Floor Statements

Mr. President. I wish to recognize Katherine Bomkamp, a promising sophomore at West Virginia University, WVU, who invented a new prosthesis that reduces phantom pain for amputees, including many returning veterans. Last month, she was in New York City being honored by Glamour magazine as one of its ``21 Amazing Young Women of 2011,'' to celebrate the 21st anniversary of its Women of the Year awards.

At the age of 16, following frequent visits to Walter Reed Army Medical Center while her father was stationed at the Pentagon with the U.S. Air Force, Katherine conceptualized the ``pain free socket,'' a prosthetic device that combats the phantom limb pain experienced by 80 percent of amputees. After two-and-a-half years of research, Katherine is now at West Virginia University, where the WVU Entrepreneurship Center is helping her obtain a patent for the device and find funding to make it available for injured veterans and other patients. The WVU Entrepreneurship Center is playing an important role in helping Katherine commercialize the ``pain free socket.'' It is a great example of how America's research universities are supporting innovative entrepreneurs, whose ideas are vital to economic growth today.

Ms. Bomkamp didn't just sit on the sidelines and feel sorrow for the afflicted men and women she encountered at Walter Reed. She listened to their stories and learned that many amputees experienced phantom pain, the feeling of pain in an absent limb.

By researching the topic, Katherine found that no medications have been approved for specifically treating phantom pain. Instead, many amputees are prescribed antipsychotics and barbiturates, treatments that can be expensive and highly addictive.

For a 10th-grade science project, Katherine decided to leap into action. She created the ``Pain Free Socket,'' incorporating thermal biofeedback into prosthetics to eliminate phantom pain in amputees. Phantom pain is caused by the brain continuing to send signals and commands to the limb. Bomkamp's device would help force the brain to focus on the heat produced through thermal biofeedback, rather than sending signals to the nonexistent limb.

Katherine Bomkamp deserves our praise and educational enrichment. She was the first WVU student to be inducted into the National Museum of Education's National Gallery for America's Young Inventors. Now that she is one of the ``21 Amazing Young Women of 2011,'' the sky is the limit for what she might achieve.

Success stories such as this one show us that academic and student innovation are alive and well at universities such as WVU, and promise a brighter future for all Americans. It is essential that as we in Congress review our budget priorities, even in the midst of today's financial pressures, we continue--or even expand--our support of higher education and students like Katherine Bomkamp.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the fossil energy funding in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.

Fossil energy is a critical resource that we should not and can not just throw away. Providing the majority of our energy, we need to use these resources in a safe and responsible way. Harnessing domestic fossil energy could create jobs, lift up struggling communities, and provide jobs for our strong and dedicated workforce.

I know there are people who remain very much opposed to funding fossil energy research who want to move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible. But the fact of the matter is that, at this time, our Nation is not capable of quickly moving away from fossil fuels, which provides that majority of the energy we use. We need fossil energy to help us move forward, and we should not pretend otherwise.

While I believe that our country will continue using fossil fuels for many decades, it is my hope that we will also continually seek better ways for using these resources.

We need to find more efficient ways of burning coal that emit fewer pollutants and protect public health. We need to find more environmentally friendly ways to extract natural gas and oil. And we need to find ways to design and build carbon capture and sequestration facilities that will allow us to reduce the impacts of using fossil fuels on the climate.

This is the type of work that fossil energy research and development goes towards, and work that I believe we must continue to support. Without it, we are only putting our country at a disadvantage.

In Morgantown, WV, the National Energy Technology Laboratory or NETL is doing this work and pioneering fossil energy research and development activities that are lighting a pathway for a new era of energy use that is critical to West Virginia and our nation.

Unfortunately, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill slashes fossil energy funding by 25 percent in just 1 year. In Fiscal Year 2011 the overall fossil energy Budget was $586 million. The President only requested $452.9 million for Fiscal Year 2012 and this bill only contains $445.5 million.

In comparison, the overall Energy and Water bill cuts spending by less than 1 percent. The nuclear section of this bill cuts funding by 20 percent and the renewable section of this bill remains flat--not facing any cut this year.

I recognize that in this budgetary climate cuts may be inevitable to many programs. But I firmly believe that in the Department of Energy budget no one account can be asked to shoulder that burden alone. But if cuts must be made they should be done in fair and reasonable way, when compared to funding for other energy programs.

