Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to recognize the service of a great public servant and an outstanding leader.

Senator Craig has served his home State of Idaho for 17 years in the U.S. Senate. He has been a fervent leader to the people of Idaho with unwavering devotion.

Senator Craig has sought to establish Federal policies that respond to the needs and interests of Idahoans by constructing strong, sustainable rural communities, seeking access to adequate, affordable health care and developing natural resource and energy policies that protect the environment and keep consistency with economic growth.

Senator Craig's leadership in promoting economic development and strengthening American agriculture has led to the improvement of both agricultural studies and programs. His resilient leadership has helped to foster numerous programs in Idaho that will benefit agricultural entrepreneurship and help to strengthen the partnership between State and Federal groups. Senator Craig has truly served the people of Idaho with distinction.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this magnificent Senator.

Pete Domenici

Madam President, I rise to recognize the service of a great public servant and an outstanding leader.

Senator Domenici has been a tremendous and dedicated servant to his home State of New Mexico. His distinguished career spans 36 years, making him the first New Mexican to serve six full 6-year terms and the longest serving Senator of his State.

Senator Domenici has been a devoted champion of the State of New Mexico. His relentless commitment to the people of New Mexico is evident to all who know him. As a respected leader in the Senate, he has pushed to strengthen energy security, curb nuclear proliferation, promote fiscal responsibility in the Federal budget, and has demonstrated profound leadership skills in his desire to continuously improve New Mexico's economy.

Among his many accomplishments and priorities, Senator Domenici has placed the importance of our future generation at the forefront. He recognizes the necessity of cultivating the young minds of today to ensure a bright future. Over a decade ago, Senator Domenici introduced the Character Counts Program into New Mexico's school curriculum. Under the guidance of this program, schoolchildren learn the value of trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship as they build their character. Such traits are reflected in Senator Domenici. His legacy of public service has truly left its mark on Congress and will forever remain in the hearts of New Mexicans.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this magnificent Senator and friend.

Chuck Hagel

Madam President, I rise to recognize the service of a great public servant and an outstanding leader.

Senator Hagel has been a committed and avid servant to his home State of Nebraska. He has served in Congress for two consecutive 6-year terms with ardent fervor for the welfare of Nebraskans and all Americans.

Senator Hagel has always placed the well-being of Nebraska and our Nation ahead of partisanship and personal feelings. He has been an earnest supporter of bipartisanship, recognizing the productivity that can accompany joint labor. His devotion to the people of his State and this Nation is apparent to any who know him. He has distinguished himself as a soldier and public servant of the people, demonstrating an exemplary character of which Nebraskans can be proud.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this magnificent Senator.

Wayne Allard

Madam President, I rise to recognize the service of a great public servant and an outstanding leader.

Senator Allard has been a tremendous and dedicated servant to his home State of Colorado. His distinguished career spans 17 years in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives.

Senator Allard has been a devoted champion of the State of Colorado. His tireless commitment to the people of Colorado is evident to all who know him. He has been an ardent supporter of increased national attention to the importance of savings plans and investments and small business concerns.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this magnificent Senator.

John Warner

Madam President, I rise to recognize the service of a great public servant and an outstanding leader.

Senator Warner has been a tremendous and dedicated servant to his home State of Virginia and our Nation. His distinguished career spans 30 years in the U.S. Senate, making him the second longest serving U.S. Senator from Virginia.

Senator Warner has always placed the well-being of Virginia and the United States ahead of partisanship and personal feelings. He has been an ardent supporter for the men and women of the Armed Forces. As a respected leader, he pushed to modernize the structure and operations of the military to ensure its effectiveness in the 21st century.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this magnificent Senator.

john sununu

Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I rise in support of the remarks made by my colleagues and would like to express my concern with moving forward on this proposal.

Clearly, such a profound change in aviation policy must be supported by Congress and the agency's underlying authorizing legislation. Congress, however, has consistently opposed the DOT's attempt to auction slots and explicitly prohibited such actions in P.L. 110-161. Just this week, the GAO reaffirmed the position of Congress when it issued an opinion which concluded DOT's proposed initiative to auction slots is illegal.

