Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation designed to fix the personnel laws that

cover the Department of Veterans Affairs health care professionals, including registered nurses, physicians, physician assistants, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, and dental assistants. I am proud to have the support of my colleagues, Senators Webb, Brown, Mikulski, and Sanders.

Whenever I visit VA Medical Centers and meet with veterans, I hear wonderful stories about nurses and other VA health care professionals who work long and hard to provide care to our veterans. Too often, our health care professionals are working under real stress due to lack of funds or staff shortages. Almost 22,000 of the registered nurses caring for our veterans will be eligible to retire by 2010. Even more stunning is that 77 percent of all resignations of nurses occur within the first 5 years. This is a clear signal that more must be done to retain VA nurses and quality health care staff. Anyone involved in health care understands the important role that nurses play in the quality of care and patient satisfaction.

The goal of this bill is to support the VA health care professionals who work hard to provide quality care to our veterans. The bill seeks to return to the partnership agreement of the 1990s between VA management and workforce. Flexible scheduling and basic fairness from management are key issues that must be addressed to recruit and retain a strong workforce. Morale is important in every workplace, and particularly in a VA Medical Center.

West Virginia has four VA Medical Centers, each with a dedicated team of health care professionals. I have met with the nurses and other professionals to hear their requests for flexible scheduling. I believe that we should restore the management partnership and work hard to retain our dedicated team of health professionals for our aging veterans, and those newly returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, with both physical and mental wounds of war, that deserve experienced VA care.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, notwithstanding the previous order, I ask unanimous consent that the technical amendment which is at the desk be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 352 introduced earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I wish to not only recognize what the Senator from Texas has indicated, but also I wish to say that these last couple days, weeks--whatever it is--have been a study in bipartisan cooperation. We have been up, we have been down. It wasn't going to work, it could work, it might work. What we have concentrated on is going to the people who have concerns and answering every single question they might have. In a deliberative body such as the Senate, where we actually do that and people actually know we are trying to answer all their questions, and are answering all their questions, and when you have a chairman and a ranking member who are in tandem, working together on a very important matter, it counts.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to reintroduce, with my colleague Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, a bipartisan effort to ensure that all universal service programs can continue to operate smoothly and effectively. While Congress has annually taken action to deal with this issue, our hope is to enact a permanent solution.

For many years, we have fought hard for universal service, including the E-Rate. It is essential for all of the universal service programs to operate in a timely manner.

The Universal Service Fund is accomplishing its mission, and every member who has worked with us should be proud of the progress of this program. Our country has a strong telecommunications network, and rural customers are getting service at affordable rates. Lifeline and Linkup programs help the poorest of customers keep basic telephone access which is essential in our modern world. Rural health care is helping connect our rural clinics to modern medicine and specialists.

In 1996, when the Telecommunications Act passed, only 14 percent of all classrooms were connected, while just 5 percent of the poorest classrooms were connected. The latest data is encouraging with 93 percent of all classrooms connected and 89 percent of the poorest classrooms connected. Since 1998, West Virginia schools and libraries have received over $101 million in E-Rate discounts. While this is an extraordinary success, the need for E-Rate discounts remains because schools and libraries face monthly telecommunication costs and Internet access fees. Additionally, every school and library will periodically need to upgrade its internal connections as the demand of technology grows and institutions need greater bandwidth to handle ever increasing demand. At the beginning of the debates in 1996, schools were talking about dial-up access,

now every school wants--and needs--broadband.

This legislation gives the Universal Service Fund a permanent exemption from the Antideficiency Act which will provide sustainability and consistency for the program. Over the last few years, we have done one-year exemptions. Other Federal programs have permanent exemptions for the Antideficiency Act, and it is common sense to grant an exemption for the Universal Service Fund.

Mr. President, I am proud to reintroduce, with my colleague Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, a bipartisan effort to ensure that all universal service programs can continue to operate smoothly and effectively. While Congress has annually taken action to deal with this issue, our hope is to enact a permanent solution.