Unfortunately, the fossil energy cuts in this bill are neither fair nor reasonable. The cuts to fossil energy in this bill are disproportionate compared to funding levels for other areas of research.

To correct this situation, I have introduced an amendment that would restore $30 million to the fossil energy account, $10 million for natural gas, $10 million for unconventional fossil fuels and $10 million for advanced energy systems in coal areas.

Again, I understand the budgetary times that we are facing in Washington. I understand that cuts have to be made. But what I strongly disagree with is the idea that fossil energy must shoulder more than its fair share of cuts.

Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join with me to restore a portion of funding for the fossil energy program.

Mr. President, last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on whether to elevate the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This was an important hearing for the men and women of our armed services, and I am grateful that the committee allowed me to submit a statement for the hearing record. In light of the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act, in which I expect these provisions to pass, I ask unanimous consent that my statement be printed in the Record before the full Senate, so that the rest of my colleagues may have a chance to read it.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Senate Joint Resolution 6, which was brought under the Congressional Review Act--about which I wish to talk--to disapprove the FCC's open Internet rules, such as they are.

Americans want the Internet to be free and open to them. They want to go where they want to go, see what they want to see, do what they want to do on the Internet. They don't want to have somebody blocking them or to have gatekeepers. They want it to be a nice, open forum for them. They care about the Internet. Everyone uses it. They want to be able to develop new businesses, and they want to read and watch video. They want to reach out to friends and family and community. And they want to do it online. They want to do all of these things on the Internet-- without having to ask permission from their broadband provider. The FCC has promulgated balanced rules that let Americans do all of these things, and keep the Internet open and keep the Internet free.

Let us be clear from the outset. No matter how S.J. Res. 6 is dressed up in language that suggests it will promote openness and freedom, it will not do that. The resolution is misguided. It will add uncertainty, in fact, into the economy, and it will hinder small businesses dependent upon fair broadband access, where otherwise they might be put in a slower lane. They want to be in a fast lane. They want to be able to compete with other parts of the country. This resolution will, in fact, undermine innovation. It will hamper investment in digital commerce. It will imperil the openness and freedom that has been the hallmark of the Internet from the very start.

The FCC's rules were the product of very hard work, consensus, and compromise. The agency had extensive input from stakeholders from all quarters. They opened up and said send in your comments. In fact, they had written input from more than 100,000 commenters. About 90 percent of those filing supported the adoption of open Internet rules. On top of this, the rules are based on longstanding and widely accepted open Internet principles, which were first articulated during the second Bush administration.

These rules do three basic things. First, they impose a transparency obligation on providers of broadband Internet service. This means that all broadband providers are required to publicly disclose to consumers accurate information regarding the network management practices.

Second, the rules prohibit fixed broadband providers from blocking lawful content, application, services, and devices. This means consumers and innovators will continue to have the right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic, with mobile broadband service providers subjected to a more limited set of prohibitions. I will speak about that in a moment.

Third, the rules aim to ensure that the Internet remains a level playing field by prohibiting fixed broadband providers from unreasonably discriminating in transmitting lawful network traffic-- which they have done.

Finally, the rules are meant to apply with the complementary principle of reasonable network management, which provides broadband providers the flexibility to address congestion or traffic that is harmful to the network. These are principles that I believe everyone can support. I see nothing wrong with them. The word ``reasonable'' somehow doesn't scare me. Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

I ask my colleagues, what is wrong with transparency? Why would we want to promote Internet blocking or discrimination? Why would we want to have some people on the fast lane and some on the slow lane, depending on whether you paid your Internet provider enough money? What is unreasonable about reasonable network management?

I believe that the FCC's effort, along with ongoing oversight and enforcement, will protect consumers, and I believe it will provide companies with the certainty they need to make investments in our growing digital economy.

While many champions of the open Internet would have preferred a stricter decision--and I am one of them; I myself have real reservations about treating wireless broadband differently from wired broadband--I think the FCC's decision was nevertheless a meaningful step forward. In a moment, I will talk about other people who feel the same.

Supporters of the joint resolution fail to acknowledge that the FCC's open Internet rules have received overwhelming support from broadband Internet service providers, consumers, and public groups, labor unions, as well as high-tech companies.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson stated earlier this year that while he wanted ``no regulation,'' the FCC's open Internet order ``ended at a place where we have a line of sight and we know and can commit ourselves to investments.''

