Floor Statements

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I just have a question, while my friend has the floor. I have been waiting to speak on the hate crimes bill. I am wondering if it would be possible, because I am not sure if Senator McCain has a lengthy statement, for him to work with us so we could get a time certain when I may make that statement.

Will the Senator yield for another question?

I am trying to get a sense for timing's sake. We all have obligations in our various committees and with constituents. I am wondering if I should speak first. My statement is only about 6 minutes. Then I could yield to Senator McCain. I think this hate crimes legislation is landmark legislation.

Mr. President, I thank Senator McCain and Senator Durbin for moving through their debate swiftly so I would have this opportunity to speak in support of a landmark piece of legislation that has been offered as an amendment, the hate crimes prevention amendment named after Matthew Shepard.

This bill is a long time coming. I know we could make a process argument. We do it well around here. But it seems to me, we can move this Defense bill through quickly. We are doing that. We will do that. It has strong support. But we can also take care of this long- neglected, important piece of legislation whose passage will protect and defend our citizens from hate crimes.

So it is funny, because technically speaking, of course, the Defense bill is

about our military, and we all support doing what we have to do to keep it strong and to be prepared. That is why I will support that. But there is no reason why we cannot take a little time to look at the fact that it is time for the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act to really be passed. It will not slow us up really. We have just seen that Senator Durbin has asked for a unanimous consent agreement to do this quickly. It is not going to delay. My Republican friends do not seem to mind it when they offer nonrelevant amendments to bills. They have done it 16 times this year. Oh, they do not have a problem. But if it is something they do not like, suddenly they make this process argument. Rather than debate process, why don't we just get on with it? We can do a couple of important things this week--one of them, the Defense bill, and the other, protecting our citizens from hate crimes.

The importance of the amendment that was offered by Senator Leahy through our leader is that it would strengthen the ability of Federal, State, and local authorities to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.

It has been more than 10 long years since the senseless death of Matthew Shepard--a tragedy that showed us we have a long way--a long way--to go before we can truly say in this country there is equal justice for all.

Let's look back at what happened to Matthew Shepard 10 long years ago. Two men offered Matthew Shepard, a gay man, a ride in their car. Subsequently, Shepard was robbed. He was pistol whipped. He was tortured. He was tied to a fence in a remote rural area. And he was left to die. Mr. President, this was not a robbery. This was not a spur of the moment situation. We know from the pair's then-girlfriends, who testified under oath, that the two men plotted beforehand to rob a gay man in particular. That crime occurred because Matthew Shepard was a gay man. Well, they robbed him. They tortured him. And they killed him.

This crime should be a Federal crime. And yes, we have tried to pass that hate crimes legislation for years and years. There is always an excuse: We do not have the time. It is not relevant to the bill. Well, Matthew Shepard's family--what happened to them will never go away. The loss they carry in their hearts will never disappear. But the one thing we can do to ease their burden is to pass this legislation.

Look, we have offered this on Defense bills before. This is not the first time. We dealt with it and we voted and we moved on. So the only thing you can say as to why there is all this objection is because people do not want to vote on this bill, and they are making it more and more difficult for us to be able to get to it. I hope we will, in fact, stick to it and get this done. Again, it is not going to weigh down the Defense authorization. In my mind, again, it is something we need to do and we can do with no harm to the underlying bill.

We should be proud to support this legislation, not afraid to vote on it, not trying to postpone a vote on it. Hate crimes are particularly offensive because they are propelled by bias and bigotry. They not only inflict harm on the victims, but they instill fear in entire communities.

That is why I have--and I ask to put into the Record--a strong letter of support from my sheriff from Los Angeles, Lee Baca. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

I want to note that Lee Baca happens to be a Republican. I want to note that this law enforcement individual is very strong on this. He says this hate crimes bill deals with a civil rights issue, and he quotes President Obama, ``to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance.'' Lee Baca adds in his own words:

Hate crimes are a scourge on our society and they have no

place in humanity.

What we are dealing with is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. There are gay people who are Republicans. There are gay people who are Democrats. There are gay people in the closet. There are gay people out of the closet. But I can tell my colleagues that too many gay people live in fear. They live in fear that two people or one person could attack them simply because they are gay, and that is not right in this, the greatest country in the world, and we can fix it.

I also wish to point out this bill also protects women who are attacked simply because of their gender. So this bill is about making sure women are protected and gays are protected.

I wish there was no need for this law. I wish we lived in a world where such a law would be unnecessary. We all do. One of our Founders said, if people were perfect, we wouldn't need a government. People are not perfect. There has to be right and wrong and it has to be spelled out. People who are innocent need to be protected.

A man gets in a car with two people who claim to be his friends, and he winds up robbed, tortured, and killed, and put on a fence, I might add.

So, Attorney General Holder, when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, reported that the FBI said there were 7,624 hate crime incidents in 2007. That is the most recent data: 7,624 hate crime incidents.

If we pass this bill, we send a signal that the Federal Government will not stand by and watch this sort of thing happen. We send a message that we will be a backup, that we will supply the law enforcement personnel, the forensic assistance, anything the local prosecutor needs and the local police need to help them.

Eric Holder also testified that between 1998 and 2007, more than 77,000 hate crime incidents were reported by the FBI. That is one hate crime for every hour of every day for a decade, one hate crime every hour of every day for a decade.