It is perplexing that the DOT continues to pursue this course of action in the face of such strong Congressional opposition. Further, I am astonished that they would continue down this road in the face of legislation that clearly prohibits them from taking such action. I, along with my colleagues, implore the DOT to abandon its efforts to auction slots. The administration should focus its energy on more important issues, such as modernizing the Air Traffic Control System and ensuring the safety of its passengers.

Mr. President, I fully support passage of H.R. 2095, a bill that will help move America's railroads into the 21st century. The reauthorizations of the Federal rail safety programs and Amtrak are long overdue and this bill will give direction to Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration, FRA, to help them both better accomplish their missions. Given the higher price of oil, continuing climate change concerns, and our challenging economic times, it is more important than ever that we ensure that our Nation's passenger and freight rail systems are adequately prepared to safely accommodate our transportation needs.

Safety is a key element if we are to continue to expand our Nation's use of trains. H.R. 2095 will improve railroad safety and provide the resources we need to develop our rail network into the first-class system our Nation deserves. Key improvements include reforming the hours of service requirements for train and signal workers, requiring risk-based safety programs for large railroad companies, mandating the installation of positive train control systems and other safety technology, and encouraging and funding grade crossing and pedestrian safety and trespasser prevention programs.

This bill will also encourage the further development of passenger rail corridors, provide incentives for Amtrak to operate more efficiently, and strengthen the relationship between Amtrak and the States in which it operates. These improvements will help Amtrak further increase its ridership, which has reached record levels this year and last, and will allow Amtrak to better serve its customers. I believe this bill will further fortify Amtrak as an important, necessary, and viable option in our nation's transportation landscape.

I congratulate Senator Lautenberg for crafting his railroad safety and Amtrak bills, working hard to move them through the Senate, and developing this bipartisan compromise with the House. I call on my colleagues in the Senate to pass H.R. 2095 as soon as possible and send it to the President for his signature.

Mr. President, although many Americans may never have heard of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, the agency plays a significant role in the daily lives of Americans, whether it is providing daily weather forecasts, supporting marine commerce, or monitoring our climate.

For nearly 7 years, NOAA has been guided by the leadership of VADM Conrad C. Lautenbacher. When he retires on October 31, Admiral Lautenbacher will leave a lasting legacy at NOAA that has helped strengthen our knowledge and understanding of our oceans and atmosphere.

Life on Earth relies on the ocean. Our oceans regulate our planet's climate, support global commerce, and provide food. The livelihoods of millions of Americans rely on our oceans. Yet, we know little about what lies beneath the surface of our oceans. Ninety-five percent of our oceans are unexplored. Working with the Senate Commerce Committee, Admiral Lautenbacher commissioned America's first ship for ocean exploration, the Okeanos Explorer. The ship's missions will include reconnaissance to search unknown areas and map the deep seafloor. Through telepresence, the

ship and its discoveries will be connected to live audiences so they can see what lies beneath the waters and help inspire a new generation of ``aquanauts.''

Under Admiral Lautenbacher's leadership, the National Weather Service has improved its severe weather warnings. Seconds make a difference during flash floods, tornados, tsunami, and severe thunderstorms. With improved scientific knowledge, NOAA is providing storm-based warnings that give the public more geographically specific information about severe weather. These storm-specific warnings allow first responders and those in harm's way to take the necessary actions to protect lives and property.

An important part of NOAA's mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment. Admiral Lautenbacher has led U.S. efforts working with more than 60 countries and the European Commission to develop the Global Earth Observation System of Systems, GEOSS. Earth observations are critical to our understanding of complex climate and ocean systems. With improved data about the interconnectedness of Earth systems, we will be better equipped to help emergency managers make evacuation decisions, to aid State and local decisionmakers in protecting coastal communities and improving infrastructure development, and to more accurately predict weather and climate changes that affect our economy.

Admiral Lautenbacher also worked closely with Senator Stevens and me to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This act marks a natural evolution in fisheries management because it recognizes not only the need to carefully manage fish populations, but the ocean ecosystems our fisheries occupy.

Given the size of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the Pacific and the reliance of Hawaii and the Pacific Islands on the oceans, NOAA's programs are of critical importance to the Pacific. More than lending technical assistance, Admiral Lautenbacher matched word to deed by growing NOAA's capacity in the Pacific region--from establishing a new National Marine Fisheries Service regional office and lab, to breaking ground on a NOAA Pacific Regional Facility, to developing the data and environmental monitoring infrastructure needed to support science-based management.