For many years, we have fought hard for universal service, including the E-Rate. It is essential for all of the universal service programs to operate in a timely manner.

The Universal Service Fund is accomplishing its mission, and every member who has worked with us should be proud of the progress of this program. Our country has a strong telecommunications network, and rural customers are getting service at affordable rates. Lifeline and Linkup programs help the poorest of customers keep basic telephone access which is essential in our modern world. Rural health care is helping connect our rural clinics to modern medicine and specialists.

In 1996, when the Telecommunications Act passed, only 14 percent of all classrooms were connected, while just 5 percent of the poorest classrooms were connected. The latest data is encouraging with 93 percent of all classrooms connected and 89 percent of the poorest classrooms connected. Since 1998, West Virginia schools and libraries have received over $101 million in E-Rate discounts. While this is an extraordinary success, the need for E-Rate discounts remains because schools and libraries face monthly telecommunication costs and Internet access fees. Additionally, every school and library will periodically need to upgrade its internal connections as the demand of technology grows and institutions need greater bandwidth to handle ever increasing demand. At the beginning of the debates in 1996, schools were talking about dial-up access,

now every school wants--and needs--broadband.

This legislation gives the Universal Service Fund a permanent exemption from the Antideficiency Act which will provide sustainability and consistency for the program. Over the last few years, we have done one-year exemptions. Other Federal programs have permanent exemptions for the Antideficiency Act, and it is common sense to grant an exemption for the Universal Service Fund.

Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Admiral Denny Blair on his unanimous confirmation as the Director of National Intelligence, one of the most important and demanding jobs in our government. This position requires a leader with tremendous management skills--someone capable of bringing the 16 disparate agencies of the intelligence community into a cohesive organization that provides timely, accurate intelligence to our government.

This intelligence is necessary to keep our Nation and our people safe, so Admiral Blair undertakes a sober, solemn responsibility today. He will take on this task at a time when we are fighting two wars as well as a global fight against terrorist networks, not to mention enormous long-term strategic challenges--including those that have arisen in recent months in the wake of the global financial and economic crisis.

These are perilous times, but I am confident he is up to the task. Admiral Blair brings a wealth of valuable experience to the job. As a senior military commander he was a high level consumer of intelligence and familiar with the systems used to collect and produce intelligence. He also knows the Central Intelligence Agency having spent time as the first Associate Director for Military Affairs.

Perhaps his greatest attribute, however, is his experience directing a large, sprawling organization, made up of disparate agencies and cultures, to achieve a common mission. That is what he accomplished successfully as the commander of all U.S. military forces in the Pacific, and that is exactly what his mission will be as the DNI.

I think this is a very promising time for our intelligence community and our national security, and Admiral Blair's confirmation is a big part of that. I want to underscore what he told us in his confirmation hearing--that we are entering a ``new era in the relationship'' between Congress and the executive branch on matters of intelligence.

Specifically, Admiral Blair said that he will place great importance on keeping Congress informed--not just formally notified, but fully informed--on intelligence activities. He said that he will work to ensure that classification is not used as a way to, in his words, ``hide things'' from Members of Congress who need to know about them.

He stated clearly and I quote, ``We need to have processes which don't just check a block on telling somebody but actually get the information across to the right people.''

These are very important commitments, and they portend good things for our intelligence community and for our national security. I have had the opportunity to speak with Admiral in great depth over the past several months, and these discussions have given me confidence in his sincerity with these commitments.

And I expect that, likewise, he and the Obama administration have confidence that Congress will hold them to it. In fact this cooperation has already begun.

With this new era of cooperation in mind, I want to state for the record that we have an opportunity to make a sharp turn toward new intelligence policies that will bolster our counterterrorism efforts and strengthen our national security in general.

To be accurate and valuable, intelligence must be politically neutral information, not spin. And it must be collected with methods that enjoy bipartisan support as both legal and effective.