Senator McCain--and I have full respect for him--said: Let's just do this another day.

We shouldn't wait another day. This should receive unanimous support from everyone across party aisles, and I believe it will receive tremendous support across party aisles. I do. So let's get to vote on it.

Statistics are one thing; the individual stories are horrifying. I will give my colleagues another example, the case of Lawrence ``Larry'' King, a 15-year-old boy from Oxnard, CA. Larry, an eighth-grader, was shot and killed by a fellow student in the middle of a classroom in February of 2008. According to news reports, the shooting occurred the day after the students had a verbal altercation about Larry's sexual orientation. The police and the district attorney classified the murder as a hate crime. The district attorney said there had never been a violent shooting like this before in Ventura County in

my State. A young life ended too soon by a violent act of hate.

My State is not immune from these crimes.

In Richmond, CA, four men were arrested and charged for brutally gang-raping a young lesbian. According to news reports, one of the attackers taunted her for being a lesbian during the attack.

After that heinous incident, a young Black man in Richmond was attacked. According to the young man's police report, his attackers yelled racial epithets and slurs as they broke six of his bones.

Finally, another example: In 2006, a man walked into an Amish school in Pennsylvania. Taking several female students hostage and releasing all the male students, he shot 10 of the girls, killing 5--killing 5-- before shooting himself. The age of these girls was from 6 to 13 years old. These girls lost their lives because of a despicable act of hate based on their gender.

There is no reason to come to the floor and say we can't do this bill because we have other very important business on our plate. Of course we do. Of course we need to do the Defense bill. Of course we will do the Defense bill. The last I checked, the Defense authorization usually passes practically unanimously. This isn't a problem. So we can deal with this. We have done it before.

These stories demonstrate if America is to serve as a model for tolerance and justice, we must do everything in our power to fight hate-motivated violence, and this amendment is an important step in that fight.

So to summarize what this amendment does, it would add gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability as protected categories under our hate crimes laws. Second, the amendment removes the requirement that a victim be engaged in a federally protected activity such as serving on a jury or attending a public school before the government can act. Third, and very important, the amendment provides additional Federal assistance to State and local authorities to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. I talked about the letter from my sheriff in Los Angeles County. Our law enforcement people need all the help they can get when they are trying to solve a hate crime and then trying to prosecute a hate crime. This bill will give them the assistance they deserve to have if they ask for such assistance. If they don't act, this is a backup law. This says it is a Federal crime. There is a nexus with interstate commerce, but as we know, that is not too hard to make.

So this basically says we are going to protect these individuals in our society who may be disabled and if they are discriminated against because they are a woman or a man--gender bias--or because of their sexual orientation.

Opponents of this amendment will say it punishes free speech and thought and that every crime will become a Federal hate crime. That is patently untrue. The hate crimes prevention amendment, as I said, is narrow, and we know these crimes do occur. This isn't about punishing speech. This isn't about punishing thoughts. If all that Matthew Shepard had to deal with were taunts about his sexuality, his sexual orientation, that would be one thing. He had to deal with murderers who tortured him. That is different. If they had said something to him and walked out, that would be one thing. They acted on their hatred, and that is un-American. It is un-American.

This amendment doesn't attempt to federalize all crimes, or even hate crimes. The certification provision prevents the Federal Government from stepping into a case unless it can certify that doing so is necessary to secure justice and is in the public interest. Thus, prosecutions that normally take place at the State and local level will continue to be handled there. The difference is we will then give them as a Federal Government all the tools they need from us.

This amendment is an important step as we continue to form a more perfect union, and we can't rest until we do this--and more. We can't rest until we pass laws to create a fair workplace for all. We can't rest until we pass a law that repeals ``don't ask, don't tell'' and allows our capable Americans and our patriotic Americans to serve our country. We are losing some of the best and brightest from our military because they don't want to live a lie. We can't rest until we pass laws to end racial profiling in our society. We can't rest until we pass comprehensive laws to protect our children from violent crimes.

Years ago I wrote the Violence Against Children Act. I am still waiting to get it passed. When someone takes up a hand against a child and injures that child and hurts that child, that is un-American too. If there is a violent crime against a child, I believe the Federal Government ought to care and ought to help the local governments who are trying to solve that crime and punish that crime if they need help.

So we have a lot of work to do to form that more perfect union. Instead of arguing process today, why don't we have our friends come to the floor and say: This is a wonderful opportunity now to take a step forward and pass this Hate Crimes Prevention amendment, which we have been trying to do for so long, and, of course, not slow down the Defense bill. There is no need to slow down the Defense bill. We can do both.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and any kind of procedural vote it takes to make it available to us on the floor of the Senate.

I thank you very much, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, one of America's greatest strengths is its spirit of volunteerism, particularly within the law enforcement community. I take this opportunity to honor and recognize members of the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff's Volunteer Services Unit. These brave men and women have repeatedly demonstrated their dedication to their community during a time when budget cuts are paralyzing our State and local law enforcement forces.

Since its founding in 1850, the Contra Costa County Volunteer Services Unit has grown to coordinate the activities of several Sheriff's Volunteer Groups, including an Air Squadron, Amateur Radio Communications, Cadet Explore Post 2406, Chaplains Program, Deputy Sheriff Reservers, Dive Team, Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service, RACES, Sheriff's All Volunteer Extended Services, SAVES, Program, and Search and Rescue Unit.