Time-Warner Cable said at the time of the order's release that the rules adopted ``appear to reflect a workable balance between protecting consumers' interests and preserving incentives for investment and innovation by broadband Internet service providers.''

Numerous analysts from major investment banks have found that the open Internet order removes what they call regulatory overhang and allows telecom and cable companies to focus on investment.

Google, Facebook, Twitter, eBay, Skype, and other leaders in innovation all urged the FCC to adopt ``commonsense baseline rules . . . critical to ensuring that the Internet remains a key engine of economic growth, innovation, and global competitiveness.''

More than 150 organizations wrote Congress to oppose this joint resolution. I hate reading lists, but I am going to do it anyway: the Communications Workers of America, the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Library Association, the American Association of Independent Music, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Organization for Women, and Technet. There are a lot of folks at Technet who have a lot at stake. I have their letters here.

I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, to be sure, there are those who disagree with the FCC's open Internet rules, and there is an avenue for these complaints. It is called the judicial system. Some are using it. Two companies have filed lawsuit claiming that the FCC went too far. Several public interest groups have filed lawsuits claiming that the FCC did not go far enough. It is their legal right to go to the courts, and when they choose to do that, they can do so.

So let's think for a minute what a world would look like without a free and open Internet.

In a world without a free and open Internet, consumers and entrepreneurs would have no transparency as to how their broadband providers would manage their network--no ability to make informed decisions about their broadband providers.

In a world without a free and open Internet, there would be nothing to prevent their broadband providers from steering them only their to preferred Web sites and services, therefore limiting their choices as consumers.

For rural Americans, broadband Internet access has the power to erase distances and allows them to have the same access to shopping, educational matters, and employment opportunities as those living in urban areas. That is a time-honored principle around here--but not if the Web site they seek to access is blocked by their broadband providers. Consumers, entrepreneurs, and small businesses need the certainty they can access lawful Web sites of their choice when they want, period.

In a world without a free and open Internet, there would be nothing to stop broadband providers from blocking access to Web sites that offer products that compete with those of its affiliates. That happens, Mr. President.

In a world without a free and open Internet, companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their Web sites open more quickly than their competitors.

In a world without a free and open Internet, companies could pay Internet providers to make certain their online sales are processed more quickly than their competitors with lower prices.

Well, that is not the American way. This is particularly disturbing in tough times like these.

In a world without a free and open Internet, there would be nothing to prevent Internet service providers from charging users a premium in order to guarantee operation in the ``fast lane.'' If someone is trying to start a small business, struggling to make ends meet and cannot afford to pay the toll, they run the risk of being left in the ``slow lane''--that is not good--with inferior Internet service--that is not right--unable to compete with larger companies. That is very wrong.

What if an innovator or a start-up company has the next big idea? With broadband, the next big idea does not have to come from a suburban garage or from Silicon Valley, it can come from rural America or from anywhere. A free and open Internet is all that is required to give that big idea a global reach.

In a world without a free and open Internet, the ability of the next revolutionary idea to reach others--to make it to the greater marketplace--would be entirely dependent on a handful of entrenched broadband gatekeepers and toll collectors. True.

I am not totally opposed to the Congressional Review Act, but I have to say it is an extraordinarily blunt instrument. It means all of the rules adopted by the FCC must be overturned at once. This would even mean tossing out commonsense provisions about transparency. Do our opponents know this? It would deny the agency the power to protect consumers. Do our opponents know this? What is the sense in all of that? I don't get it.

There is another part: If they just took these rules out--if S. Res. 6 were to pass--they couldn't come back later and just have the FCC put them in. We would have to go through a whole congressional legislative process to reinsert them into the Public Law, which means many of them would never end up there.

I also want to address the argument of supporters of the joint resolution that the FCC's open rules will somehow stifle innovation in the Internet economy. That is just so wrong I don't know what to say.

Over the past 15 years, the open Internet has been the greatest engine for the U.S. economy. It leaves everything in its dust. It has created more than 3 million jobs, as the Senator from Texas indicated. The open Internet rules will help sustain this growth. People want to know what the rules of the road are. They want to know what the world is bringing to them. If they decide they do not like what is coming, they are going to tell you, and they are not going to invest. Very simple.

According to Hamilton Consultants, the open Internet ecosystem has led to the creation of 1.8 million jobs related to applications in e- commerce, as well as 1.2 million jobs related to infrastructure. Moreover, investment and innovation have continued to increase since the adoption of the FCC's open Internet rules--not decrease, as the supporters of this resolution will tell us.