To ensure this, secret intelligence activities must be subject to rigorous congressional oversight. We are the only independent reviewers of secret intelligence activities, and we are the only outside check on activities that are not legal or not effective.

Oversight should not be adversarial--it is a necessary partnership between the executive branch and the Congress.

I have fought to remove politics from intelligence and to restore Congress's vital oversight role since I joined the committee in 2001, and I will keep fighting for it now.

I don't want to get into who is at fault for the cycle we were caught in over the past several years. Instead I want to look ahead to what is possible now.

I think there is a real chance that in this new year, we can have a new start.

We can and should debate how we go about collecting and analyzing intelligence--for instance on interrogation policies--but we can do that without the stain of political considerations.

Between the executive and legislative branches, we can and should engage and debate these policies, but we can do that in partnership, with the knowledge that more information exchanges and deliberations give rise to better intelligence collection and analysis.

In short, we can recognize that we are all on the same team when it comes to finding out the sensitive information we need to protect this great Nation.

If we play on that same team, I know we can have accurate, reliable intelligence that is collected in a way that makes this country proud, and is analyzed without the taint of political influence.

I congratulate Admiral Denny Blair on his confirmation.

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

Mr. President, following along on the lines of the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, it has been a very long journey to reach this day. A year and a half ago both Houses of Congress passed two CHIP reauthorization bills with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. As I recall, the numbers were somewhere around 69 in the Senate on each bill. These two bills would have given 4 million more uninsured children a healthy start in life. For those of us in Appalachia and for those who live almost anywhere in the country, there are parts of their inner cities and rural areas where this is absolutely crucial.

No one was more disappointed or, frankly, angry than I was when our bipartisan legislation was twice vetoed by President Bush. I could not understand it. I didn't know what the reason was. But my anger toward that pales in comparison to the heartache and the anguish felt by the millions of children and families who would have directly benefited from this legislation had it passed in either of its forms. But it did not.

So today we are here once again to debate providing health coverage to 4 million uninsured children. But this time there is a big difference. President Bush no longer stands in the way of providing health care to children. President Obama decided, very early in his campaign, this is something he cared about. This time victory for children is guaranteed. All we to have do is pass it. We should all be extremely excited that this bill will finally be signed into law, and more than 11 million children will be enrolled in CHIP each year.

Unfortunately, some of my colleagues are less than thrilled about the bill before us. I want to put the 11 million children in context. People say there are anywhere from 42 to 48 million uninsured Americans. If we do our job, about a quarter of our uninsured will disappear and will be insured. So this is a monumental task on which we are, in fact, proceeding. Some of my colleagues have tried to raise suspicion and doubt about our intentions on this most recent CHIP bill. I regret that. I want my colleagues to know there is no reason for suspicion or doubt on any account. It was called by some ``political.'' I will explain that in a moment and why it is a fallacious argument and should be understood by my colleagues as that. Our intentions are exactly the same as they were in 2007--to make sure that children in America have the health care they need and deserve.

I remember this very well, as the Presiding Officer knows, from my early days in West Virginia when I was working in coalfields of southern West Virginia where no children had any health care insurance. The legislation we are considering this week is virtually identical to the second and to the more conservative CHIP bill that we passed in the fall of 2007. However, this legislation also reflects the fact that our country is not in the same economic situation as was the case at that time. Working families at all income levels are hurting because of the economy. This bill gives the States additional Federal funding and the flexibility to cover children in need.

One important and necessary change in the legislation before us gives the States the option to eliminate the 5-year waiting period that prevents legal immigrant children and legal immigrant pregnant women from getting timely health care. Allow me to repeat myself. This legislation gives States the option to eliminate the 5-year waiting period for legal immigrants. It is not, therefore, a requirement. It also does not provide health care for illegal immigrants or their children. Anyone who says differently is incorrect. Thence rises the argument that this is playing politics, as if God had some kind of a different view about children who are here and have been here for a number of years and are trying to live out their life as best they can but they have no health insurance. What is it? Where is it written that these are not children to the equal of yours or mine? It is not written, because it is not so. All of us are equal.