The Contra Costa Sheriff's Volunteer Services Unit has the largest volunteer search and rescue team of any county north of San Bernardino. With over 700 volunteers, the unit contributes the same amount of service hours as approximately 50 full-time, paid positions. This unit has also assisted in several missing persons cases both within Contra Costa County and beyond, including the heartbreaking search earlier this year for 8-year-old Sandra Cantu of Tracy.

The hard work and dedication of those involved with the Sheriff's Volunteer Services Unit not only helps save lives throughout Contra Costa County, but also saves the county the equivalent of $5 million in salaries and benefits at a time when funding for such programs has been reduced.

The dedicated men and women of the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff's Volunteer Services Unit are the embodiment of community service and involvement. For over 150 years, these volunteers have, often without question for their own safety or comfort, taken heroic actions throughout the County and beyond while assisting with a variety of programs.

I commend the men and women of the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff's Volunteer Services Unit for their inspiring dedication to their community.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicaid Birth Center Reimbursement Act, which would help ensure that birth centers across our country can continue to provide quality and affordable care to thousands of mothers and newborns each year.

There are almost 200 birth centers nationwide that provide quality and cost effective health care services, particularly for low-income families. Since 1987, birth centers have participated in Medicaid, but recently the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, has begun to cut off access to these providers in several States including Alaska, South Carolina, Texas and Washington State--because the agency lacks clear statutory authority to pay birth centers to care for Medicaid patients.

Although this problem has not yet affected my home State of California, if this policy is not reversed before the State begins to renegotiate its Medicaid plan, the same cuts will be forced on birth centers in California. Without reimbursement from Medicaid, birth centers in all States could be pushed to the brink of closure and thousands of low-income women could lose access to these vital services.

At a time when Congress and the administration are working hard to increase access to health care for all Americans, we cannot afford to close birth centers that provide essential services to thousands of women and newborns every year.

At a time when Congress and the administration are working hard to reduce waste, and cut down on costs in our nation's health care system, we cannot afford to cut off access to such cost-effective maternity care.

The cost of care at birth centers is about $1,900 per birth, compared to an estimated $7,400 at hospitals. Right now as much as 27 percent of hospital charges under Medicaid go towards care for mothers and newborn infants. Just imagine how much unnecessary spending could be saved if more women were given the choice of going to a birth center to have their baby.

Cutting off access to birth centers that provide quality, cost- effective care is a step backward.

Taking away choices from pregnant women trying to get essential health care services is a step backward.

As I work with my colleagues to help push for comprehensive health reform, I urge them to join me in cosponsoring the Medicaid Birth Center Reimbursement Act, and taking an important step forward for mothers and newborns across our nation.

I would also like to thank Reps. Susan Davis and Gus Bilirakis, who have championed this legislation in the House. I hope that this important legislation can be included in the health care reform efforts of the 111th Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicaid Birth Center Reimbursement Act, which would help ensure that birth centers across our country can continue to provide quality and affordable care to thousands of mothers and newborns each year.

There are almost 200 birth centers nationwide that provide quality and cost effective health care services, particularly for low-income families. Since 1987, birth centers have participated in Medicaid, but recently the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, has begun to cut off access to these providers in several States including Alaska, South Carolina, Texas and Washington State--because the agency lacks clear statutory authority to pay birth centers to care for Medicaid patients.

Although this problem has not yet affected my home State of California, if this policy is not reversed before the State begins to renegotiate its Medicaid plan, the same cuts will be forced on birth centers in California. Without reimbursement from Medicaid, birth centers in all States could be pushed to the brink of closure and thousands of low-income women could lose access to these vital services.

At a time when Congress and the administration are working hard to increase access to health care for all Americans, we cannot afford to close birth centers that provide essential services to thousands of women and newborns every year.

At a time when Congress and the administration are working hard to reduce waste, and cut down on costs in our nation's health care system, we cannot afford to cut off access to such cost-effective maternity care.

The cost of care at birth centers is about $1,900 per birth, compared to an estimated $7,400 at hospitals. Right now as much as 27 percent of hospital charges under Medicaid go towards care for mothers and newborn infants. Just imagine how much unnecessary spending could be saved if more women were given the choice of going to a birth center to have their baby.

Cutting off access to birth centers that provide quality, cost- effective care is a step backward.

Taking away choices from pregnant women trying to get essential health care services is a step backward.

As I work with my colleagues to help push for comprehensive health reform, I urge them to join me in cosponsoring the Medicaid Birth Center Reimbursement Act, and taking an important step forward for mothers and newborns across our nation.

I would also like to thank Reps. Susan Davis and Gus Bilirakis, who have championed this legislation in the House. I hope that this important legislation can be included in the health care reform efforts of the 111th Congress.

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

Mr. President, I yield back any remaining time.

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

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1358, which was introduced earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I did not plan to come down to the floor and speak today about the global warming legislation. But I heard bits and pieces of my friend Senator Inhofe's speech about essentially why we will never approve global warming legislation, why it is a bad idea, and his usual litany of ``horribles'' about what will happen. My friend Senator Inhofe and I work very well together on most issues that come before our committee when it comes to building the infrastructure; the State Revolving Fund, we have been a team; the highway trust fund, we have been a team. He has been very helpful on most of our nominees, if not all. So I am very grateful to him. But I could not allow his words to be the last word here on the global warming legislation as we get ready to leave for our week to go home and work.

