Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Shannon Gorrell, a Defense fellow in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate on this bill.

President, I rise today in support of this resolution honoring former World War II U.S. POWs from the Pacific theater and acknowledging the steps the Japanese Government has made to heal the wounds of the past.

My friend and colleague from California, Representative Mike Honda, introduced this resolution in the House and I am proud to follow suit here in the Senate. I applaud his leadership on this important matter.

Our resolution welcomes and commends the Government of Japan for extending an official apology to all U.S. former prisoners of war from the Pacific War and establishing in 2010 a visitation program to Japan for surviving veterans, their families, and descendants.

The resolution appreciates the recent efforts by the Government of Japan toward historic apologies for the war crimes of Imperial Japan.

The resolution requests that the Government of Japan continue its new Japanese/American POW Friendship Program of reconciliation and remembrance.

It requests that the Government of Japan respect the wishes and sensibilities of the United States former prisoners of war by supporting and encouraging programs for lasting remembrance and reconciliation that recognize their sacrifices, history, and forced labor.

It acknowledges the work of the Department of State in advocating for the United States Prisoners of War from the Pacific war, and it applauds the persistence, dedication, and patriotism of the members and descendants of the American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor.

According to the Congressional Research Service, approximately 27,000 U.S. prisoners of war were held by Imperial Japanese forces during World War II.

They were often subject to brutal and inhumane treatment.

They were starved and denied adequate medical care and were forced to perform slave labor for private Japanese companies.

American POWs toiled in mines, factories, shipyards, and steel mills for hours every day under extremely dangerous conditions. Many suffered health problems long after their time as POWs had ended.

Some 40 percent of POWs perished and never returned home to their loved ones.

We owe these brave heroes a debt that can never be fully repaid. It is critical that we never forget their sacrifice.

A lot has changed since the end of the war.

Japan has emerged from the ashes of war to develop into one of our closest friends and allies and a responsible member of the international community.

Our relationship is sustained by shared values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

The American POWs--those that survived--returned home and tried to move on with their lives.

They completed their education, got married, started families, began new

careers and participated in all aspects of civic life.

But one thing was missing: recognition from the Japanese Government about how they were treated as POWs.

In the simplest terms, they wanted an apology.

In order for Japan to fully rejoin the international community, it had to acknowledge its treatment of POWs during the ware.

And groups like the American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor and its Descendants Group worked tirelessly for this recognition.

And I am pleased to say that Japan has taken historic actions in this area.

On May 30, 2009, Japan's Ambassador to the United States, Ichiro Fujisaki, told the last convention of the American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor:

We extend a heartfelt apology for our country having caused tremendous damage and suffering to many people, including prisoners of wars, those who have undergone tragic experiences in the Bataan Peninsula, Corregidor Island, in the Philippines, and other places.

On September 13, 2010, in a message to all U.S. former POWs, Japan's Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said:

You have all been through hardships during World War II,

begin taken prisoner by the Japanese military, and suffered

extremely inhumane treatment. On behalf of the Japanese

government and as the foreign minister, I would like to offer

you my heartfelt apology.

The Government of Japan has also created a new program for former U.S. POWs and their family members to come to Japan for remembrance and reconciliation.

I commend the Government of Japan for taking these actions. Our former POWs waited long enough.

There are fewer than 500 surviving POWs still alive today.

Let us take a moment today, while we still can, to honor them and pay tribute to their service to their country during difficult and trying times.

Let us also acknowledge the steps Japan has taken to come to terms with its past and strengthen the friendship between our two peoples.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam President, what is the parliamentary status now?

Madam President, it is my understanding that Senator Bingaman would like to speak on an amendment he has filed and Senator Murkowski may well come down to speak on that, which is fine.

I will yield to Senator Bingaman to do that now.

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

Madam President, I thank Senator Bingaman for his comments. He has been an excellent chair of the committee.

It is our understanding that these points were never brought to the committee. However, I am told the Energy Department has told my staff that the budget request is valid due to the Department's need for operational flexibility.

I want everybody to know that the floor is open. If you filed an amendment, please come down to speak on it. If you want to file one, please do so as quickly as possible. The floor is open for amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 16, 2011, at 9 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Weeding Out Bad Contractors: Does the Government Have the Right Tools?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 16, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 16, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Management and Structural Reforms at the SEC: A Progress Report.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and the Coast Guard of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 16, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Weathering Change: Need for Continued Innovation in Forecasting and Prediction.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Adam Christensen, a congressional science fellow assigned to my office, be granted floor privileges during consideration of this bill.

Mr. President, if I understand this correctly, it is, as Senator Alexander has stated, that the effort is to, under a germane rule, have the Energy and Water appropriations bill brought to the floor. If that is achieved, then all Members, including Democratic Members, should get their amendments to the floor as soon as possible.

We know what this week is like. We know the Defense authorization bill has to come to the floor. We know there are other items that have to come to the floor this week. Therefore, I hope that this effort is successful and that we will be able to begin to work on our bills.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to remember the life and to honor the legacy of a remarkable woman--an advocate for breast cancer research and awareness, a philanthropist, a savvy businesswoman, an accomplished photographer and author, a wife, a mother, a grandmother, and a dear friend, Evelyn Lauder.

Evelyn lost her courageous battle with ovarian cancer on Saturday. She is survived by her husband of 52 years, Leonard Lauder; her sons, William and Gary; and five grandchildren.

In many ways, her life parallels the familiar immigrant story of 20th-century America. It is the story of a woman who escaped Nazi Europe, voyaged to the United States of America, and proceeded to enrich this country in countless ways.

Evelyn Hausner was born on August 12, 1936, in Vienna. She was the only child of Ernest and Mimi Hausner. When Hitler annexed Austria in 1938, the family fled to Belgium with just a few sentimental belongings. Later, the family relocated to England during the Blitz.

In England, Evelyn's mother was sent to an internment camp on the Isle of Man. Evelyn was sent to live in a nursery. Eventually the family was reunited, and in 1940 they set sail for New York City.

Evelyn often told a story about arriving in New York Harbor at the dawn of the Second World War. She said:

My mother woke me up really early in the morning to see the

Statue of Liberty. That's a sight I will remember all my

life.

She fell in love with New York that morning and would give back to her adopted city for the next seven decades.

She was a proud product of the New York City public school system. As a freshman at Hunter College, she met her future husband on a blind date. Leonard Lauder was the son of Estee and Joseph Lauder, the owners of what then was just a small, family cosmetics business.

Evelyn was a public school teacher for several years, and in 1959 she formally joined Estee Lauder, pitching in wherever she was needed. As the company grew to become an international conglomerate, so, too, did Evelyn's role and influence. She held many different positions at the company over the years.

One of the earliest projects she tackled was to create the company's training programs. She enhanced the Estee Lauder product lineup by adding new colors and products that appealed to a range of complexions and skin types. She had great instincts about new trends, about the needs of a consumer, and about the development of skin care and cosmetics. In fact, it was Evelyn who helped launch the name ``the Clinique brand.''