Admiral Lautenbacher has my gratitude and deserves our Nation's gratitude for his dedication to public service. I wish him well as he moves into the next chapter of his life.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize a great American who has honorably served our country through her role at Uniformed Services University, USU.

In January 2006, Ms. Scheman began her service at USU. Prior to assuming the vice presidency of External Affairs at USU, she was vice president for government, community and public affairs at the University of Pennsylvania for 11 years. Before serving at University of Pennsylvania, Ms. Scheman was the deputy commissioner of external affairs at the Food and Drug Administration. She also served as vice president and director of Federal relations for the Association of American Universities before working for the FDA.

During her time at USU, Ms. Scheman has helped create the university's first Office of External Affairs bringing together the university's various units that deal with its external communities including media outreach/public affairs, alumni affairs, board of regents support, publications, Web site oversight, and associated visual, photo/videographic, graphic services, protocol and events, including commencement, and government and community affairs. Her team developed the university's first unified branding initiative that created the content for a campaign to clearly describe the university to a wide variety of audiences. Under her skillful leadership, USU produced its first annual report, calendar, combined university catalog and internal newsletter; launched a new Web site, and created a large variety of multimedia products designed to increase the university's visibility. These various products are part of ongoing efforts to reflect coherent, accurate, and accessible information about the university to the general public, prospective students, faculty, local communities, Congress, and the media.

She also served as acting executive secretary to the university's board of regents and supported efforts to increase communication with the board and ensure a seamless transition for new board members. The Office of External Affairs has developed into an interdisciplinary team that continues to develop innovative and creative ways to portray this unique institution to a wide variety of constituencies.

Ms. Scheman worked closely with DOD's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs on public relations outreach, with the relevant congressional committees on issues vital to the university's continued growth, with academic and scientific societies and associations and local and state government officials on ``town-grown'' issues, especially as the relate to the base realignment and closure/ integration process. She was instrumental in developing new relationships with local and national media and in developing new innovative opportunities for the university to reach a broader audience in order to increase the general knowledge and understanding of this academic health center's unique role in health professions education.

We wish Ms. Scheman the best of luck on her new role as senior vice president for external affairs at Northeastern University in Boston,

The bill supports the Navy's DDG-1000 program, which incrementally funds the third ship, directs that a construction contract consistent with the ship's current acquisition schedule be awarded, and directs that the remaining funds necessary to complete the third ship be included in the fiscal year 2010 budget.

That is correct. I fully expect the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to review future Navy surface combatant requirements so that the results of this review will be available as the Department considers future shipbuilding plans and any adjustments to the program that may be required in future budget submissions.

Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2009, along with a 6 month continuing resolution and other matters. In regards to the Defense portion of this bill, the Appropriations Committee examined the President's request of $491.7 billion for funding under the jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee. The amount that is contained in this measure for the Department of Defense is $487.7 billion, $4 billion below the request and equal to the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

Over the past 9 months the Appropriations Committee received testimony from the leaders of the Department of Defense and intelligence community, on all of the critical programs requested by the Administration for the coming fiscal year. These hearings were augmented by countless meetings and detailed review by the committee staff. Senator Cochran, Senator Stevens, and I together worked in formulating the recommendations that were

reviewed and approved by the Defense Subcommittee on September 10. Those recommendations form the basis of the bill which is before the Senate today.

The highest priority for our committee is to support our men and women in uniform. That means we strongly support and fully fund programs to provide for the pay and allowances of our forces, to take care of their families, and preserve the readiness of the force. In this bill, our families are protected. Additional funds are provided to fix hospitals and barracks, to serve our families through the Family Advocacy Program, and to enhance our Defense Health Program.

To ensure our forces are prepared to serve in harm's way, the recommendation provides for the purchase of essential equipment and support to meet their needs. The measure approves and, in some cases, increases funding above the budget request for key programs such as the Future Combat System, unmanned aerial vehicles, F-18 aircraft, UH-60, MH-60, and CH-47 helicopters among many others.