I disagree very strongly with those who say that if we attack the problem with global warming head-on, we are moving into territory where we are

going to regret the fact that we did it because it is going to hurt our people, we are going to lose jobs, it is going to increase energy costs, when, in fact, we know the opposite is true. It is not just me saying it. I come from a State--California--where we have taken the lead in addressing the environment. We always have since the very early days. And what we have proven is that when you do it, you have a much healthier base for economic growth.

If you look at the per capita use of energy in my home State over the last 20 years, it has stayed absolutely flat, if you were to look at a graph. The rest of the country has gone up like this. So the difference between remaining on a flat line--in other words, keeping your per capita energy use stable--even with the creation in that time of computers and bigger TVs and all the rest, and a lot of other comforts, I might add--bigger homes--we have been able to do it. The rest of the country has gone this way with their per capita use. The difference between energy efficiency and the rest of the country, we have a lot of room for improvement, and it has been tried and it is proven and it makes a lot of sense, whether it is better energy-efficiency standards, which have been absolutely key to us, or better fuel economy, which has been key to us. We are the State that happens to buy the most, for example, hybrid cars. We have shown that we can keep per capita energy use down. A lot of us in our State have changed to the lightbulbs that make sense, the compact fluorescent bulbs. We know we have laws that will move that even faster. And we have not given up one ounce of our quality of life. We have a very good quality of life.

So by addressing the issue of global warming and getting the carbon out of the air, the first way to do it is through energy efficiency. That is what I call the low-hanging fruit. Renewable standards for our utilities--very important. We have done it in California, and I know my friend who is in the chair is on the Energy Committee, and I am very grateful they did renewable portfolio standards, although I would like to see it a little tougher. Be that as it may, we are on the road.

These are the things we can do that actually will tackle the problem of global warming, but there is so much more we can do through a system where we expect our industries that are emitting the most carbon to gradually bring it down so that we make sure we don't suffer the ravages of increased temperatures.

The science is so clear, and my friend Senator Inhofe and I have disputed this for a long time. He insists that the science is not clear. Well, he is not a scientist and I am not a scientist. So I think the best way to do this is to look to the most qualified scientists in the world. And we are very fortunate that we have had those scientists working at the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and they have come out with a series of reports, all of which tell us that temperatures are going up even more rapidly than we thought, the icemelt in the Arctic is occurring faster than we thought would happen. We all see the pictures of the polar bears. That picture is worth so much to us because we can see what is happening to the habitat there.

I will be leading a trip to Alaska for a couple of days at the invitation of Senator Mark Begich. He wants to show me and a group of Senators--and also Senator Murkowski has been gracious enough to say she will join us in this. We are going to see ground zero for global warming in Alaska. I know in Greenland, where I went, you can just see the ice melt. You can sit and actually see the ice break off from these giant icebergs and watch them go out to sea.

So the scientists have proven it, and we know it is absolutely true. So when Senator Inhofe comes down here and he flies in the face of science, those of us who have been working on this--and I see one of our great leaders, not only, I say this, in the Senate but, frankly, in the country and even in the world community, John Kerry, who has joined us. Just for his information, I will be speaking for about another 10 minutes, and then I am going to be so happy to sit and hear him because he has such an important vision on this.

But here is the good news. The good news is that this is an enormous opportunity to move our country forward. Again, I could quote Thomas Friedman, who did an extraordinary job of writing books and articles, and he testified before the Committee on Environment and Public Works very clearly on this, that the country that does this now and does it right and sets up a price on carbon--and I am sure he now knows that a cap-and-trade system is a very good way to do that--is going to be the leader in the world, not just an environmental leader, which is very important for our kids and our grandkids--we don't want to turn over a planet to them where temperatures are so high that we see people dying in the summer from the high temperatures or see our kids swimming in rivers that have turned so warm that organisms now live in those rivers. We have seen some of that already happen, where toxins exist that couldn't exist before, where we can be harmed because of the kind of life that lives in these warmer waters that can, in fact, harm our children. So we do not want to know those stories. We do not want to see hordes of refugees coming to our shores because countries are inundated due to rising seas.

Look, our own national security teams--the Department of Defense, the CIA--all of those that worry so much about national security--have told us--and Senator Kerry has the quotes chapter and verse--that this is a national security issue.

So when my friend from Oklahoma comes down here and says: Don't worry about it, you know, don't worry about it at all, the science is divided, it is just not so, just not so.

I guess there were always people who said smoking doesn't cause cancer. I guess there still are. I guess there are some people who say HIV doesn't cause AIDS. You know, I know there were people when I was a kid who said: Forget about polio, there is nothing you can do about it. But Dr. Jonas Salk figured out we could do something about it.

The science is clear. The world is getting warmer. Yes, to a certain degree, we can handle it, but above that it gets very dangerous. None other than the Bush administration's CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, told us that it is unequivocal that the dangers are lurking. They started the work to say that there would be an endangerment finding, that our people are in danger if we don't act. And now President Obama sees it clearly, and his EPA has picked up the ball and they have issued a draft finding that we are in danger. So Senator Inhofe and other Senators can stand up and say that we are not, but this work started in the Bush administration, and Bush administration officials participated in a lot of these U.N. meetings. So it is clear.