In the last 25 years, she focused on fragrance--a lifelong passion she shared with her famous mother-in-law that stemmed from her love of flowers and gardening.

In 1999 and again in 2007, she was recognized as one of New York's 100 Most Influential Women in Business by Crain's New York Business.

Evelyn was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1989 and soon became a tireless advocate for women's health. True to form, she was reluctant to publicly discuss her own condition. ``My situation doesn't really matter,'' she told a reporter in 1995. Instead, she chose to channel her energy and attention into helping raise money and educate women with less access and information about the disease. In 1989, as a member of the board of overseers at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, she initiated a fundraising drive that raised more than $18 million to establish the Evelyn H. Lauder Breast Center, the country's first ever breast and diagnostic center. The center opened in 1992 and is a model for similar facilities around the world.

In 1992 Evelyn developed the iconic pink ribbon, which we all know today as the worldwide symbol of breast health. She spearheaded the distribution of millions of pink ribbons and breast self-exam instruction cards at Estee Lauder cosmetic counters all across the country. Her efforts elevated breast cancer awareness in the public consciousness, and almost two decades later more than 115 million pink ribbons and millions of educational brochures and bookmarks have been handed out around the world.

In 1993 she turned her attention to supporting the world's leading medical and scientific researchers and established the Breast Cancer Research Foundation to address the crucial lack of breast cancer research funding. Under her leadership, the foundation has grown to become the largest national organization dedicated exclusively to funding research relating to the causes, treatment, and prevention of breast cancer. To date, this foundation has raised $350 million, and supports 186 researchers around the United States, Canada, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Australia, and China.

In 2000, Evelyn Lauder launched the Global Landmark Illuminations Initiative. We have all enjoyed seeing historic landmarks illuminated in pink lights during the month of October. Each year, more than 200 prominent landmarks around the world participate. Evelyn has bathed the Empire State Building, Niagara Falls, the Tower of London, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and the Tokyo Tower in pink lights.

There was another side to Evelyn. She was an accomplished photographer with a keen eye and ability to capture extraordinary images. I have two of her photographs and treasure them. Her photography included rainbows rising from the Pacific Ocean, snow scenes in Colorado, patterns created by light reflecting on water, and landscapes in Chile, Tuscany, and the south of France, among others. Evelyn's works were featured in exhibitions at art galleries in London, Paris, Jerusalem, Barcelona, and Beijing, and well-received exhibitions in New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, and my hometown of San Francisco. She also published two books of photographs and had her work featured in many publications, including American Photo, House & Garden, the Oprah Magazine, and Town & Country.

Evelyn was modest and self-effacing, but she donated all proceeds from her photographic exhibitions and royalties from her books to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

Evelyn Lauder was one of a kind. She was a beautiful woman. I knew her. I remember Evelyn, her husband, my husband, and me sitting around a small table in a small Italian restaurant in New York City. I looked across that table at this beautiful woman and all that she has done in her lifetime. It is truly amazing. Her life may have begun under challenging circumstances but she became one of the country's most generous philanthropists and accomplished businesswomen. She was fun, she was smart, she was talented. She was a devoted wife, mother, grandmother, and friend. She was a remarkable American woman. She will be missed.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, as I understand the current situation, we do not know whether we are on three bills or one bill. That is up to the leadership. Senator Alexander and I have worked on the Energy and Water bill. We are very hopeful we can move this bill. It was unanimous in the subcommittee on Appropriations. There was only one dissent in the full committee--which is one of the largest committees in the Senate, in the Appropriations Committee. It is a significant bill. We believe we should move it as quickly as we possibly can. We have been talking. Obviously we are waiting to hear from the leadership. We are hopeful that once we hear we can move very quickly to get this bill passed by this body.

It has been a great pleasure for me to work with Senator Alexander. I know he has some comments he wishes to make at this time.

Let me thank the distinguished ranking member for those comments, and I believe we are in agreement. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I would hope any Democratic amendments could come in just as quickly as possible, and we think we have a good bill. Hopefully there will not be many. I agree with what the Senator said about the Defense bill. We have a CR, and we really need to get cracking. Time is of the essence.

We have been sitting here for a couple of hours waiting for amendments. There have been none thus far, and I think the word is out: Now is the time. Please, Members, if you have amendments, please file them. We have had one amendment just filed on the Republican side and know of a couple of others, but that is about it at this stage.

Let me thank the ranking member. I guess we just sit here and wait.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise in support of the fiscal year 2012 energy and water development appropriations bill with my ranking member, the distinguished Senator Alexander, with whom I have had the great pleasure of working. I want to say this up front: It has been a pleasure to work with this particular ranking member. He is respected, he is credible, he is direct, and he is reasonable, which I have learned is an endangered species around here. So I very much appreciate that.

This Energy and Water bill has an allocation of $31.625 billion, which is $57 million or .1 percent below last year's enacted levels and nearly $3 billion or 9.4 percent below the President's request. The $31.625 billion is split between security and nonsecurity funding, consistent with the Budget Control Act of 2011. The Budget Control Act established caps on discretionary spending over 10 years, with separate caps for security and nonsecurity spending. Now, this becomes relevant, as I will explain.

The security allocation for energy and water is $11.05 billion. The $11.05 billion funds only four programs under the National Nuclear Security Administration, called NNSA: nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the Office of the Administrator.

I would like to point out right up front that funding for the NNSA makes up a growing portion of this bill. Last year the NNSA made up 30 percent of the total allocation. This year it has increased to 35 percent. In addition, because of the Budget Control Act, a firewall is created between security and nonsecurity funding so we cannot transfer funding back and forth. No funding from the NNSA can be used to fund energy and water projects, and no funds from energy and water can be used to fund the National Nuclear Security Administration.

While funding increases for the National Nuclear Security Administration to help advance national security priorities, it comes at the expense of water and energy projects in the rest of our bill. Our nonsecurity allocation, which funds the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation under the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Energy, is $20.575 billion. While our security allocation grew by $528 million or 5 percent, the nonsecurity allocation is $584 million or 2.8 percent less than for fiscal year 2011 and $3.5 billion or 17 percent less than for fiscal year 2010. So we can see the crunch that is put on one part of the budget and the other part of our appropriations bill has actually expanded.

As I mentioned, the security allocation is $11.05 billion, which is an increase of $528 million or 5 percent over fiscal year 2011. This is an increase of $1.163 billion or close to 12 percent for the security portion of this appropriations bill over fiscal year 2010.

To clarify, NNSA is responsible for three primary national security missions: first, maintaining the safety, security, and reliability of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile; second, responsibility for reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism through nonproliferation programs; and third, it designs and builds nuclear reactors for safe and effective nuclear propulsion for aircraft carriers and submarines in the U.S. Navy.