The facts show that investment in broadband networks increased in the first half of 2011. In fact, investment in networks that support broadband was more than 10 percent higher in the first half of 2011 than in the first half of 2010. More of that investment in Internet companies surged in 2011, and this is after they had sort of adjusted or taken into account what they saw coming in the way of the rules. There was $2.3 billion worth of investment going into 275 companies in the second quarter, and all of them were this Internet type. That is the most investment in Internet companies in a decade.

Plus, shortly after the framework was adopted, America's leading wireless providers announced they were accelerating their deployment of their advanced fourth generation, or 4G networks. It seems the open Internet rules are giving broadband providers and entrepreneurs and investors the certainty they need to invest and to create jobs.

Certainty is the key. They are not going to invest in what they do not know. We see that in so many other areas. They do not know what is going to happen, so they do not invest. People have all this cash, but they do not have certainty. Here they have certainty, they understand that certainty, they understand what is coming, they like it, and they are investing like never before.

The FCC's open Internet rules also protect small businesses. An estimated 20,000 small businesses operate on the Internet. More than 600,000 Americans have part- or full-time businesses on eBay alone. I was not aware of that. The FCC's open Internet rules mean small entrepreneurs will not have to seek permission from broadband providers to reach new markets and consumers with innovative products and services.

This is a very important point. It means small businesses can be located anywhere in this country, including rural America, and through open broadband have the opportunity for their ideas and products and services to have a global reach. That is the point of all of this.

As we all know, small businesses were responsible for nearly 65 percent of new jobs over the past 15 years. Far from preventing investment, the FCC's open Internet rules will foster small businesses because they trust it. They see it, they see what Moody's is saying about it, they see what the Wall Street investment bankers are saying about it, they see it is encouraging investment, and they like and trust that. So they take risks they might not otherwise take because they trust.

It is not the faceless Federal bureaucrat. It is something that is down on paper and they understand it. They have probably seen it and probably commented on it. Maybe some of them didn't like it as much as they should have; maybe some thought it should have been stronger or some thought it should have been weaker, but such is life in America. So, anyway, I think what they conclude is that what is going on is supporting what they are doing.

Finally, I want to note when it comes to education and privacy and intellectual property, global Internet governance, or network security, the government has long provided--and necessarily so--reasonable rules of the road to make possible consumer protection, fair trade, and open markets. The FCC's open Internet rules are no different. They take, as has been quoted by many, a light-touch approach--I like that phrase-- and keep the playing field fair. They keep the Internet open and free for consumers, for businesses, and for everyone in this country who wants access to broadband Internet.

So that is why I support the FCC open Internet rules, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against the joint resolution.

Mr. President, I would like to respond to some things, but I understand we only have 42 minutes remaining.

And both Senator Cantwell and Senator Mark Udall want to speak. I don't want to take their time, so at this point I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

I would yield it to the distinguished Senator from Washington.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for her remarks and actually fully agree with them in that mobile is kind of left alone, and it should not be because it is everything that is happening in the future. But it is a step, and it was a wonderful speech.

It occurs to me that I do not think we have anybody left to speak on this side. I am not sure about Senator Hutchison, but it may be a good time to yield back our time.

Mr. President, before I yield all time back on our side, I have listened to the entirety of this debate. It seems to me it has been fairly clear that on one side the government regulates and messes things up, and on the other side things are going swimmingly.

I can't help but pay attention to all those people out at TechNet, the AT&T people, Moody's, Hamilton's, and all these people who take a very dour view of government intervention and a very sensitive view as to whether that intervention is in any way going to stop investment. The answer is usually it does. That is why I feel very happy that this was referred to by a number of major players in this field as a very ``light touch'' of regulation, which gave them a sense of where they were going to be, how far down they could look toward their future and therefore allow them to invest the money they wanted to invest.

That is not to say they would not have done it anyway. But there is nothing like encouraging capital investment in something as important as the Internet. I think the net neutrality legislation does that very well. I hope when we vote on it tomorrow, it will not pass.