We have a great recession we are dealing with, and we have this great challenge of global warming. The great news is that when we act to solve global warming, we act to solve the problem of this great recession. Why do I say that? Because we know from the venture capitalists, many of whom live in the Silicon Valley, that the amount of funding from the private sector, not the public sector, that is going to flow into clean energy is going to dwarf that that went into the computer industry, that went into high-tech and biotech. This is testimony from those who are venture capitalists. And that, matched with the cap-and-trade system, which will have the ability to really help agriculture, which will have the ability to help our manufacturers, which will have the ability to make sure we have fair trade at the border when products come in, that means we are going to see technologies invented, cleanups start to happen, we will stop the ravages of global warming, and eventually, when all of this technology kicks in, the average family is going to pay less for their electricity. In the short run, if you have to pay just a little more-- and I mean a little more, like 50 cents a day more maybe, probably less--we have the wherewithal to give you a credit for that funding.

I think the House of Representatives has worked very hard to make sure they have the bill that will keep people whole, that will transform this economy to a clean energy economy, will get us off foreign oil, which is only to the good.

You know, Iran has been in the news, and our hearts go out to those who are

trying to take their country back, if I could say that. We all stand with those demonstrators. We will not forget what they have gone through in their struggle.

I ask unanimous consent that when I am done, Senator Kerry finish this time on global warming, followed by Senator Coburn if he would like to be recognized at that time.

Good.

So what Thomas Friedman--again, writing his great column, as he does--says is that Iran would not be such a formidable power in the world if oil was not so sought after in the world.

We do not buy any Iranian oil for obvious reasons, but the rest of the world does. The fact is, if we can create these clean alternatives, it is going to make every difference--every difference--in the world.

So in closing--and I am so pleased Senator Kerry is here--let me say this: My ranking member, Jim Inhofe, made a comment. I just want to say we are good friends, and anything I say here I say to him, and vice versa. My ranking member said in the press--and I do not know if Senator Kerry saw this--my ranking member, Senator Inhofe, said to me in the press I should get a life--get a life--and stop trying to pass global warming legislation because it is not going to happen.

I want to say to him very clearly today, I have a life, and I am spending it getting the votes I need to make sure we take advantage of this momentous opportunity. I want to thank those over in the House who seem to understand this golden moment of opportunity for our economy, for our foreign policy, for the creation of millions of new jobs, for energy independence--that is what they are fighting for over there--and for great opportunities for our agricultural sector, our manufacturing sector.

This is an opportunity we should not lose. I am very pleased at the progress we are making over here, and I want to send that signal: We are making great progress.

Mr. President, I thank you very much.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Feinstein to speak on the introduction of the Western States Trail Study Act of 2009. This legislation would provide for a study by the Department of the Interior on the possible designation of the Western States Trail as a National Historic Trail.

The National Trails System Act specifies that to qualify for listing as a National Historic Trail, a trail must be historically significant and must have significant potential for public recreational use or historical interpretation and appreciation. The Western States Trail absolutely meets these criteria.

From the beginning of California's recorded history, the Western States Trail has played an important role in the development of our state and nation. Originally a Native American trail used by the Paiute and Washoe Indians, it later became the most direct link between the gold camps of California and silver mines of Nevada. Professor William Brewer also followed part of this trail in his 1863 expedition as part of State Geologist Josiah Whitney's survey of California.

In 1955, the Western States Trail became the site of the world's first and leading 100-mile trail ride, and in 1974 became the world's first and leading ultramarathon run. These recreational events are of tremendous importance to the local community as well as equestrians and runners throughout the nation. Western States volunteers dedicate hundreds of hours each year to the U.S. Forest Service and California Department of Parks and Recreation to maintain the trail, exemplifying citizen action at its best.

Most of the trail remains in the same state as in the 19th century, passing through scenic wilderness ranging from the Sierra Crest, to magnificent forests and mountain streams, to the grasses and oaks of the Sierra foothills.

The citizen-government partnership that our bill represents continues the tradition of the Western States Run to protect and preserve the Western States Trail, and to ensure that the public has access to its rich history and scenery.

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Feinstein to speak on the introduction of the Western States Trail Study Act of 2009. This legislation would provide for a study by the Department of the Interior on the possible designation of the Western States Trail as a National Historic Trail.

The National Trails System Act specifies that to qualify for listing as a National Historic Trail, a trail must be historically significant and must have significant potential for public recreational use or historical interpretation and appreciation. The Western States Trail absolutely meets these criteria.

From the beginning of California's recorded history, the Western States Trail has played an important role in the development of our state and nation. Originally a Native American trail used by the Paiute and Washoe Indians, it later became the most direct link between the gold camps of California and silver mines of Nevada. Professor William Brewer also followed part of this trail in his 1863 expedition as part of State Geologist Josiah Whitney's survey of California.

In 1955, the Western States Trail became the site of the world's first and leading 100-mile trail ride, and in 1974 became the world's first and leading ultramarathon run. These recreational events are of tremendous importance to the local community as well as equestrians and runners throughout the nation. Western States volunteers dedicate hundreds of hours each year to the U.S. Forest Service and California Department of Parks and Recreation to maintain the trail, exemplifying citizen action at its best.

Most of the trail remains in the same state as in the 19th century, passing through scenic wilderness ranging from the Sierra Crest, to magnificent forests and mountain streams, to the grasses and oaks of the Sierra foothills.