Taking into account competing funding priorities for national security activities, I think this bill strikes as good a balance as it can between funding for nuclear weapons modernization and reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation. The Nuclear Weapons Program under the bill would see an increase of $294 million or 4.2 percent above fiscal year 2011. With $7.2 billion, the NNSA, which is the agency of concern, will be able to meet the highest priorities of the Nuclear Posture Review and modernization activities discussed during negotiations of the New START Treaty.

These are three primary activities:

First, funds will continue for life extension programs for the W76 submarine-launched warhead, the B61 bomb, and the W78 intercontinental ballistic missile warhead.

Second, funds allow for completing design work for two aging nuclear facilities that may need to be replaced to meet modern safety standards--one for handling plutonium at Los Alamos National Lab and the other for uranium at the Y-12 facility in Tennessee.

Third, funds will maintain the science, technology, and engineering base to continue assessing the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile.

The nonproliferation program would see an increase of $109 million or 4.7 percent above fiscal year 2011. NNSA would stay on track to meet its goals to secure and remove the most vulnerable nuclear materials from around the world by the end of 2013. These are materials that could be used by terrorists to build nuclear devices. The United States has already removed 3,086 kilograms of highly enriched uranium--120 nuclear weapons' worth of material--from dozens of countries.

NNSA would also be able to continue deploying portal monitors at seaports and border crossings to detect nuclear smuggling and help countries increase security at nuclear facilities. The United States has installed radiation detection equipment at more than 399 sites across the world.

Finally, the security allocation will be used to fund the naval reactors program that provides propulsion for the country's submarines and aircraft carriers. An increase of $141 million or 14.6 percent above fiscal year 2011 is directed to help design a nuclear reactor that will last 40 years for ballistic missile submarines, the most survivable leg of our nuclear deterrent.

Turning to nonsecurity funding, as I mentioned earlier, our allocation is $20.575 billion--$584 million or 2.8 percent less than fiscal year 2011. With this significant decrease in funding, the bill focuses its limited nonsecurity funding on the highest priorities: critical water infrastructure projects and accelerating energy technology.

Let me speak for a moment about water infrastructure. The Corps of Engineers would receive $4.864 billion. That is an increase of $7 million or one-tenth of 1 percent, above fiscal year 2011 and $291 million or 5.9 percent above the President's request. Here is why. I strongly believe the Corps of Engineers is responsible for such a wide array of projects--building, maintaining, repairing locks, levees, dams, dredging for waterway navigation. Devastating floods and hurricanes in the last few months that have damaged many communities across the United States are a stark reminder of why Corps of Engineers infrastructure projects remain such a high congressional priority.

With a ban on congressionally directed projects--or, as they are not so fondly called, earmarks--Congress cannot direct needed funding to projects that may have been overlooked by the administration or to address emerging needs after the President's budget submission. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request did not include more than 100 studies and projects for navigation, flood control, and environmental restoration that the administration included in the fiscal year 2011 work plan. Without funding in 2012, these studies and projects will likely be suspended.

I think that is important to keep in mind. While our bill does not fund any new projects, our bill provides $291 million above the President's request to support these ongoing studies and projects for the Corps that were either unfunded or underfunded in the President's budget request.

The bill also provides the Department of the Interior $1.067 billion, which is $27 million or 2\1/2\ percent less than fiscal year 2011 but still $16 million or 1.4 percent more than the President's request. Funding for the Department of Interior includes the Bureau of Reclamation, which is responsible for oversight and operation of water projects related to irrigation, water supply, and hydroelectric power generation in the 17 Western States.

Finally, the bill provides $1.045 billion in disaster relief funding--and I wish to speak about that--this is on top of our base allocation--to repair damaged Corps of Engineers owned, operated, or fixed infrastructure from flooding on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and other natural disasters.

This level of funding covers damages the Corps identified when the committee reported this bill. As I mentioned during committee markup, we know this amount is insufficient based on the number and severity of natural disasters that have occurred this year. The Corps has updated their disaster needs. We will be working throughout the floor process to ensure that increased funding to address disaster recovery needs is provided. I think both the ranking member and I, our subcommittee, and the Appropriations Committee as a whole understand that responding to these disaster needs is of the highest priority.

Regarding clean energy, the bill provides stable funding to support science, technology, and engineering programs to advance clean energy technologies. It provides the Office of Science $4.84 billion, the same as in 2011. The Office of Science conducts basic research in physics, chemistry, and biology to improve our understanding of energy and matter. New discoveries will advance energy technologies. Our bill focuses the limited resources of the Office of Science toward the highest priorities, which include material support, developing the next generation of biofuels, and maintaining the leadership of the United States in high-performance computing.

Our bill continues to fund three hubs, which are research centers made up of scientists and engineers from the national labs, universities, and private industry to address a specific energy challenge. The three hubs focus on developing fuels that can be produced directly from sunlight, improving energy efficiency of existing buildings, and using modeling and simulation tools to improve the operation of nuclear reactors.

Our bill also funds a new hub, the fourth hub, to improve batteries for electric vehicles and for storage of wind, solar, and other intermittent power sources--something which the ranking member was very much interested in and which I was very pleased to agree to.

In addition to the Office of Science, the bill also provides $250 million for ARPA-E, an increase of $70 million, or 39 percent. ARPA-E funds new and innovative energy technologies that would significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce carbon emissions.

ARPA-E's goal is to demonstrate the feasibility of new technology and then find a private company to commercialize the technology. As a sign of early success in attracting private investment, last year ARPA-E awarded a startup company $750,000 to demonstrate its new innovative technology related to energy storage. An early demonstration of this startup's new technology has already attracted $12 million in private investment to help commercialize it. I think that is good news.

While the government continues to invest in innovative energy technologies, nuclear energy continues to provide 20 percent of the Nation's electricity, but it is 70 percent of its carbon-free electricity. This, to me, is a stunning figure, that it is 20 percent of all power but 70 percent of carbon-free power.

Currently, nuclear energy will continue to be an important source of energy for us in the future. However, I deeply believe that before we expand nuclear power in the United States, we must address our spent fuel situation in order to limit the government's liability from its failure to take this waste.

Today, high-level nuclear spent fuels are stored at 74 locations most directly adjacent to an active reactor. The fuel remains in either spent fuel pools or dry casks meant to be temporary but, in reality, has been stored permanently. There is simply no place to put it.

Today, to date, the U.S. Government has paid out $1 billion to the nuclear industry because of its failure to take custody of this fuel as required by law. Few people know this. This liability will grow to $15.4 billion by 2020 and another $500 million for each year of delay after 2020.

My distinguished ranking member, we simply have to get cracking and find either regional repositories or a central waste repository where nuclear waste can be stored essentially forever. The United States is responsible for 65,000 tons of spent fuel at these 74

sites. This is enough material to cover one football field 20-feet deep. And our liability continues to grow. According to the blue ribbon commission, if no nuclear reactors are built and the existing fleet of 104 reactors operate until the end of their licenses, the total inventory of spent fuel by 2050 would be 150,000 metric tons.

