would be able

to walk the streets of any city in America with a backpack

full of loaded guns, enjoying impunity from police unless he

was caught in the act of selling a firearm.

This is one of the strongest letters I have ever seen from my police chiefs. This debate is not about the right to own a gun. That has been settled by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. It is about allowing States to determine their own laws. And I totally get why some more rural States with fewer people would have different laws on conceal and carry than a State of 38 million people, my home State of California. Leave us alone. Leave us alone. You want to have conceal and carry with very few requirements, fine. We have conceal and carry with many requirements, and it is working.

Some States do not have any limit on the number of weapons you could carry with one conceal and carry permit. So someone could come into my State, go into one of my schoolyards, and open up a duffle bag full of perfectly legal weapons.

We have approximately 3,300 gun deaths each year in my State. Let me repeat that: 3,300 gun deaths each year in California. Each one of them has a story of tragedy behind it. A lot of them are kids. So do not come down here and tell my State what we should be doing. I support your State. You should support my State. And that is exactly what Governor Schwarzenegger says. He says we have a right to write our own gun laws.

Mr. President, 34 California mayors and 400 mayors nationwide oppose the Thune amendment, as does the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

We have a lot of work to do. We have to work on health care. We have to work on energy independence. We have to work on getting down the deficit. We have to work on bringing down the debt. We have to work on educating our kids. But, oh, no, we are spending hours on an amendment that is offered that tells our States their laws are not to be respected when it comes to conceal and carry.

Do you know there are some States that allow a spousal abuser to carry a concealed carry weapon? Do you want that spousal abuser, maybe in a state of rage, to walk into another State with a duffle bag full of weapons? And my senior Senator--she read this, and she is a pretty good expert on this issue--says you could have an assault weapon in there. Is that what we want?

It is ironic, as we deal with health care issues--do you know what it costs to try to sew up somebody and heal somebody who has been a victim of a gunshot wound? We are training our doctors who go over to Iraq and Afghanistan in our cities.

So all my colleagues on the other side who come here and talk about Big Brother--Big Brother--going into their States and telling their States what to do, this is a case of Big Brother, clear and simple.

If I need to protect my people in California, I want to leave it to my people in California. I do not want to come in and tell them they have to live with other State laws that are weaker. It is just wrong. It flies in the face of States rights. It flies in the face of common sense. And again, the supreme irony is, it is coming from folks who say they love our States, they respect our States, the Federal Government has too much power. But all of a sudden--

Mr. President, I hope we will vote against this amendment because this is not what we need in America--more gun deaths and more police being put in the line of fire.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Republicans have a chance to speak, the next Democrat be Senator Kaufman.

Mr. President, we just heard the Senator from South Carolina urging Members to vote against the health care bill. He talks about the truth about the health care bill. We don't have a health care bill before the Senate because we have two committees that are working on it. One already reported out a bill, the HELP Committee, which stresses prevention, because we all know that if you look at the major costs to our families, they all encompass--70 percent of them--five major diseases. I think we know what they are. They are heart issues, pulmonary issues, cancer issues, stroke issues. We know what they are. Putting prevention first, which is not something we have ever done, is going to save money, is going to make our people healthier, is going to work. There are many other aspects of the health bill that are very good for our people.

I have to say, when the Senator from South Carolina comes to the floor and starts attacking Democrats, I think people have to understand that very Senator was quoted in the press as saying that essentially we can break Barack Obama if we destroy his push for health care. He said it will be his Waterloo.

I support my colleagues' right to say what they want. They will be judged by what they say. They will be judged by what is in their heart. They will be judged on how they act. But we are here to take care of the American people, not to bring down a President or raise up a President. Our job is to represent the people who sent us here. It is not to break a President. It is not to play politics with one of the most important issues facing our country. And good for this President for having the courage to step forward and point out that the current status quo on health care is disastrous, and, yes, we are going to address it and we are going to make sure that the people in this country, if they like their health care, can keep what they have, keep their insurance. If they don't, they have a chance to buy into other options. That will be their choice. We will stress prevention now. We will have healthier families.