The citizen-government partnership that our bill represents continues the tradition of the Western States Run to protect and preserve the Western States Trail, and to ensure that the public has access to its rich history and scenery.

Mr. Presdient, I am pleased to recognize the 100th anniversary of the community of Richvale, CA. In 1909, settlers from the Midwest began to arrive by train and horse-drawn carriages to this town with hopes of creating a close-knit community. Over the last century, Richvale has grown from a small settlement town of a few families to the heart of rice country in northern California.

As families settled in this small Butte County town in the early 1900s, California's rice industry began to take shape. Richvale became an early producer of rice in the State with the support of local churches, general stores, and blacksmith shops. The strong sense of community, as well as ideal soil and climate conditions, led to the success of the region's dominance in growing rice. The Richvale community worked together closely to develop irrigation systems, soil improvement, conservation techniques, and formed cooperatives with their neighbors to store and dry their crops to increase their yields and fight agricultural-related pests and diseases. These practices served as a model for other rice growers as the industry began to grow throughout the Upper Sacramento Valley. The Rice Experiment Station, that has been in operation since 1912 and conducts innovative rice improvement research and seed production, is located just south of Richvale and is credited with much of the California rice industry's international success.

Richvale's thriving commercial rice production continued as many of the men went to serve their country during World Wars I and II. The women of Richvale kept the industry alive by taking control of the responsibilities that included the day-to-day work, as well as the business side of the farming operations.

Richvale continues to thrive as a cornerstone in California's rice country, while still maintaining their smalltown character that drew early settlers to the region. I commend the Richvale community for their success in both the rice industry and for serving as an example of the success that a small community of dedicated neighbors can accomplish when they come together around a common goal. I wish Richvale another 100 years of success.

Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a unanimous consent request, I am here to speak on the same subject as she. I wonder if she could expand her request to say that upon finishing, I could have about 5 minutes.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, I apologize to my colleague. We are here to quickly speak about a very important issue, the murder of a doctor. I didn't want it to be interrupted. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the Senator from Delaware be recognized.

They already passed.

For Senator Carper? Is there any way we can assuage the Senator? Does he want to take the floor before Senator Carper?

Thank you very much.

Madam President, I want to say to my friend, Senator Shaheen, that her words were eloquent here today and that her voice adds so much texture to the Senate. In a very plainspoken way, as is her way, Senator Shaheen has told us that regardless of where we stand on this issue, this contentious issue of a woman's right to choose, we should be able to come together when there is violence of any sort from any quarter, right, left, or center. There is no place for violence in any of our debates. That is what makes this such a great country. We debate here. We have had difficult debates here on the issue of a woman's right to choose. Yes, we have. But we decide those issues in this Chamber, in the House, at the White House, and across the street at the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court has ruled very clearly, in 1973, in Roe v. Wade, that it is legal--legal--for a woman in the early stages of her pregnancy to make this tough choice and get the health care she needs. And, yes, later in the pregnancy, if her health is threatened, if her life is threatened, yes, a doctor can help her in that type of a circumstance.

Here we have many cases where violence is being used, where Web sites are being put up with pictures of doctors and nurses, trying to incite trouble, trying to incite violence, and that is not what the law allows.

With the case of Dr. Tiller, he was a doctor. After this tragedy where he was shot and killed in church--and before that, he had his arm shot, but he continued his work--many, many women came forward to attest to how kind he was to them in their great need.

Dr. Tiller operated within the law. There were those who tried to run him out of town with lawsuits, and he won all of those.

So when a procedure is legal and a doctor is following the rules, to have a murder of a doctor in that circumstance is a tragedy to his family, to his friends, to his patients, and, yes, frankly, to America because it diminishes us as a society.

I want to tell it like it is around here. Every Democrat cleared this resolution and said, yes, we ought to have a chance to bring it to the floor and be voted upon. That is all my colleague wants. She wrote a simple resolution. She read it to you. She wants a vote. Every Democrat said, yes, let's bring it to the floor. If you do not like it, you do not have to vote for it. If you want to change it, make an amendment to change it.

But the Republicans will not clear this resolution. Now, I have to say to the people who may be listening to this debate, hear what I am saying. The Republicans will not allow a vote, will not clear a resolution that simply says, in the resolve clause--and I quote from it--we express ``great sympathy for the family, friends and patients of Dr. George Tiller.'' We recognize ``that acts of violence should never be used to prevent women from receiving reproductive health care,'' and we condemn ``the use of violence as a means of resolving differences of opinion.''

I think my colleague, in her eloquence here, has said it all. I urge those people who are anonymously holding up this resolution, come to the floor, have the courage and the guts to look out at this Chamber and explain why you do not believe we should condemn acts of violence to prevent women from receiving their health care, and come to the floor and explain why you are not ready to condemn the use of violence as a means of resolving differences.

This is the greatest democracy in the world. We will not be the greatest democracy in the world if we decide we are going to take the law into our own hands and kill people with whom we disagree.

So I beg my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to rethink their position because, I can tell you, anyone who does not know Senator Shaheen--she was the Governor of a State, she is a great Senator already--she is not going to give up on this. We are going to be here day after day. We are going to ask that this be brought before the body. And we are going to make those who are stopping us from voting on this come to the floor and explain why they cannot join with us.