The recommendation includes funds to purchase 14 F-35 aircraft and includes advance procurement to preserve the industrial base for the F- 22 aircraft and DDG-51 destroyer programs. It provides a $120 million increase for our near-term missile defense programs and support for all the major missile systems in the budget request. It includes $750 million in additional funds to support our National Guard and Reserve equipment needs and $750 million to enhance our Nation's intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to support our warfighters today. In addition, the needs of the intelligence community are addressed in this measure and summarized in a classified annex.

The bill before the Senate, which was passed by the House on Wednesday by a vote of 370 to 58, represents a compromise between the views of the Senate and House Defense Subcommittees. Additional funding above the amounts approved by the Senate Defense Subcommittee is included for several initiatives including a down payment on the next LPD-17 amphibious ship. It provides more funding for C-130 aircraft than we had recommended and a higher level of funding for the Presidential helicopter program. It also includes a cut of 5 percent in funding to scale back contracting out in the Defense Department.

On balance we believe this is a very good bill. The budget allocation requires us to make some difficult choices curtailing funding for programs which are of interest to certain members, outside interest groups, or the military departments. But the funds that are reduced are for programs which are behind schedule or not sufficiently justified. In reallocating funding from these programs, this bill provides for the critical unmet needs of the military and intelligence community albeit at a lower overall funding level.

Today is September 25. The fiscal year is rapidly coming to a close. The Senate is using an unusual procedure to consider this bill. It is not one that any of us is particularly pleased with, and some are likely to be critical of it, but it is a procedure and probably the only procedure which will allow for passage of this very important measure before the end of the fiscal year. I can assure my colleagues that we have worked closely with the House on a bipartisan basis to ensure that the bill which has come before the Senate represents what is needed for our Nation's defense and for the men, women, and their families who serve her. I thank all my colleagues, and in particular Senator Cochran and Senator Stevens, for their efforts in putting this bill together. I urge my colleagues to join with me today and vote to pass this measure.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the RECORDS on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, on September 11, the senior Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, came to the floor to introduce a resolution which suggests that the Appropriations Committee should establish an Intelligence Subcommittee. While I don't agree that this would be beneficial to either the Senate or the Nation, the Senator, of course, has a right to his opinion.

I would inform my colleagues that the leaders of the Appropriations Committees, Senators Byrd and Cochran, who are responsible for the division of labor on the committee addressed this matter in a letter they sent to Senators Reid and McConnell earlier this year.

Rather than debating this matter I would just point out that the chairman and ranking member make a very compelling case in opposition to this proposal articulating the significant damage to intelligence oversight that could result from the proposal offered by Senator Bond. I would like to highlight one observation from their letter. They point out that the proposal that the Senator makes would have the effect of further limiting the number of members who have access to the details of intelligence programs. It would put all decisionmaking into fewer hands. They suggest that for intelligence programs in which the general public, the watchdog groups, and the press must be denied access to the information, the absolutely worst thing the Congress could do would be to further constrain oversight and eliminate the benefits that come from having more individuals share responsibility in the decisionmaking process. I share their view that the proposal made by the Senator from Missouri would not improve congressional oversight of intelligence.

My colleague from Missouri spoke eloquently and passionately about the tragedy of 9/11 and the impact it had on him and this institution. On a personal note, I would like to thank him for the kind words he expressed about me and my role as chairman of the Defense Subcommittee. Senator Bond and I have served together on the Appropriations Committee since he joined us in 1991. He has served the committee in a number of key areas including on our Defense Subcommittee, but most notably as chairman of the former VA-HUD Subcommittee and currently as the ranking member of the Transportation-HUD Subcommittee. On the Appropriations Committee we have come to count on him for his expertise and sound judgment in these areas. As such, I must say I was surprised by some of the characterizations he made regarding action on classified programs.

Senator Bond noted that billions of dollars has been spent on technology programs which, as he described, ``never get off the ground.'' I concur with this description and share his concern. He rightly blamed executive branch officials for many failures. But in so doing he failed to note that the Congress, including the Intelligence Committee, reviewed these programs for several years and authorized funding for them.

He discussed a program that he referred to as a ``silver bullet.'' If I am right in assuming which program that is, I would point out that the Intelligence Committees, Appropriations Committees, and the intelligence community all originally supported the program. While the Senate Intelligence Committee soured on the program a few years ago, it remained supported by the House oversight committees, the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and the Chairman of the Strategic Command. But, yes, it was expensive. When a new DNI, new Secretary, and

new Under Secretary assumed their posts, they determined that it simply wasn't affordable.