That is 2\1/2\ times as much as we have now. The current absence of a spent fuel policy and repository to store spent nuclear fuel is unacceptable and unsustainable. For these reasons, this bill takes the first step in requiring the Department of Energy to create a strategy for spent fuel storage, including options for consolidating and storing spent fuel at one or more regional sites.

With regard to funding for the nuclear energy program, the bill provides $584 million, which is a reduction of $142 million, or 24 percent, available funding that will focus more on safety and the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. For example, the bill provides $52 million--that is an increase of $12 million from 2011--to accelerate development of new cladding materials for nuclear fuel that reduce the likelihood of meltdowns and hydrogen explosions, which were observed at Fukishima.

I believe as more becomes available about what actually happened at Fukishima and the aftereffects of Fukishima, cladding material is going to become much more significant.

In closing, I again thank my colleague and ranking member, Senator Alexander, for working with me in a cooperative and constructive manner to draft this bill. I believe we have developed a well-balanced and responsible bill that addresses the water, infrastructure, energy, and national security needs of this Nation.

I hope every Senator can support the bill, and I hope we can conclude floor action in a timely manner.

I yield the floor to my distinguished ranking member.

Mr. President, I rise to thank the Senator. Once again, it has been a great pleasure to work with him. I do think we have a lot of this bill in common, but we do have some points of difference, and I want to say a little bit about my point of difference.

I very much want to leave a world for my grandchildren where there is not danger from nuclear weapons or nuclear fuels, and today I don't believe I can say we have achieved that. The ranking member was correct, the head of the NRC did testify in his view the hot rods were safe for 100 years in those spent fuel pools. Well, you know, there were problems with spent fuel pools at Fukushima. I think, as life goes on, we are going to see more of that.

We know cladding has to be improved. We know that, perhaps, the design basis of a new nuclear reactor has to meet events which are not necessarily predicted. Who would have thought a 47-foot tsunami would hit Fukushima? But it happened.

I am in California. We are in the ring of fire. Sure enough, there have been earthquakes in the southern tip of South America, in Asia, in Christchurch, New Zealand, going right around. These have been very large earthquakes, approaching 9, and the concern is, what happens next. So I think safety is a very real problem, and I think as we appropriate monies we should be concerned with safety.

Spent fuel pools were designed to harbor hot rods for a relatively short period of time. The rods can be moved 5 to 7 years out, and then they are generally moved into passive storage and the dry casks. The dry casks, it was thought, would be transported to repositories--either permanent repositories or repositories on a regional basis--under the supervision of the Federal Government.

I always felt that affecting that was an extraordinary challenge for us and particularly when I learned we were being fined an egregious amount of money because we can't do that every year. So my view is, we have to get cracking and move that on, and the five things we have in the bill I think all take us to a much safer place with respect to nuclear activities.

With respect to the small modular nuclear reactors, what they are is essentially less than 300 megawatts modular small actors. I understand there are still problems with the cladding. But what was asked for was $192 million, not alone but a proposal to essentially subsidize up to 50 percent of the licensing costs of financial and technically viable corporations. These aren't small corporations; they are big corporations, and the Department would have to pick two winners for the subsidy. That would leave at least five American companies out. This is a restricted bid. It doesn't include everybody. It includes only one kind of reactor--light water reactor. Who knows. Maybe others of the five are as viable.

So firms not receiving assistance would be substantially disadvantaged. The likely winners include these companies: Babcock and Wilcox, I have nothing against them, 2010 revenues exceeding $2.6 billion--can't they afford their own licensing certification fees?--and Westinghouse, owned by the Japanese conglomerate Toshiba, which has $64 billion in assets and more than 200,000 employees.

In other sectors, we don't invest Federal dollars to help profitable private companies obtain safety licenses. We don't help Ford comply with crash test regulations, nor do we pay for Boeing to obtain FAA certification. So before we commit these moneys, we should seriously evaluate whether any company would change its decision about pursuing a license because of this.

So I am kind of at a different point in looking at subsidies. I think most subsidies by the Federal Government should just go, wherever they are--oil, gas, nuclear, ag, you name it--at a time when we should not be subsidizing private industry.

There is also a fundamental contradiction in the nuclear industry's argument for funding small modular reactor licensing. On one hand, the industry argues that the market will be enormous, and we can't afford to fall behind international competitors. On the other hand, these same industry experts argue they will not develop and license a product unless government pays them to apply for an NRC license. They argue that the United States must provide each firm with more than $200 million to motivate them to pursue this business.

The bottom line, the small modular reactor cannot be both a massive economic opportunity, with the potential to change the way we power our economy, and an opportunity that industry will not pursue unless the government pays them to do that.

So I have real questions about funding this item. We will have more to say about it as this goes on. I know it is popular. If there were a spent fuel policy, if we knew we were going to go for regional repositories, that there was some limit to the storage of fuel at a site--74 sites now, and with advanced modular reactors this is more because many people think the only way this can be cost competitive is you have to group these two together. So in a given site, you would have five or six small reactors, but you would have the same spent fuel problem. It seems to me we need a place to put spent fuel. I am not opposed to nuclear if we can properly take care of its waste.

I wanted to respond when my distinguished ranking member raised this. We have had one meeting with the chairman of the Energy Committee, the ranking member of the Energy Committee, Senator Alexander, and myself to discuss how to proceed toward a nuclear storage policy. I think we need to continue this. We are going to ask the Secretary in to talk with us in December, and Senator Alexander has been great in doing this--put forward a little agenda of how to proceed toward this so I know he is, in fact, in good faith suggesting it, and I do. He has always been a straight shooter.

But it is just very hard for me to go ahead and say, OK, we are going to promote a whole new class of nuclear reactors when we don't have a place to dispose of hot spent fuels that will be hot and dangerous for literally hundreds of years. If we can move fast, I am all for it.

I know the Senator wants to respond, and I welcome the debate.

If I may, I wish to thank the distinguished ranking member. I believe that completes the opening statements on the bill.

I notice the distinguished Senator is on the floor. So if it is agreeable with Senator Alexander, we can yield at this time to him.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, I honor the extraordinary life of Gilbert ``Gil'' Cates, a director, producer, mentor, and friend to not only California and New York, but the entire Nation.

Born Gilbert Lewis Katz on June 6, 1934, in New York City to Russian Jewish immigrants Nathan and Nina Katz, Gil soared to the top of the entertainment field with a focus in both film and theater.

Following his education at DeWitt Clinton High School in the Bronx, Gil enrolled at Syracuse University, where he majored in theater.

In 1961, Gil made his producing and directing debut on the television game show ``Camouflage.''

He accomplished countless artistic achievements during his long career as a producer and director, and in 1990 he produced the ``62nd Annual Academy Award,'' where he made his biggest mark on the industry he cherished so much.