We know abortion is a contentious issue. We appreciate that. We respect our colleagues' views. Frankly, I totally respect their views on the issue. But I do not respect someone who is anonymously holding up a resolution that condemns violence.

So I am going to work with my colleague. I am very proud of her work on

this. I am proud of Senator Klobuchar's work on this. And I want to thank every Democrat in this Senate who said, yes, this resolution is worthy of debate and worthy of a vote.

Madam President, I thank you very much and yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to be heard briefly.

We heard Senator McCain attack this bill that is before us that primarily funds two wars, takes care of our wounded warriors, invests in new hospitals for them to be treated for their brain injuries, helps them with their childcare, and essentially starts us on the path of bringing our troops home from Iraq--something President Obama promised to do--and changes our focus in Afghanistan, which has been very scattered, and focuses us on routing out the Taliban, who make it possible for al-Qaida to thrive. So this bill protects the American people.

I have been very clear, I have said I want to see our Afghanistan policy work. I said I am going to give it this year for that to happen, and I hope it does happen. Because we were attacked by al-Qaida. We were attacked by Osama bin Laden. We were attacked because al-Qaida had sanctuary in Afghanistan. And instead of going into Afghanistan, the way we should have, we shortchanged that mission that I voted for and turned around and went into Iraq. We had President Bush, with his constant focus on Iraq, lead us to a very dark period--very dark period--in our history, where we lost thousands of our soldiers, thousands more were

wounded--and you all know the story of the torture and all the rest that accompanied this--and led us to a place where America has lost its standing in the world.

This President inherited two wars. Yes, he is trying to end one and refocus another. He inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. I call it the ``Great Recession.'' And he also had to cope with threats from North Korea, Iran, from pirates on the open seas, instability in Pakistan. And then, on top of it all, he is facing, and we are facing, a health threat from the swine flu, the H1N1 virus. So he comes to us with an emergency spending bill.

Do I like everything in this bill? I do not. This is about a compromise. I do not like everything in this bill. But to tear down the attempt of what we are trying to do here, which is to begin moving our troops out of Iraq, refocus our effort in Afghanistan, focus on the wounded warriors, focus on global AIDS reduction, focus on the world recession--that is another thing we are doing. I think it has to be done. I would much rather do it all in the normal budget process. That is why President Obama has said this is the last war supplemental we will have. I compliment him on that. President Bush sent supplemental requests to Congress year after year after year. This President says this is the last time, and I take him at his word.

I think it is important, instead of being so terribly negative, to at least give a balanced overview. Many of the funds in the bill for Afghanistan will go to help the women and the children of Afghanistan. It is very hard for me to understand how anyone could oppose that. We have women who have acid thrown in their face if they do not obey their husband or they take off a face covering. We have children being stoned--girls--on their way to school. It seems to me that we ought to give it a chance before we leave these women high and dry. I, for one, cannot do that.

Again, I have said we have to do this right, and we have to do it quickly. Because I am not going to give my vote to an open checkbook for another war. But I believe this administration gets it and I believe they are training the troops in Afghanistan and I believe they are working to build a civil society there. Because, at the end of the day, we cannot be the policemen of the world. We have to make sure the people we are helping want to be helped and want to run their own societies. That is our hope in Iraq, finally. That is our hope in Afghanistan.

As I look around and I look around the world and I look around this country and I see the pain and suffering in this country--this recession--we have to understand we are in a global economy. That is why the President wanted those IMF funds: So we can avert a depression out there in the world.

There are peacekeeping funds in this bill. Anyone who is following what is happening in Africa--whether it is Darfur or the Democratic Republic of Congo or other places--understands the brutality that is going on. We need to help end the brutality, particularly--and I know my colleague in the chair knows this--the brutality against the women, where in these countries rape is used as a tool of war and rape is used as a tool of ethnic cleansing. We cannot allow that to happen. It is an obligation we have as the leader of the free world.

I guess I wish to say to my colleague from Arizona, I totally understand his frustration with spending. I have to tell him, this Democratic Congress is going to wrap its arms around spending. We did it before under President Clinton. We had horrible deficits that President Clinton inherited from the other George Bush, and we got our act in order. We had pay as you go. We are going to do that with this President.

But let me tell you, this President has been in office for five months, January through June, and we have averted economic disaster and we have a foreign policy on the right track. There was an election in Lebanon where the Lebanese people elected a pro-Western government. We have other things happening around the world today that indicate people hear now. In very high-tech ways, they are learning that freedom is valuable. But it does not come to us free.

Yes, I do not like everything in this bill. I could go through my list too. Because each one of us would write a different bill. But I will tell you what I like less, the loss of jobs, the threat of the swine flu, the threat of AIDS, the threat of world instability, the spread of weapons.

So I say, we should vote for this bill, as flawed as it is, sending a clear message to our President that we agree with him, but that this should be the last war supplemental. Let's do these things on budget. Let's go back to pay-go. Let's wrap our arms around fiscal responsibility, the way we did in the 1990s.