I want to point out that there has been a recent study that says if we do nothing, if we bring down this opportunity we have to do something to better the health care system in this country, if we turn away from that and do nothing, in California, by 2016, Californians will have to spend 41.2 percent of their income on health insurance. I want you to think about that. And that is not the worst. In Pennsylvania, Senator Casey told me, it would be over 50 percent of people's incomes. How are we going to sustain that? Who can sustain spending 40 percent of their income on premiums? Fifty percent? It isn't going to happen. People will have to walk away. People will get sicker.

We cannot afford the status quo. That is why I have this chart here that says: No equals the status quo. It is no, no, no. No, let's not do this. No, let's not help our President. No, let's not address this issue. Scare tactics, throwing around words, ``government-run health care.''

I say to my friend from South Carolina--unfortunately, he is not here--government-run health care, does he want to bring down the veterans health care system? Just try that one with your veterans. That is a government-run health care system. Veterans get free health care. Does he want to bring down the health care that our military gets every single day run by this government? Of course not. They are getting the best care in the world on the battlefield, and it is done because taxpayers pay the freight. That is a government-run health care.

Does my friend want to bring down Medicaid that helps the poor people get some insurance? I hope not because it would be tens of thousands of people in his State, including many children. How about SCHIP? That is a government-run health care system that helps our poor kids. Does he want to bring it down? Why doesn't he try to do that? See where the votes are. And last but not least, Medicare. Medicare is a single-payer system, government run, very low overhead costs. Our seniors love Medicare. Does my friend want to bring down that government health care system?

This is ridiculous. There is no plan that is moving forward that is a government takeover. Yes, we keep veterans health care going and military health care going. Yes, we keep SCHIP for the kids going. Yes, Medicaid. Yes, veterans. But we don't expand that except to say as we go out to the American people to tell them we are going to save them from enormous premium increases, that there will be an option, a choice they can make to buy into a public plan or a public interest plan. Some say it could be a co-op. We don't know the details. But to have my friend from South Carolina come to this floor and tell us: Vote no on this health care when we don't even have a plan before us means he is for the great big red stop sign because no equals the status quo. And no action is in itself a hostile act.

Employer-sponsored health care premiums have more than doubled in the last 9 years. Two-thirds of all personal bankruptcies are linked to medical expenses. Let me say that again. Two-thirds of all personal bankruptcies are linked to medical expenses. And how about this: The United States spends more than twice as much on health care per person than most industrial nations, and it ranks last in preventable mortality. It ranks last in preventable mortality, and we spend twice as much as any other nation. Status quo is no, no change.

Is that what we want to see continued--continued increases in premiums for businesses, for individuals, getting to a point where it is 40, 50 percent of a family's income? That is not sustainable. Where do they get the money for food, for clothing, for shelter?

The other problem we have is 46 million Americans have no health insurance, including one in five working adults. What does that mean? It means that the people without health insurance are waiting for a crisis to occur. They don't take any preventive steps. They don't see a doctor until late in the process in an emergency room. It means that we are picking up the bills because when people go to an emergency room and they cannot pay, who is picking up the tab? Those of us who have insurance. That is how it goes.

I am hoping that the American people weigh in on this debate, as they have begun to do. I was told ever since I was a young person that you need to try hard when there is a problem. Try hard. Be constructive. Don't call other people names. You may disagree with them, respect them. Don't try to bring them down, don't try to break them. Make your arguments; put forward an

alternative. I have looked at the course of history, and history says to people who do nothing that they haven't contributed very much. In this case, because the status quo is unsustainable, they are hurting our people. They are hurting our people. More than half of all Americans live with one or more chronic conditions. The cost of caring for an individual with a chronic disease accounts for 75 percent of the amount we spend on health care. I have those five chronic diseases in front of me. They are: Heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes. Those five are responsible for more than two-thirds of the deaths in the USA. That is information that is important because, when you look at this, many of these can be prevented and treated in a way so that they do not wind up costing so much and hurting our families.

We have an extraordinary opportunity before us, and I think you are going to see the parties showing who they represent. Do they represent the forces of the status quo that are going to scare people or do they represent the forces of change--positive change? I think history will show that those who stepped to the plate here and were constructive are going to be the ones about whom people say: She tried. He tried. He fixed a lot of problems. Not all of them. but they started moving in the right direction.