Over the next 18 years, Gil served either as the producer or executive producer of 14 Academy Award shows. With broadcasts hosted by Billy Crystal, Whoopi Goldberg, Steve Martin, and Chris Rock, Gil is credited with restoring the telecast as the entertainment industry's most important and widely watched event.

Gil also earned a reputation as an inclusive and creative leader. As a film producer, his credits include ``Oh, God! Book II,'' ``After the Fall,'' and ``I Never Sang for My Father.'' He directed segments of ``The Twilight Zone,'' ``Hobson's Choice,'' ``The Promise,'' and ``Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams.'' As both producer and director, his body of work includes ``Collected Stories,'' ``Confessions: Two Faces of Evil,'' ``Absolute Strangers,'' ``Rings Around the World,'' and ``World's Fair Spectacular.''

Gil made his Broadway debut as the stage manager for ``Shinbone Alley'' in 1957. He made his producing debut on Broadway in 1967 with ``You Know I Can't Hear You When the Water's Running,'' and five years later made his directorial debut in 1972 with ``Voices,'' an original play with music. In total, he was involved with nine Broadway shows. The most recent, ``Time Stands Still,'' closed on January 30, 2011.

Beyond his film, television, and theater work, Gil served the entertainment industry in many leadership capacities. He was a two-term president of the Directors Guild of America, DGA, from 1983 to 1987. From 1990 to 1998, he served as founding dean of the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television, and then as a mentor and professor. He was also the founding and producing director of the renowned Geffen Playhouse in Westwood, CA. During his diverse career he served in various roles on the Board of Governors of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Gil received many honors from the entertainment industry throughout his extensive career, including an Emmy Award for producing the ``63rd Annual Academy Awards'' in 1991. Gil was also Emmy-nominated for directing two television movies, ``Consenting Adult'' in 1985 and ``Do You Know the Muffin Man?'' in 1989.

As a result of his service to the DGA, he received the Directors Guild President Award, the DGA's Robert B. Aldrich Award for Service, and an Honorary Life Membership. He also received the Jimmy Dolittle Award for Outstanding Contribution to Los Angeles Theater, the Ovation Award for best play ``Collected Stories,'' and finally, a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame.

The showman who was known for his undeniable charisma and witty ways, as well as his contributions to the entertainment industry, was above all an extraordinary person who was in a class all his own.

Please join me in expressing the sympathies of this body to Gil Cates' family, including his wife, Dr. Judith Reichman; his sister, Florence Adler; his children, David, Jonathan, Gil Junior, Melissa, and Anat and Ronit Reichman; and six grandchildren.

Gilbert Cates was larger-than-life and his legacy of remarkable talent, leadership, humor, and dedication to art will no doubt live on within the entertainment industry.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011.

This legislation will authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to improve the flood control infrastructure in the Sacramento area, safeguarding many thousands of homes and businesses.

There is a pressing need to improve levees in Sacramento, a city that is perpetually cited as one of our Nation's most at-risk for severe flooding.

But even in this high-risk city, there are priority areas. Natomas, which lies between the American and Sacramento rivers, is the top priority for Sacramento flood control.

More than 100,000 people in the Natomas flood plain are at high or moderate risk of flooding.

The vast majority of these homes would be inundated with over 10 feet of water should a levee break.

In some places, inundation levels would exceed 20 feet.

The risk is clear. Estimates by the Army Corps of Engineers put the risk of levee failure at 1 in 3. Damages from a single flood could top $7 billion.

Recognizing the need to upgrade the levees in Natomas, the Corps of Engineers completed a Chief's Report in December 2010 that identified $1.1 billion in essential levee improvements.

According to the report, the principal levee modifications include the widening of 41.9 miles of existing levees; installation of about 34.8 miles of soil bentonite cutoff wall; installation of 8.3 miles of seepage berms, and bridge remediation on State Route 99.

In addition, the report recommends the creation of 75 acres of canal habitat, 200 acres of Marsh habitat, and 60 acres of woodland habitat to ensure the project complies with the Endangered Species Act.

The cost of these improvements will be significant, but the burden will be shared. The Chief's Report recommends that the costs of the improvements be split between the federal government and state and local stakeholders.

The report recommends roughly a 65 percent federal share and a 35 percent state and local share.

The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, SAFCA, and the California Department of Water Resources have taken the cost-share agreement to heart and are outpacing the Corps of Engineers. They have begun their work on the project even before the federal work has been authorized.

SAFCA and California have already invested more than $320 million in the Natomas Basin project and repaired about 18 miles of the basin's 42 miles of levees. By the end of 2012, this amount will increase to $370 million.

I want to take a moment to recognize SAFCA and the people of Sacramento for their efforts. They have put their money where their mouth is. This project would not be possible without the significant leadership and resources they have already committed.

County voters twice approved special tax assessments, in 2007 and 2011, to raise local funds needed to improve the levee system. These assessments will provide more than $80 million of local funds for flood control projects. In addition, local interests have provided an additional $40 million in advance of federal participation for which credit will be sought, that is a total commitment thus far of $120 million

The most recent assessment passed overwhelmingly, 84.5 percent of voters supported the measure.

Sacramento residents and homeowners understand that this levee improvement project is critical to the safety and viability of their community. Even during the worst economic downturns in a generation, voters stood together, passed the measure and sent a definitive message to Congress.

I also want to recognize Representative Doris Matsui, author of companion legislation in the House and a champion on this issue. I have had the pleasure of working with my good friend from Sacramento on flood control for nearly a decade, and her commitment and advocacy is unparalleled.

I want to reinforce the importance of this legislation. If Sacramento levees fail, the results will be devastating Sacramento International Airport, which serves 4.4 million passengers per year and is the primary air-cargo hub for the region, will be largely underwater.

Interstate 5, Interstate 80 and State Route 99 will be closed or restricted. These roads serve as freight arteries and facilitate the passage of more than 2,500 trucks per day.

Access to the Port of West Sacramento, the city's primary seaport, will be jeopardized.

Flooding in Sacramento is not a question of if, but when.

Recordbreaking storms hit the region in 1951, 1956, 1964, 1986 and 1997.

During the 1997 storm, levee failures in the nearby cities of Olivehurst, Arboga, Wilton, Manteca and Modesto caused mass evacuations and millions of dollars in damages.

An even more devastating flood occurred in 1861 when the American River Levee failed. California's newly elected Governor, Leland Stanford, was forced to take a row-boat to his inauguration and the state capital was temporarily moved to San Francisco.

In January of this year, the U.S. Geological Survey released a study entitled ``ARkStorm'' that examined the impacts of an atmospheric river storm event in California. This storm scenario produced rainfall levels seen once every 500 to 1,000 years.

In this model, the Central Valley would experience 300 miles of flooding, 20 or more miles wide. Evacuations could involve 1.5 million residents, with hundreds of landslides damaging roads, highways, and homes.

There is a statistical possibility that the cataclysmic scenario run by the U.S.G.S. will occur in our lifetime. The possibility is small, but it could happen.

So we must be prepared if it does.

The Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011 is one small step toward achieving that.

This legislation addresses the needs of one of the highest-risk communities in our Nation.

While this legislation isn't cheap, the cost-share relieves a sizable share of the Federal responsibility.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011.

This legislation will authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to improve the flood control infrastructure in the Sacramento area, safeguarding many thousands of homes and businesses.

There is a pressing need to improve levees in Sacramento, a city that is perpetually cited as one of our Nation's most at-risk for severe flooding.

But even in this high-risk city, there are priority areas. Natomas, which lies between the American and Sacramento rivers, is the top priority for Sacramento flood control.

More than 100,000 people in the Natomas flood plain are at high or moderate risk of flooding.

The vast majority of these homes would be inundated with over 10 feet of water should a levee break.

In some places, inundation levels would exceed 20 feet.

The risk is clear. Estimates by the Army Corps of Engineers put the risk of levee failure at 1 in 3. Damages from a single flood could top $7 billion.

Recognizing the need to upgrade the levees in Natomas, the Corps of Engineers completed a Chief's Report in December 2010 that identified $1.1 billion in essential levee improvements.

According to the report, the principal levee modifications include the widening of 41.9 miles of existing levees; installation of about 34.8 miles of soil bentonite cutoff wall; installation of 8.3 miles of seepage berms, and bridge remediation on State Route 99.

In addition, the report recommends the creation of 75 acres of canal habitat, 200 acres of Marsh habitat, and 60 acres of woodland habitat to ensure the project complies with the Endangered Species Act.

The cost of these improvements will be significant, but the burden will be shared. The Chief's Report recommends that the costs of the improvements be split between the federal government and state and local stakeholders.

The report recommends roughly a 65 percent federal share and a 35 percent state and local share.

The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, SAFCA, and the California Department of Water Resources have taken the cost-share agreement to heart and are outpacing the Corps of Engineers. They have begun their work on the project even before the federal work has been authorized.

SAFCA and California have already invested more than $320 million in the Natomas Basin project and repaired about 18 miles of the basin's 42 miles of levees. By the end of 2012, this amount will increase to $370 million.

I want to take a moment to recognize SAFCA and the people of Sacramento for their efforts. They have put their money where their mouth is. This project would not be possible without the significant leadership and resources they have already committed.

County voters twice approved special tax assessments, in 2007 and 2011, to raise local funds needed to improve the levee system. These assessments will provide more than $80 million of local funds for flood control projects. In addition, local interests have provided an additional $40 million in advance of federal participation for which credit will be sought, that is a total commitment thus far of $120 million

The most recent assessment passed overwhelmingly, 84.5 percent of voters supported the measure.

Sacramento residents and homeowners understand that this levee improvement project is critical to the safety and viability of their community. Even during the worst economic downturns in a generation, voters stood together, passed the measure and sent a definitive message to Congress.

I also want to recognize Representative Doris Matsui, author of companion legislation in the House and a champion on this issue. I have had the pleasure of working with my good friend from Sacramento on flood control for nearly a decade, and her commitment and advocacy is unparalleled.

I want to reinforce the importance of this legislation. If Sacramento levees fail, the results will be devastating Sacramento International Airport, which serves 4.4 million passengers per year and is the primary air-cargo hub for the region, will be largely underwater.

Interstate 5, Interstate 80 and State Route 99 will be closed or restricted. These roads serve as freight arteries and facilitate the passage of more than 2,500 trucks per day.

Access to the Port of West Sacramento, the city's primary seaport, will be jeopardized.

Flooding in Sacramento is not a question of if, but when.

Recordbreaking storms hit the region in 1951, 1956, 1964, 1986 and 1997.

During the 1997 storm, levee failures in the nearby cities of Olivehurst, Arboga, Wilton, Manteca and Modesto caused mass evacuations and millions of dollars in damages.

An even more devastating flood occurred in 1861 when the American River Levee failed. California's newly elected Governor, Leland Stanford, was forced to take a row-boat to his inauguration and the state capital was temporarily moved to San Francisco.

In January of this year, the U.S. Geological Survey released a study entitled ``ARkStorm'' that examined the impacts of an atmospheric river storm event in California. This storm scenario produced rainfall levels seen once every 500 to 1,000 years.

In this model, the Central Valley would experience 300 miles of flooding, 20 or more miles wide. Evacuations could involve 1.5 million residents, with hundreds of landslides damaging roads, highways, and homes.

There is a statistical possibility that the cataclysmic scenario run by the U.S.G.S. will occur in our lifetime. The possibility is small, but it could happen.

So we must be prepared if it does.

The Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011 is one small step toward achieving that.

This legislation addresses the needs of one of the highest-risk communities in our Nation.

While this legislation isn't cheap, the cost-share relieves a sizable share of the Federal responsibility.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I support the confirmation of the President's nominee to be the first inspector general of the intelligence community, Irvin Charles McCullough III.

The position of Inspector General of the Intelligence Community--or ICIG--was created in the fiscal year 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act, after several years of effort to have the position enacted. The reason to have a Community-wide inspector general is similar to the reason to have a Director of National Intelligence.

The ICIG is intended to review, and conduct oversight on, intelligence activities across the 16 agencies that make up the intelligence community, as well as the Office of the DNI, instead of having every agency--and its IG--operate within its own stovepipe.

In recent years, the intelligence agencies have worked more closely together. This has improved performance and reduced duplication, but it has also made the oversight work of individual agency inspectors general more difficult.

The Intelligence Committee saw there was a need to create an inspector general with authority and oversight of the entire intelligence community, and one who could look at issues that cut across individual agencies.

That view was reinforced by the relative weakness of the inspector general position in the Office of the DNI that was authorized as part of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004.

Thus, the committee pushed to have created the inspector general of the intelligence community, to be confirmed by the Senate and given the statutory authorities and independence of other Senate-confirmed inspectors general.

Mr. McCullough is well-qualified to be this first ICIG. He has long experience conducting investigations both as an inspector general and a FBI agent. He is an attorney and is well-familiar with the intelligence community.

Mr. McCullough currently serves as the deputy inspector general of the DNI's Office of the Inspector General. From 2003 to 2010, he was an assistant inspector general for the National Security Agency. He served from 2001-2003 as senior counsel for law enforcement and intelligence in the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of the Treasury and was for 10 years in the Federal Bureau of Investigation as attorney, special agent and supervisory special agent.

The Intelligence Committee received Mr. McCullough's nomination in August. After Mr. McCullough answered the committee's questionnaire and prehearing questions, we held a public hearing with him on September 22. On October 4, the Intelligence Committee voted out Mr. McCullough's nomination on a rollcall vote of 15 to 0. His nomination was also considered in the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and has moved forward by unanimous consent.

This important post will now be filled, and Mr. McCullough is qualified and prepared to take on the responsibilities and authorities of the position.

I support his confirmation.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon and the

Senator from Massachusetts. I happened to hear their comments, and they are both very good and they are both right on.