The Senator from Missouri postulates that it didn't work. Since it was not completed, we will never really know, but no one involved in the program in DoD and the intelligence community ever contended it wouldn't work. It was cancelled because the executive branch determined it wasn't worth the continued investment. By cancelling the program as urged by the Intelligence Committee, the Government did, to use the Senator's word, ``waste'' billions of dollars. But this is not the only example of problems in this community.

One notable program that was finally killed by the administration in the past few years on which significantly more funding had been spent was strongly supported by the Intelligence Committee from the program's inception. The committee had even suggested that this program could partially serve as an alternative to the program referred to above. It had been behind schedule and overbudget for years, but it continued to be supported by the executive branch and the Congress with the hope that it could be saved. Eventually, the administration realized that technically it could not be made to work, and it was cancelled.

For the Senator to claim that it is the appropriations process which is so disconnected from the workings of the Intelligence Committee that billions of dollars come to naught puts the blame squarely on our committee for the failures which have occurred. This is not only unfair, but it is completely inaccurate.

Mr. President, while the Senator and I may disagree on the relative merits of programs, and while I am not particularly proud of the Government's record in recent years, the responsibility for wasting of billions of dollars is shared by all of us, the executive branch, the Appropriations Committees, and the Intelligence Committees.

The Senator attempted to link these past failures to a particular program which he advocates which was not funded by the Appropriations Committee this year. I would point out that the administration did not request funding for the program and that the Director of National Intelligence opposes funding the program. The funding sought by Senator Bond was not authorized by the House oversight committee. It was not recommended by the Intelligence oversight panel of the House Appropriations Committee.

Moreover, I would disagree with his characterization of the action by the Defense Subcommittee on this subject. We recognize that several members of the Intelligence Committee feel this would be a worthwhile program. Senators Stevens, Cochran, and I considered the actions by the Intelligence Committee on this and many other programs very carefully. To address the concerns of the Intelligence Committee, we reallocated a substantial sum of money from other programs and provided an amount with which the intelligence community could fully fund the program that Senator Bond advocates. However, we didn't mandate that outcome. There is disagreement within the community about the proper approach which should be taken. In recognition that a new administration will be taking office, we requested that the program supported by Senator Bond be analyzed along with those of other contractors and the best option or options be selected next year.

We felt we met the Senator halfway. We recommended sufficient funding which could be used for this program even though it was funded by neither the other intelligence oversight committees nor the intelligence community.

We are familiar with the program in question. We believe it may have merit. We have confidence in individuals associated with the program, but we also are aware of those with great technical expertise who argue that the program will not work for technical reasons which I cannot discuss in unclassified session. We believed locking the intelligence community into another multibillion-dollar sole source contract when there are legitimate questions about its potential is probably a mistake. To imply that this program has broad-based support and that it is the Appropriations Committee which is out of step is categorically inaccurate.

It is somewhat ironic that the Senator from Missouri is urging support for responding to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission while at the same time he is telling the Senate to ignore the judgment of the Director of National Intelligence who was established and empowered to make such decisions as the principal recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.

Finally, I would note that the Senator claimed that the root problem is that the Appropriations Committee simply does not have enough staff to pay adequate attention to intelligence.

The Defense Subcommittee has a small staff and the Intelligence Committee staff is fairly large. But I would point out that the Intelligence Committee has one professional staff member on the majority staff who reviews the budget for the National Reconnaissance Office; so do we. The Intelligence Committee has one professional staff member on the majority staff who reviews the budget for the National Security Agency; so do we. Moreover, the staff which the Defense Subcommittee devotes to overseeing the intelligence budget has far greater experience in reviewing budgets than does the staff of the Intelligence Committee for such programs. I would also point out that several other subcommittees on the Appropriations Committee have jurisdiction over portions of the intelligence budget. To single out the Defense Subcommittee misses one of the key points of the appropriations process: that many individuals have oversight over these matters.