Our families deserve change here. Our families cannot sit back and absorb the kind of increases in health care premiums they have seen in the past. We know how to fix it. If we work together, we will be able to fix it.

I wish to take a minute to thank the Republicans who are working so constructively with our Democrats. You don't hear them speaking much on the floor, as you did the Senator from South Carolina, who, as I say, was quoted as saying he wants to make health care President Obama's Waterloo. He wants to break him on this. The Republicans whom you don't see on the floor talking like that are the ones who are sitting with the Democrats, working day after day, night after night, to solve this problem.

I hope people will remember, when you hear these scare tactics-- government-run health care--that we don't even have a bill yet, and they are saying it is about government-run health care, not one bill that I have seen is government-run health care, not one. But I challenge my friends. If they do not like Medicare--it is government run--why not try to repeal it and see how many senior citizens come to your office. If my Republican friends don't like government-run health care, take away the health care from the veterans because it is government run. Take away health care from the military. Privatize that. Take away Medicaid. Take away SCHIP from our kids.

They are not going to do that because they know these programs work. Are they perfect? Of course, they are not perfect. Do we have to continue to make them better? Yes, we do. But we need to come together. We need to find that sweet spot that we look for in legislation. I wish to, again, thank those Republicans who are meeting with the Democrats. Be courageous. Stick with it. Don't play politics. Don't try to bring down this young President. Try to work with him. Don't threaten that this is going to be a Waterloo. Don't talk about government-run systems when that is not in the bill. Don't frighten people. Because at the end of the day, this is our moment if we work together.

I certainly reach out my hand and compliment those who are willing to work across party lines because we cannot sustain the health care system as it is. We can make it better, we can make it affordable, we can keep choice in there, we can turn to prevention, and that is what I hope we will do. We will work hard, but I think we can do it with the help of some courageous folks on the other side of the aisle.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am going to continue to support production of the F-22 Raptor because we are still hearing strong indications from top military leaders that we need additional aircraft. Last month, General Corley, the Commander of the Air Force Air Combat Command, wrote that ending procurement of the F-22 would put our ability to execute our nation's military strategy at ``high risk'' over the ``near to mid-term.''

In addition, LTG Harry M. Wyatt III, the Director of the Air National Guard, has stated that these aircraft are particularly important for homeland defense missions, including addressing potential threats from cruise missiles.

GEN Merrill McPeak, retired, the former Chief of Staff of the Air Force, also recently added that ending F-22 procurement ``is a real mistake,'' and that ``we certainly need some figure well above 200.''

I am also not prepared to vote to end production because I have yet to see a conclusive study indicating that 187 F-22s are enough. In fact, as late as May 19 of this year, GEN Norman A. Schwartz, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, told the House Armed Services Committee that ``243 F-22s is the right number. . . .''

The United States has made a significant investment in the F-22 program. Before terminating it, we must see in unequivocal terms how the defense planning process has determined that requirements and threats have changed to stop production at 187.

The next Quadrennial Defense Review--QDR--which outlines our national security strategy--is scheduled for submission by the Department of Defense in early 2010. This important document shapes how our military will respond to threats to our national security. The timing of today's vote ignores this review.

I will feel more confident making a decision on this important program after reading the QDR, as it will shape our national security strategy for years to come. As GEN James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during his confirmation hearing for his second 2-year term, ``The military requirement right now [for the F-22A] is associated with the strategy that we are laying out in the Quadrennial Defense Review.''

While I realize that there are compelling arguments on both sides of this issue, I do not believe we have enough information at this time to shut down the F-22 line and terminate the program at 187 aircraft.

Mr. President, the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial Enhancement Act of 2009 would help increase visitor access to the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial on the former Concord Naval Weapons Station and ensure the long-term preservation of this important World War II site. The legislation is strongly supported by the National Park Service, a coalition of more than 37 civil rights organizations in California, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Friends of Port Chicago.

The Port Chicago Memorial marks the location of an explosion 65 years ago this week that killed and wounded numerous African American sailors and eventually paved the way for racial desegregation of the Armed Forces.