In fact, our legislation has language specifically prohibiting Medicaid and CHIP coverage for illegal immigrants. I could take it out of the bill and read it to you, but that would be unnecessary.

There is no acceptable reason for this 5-year waiting period to remain in place. All lawfully present children should have timely access to health care in the United States. We are doing our best to achieve that and will achieve that through this bill. Five years later, if we kept on that requirement, is a lifetime for young children who may have bad teeth or early cases of cancer or any other life- threatening illness or disability, to make them wait 5 years because we don't think maybe they measure up. They measure up. They are kids. They are children. That is what we are fighting for.

Those who oppose removing this arbitrary waiting period will come to the floor and offer all sorts of unrelated arguments about immigration. This is not about immigration. It is about health care for kids who need it, something that a lot of us have been fighting for since the mid-1990s. These arguments are nothing more than a smokescreen. The bottom line is that both U.S. citizen children and children in this country legally should have timely access to health care, period. This legislation covers both those objectives.

In closing, I hope we will have the same bipartisan commitment in passing this legislation as we did in 2007. Those who look upon one amendment, which is highly moral, highly deserved and entirely right, will pass it with the same margins we did in 2007. Four million children are waiting for us to finish the task at hand.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 328, introduced earlier today by Senator Rockefeller.

Mr. President, on February 17, 2009--less than 1 month from today--our Nation is scheduled to make the transition to digital television, or DTV. On this day, full-power television stations across the country will stop broadcasting in analog and switch to digital signals.

The way I see it, right now we have a choice. We can do the DTV transition right or we can do it wrong. Doing it right would mean that as many as 21 million households across this country do not lose access to news, information and emergency alerts. Doing it right would mean that every consumer who relies on over the-air television is aware of the steps they need to take to ensure continued reception and receive the assistance they need to prepare for the transition in their home. And doing it right means that no one across this land wakes up on February 18 to find that their television set has gone dark.

But the shameful truth is that we are not poised to do this transition right. We are only weeks away from doing it dreadfully wrong--and leaving consumers with the consequences. It is no secret that the outgoing administration grossly mismanaged the digital television transition. The coupon program that was designed to help consumers defray the cost of converter boxes to ensure the continued functioning of their analog television sets has a waiting list of over 2 million. This number will multiply to millions more in the weeks ahead. Making a difficult situation even worse, we also face the frightful specter of converter box shortages.

On top of this, consumers are aware of the transition, but confused about its consequences. One study suggests that while recognition of the transition is widespread, an alarming 63 percent have major misconceptions about just what steps they need to take to prepare. Calling centers at the Department of Commerce and Federal Communications Commission are ill-equipped to deal with the avalanche of calls that are expected on February 17 and in the days and weeks after. Consumers will be on their own, forced to navigate through the messy rubble of a botched transition.

I believe we can and should do better. Doing better means more than cobbling together the failed efforts of the last administration. Doing better requires more attention and more resources. But above all, it will require more time--to get the DTV transition right.

This is why last week I introduced the DTV Delay Act. I asked the Senate to delay the date of the transition from February 17 to June 12, 2009. This will give us the time we need to develop an approach that puts consumers first and provides them with the assistance they need.

In the interim, I have been working with the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Senator Hutchison, to modify and improve

the language of my earlier bill in an effort to broaden support and speed its passage.

I rise again today to introduce, now with my good friend Senator Hutchison, an amended version of the DTV Delay Act. This version incorporates adjustments to help manage the transition in affected communities, including a provision that makes clear that despite this date change the transition needs of broadcasters and public safety officials will be respected.