I don't want to stir up passions on this issue any more than I may already have. I have the greatest respect for the workings of the Intelligence Committee. Many of my younger colleagues may not be aware that I served as the first chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I am proud of my service on that committee. I believe the work that Senators Rockefeller and Bond do is extremely important to the Senate. I believe they have a very competent staff. Since I resumed the chairmanship of the Defense Subcommittee last year, I have directed my staff to work closely with the staff of the Intelligence Committee to ensure that we have the benefit of their expertise and to minimize any disagreements between our two panels, and they have done so. Our staffs attend many briefings together. Members of our staffs have traveled together to review programs. I believe we have established a good relationship that strengthens Senate oversight.

For example, there are literally thousands of line items in the intelligence budget. Our staffs spend countless hours discussing items which one committee or the other believes should be adjusted. We carefully review the classified annex of the Intelligence Committee and provide recommendations to the Appropriations Committee which are very close to those of the Intelligence Committee. This year we had two issues out of hundreds of items under review on which we disagreed. On one we were able to reach an agreement easily. The other has been described in vague terms above.

Last year, Chairmen Byrd and Rockefeller, Ranking Members Cochran and Stevens, and I signed a significant memorandum of agreement between our two committees pledging greater cooperation. Senator Bond chose not to be party to that agreement. Since that time the signers and their staffs have tried to live up to the letter and the spirit of that pact. I believe we have been generally successful and the Senate is better served that two separate panels are continuing to review the intelligence budget but working together and generally resolving our differences amicably.

It is rare for me to openly disagree with another Member. I want to assure all my colleagues that I do not mean anything personally by my statements today. However, the assertions and implications that were levied against the Appropriations Committee earlier this month were simply untrue. At times all of us can become passionate on matters which we care about. Perhaps that explains why such inaccuracies were offered as facts. Regardless of the reason, I felt it was my duty to come to the floor today and correct the record.

Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the Polynesian Voyaging Society. For more than a quarter century, members of the Polynesian Voyaging Society have dedicated much of their lives to voyages of exploration and discovery that have retraced every major migratory route of the ancient Polynesians. These voyages are not recreational but rather journeys that illustrate the scientific prowess of the Polynesian people and the strong connection between science and culture. Their commitment to the legacy of oceanic exploration seeks to integrate traditional voyaging into quality education. The Polynesian Voyaging Society has renewed interest in maritime exploration and reawakened Native Hawaiian pride in environmental awareness and ocean stewardship.

In today's age of modern technology, much can be learned from the past. Hawaii's past and future will always be intimately tied to the ocean for recreation, commerce, and transportation. The society exemplifies the importance of raising awareness of and protecting the unique treasures Hawaii's culture offers, and serves to enlighten a new generation of young people. Its members are truly a testament to Hawaii's oceanic heritage.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Sony Hawaii and Sony Electronics (collectively ``Sony'') for their Electronics Take Back and Recycle Program. Sony Hawaii, part of the larger Sony Electronics Inc., is based in Honolulu and just celebrated its 40th anniversary as a Hawaii-based company. Seventy-five percent of Sony Hawaii's business comes from selling discounted Sony products directly to U.S. military personnel around the world.

Sony has long been an industry leader in the environmentally friendly design of its consumer electronics and information technology products. Last year, Sony announced its Take Back and Recycle Program to encourage consumers to recycle and dispose of electronic devices in an environmentally sound manner. The program provides customers free recycling of their unwanted Sony products, everything from a game console to a mobile phone to a DVD. Under its program, Sony takes full manufacturer responsibility for all products that bear its brand and will recycle those products at no cost to the consumer. Its recycling locations will also accept and recycle non-Sony consumer electronics and information technology products for a small fee.

Sony has partnered with Waste Management Recycle America to utilize 138 drop-off centers throughout the country, with the goal of having 150 permanent locations and at least one recycling location in every State by September 2008. Sony's longer term goal is to have a collection location within 20 miles of 95 percent of the U.S. population at which consumers, retailers, and municipalities can have any product from any consumer electronic manufacturer recycled.

All products which are collected through the program must be recycled using the strictest environmental standards. Waste Management will store, track inventory and dismantle the products into the form of common raw materials that can be bought and sold on the global market. In some cases, it is likely that recycled plastics will be purchased for reforming into a new current model electronics product. Sony seeks at least 95 percent recycling rates, with less than 5 percent of materials going to landfills. In addition, Sony provides full public accountability of how and where the material goes and prohibits the exportation of hazardous waste to developing countries.