On the night of July 17, 1944, as sailors were loading ammunition at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine, a terrible explosion occurred. More than 5,000 tons of ammunition ignited, sending a blast more than 12,000 feet into the sky. The explosion killed 320 sailors, wounded hundreds more, and destroyed the surrounding town of Port Chicago. Less than a month after the explosion, survivors were ordered to resume work at a new site. Most survivors refused, citing the need for improved supervision, training, and working conditions to prevent another disaster. In response, the Navy charged 50 men with conspiring to mutiny, and all were convicted. The majority of men killed in the explosion and all those convicted of mutiny were African-American.

Following the conviction, future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, who at the time was a lawyer with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, took up the case. Roughly a year later, the Navy began moving towards racial desegregation, and in 1948, President Truman issued an Executive Order desegregating all of the Armed Forces and guaranteeing ``equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.''

In 1992, Congress authorized the creation of a National Memorial at Port Chicago. However, under its current authorities, the National Park Service still has limited ability to provide visitor access to the Memorial or to assist with the site's preservation. My bill authorizes the Interior Department to work with the City of Concord and the East Bay Regional Park District to operate a visitor's center for the Memorial, allowing veterans, students, and other visitors to learn more about the events that transpired at Port Chicago. The bill also designates the Memorial as a unit of the National Park System, allowing the Park Service to become more actively involved in its preservation.

The bill specifically states that as much public access as possible will be provided ``without interfering with military needs,'' meaning that the timing and extent of public visitation will be adapted to accommodate military activities when they occur near the Memorial.

Eventually, when the Secretary of Defense determines that the land is excess to military needs, the bill authorizes the Secretaries of Defense and Interior to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding leading to the transfer of the Memorial to the National Park Service.

The Port Chicago National Memorial ensures that the stories of those who served and died at Port Chicago will not be forgotten. By enabling visitors to come to this site, future generations can continue to honor and learn from these brave sailors who selflessly served our Nation and who fought to overcome the barriers of racial segregation.

Mr. President, the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial Enhancement Act of 2009 would help increase visitor access to the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial on the former Concord Naval Weapons Station and ensure the long-term preservation of this important World War II site. The legislation is strongly supported by the National Park Service, a coalition of more than 37 civil rights organizations in California, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Friends of Port Chicago.

The Port Chicago Memorial marks the location of an explosion 65 years ago this week that killed and wounded numerous African American sailors and eventually paved the way for racial desegregation of the Armed Forces.

On the night of July 17, 1944, as sailors were loading ammunition at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine, a terrible explosion occurred. More than 5,000 tons of ammunition ignited, sending a blast more than 12,000 feet into the sky. The explosion killed 320 sailors, wounded hundreds more, and destroyed the surrounding town of Port Chicago. Less than a month after the explosion, survivors were ordered to resume work at a new site. Most survivors refused, citing the need for improved supervision, training, and working conditions to prevent another disaster. In response, the Navy charged 50 men with conspiring to mutiny, and all were convicted. The majority of men killed in the explosion and all those convicted of mutiny were African-American.

Following the conviction, future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, who at the time was a lawyer with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, took up the case. Roughly a year later, the Navy began moving towards racial desegregation, and in 1948, President Truman issued an Executive Order desegregating all of the Armed Forces and guaranteeing ``equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.''

In 1992, Congress authorized the creation of a National Memorial at Port Chicago. However, under its current authorities, the National Park Service still has limited ability to provide visitor access to the Memorial or to assist with the site's preservation. My bill authorizes the Interior Department to work with the City of Concord and the East Bay Regional Park District to operate a visitor's center for the Memorial, allowing veterans, students, and other visitors to learn more about the events that transpired at Port Chicago. The bill also designates the Memorial as a unit of the National Park System, allowing the Park Service to become more actively involved in its preservation.

The bill specifically states that as much public access as possible will be provided ``without interfering with military needs,'' meaning that the timing and extent of public visitation will be adapted to accommodate military activities when they occur near the Memorial.

Eventually, when the Secretary of Defense determines that the land is excess to military needs, the bill authorizes the Secretaries of Defense and Interior to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding leading to the transfer of the Memorial to the National Park Service.

The Port Chicago National Memorial ensures that the stories of those who served and died at Port Chicago will not be forgotten. By enabling visitors to come to this site, future generations can continue to honor and learn from these brave sailors who selflessly served our Nation and who fought to overcome the barriers of racial segregation.