I was thinking while Senator Wyden spoke about the fact that in the past 6 months those of us on this side have tried on four different occasions to pass legislation related to jobs. We began on May 4 to reauthorize the Small Business Innovation Research Program, which would direct grants to small businesses to develop technologies. That fell on a cloture vote. It did not get 60 votes. It only got 52. We then tried to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration, which I think most of us know essentially is a cost share for communities in distress. That didn't get cloture. It fell 49 to 51. We then tried the President's big jobs act on October 11. That vote fell. It did not get cloture. It only got 50 votes. We then tried taking a part of that on October 20, in order to fund 400,000 school jobs and thousands of jobs for police and fire departments--first responders--throughout the Nation. That was paid for with a .5 percent surtax on people who could well afford to pay for it and probably would want to pay for it, but that fell on a 50-50 vote. We did not get the 60 votes for cloture.

Today, we are trying for a fifth time on a part of the President's bill which has to do with infrastructure. Again, there is a pay-for. It is paid for by a .7 percent tax on people who can well afford to pay that .7 percent. And I think Senator Wyden and I both know the value of keeping this Nation No. 1, because we come from the West. We are on a burgeoning trade basin. We seek competition with countries that have a blooming infrastructure, and we see the plugs and the bumps and the stoppages in this country because of an absence of adequate infrastructure.

I am delighted the Senator is here and that we share this same cause. Hopefully, there is going to be some change in the mindset on the other side of this great Hall and people will realize if we are going to remain No. 1--and we are not No. 1, and I will go into that in my speech--then we have to pass this segment of the President's bill. So I thank Senator Wyden very much for his comments.

As I said, this legislation offered by the majority leader includes the key infrastructure provisions of the President's Jobs Act. It is $50 billion for our roads, bridges, airports, and transit systems, and it capitalizes a freestanding infrastructure bank with $10 billion. This bill makes the investment without increasing the deficit. Funds appropriated are offset by a .7 percent surcharge only on people who can afford it.

I come from a State where unemployment is high--11.9 percent--and employment in our construction sector is down 44 percent, as you can see from this chart. This is actually California's construction jobs, and you can see where it was in 2000. You see it rise to 900,000 in 2006, and since that time it has plummeted. The fact of the matter is, construction, to a great extent, drives the economy in a number of States, and I think California heads that list. So infrastructure and employment go directly together.

Last week, this body passed legislation authorizing the sale of power from the Hoover Dam. The Hoover Dam is on the border between Nevada and Arizona, and it was built in the 1930s. But it reminds me of the invaluable contribution that infrastructure investments have made in generations past. During the depths of the Great Depression, we stepped forward to help build Hoover Dam. Between 1931 and 1936 our Nation made a massive effort involving thousands of workers--more than 100 of whom lost their lives--to build a powerplant unlike anything the world had ever seen.

This is kind of a working picture of Hoover Dam being built. At the time, many in Congress argued the cost of this engineering marvel was too high and the investment of taxpayer dollars too risky. They opposed efforts to invest in an unproven energy technology like hydropower. The debate was strikingly similar to the debate we hear today. Luckily for the people of California, believers in American infrastructure and technology won the Hoover Dam debate. As the years have passed, the investment has been repaid and the wisdom of Congress' investment remains clear.

Today, Hoover Dam, all these years later is still owned by the American people.

It produces power for the Southwestern United States at less than one-quarter of the market price. It is the quintessential example of why infrastructure spending and investment makes sense. During the depths of the Depression, it gave people jobs and hope. But its benefits were permanent, not fleeting. The investment made in the 1930s is still paying dividends for the economy of the Southwest.

Today, this legislation invests $50 billion in America's transportation infrastructure. That is specifically $27 billion for highways, $9 billion for transit, $4 billion for high-speed rail, $2 billion for Amtrak rail improvements, $3 billion for airports and air traffic control modernization, and $5 billion for discretionary grants and TIFIA loans to multimodal projects. These funds are actually in addition to funding levels in the surface transportation bill which authorizes $52 billion annually and the FAA authorization which authorizes $16 billion annually. The proposal also appropriates $10 billion to capitalize an infrastructure bank. With its own appointed board and CEO, this bank would have the power to issue loan guarantees and loans, at the Federal funds rate, to large projects in water, transportation, and energy.

The bank's authority is similar to the functions performed by EPA's State Revolving Fund, the DOE's Loan Guarantee Program, and the Department of Transportation's TIFIA and RRIF Programs.

In the long term, centralizing these functions in a single infrastructure bank will establish more consistent lending rules and policies. So I think a lot of us have gotten together from time to time to see what could be done to fund a real infrastructure bank. Presently, when we build infrastructure, we have no way of financing it. We put up the whole cost upfront. Most States and cities don't fund their infrastructure that way. They float bonds, and they are amortized over time. So the ability to have an infrastructure bank to loan money, to look at various instruments, to move infrastructure production throughout this country I think is vital. Because the bank will lend, not grant, funds, it will leverage $10 billion into approximately $100 billion in actual investment dollars.

The bank would be particularly beneficial to California--I must say that--and we lead the application list for Federal financing assistance.

For example, Los Angeles citizens voted to tax themselves by raising the sales tax in order to build a desperately needed subway and transit system. They seek a Federal loan. They have the money to pay it back; it comes every year due in sales taxes, but they seek a Federal loan to build the system in 10 years, not 30 years because they need it sooner rather than later. The County of Riverside seeks a Federal loan to build a toll road on the Highway 91 goods movement corridor, through which millions of containers move from the Ports of Los Angeles-Long Beach to every community in America.

I think most people in this body don't understand that approximately 50 percent of all the containers that come into this country, east coast, west coast, come in at Los Angeles-Long Beach, 40 to 50 percent, and they go out in multimodal areas in stacked trains into the Midwest. But they run into all kinds of impediments. There is not separated grades. There is not the ability to move these trains as rapidly as they should be. So if we are going to keep up with the delivery of cargo into the heartland of this country, most of which comes from Asia, we need to do something. California's communities are prepared to repay these loans, but they need help in the beginning.

The Federal Highway Administration estimates that for every $1 billion of Federal transportation spending, 27,822 jobs are produced. It is one of the biggest bang for the buck programs I know of. For every $1 billion in spending, nearly 30,000 jobs are generated. So this bill is a job generator. For every $1 spent on infrastructure projects, it also spurs economic activity, raising the level of gross domestic product by $1.59.

So what is the conclusion? Investing in infrastructure is essential to addressing our nationwide unemployment

crisis. Oh, I only wish we could see this.

Congestion is a big problem in this country. I told you about Los Angeles-Long Beach. What I should also tell you is that the average Los Angeles commuter spends 63 hours per year stuck in traffic. That costs $1,400 a person. In Greater Los Angeles, commuters spend 515 million hours stuck in traffic every year. They waste 407 million gallons of fuel, at a total economic cost of $12 billion. That is just L.A.