In addition to setting up permanent collection centers, Sony is holding numerous, highly publicized electronics recycling events, throughout the United States, including some in the State of Hawaii. Sony also offers consumers credit toward the future purchase of a similar product if they send in their old product for recycling.

Sony has stated that its goal in implementing the Take Back and Recycle Program is to make recycling as easy for consumers as it is for them to purchase a Sony product. I commend Sony for its electronics recycling efforts.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the conference report for H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.

Today is a great day for American families. This bill is the first step toward revitalizing an important safety agency and restoring confidence in the safety of consumer products for years to come.

Media reports and consumer advocates have called this bill the most important consumer product safety legislation in a generation. I call it legislation that is long overdue. The Consumer Product Safety Commission--Commission--is a small agency with an exceptionally broad and important charge, as the name suggests, the protection of consumers, particularly children from dangerous products. The Commission is responsible for ensuring that the more than 15,000 products--everything from infant cribs to all-terrain-vehicles--are safe to use. Every year, more than 28,000 Americans die and an additional 33 million are injured by consumer products. These numbers are too high, and an effective CPSC with increased funding, staff, and authority is essential to reducing these losses.

I am very pleased that many of the key provisions which originated in the Senate, such as the searchable database, whistleblower protection, phthalates restrictions, mandatory toy safety standards, and all- terrain vehicle safety standards were included in

the final bill. Several of these initiatives faced significant initial opposition from the administration, industry, and indeed, from the chair of the Commission itself, and I am pleased that we have come together in the House and the Senate to overcome these challenges.

H.R. 4040 restores needed resources and authority to the Commission. Starting in fiscal year 2010, the bill would authorize $626 million over a 5-year period to provide the agency the manpower and the technology it needs to police a complex consumer marketplace. The legislation would restore the CPSC to a full complement of five Commissioners in order to expand expertise, maintain continuity and avoid the losses of quorum that have plagued the agency in recent years.

In addition, State attorneys general gain clear authority to bring civil actions to seek injunctive relief for clear violations of statutes enforced by the CPSC. Creating a joint enforcement relationship with the states has proven to be successful in the area of consumer protection, and this collaboration would provide CPSC a strong partner to help protect American families in a meaningful way.

H.R. 4040 would require manufacturers to use independent labs to test children's products and to certify their compliance with mandatory safety standards, including the mandatory toy safety standard established in the bill. This new toy standard would provide the CPSC with necessary enforcement tools to keep dangerous toys out of the hands of children.

Essential and groundbreaking provisions that will improve the health of every child include the bans of lead and certain phthalates from children's products. Dangerous substances have no place in children's products. This legislation provides a significant shift in policy in favor of children and. Children have no business being used as guinea pigs or becoming victims of the expediency of the manufacturing process.

Our bill also would provide better information to consumers and the CPSC. It would create a searchable, publically available database of information from nonindustry sources, such as hospitals, child care providers, public safety agencies, and consumer reports about product hazards collected by the CPSC. The database would provide consumers with potentially life-saving information, in an organized and timely fashion, which would better equip them to assess product safety risks and hazards. To aid in the Commission's enforcement mission, H.R. 4040 would provide whistleblower protections for employees of manufacturers of consumer products when they find and report violations of consumer product safety laws.

Reconciling the differences between the House and the Senate was no easy task, but I had no doubts that the work of the committee would come to a timely and successful conclusion. The Senate conferees worked countless hours since the passage of the Senate amendment last March. Senator Pryor authored the original Senate bill reported by the Commerce Committee, which became the backbone of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4040. His stewardship and attention to the details of this bill were essential to negotiating the conference report with the House. I also commend my good friend Senator Ted Stevens. Without his guidance and support, the Senate amendment would not have passed, and we would not have this groundbreaking legislation before us today.

I would also like to recognize several Senators who were not conferees for their contributions to the original Senate amendment and for working with the conference committee on the provisions they championed in the Senate. Senator Nelson was the leader in crafting mandatory toy standards and the independent third party testing mandate in the Senate bill. Senator McCaskill's work on the whistleblower and the inspector general provisions helped convince the conferees to provide whistleblower protections to millions of workers in the consumer products sector. Finally, Senator Feinstein's amendment to ban certain phthalates from children's products was the foundation of the compromise provision that was ultimately accepted by the conference.