Having said that, I yield back all time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 9, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Securing Our Nation's Transportation System: Oversight of Transportation Security Administration's Current Efforts.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 9, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room SD- 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 9, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 9, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``U.S. Policy in Syria.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 9, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Your Health and Your Privacy: Protecting Health Information in a Digital World.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Goldman, a detailee from the Federal Communications Commission to the Commerce Committee, be given floor privileges during the debate on Senate Joint Resolution 6.

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

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time under the quorum call be equally charged.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Cloture Motion

Reserving the right to object, which this Senator does, I want to make a comment and then I will give my answer.

Mr. President, the good Senator, who is on the Finance Committee, wants to repeal the CLASS Act. It is called long-term care. To be sure, the CLASS Act is not perfect, but little of what we do in the Senate is perfect. But if there is anything in this country that we ought to be driving toward, it is a long-term care policy, which right now consists of impoverishing yourself and getting rid of your assets, homes, house, whatever, car, in order to classify for Medicaid. That way you can get it. It is called the humiliation of Americans with legitimate health care needs.

The CLASS Act could be amended through the regular legislative process to make it sustainable over the long term, but always our friends on the other side of the aisle find it easier to object and repeal. ``Let's repeal something.'' You don't have to have an alternative in mind. You can leave people in the same sense of suffering as we found way back during the Pepper commission, where people would prostrate themselves in order to qualify for Medicaid, in which they would have a chance at getting some long-term care. We need to discuss this, because it is a huge problem.

In 2008, 21 million Americans had a condition that caused them to need help with their health and personal care. Why? Because Congress has shied away from this subject forever. We have made a habit of shying away from it. Medicare does not cover long-term services and other supports, yet about 70 percent of people over age 65 will require some type of long-term services and support at some point during their lifetime--70 percent of people over 65. As our population ages, the need for services will grow. A little known fact is that about 40 percent of the individuals who need long-term care are under the age of 65, and long-term care services and supports can help these individuals be more independent and be part of the workforce and to have a sense of self-esteem.

Medicare, as I say, does not cover these services. The difference between Medicare and Medicaid and what each of their roles should be is such that there is now a separate agency in Health and Human Services, which I helped promote, which is now sorting out what is the best relationship between the two so they don't have to duplicate each other and so they can clarify roles and get at the problems.

Medicare doesn't cover these services, so Medicaid is in fact the real, de facto, long-term care program in the country. That is what it is. Only after middle-class Americans impoverish themselves are they allowed to get into that situation.

Again, the CLASS Act is not complete as an answer, but it was at long last an attempt on the part of the Congress to do something about it. That in itself was a signal victory. An attempt to help people live with dignity in their homes and communities is not something which we should consider a frivolous matter.

Those who are gloating today about the administration's decision not to carry forward with the CLASS Act are not the fiscal heroes they make themselves out to be. They have no answers. They have no answers. They have no alternatives. But if you can repeal something, boy, you can take that home and people say, Boy, they got rid of that part of government, not having any understanding of what it does to people who have situations either of age or other problems which they cannot help. And they are called people.

Instead, they use this as a political opportunity to bash the President. I was disappointed when the President did this. I was very disappointed. But it doesn't mean we have to go along. Imagine that, bashing the President, using seniors and people with disabilities as a political prop instead of putting forward real solutions. What this place lacks is in fact real solutions. A lot of people like to tease the health care bill. They are, for the most part, wrong. Not entirely wrong. But one thing they can't tease is the fact that a whole bunch of people called Senators and Congressmen and staff members worked hard for a very long 2 years to try and come up with answers. And we did.

Let's have a serious discussion how to meet the current and future needs of seniors and people with disabilities. They are all of our friends. We know them. Those needs are not going away.

Having said that, I object to the Senator's request.

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, I rise in strong support of John Bryson of California, whom President Obama has nominated to be his Secretary of Commerce.

Mr. Bryson's nomination comes at a very critical time for our country and for our economy. No one disputes the Secretary of Commerce is an important part of the President's economic team. That person is now missing in the Commerce Department. Commerce has to do with jobs. There is nobody there. That dictates that we have a leader with strong, real- world experience. This position has been vacant since Ambassador Locke left for China in late July. It is stunning to think, with what the country is going through, we don't have a Cabinet Secretary who can attend to manufacturing and other kinds of jobs and job-related efforts that he will do. But because of the insistence of the minority--and I had no objection to this--we were unable to move this nomination until the trade agreements were finished. The trade agreements had to come forward and passed, that was done, and then it was OK to proceed to the Bryson nomination.