I see the Senator from Illinois is on the floor. That is just L.A. I wonder what the Chicago numbers would be. They have to be large. San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, and Riverside County face all the similar congestion. In each area, the average commuter spends more than 30 hours a year stuck in traffic. That costs us $6.4 billion, and nationwide, congestion is causing Americans to travel 4.8 billion hours more and to purchase an extra 3.9 billion gallons of fuel, for a congestion cost of $115 billion in 1 year. That year happens to be 2009. This is the equivalent of wasting 130 days of flow from the Alaska pipeline each year. It is enormous.

So is this bill necessary? The answer is clearly a resounding yes. In my State, 66 percent of our major roads are in poor condition, 68 percent of our urban interstates are congested, vehicle travel on our highways increased by 27 percent from 1990 to 2007, and 30 percent of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

One of the best infrastructure projects in the Nation is the repair of Doyle Drive going onto the Golden Gate Bridge. Senator, I wish you could see it because this is a stimulus project and it is amazing because you actually see these dollars at work. Huge ramps are being rebuilt going down to ground level, this great icon of America. The Golden Gate Bridge would never be built today. We just wouldn't build it. If we did, it would take 100 years to do it with all the permits we need. But it is there, it is an icon, and there is a major infrastructure package working on it.

Our Nation's deteriorating surface transportation infrastructure is going to cost the economy more than 876,000 jobs. It is going to suppress GDP growth, it is estimated, by $897 billion by 2020. Poor road conditions cost U.S. motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and operating costs--$333 per motorist. Failing infrastructure will drive the cost of doing business in this country up by $430 billion in the next decade, as the costs to ship goods and raw materials will increase due to bottlenecks and roads that beat up vehicles.

There was a time when America built big things. In the 1800s, we built the transcontinental railroad in one of the great private-public partnerships of all time. We built projects such as the Bay Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam in the 1920s and the 1930s. In the 1950s and 1960s, we built an interstate highway system unlike anything else anywhere on the planet. In the 1970s, we built the Bay Area Rapid Transit system in San Francisco. This multidecade investment gave America an economic advantage over every country around the world.

Now listen to this. As recently as 2005, the World Economic Forum rated U.S. infrastructure as No. 1 for economic competitiveness--No. 1 in 2005 for economic competitiveness. But in just 5 years, we have slipped to No. 15--not 5, not 10 but 15 in 5 years because we haven't kept up what is a deteriorating infrastructure caused by overuse. The argument is so solid to pass this bill, I can't understand how anyone could vote against it.

China is spending today 9 percent of its GDP on infrastructure. They are our competition. I live on the Pacific Rim. I can tell you, every time any one of us goes to China they will look around the city, whether it is Beijing or Shanghai, and you will count 20 to 50 cranes building in that city, improving infrastructure.

I stood in Shanghai when the head of the government told me: In 10 years, we will build 375 kilometers of underground subway and 25 stations. Guess what. They did and are doing it. We can't do that. It is a problem. Of course, China doesn't have NEPA, it doesn't have CEQA, it doesn't have three dozen permits you have to get. It is easy to write a letter to Mrs. Lee or Mrs. Chu and say: You will move in 30 days because your apartment building is going to be destroyed. That doesn't happen here.

But there is no excuse not to do what is in this bill. There is no impediment to do what is in this bill. It might not take us back to No. 1, but it might take us back to No. 3 or No. 4.

China spends 9 percent. Do you know what we spend? I will tell you. According to the Economist, on April 28, we spent 2 percent of GDP on infrastructure.

A lot of people are doing columns on whether America remains No. 1 in the world, whether we have lost our clout, whether we have lost our competitiveness, whether we have lost our ability to invest in the future. This bill is a good testing ground because this measure is all infrastructure, with the ability to get it done in the future by a bank that can specialize in the arena.

So it is a good test. It seems to me, if we want this country to be No. 1, we have to vote yes. I believe the will is on this side of the aisle and I send a challenge to the other side of the aisle. There is no reason not to vote for this bill.

I yield the floor.

I thank Senator Rockefeller very much.

Mr. President, I believe John Bryson is well suited for this important role, particularly at a time when our economy is fragile and job creation is not occurring fast enough.

He has a lot of experience. Senator Kerry just pointed this out. He has run a multibillion-dollar company, he has been a strong advocate for business, he is ready to advance a jobs agenda--and all of that makes him a perfect fit for Commerce Secretary.

I first got to know John when he served for 18 years as CEO of Edison International, one of the 200 largest corporations in the United States, with more than 20,000 employees. Edison International is the parent company of Southern California Edison, which provides power to 14 million Californians and nearly 300,000 businesses.

As my colleagues may recall, in 2000 and 2001, California was gripped by an energy crisis that resulted in rolling blackouts that left millions of Californians in the dark. The period marked the most turbulent era ever for the California power sector. Price caps, manipulation, rolling blackouts, deregulation, and Enron became the focus of our attention.

During that difficult time, John's company was under siege. I watched closely as he successfully fended off financial disaster, even as other California utilities were swept into bankruptcy. I met and spoke with John often during that energy crisis and remember well his intelligence and pragmatism, as utilities, State officials, and Washington worked our way through the crisis.

Some say that a crisis serves as the best test of a person's character. If that is so, John Bryson is a man of exceptional character. In my observation, he worked hard to hear from the people of California, his shareholders, and the many businesses that relied on a stable power grid. After emerging from the crisis, from 2003 to 2007, John turned Edison around completely. The firm was No. 1 among investor-owned utility companies for returning value to its shareholders. I believe he will carry this same thoughtful, sensible leadership style with him to the Commerce Department.

In addition to his time at Edison, he has served as director, chairman, or adviser for a wide array of companies, schools, and nonprofit organizations, including many institutions with deep roots in my home State of California, such as the Walt Disney Company, BrightSource Energy, Boeing, and the asset manager KKR; the California Business Roundtable, the Public Policy Institute of California, and the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine; the Council on Foreign Relations, Stanford University, the California Institute of Technology, and the California Endowment.

I am also proud to note that John and I share the same alma mater-- Stanford--where John earned his undergraduate degree. Later he attended Yale Law School before returning to California.

John Bryson's experience paints a picture of a leader who focuses on the practical and the achievable. I believe, if confirmed, he will support measures that meet those criteria.

At this time in our economic history, our No. 1 priority as a government must be to grow the economy and get people back to work. I know my Senate colleagues agree. In my view, John Bryson's combination of pragmatism, experience in the boardroom, and understanding of the public sector will make him an outstanding Commerce Secretary. I expect he will be a powerful voice inside the administration and a partner with the business community to grow our economy and open international markets for American manufacturers.

I make these remarks on behalf of my colleague Senator Boxer as well. We have a California candidate for Secretary of Commerce. We are the largest State in the Union. We have 12.1 percent. We need job generation. So I trust that John Bryson is going to provide this, and provide it as expeditiously as is humanly possible.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.