Let me remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who are ranting and raving about deficits, under their President we had the most outrageous deficits, the most outrageous debt. We Democrats, under Bill Clinton, got a balanced budget in place, and we had a surplus--not a deficit, we had a surplus--and we had the debt going down. It was going to be eliminated. Then George Bush came in. He started this war in Iraq--a war with an open checkbook, no end in sight, no checks and balances on it, and tax breaks to the people who earn $1 million or more. It drove us into the ground. That is what brought us to this January, when our new President took all this on his shoulders and shared the burden with the Democratic Congress. I think we have averted the worst of it. We have a long way to go. I think this supplemental will help us get the rest of the way. Coming at us is pay as you go. Coming at us is fiscal responsibility. Coming at us is a challenge. We are going to have to make those difficult choices. That is one of the reasons we want to take care of health care and energy because, at the end of the day, those will help our economy.

The challenges are great. There is plenty of stuff in this bill I don't like, but I think, overall, this bill moves us in the right direction, in terms of helping our men and women in uniform, helping our national security, helping our public health, helping the global recession, and moving us toward a better day.

So I will support this bill. I thank you very much, Madam Chair.

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

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Luke Cole, a leading environmental attorney and founder and executive director of the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment. Mr. Cole passed away on June 6th as the result of a car accident in Uganda. He was 46 years old.

Luke Cole was born in North Adams, MA, on July 15, 1962. He spent parts of his childhood in New York and Santa Barbara, where his father was an art historian at the University of California at Santa Barbara. During this period, Mr. Cole often accompanied his father on research trips to Nigeria. He graduated from Stanford University and Harvard Law School.

Mr. Cole decided against potentially more lucrative career paths in favor of one that allowed him to follow his heart and enable him to make an impact on issues that he cared about most deeply: social justice and the environment. As a result of Mr. Cole's determination and vision, what began with a desk and a phone at a friend's office became the San Francisco-based nonprofit law center, the Center on, Race, Poverty and the Environment. Today, the center has a staff of 20 and offices throughout central California.

Mr. Cole's accomplishments as the executive director of the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment were numerous and significant. From the rural communities of California's San Joaquin Valley to a 4,000- year-old Inupiat Eskimo village in Kivalina, AK, his legacy can be seen in the traditionally underserved communities that he worked so hard to save from the effects of harmful pollutants. His unyielding commitment to environmental justice inspired and empowered many people from minority communities to take a more active role in combating environmental racism.

In addition to his leadership of the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, Mr. Cole also served on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's National Justice Advisory Council and taught environmental justice seminars at Stanford Law School and UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law. A man of many interests, he was also a dedicated bird watcher and root beer connoisseur, and possessed an extensive collection of miniature spy cameras and bobblehead dolls. He will be missed.

Mr. Cole is survived by his wife Nancy Shelby; father Herbert; mother Alexandra Cole, and stepmother Shelley Cole; two brothers Peter and Thomas; sister, Sarah; stepbrother Daryn; and son Zane.

Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I was shocked and saddened by the commuter plane crash last February outside of Buffalo, NY. Sadly, Clay Yarber, a resident of Riverside, CA, was one of the 50 victims of this tragic crash.

I would like to offer my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Yarber and to all of the families dealing with such horrific loss.

The crash of Continental flight 3407 has had a significant impact on how Americans across the country view air travel and has raised serious questions about the safety and oversight of our Nation's aviation system.

Initial hearings held this past May by the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, brought to light many unsettling revelations about pilot training, hours of experience, fatigue, and the FAA's oversight role of regional airlines.

I was greatly disturbed by what appeared to be a lack of proper training for the pilots on how to recover from a stall, how to proceed in icing conditions, and reports of the crew commuting cross country without proper rest prior to the flight.

Although regional airlines account for one-half of all of the scheduled flights in the U.S., five of the last seven fatal commercial plane crashes involved these airlines.

As more Americans rely on commuter airlines for air service, the FAA must take aggressive action to ensure that there is no difference in the level of safety provided by these air carriers.

The National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, hearings also made clear that the FAA must be more proactive when it comes to safety. We must not wait until the next disaster to make long overdue changes in safety regulation at the FAA.

It is unacceptable that the NTSB recommendations designed to address some of the most serious aviation safety deficiencies continue to go unaddressed by the FAA today.

Last May, I joined Senator Snowe in sending a letter to the Department of Transportation urging the agency to take immediate action to address NTSB recommendations that languished on its Most Wanted list for years and other pressing safety concerns.

In some instances, recommendations such as those meant to address pilot fatigue, have been on the NTSB Most Wanted list since its inception 19 years ago. We must take immediate action to ensure that no other family must endure a similar tragedy because of unmet safety recommendations and a lack of agency oversight.

I was encouraged by recent announcements from the FAA about the agency's initiative to revise work hour rules to address pilot fatigue and to conduct emergency inspections at pilot training facilities. I believe this is a step in the right direction, but we must do more.

That is why I am proud to join Senator Snowe in introducing the Ensuring One Level of Aviation Safety Act of 2009, to address some of the more egregious aviation safety deficiencies. Our bill requires the FAA to implement unfulfilled NTSB recommendations and to do more oversight of regional airlines and pilot training academies. The bill also requires the FAA to update minimum training standards and hours of experience requirements for pilots.

Finally, this legislation mandates continuing education training for pilots, requires the development of airline fatigue management plans, and allows carriers immediate access to pilot performance records.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and the FAA to implement this legislation and to take additional steps to ensure that there truly is no difference in safety between major carriers and regional airlines.

We cannot wait for the next airline tragedy to take action. The flying public must be assured that the FAA and the airlines are doing their part to make safety the No. 1 priority.