The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee confirmed Mr. Bryson by a voice vote. I recall no objections at all. Mr. Bryson will be an excellent Secretary of Commerce, and America is entitled to have a Secretary of Commerce on the job. Mr. Bryson possesses a rare combination of actual real-life business experience and a very broad intellect. As an executive, he has proven himself to be a talented executive and has shown his dedication to public service. He cares about public service. He has had to wait a long time to get this job, and he has been in and out of public service.

My colleagues should appreciate that Mr. Bryson's confirmation comes at an important crossroads for the country and for the Commerce Department itself. The challenges obviously are very important: high unemployment, a slow economic recovery. The Secretary of Commerce plays a major role in promoting jobs and our economy. But to do that, he has to be in place and on the job. If confirmed, as I believe he deserves to be, he will have to face these deep challenges and looks forward to so doing.

But I believe Mr. Bryson's experience provides him with the capacity to help restore jobs in manufacturing in America as the Secretary of Commerce. I have long fought for a stronger manufacturing sector in this country. Anybody from West Virginia would be crazy to do otherwise. Manufacturing has been hit hard all over the country during this past decade, losing one-third of its workforce, and the government's response has been piecemeal.

This needs to change. If the next decade is as bad for manufacturing jobs as the previous one, we are going to have very little left to work with of the manufacturing sector if we are trying to save it. This has grave national security implications and could cripple our ability to outinnovate and outcompete other countries. That is already happening.

In the Commerce Committee, we held three hearings on this issue this year; that is manufacturing, and we also included a field hearing, which happened

to be in West Virginia--total coincidence--on exporting products made in America.

Mr. Bryson knows that if confirmed, I intend to work with him to make manufacturing a high priority in our job-creation agenda.

A word on NOAA and NIST. Mr. Bryson will also bring his leadership to help NOAA innovate its essential services to help all Americans, from daily weather forecasts to fisheries management, and from coastal restoration to supporting marine commerce, and on and on. NOAA's products and services support economic vitality and affect more than one-third of America's gross domestic product.

Americans in many States across the Nation have suffered record- breaking weather disasters in 2011, and much of the gulf continues to recover from the worst oil spill in our history.

Mr. Bryson's business-minded leadership is valuable now more than ever to help NOAA continue to improve its important services and keep pace with scientific innovation.

The Department of Commerce also houses the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST--an extraordinary place. I think we have had a couple of Nobel laureates out of NIST in the last year. NIST is critical to U.S. innovation and economic competitiveness through its measurement science, standards, and technological development. NIST plays a critical role bringing together industry, government, and universities to advance everything from manufacturing to cybersecurity to forensic science standards. Mr. Bryson's own experience in both the public sector and private sector will serve him well as he and his department tackle such national challenges.

In closing, Mr. Bryson is eminently qualified to be Secretary of Commerce and to lead this important Cabinet Department during a time in which the American people are looking for innovative solutions to improve our economy and create jobs. And we need all the good people we can get.

I urge my colleagues to quickly support Mr. Bryson's confirmation so he can begin his important work toward that end.

Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished friend from the State of Massachusetts, Senator Kerry.

Mr. President, I yield time to the senior Senator from California.

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

I yield back all time on our side, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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, I rise to commend and thank Mike Davidson for his decades of extraordinarily dedicated and consequential service to our Nation, most recently as the general counsel for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence over the past 8 years.

Many others have praised the wise, discerning, and sound counsel that has characterized every step of Mike's distinguished career, from his time in the Peace Corps in Kenya in the mid-1960s throughout his decades of service since then: as a litigator for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, as a professor of clinical law at the State University of New York at Buffalo, as chief staff counsel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, as the first legal counsel of the Senate, and, following his first retirement from the Senate in 1995, as counsel for several important public initiatives--including, most prominently, serving as general counsel for the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.

This exceptionally distinguished record speaks for itself, and in 2003 it led me to recruit Mike back to full-time service in the Senate. As the Intelligence Committee's vice chairman at the time, I asked Mike to serve as the committee's minority counsel, a position he held from 2003 through 2006. When I became the committee's chairman in 2007, I asked Mike to undertake the duties of general counsel. He agreed to take on this role, and he continued to serve me and the committee well throughout the 2 years that I was chairman. After I passed on the gavel to Senator Dianne Feinstein in 2009, Mike stayed on for nearly 3 more years, until his quiet retirement earlier this month.