I thank my friend Congressman John Dingell, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who has shown his legislative skill and care for the American people for more than 50 years. His partnership with me this Congress has led to the passage of two monumental bills. We worked together to increase fuel economy standards last December, and to reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission today.

The conference committee staff have labored on a nonstop basis since May. I want to thank David Strickland, Alex Hoehn-Saric, Jana Fong- Swamidoss, Mia Petrini, and Jared Bomberg of my Commerce Committee staff for a job well done. I would also like to thank Paul Nagle, Rebecca Hooks, and Megan Beechener of the Republican Commerce Committee staff, and Lloyd Ator and Christopher Knox of the Commerce Committee's Office of Legislative Counsel.

I also wish to recognize the efforts of the following staff of the Senate conferees: Erik Olson, Bridget Petruczok, Price Feland, Kate Nilan, Tamara Fucile, Brian Hendricks, and Peter Phipps; the House Energy and Commerce Committee staff: Consuela Washington, Judy Bailey, Christian Fjeld, Andrew Woelfling, Valerie Baron, Brian McCullough, Will Carty, and Shannon Weinberg; and House legislative counsel Brady Young.

I would also like to thank CPSC Commissioner Thomas Moore and Michael Gougisha and Pamela Weller of his staff for their assistance.

Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this conference report, and I look forward to the President signing this landmark measure into law.

Mr. President, I yield now to the author of the measure, Senator Pryor of Arkansas, the balance of my time.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this measure.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on the Conference of H.R. 4040, in compliance with rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I certify that that no provisions contained in the conference report meet the definition of a congressionally directed spending item under the rule.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letters be printed in the Record relating to S. 3297, the Advancing America's Priorities Act.

Madam President, I would like to recognize a great American and true military heroine who has honorably served our country for over 29 years in the U.S. Navy Nurse Corps: CAPT Catherine A. Wilson.

In May, 2006, Captain Wilson assumed command of Naval Hospital Bremerton. Prior to reporting, she completed a successful tour as the commanding officer of Expeditionary Medical Facility, Kuwait. Her command included the U.S. military hospital and nine troop medical clinics located throughout the country. Prior to deploying, she served as the executive officer, Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton where she also commanded the fleet hospital.

Captain Wilson's past assignments included the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth where she was the Director of Fleet and Family Medicine. This Directorate was staffed by over 2,600 personnel and covered six service lines--family care, women and children's health, adult medical care, preventive care and wellness, emergent and urgent care, and behavioral care, plus nine branch medical clinics.

Captain Wilson served as the Deputy Director of the TRICARE Mid- Atlantic Region Lead Agent Office where she had direct impact on all military and civilian health care for over a million beneficiaries in Virginia and North Carolina. Her responsibilities included the administration of a $3.1 billion managed care support contract.

In 1999, she was selected as a congressional detailee to my office, where she advised me on all health-related issues. Captain Wilson was a staff assistant for the Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee for Defense, as well as the Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education Committee. Prior to working on Capitol Hill, she served as the Director of Regional Operations for TRICARE Mid-Atlantic.

Captain Wilson also worked at the Pentagon as the staff of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs. During this tour, she was the Deputy Director for Force Management, Senior Policy Analyst for TRICARE Operations Policy, and ultimately served as the chief of staff for the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, health affairs, for Health Services Operations and Readiness. At that time, the MHS was a $15.5 billion system, the Nation's second largest, and included the integrated delivery of health care to more than 8.2 million DOD beneficiaries worldwide. Captain Wilson's other executive management positions include a 4-year tour at the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery as the Deputy of Enlisted Force Management and the Navy Surgeon General's representative for HIV and AIDS prevention education. Her duty assignments include the Naval Hospital Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Naval Hospital Philadelphia; and the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda,

Madam President, I was saddened by the news of the death of our former colleague, Jesse Helms of North Carolina.

He was a man of strong convictions, even if it meant being in opposition of his own party. He fought for what he believed, and he stood by his word. It was a privilege to work with Senator Helms, even though we disagreed on policy matters, we were able to do what we could for the love of our country.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this magnificent Senator and a great American, and a true patriot. He will be missed.