Throughout this time on the committee, Mike's calm and unflappable presence; his evenhanded, understated, and fair approach to even the most contentious issues; his painstaking attention to detail and unfailing memory; and, above all, his dedication to the law and to the security interests of the United States, have served this committee and our Nation well. Day in and day out, we knew we could rely on Mike's counsel. Whether it was a situation involving routine oversight or a matter of great sensitivity and historical importance--of which there were many during those years, including our investigations into the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, our efforts to end the CIA's coercive interrogations, our drafting and passing the landmark Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act of 2008, among others--Mike Davidson's legal acumen and advice were invariably excellent, and also indispensable to the work of the committee.

My colleagues and I trusted Mike's judgment implicitly. His example of dedicated public service and his exceptional day-to-day performance on the job earned our respect and admiration, and it inspired a generation of staff who had the privilege to work alongside him.

We will miss Mike dearly, but his legacy will remain a part of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for years to come. We wish him well in his second retirement, even as we leave the light on for him just in case he decides to serve again.

Mr. President, today I wish to note a special occasion next week, the unveiling of a portrait at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to honor a dedicated public servant and a keen legal mind, Judge William P. Greene, Jr.

Judge Greene is a prime example of an American who has dedicated himself to the well being of our country and its veterans. He was born in Bluefield, WV, a small coal town in the Appalachian mountains. His grandfather worked on the rail cars transporting coal, but also was a school teacher and instilled in his family the value of education and hard work. Judge Greene's father continued that example, working on the railroads while pursuing a degree from Bluefield State College--an institution originally founded to train African-American teachers who would then instruct in the segregated schools. Judge Greene's parents both graduated from that institution and went on to teach in their community. His father was then drafted after the attack on Pearl Harbor and went on to become a commissioned officer and serve with the famed ``Buffalo Soldiers''--the only African American infantry unit to see combat in Europe during World War II. Judge Greene's affinity and pride for the Buffalo Soldiers became a life-long passion, as demonstrated by his involvement in the construction and dedication of the Buffalo Soldier Monument in Fort Leavenworth, KS. In the portrait being unveiled, one of Judge Greene's many Buffalo Soldier paintings can be seen in the background.

As a result of his father's military career, Judge Greene moved a number of times during his formative years, and learned from an early age to get along with a wide variety of people under varying circumstances. He subsequently put those skills and abilities to good use as a citizen, a servicemember, and a leader in the legal field.

Before joining the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Judge Greene graduated with a bachelor of arts in political science from West Virginia State College, where he participated in Army ROTC and accepted an

Army Commission. He was designated to serve with the Armor Branch, but while awaiting orders to jump school, Judge Greene was offered acceptance to the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's Corps on the condition that he take the LSAT and be admitted to a law school which was scheduled to start in just a few weeks. Three years later he received his law degree from Howard University School of Law, passed the West Virginia Bar, and became an officer in the Army JAG Corps. He married his West Virginia childhood sweetheart and spent the next 25 years serving his country and gaining lifelong respect for the men and women in uniform. He received countless awards and honors for his service and expertise in both the law and the military, and he repeatedly demonstrated his great ability to bridge racial tensions and brings more African Americans into the Judge Advocate General's Corps.

As he is known to say when speaking publically, one of Judge Greene's life mottos is: ``When opportunity knocks, you can't say `wait, let me pack my bags.' '' So when in 1993 another opportunity presented itself, Greene took it, and left the Army to serve as an immigration judge for the U.S. He worked tirelessly in that position, handling thousands of immigration matters in the 3 years he served in that capacity.

Then, opportunity knocked again. It was a proud day in 1997, when President Clinton appointed Judge Greene to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Until 1988, the Veterans Administration, now the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, was the only Federal agency that was not subject to judicial review. In a long overdue decision, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs created the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims with my full support. Veterans deserved judicial oversight and the creation of the court was a major accomplishment during his first term in the Senate. As a skilled attorney and a veteran, Judge Greene brought a keen understanding of veterans' issues to the bench. He served as the court's chief judge from 2005 to 2010, and was known for his character and leadership during a time of tremendous growth and change at the court.

Although he officially retired last year, his commitment to hard work continues and Judge Greene currently serves as a senior judge on the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Judge William P. Greene, Jr., is a soldier, a jurist, and an American to be respected, and I am proud to recognize and honor his service today.