Let me be clear. This legislation is not perfect. But it represents a turning point--a start. The record will reflect that I have spent years advocating a different course. I voted against the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which set this hard date for the transition deep in the winter. I voted against this bill in both the Commerce Committee and during its consideration by the full Senate because it fell short of a real plan for minimizing consumer disruption. I voted against this bill because it failed to spend any resources building a national interoperable public safety communications network in the spectrum vacated by analog broadcasting. Voting no was by no means a popular thing to do. In fact, I was one of only three ``no'' votes in the Commerce Committee.

Last year, I introduced and the Congress passed the SAFER Act. This legislation provided the Federal Communications Commission with authority to extend analog television broadcasting so that essential public safety announcements and DTV transition could be viewed in the days following the February 17 transition. I now believe that this is not enough. It is a meaningful bandage, but the situation we face requires more intensive care.

The DTV Delay Act will not fix all of the problems associated with the transition. More work needs to be done to ensure that consumers are aware of the transition and get the help they need. But it gives us all the time to do the transition right. Time to develop a new plan, time to implement a new set of ideas to manage the transition, and time to make sure that in the switch to digital signals no American is left behind. Senator Hutchison and I are committed to making sure every American is able to manage the DTV transition without undue hardship. We are working on initiatives to be included in the economic recovery package. If we are able to make substantial progress on the administration of the transition this should be the last delay we have to seek. Barring unforeseen emergencies, we should not have another delay. I know the Obama administration shares our commitment to getting this right so that we can avoid any further delays.

So we have a choice, we can proceed with the DTV Delay Act or weeks from today we can survey the wreckage of a failed effort to transition to digital broadcasting, complete with angry consumers, converter box troubles, and calling centers overwhelmed with consumer complaints. Worse, should a tragedy strike, we face the prospect of millions of consumers without access to television, without a lifeline for news and information that may be necessary to protect them from harm.

Again, we have a choice. And I know what I choose. I choose that we delay this transition because I believe we owe the American people a successful migration to digital television. Today will be the second time that the majority leader has sought consent on the DTV Delay Act. We simply can't keep coming back again and again to delay as time is running out. We must act now because we will not have the ability to address consumer needs if we wait much longer.

I ask my colleagues to do the same. I warn those who would stand in the way, who dismiss my sense of urgency, that should they force us to keep to our current course, it is the American public who will bear the brunt of their opposition. We owe our citizens so much more than this. So I ask my colleagues to join me and support the DTV Delay Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Rockefeller-Hutchison substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Mary L. Schapiro to fill an unexpired term, received today; that the Senate then proceed to the consideration of the nomination; that the nomination be confirmed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 21 submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, January 27; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization; further, that the Senate recess following the swearing in of Senate appointee- Gillibrand until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons to meet.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, Melvin Dubee, one of the Senate's most highly valued staff members and one to whom I am personally grateful, will soon conclude two decades of government service in order to apply his considerable talents in the private sector. While I do not, for a moment, believe that this is the end of Melvin's public duties--one day a wise official will certainly summon him back to public service--it is fitting to note his accomplishments to date.

As evident to even casual observers, particularly around key Longhorn or Cowboy games, Melvin has roots in Texas, where he received at the University of Texas at Arlington a Bachelor of Business Administration degree in finance. His path to public service then included a Masters degree in international affairs from George Washington University in 1988 and two years as a Presidential management intern between 1987 and 1989.

The Presidential Management Intern Program was established by President Carter to attract to Federal service, through a national competition, outstanding individuals from a variety of disciplines who are interested in a career in Federal service. During the internship Melvin worked in the Office of the Inspector General in the Department of Defense, where he began to build expertise in defense issues that carried into his Senate work. During that time he received a congressional fellowship, which introduced him to the Senate in the office of the Senate's master teacher, my senior Senator, Robert Byrd, where Melvin continued to work on defense management issues.

It doesn't take long for those with whom Melvin works to be impressed by his considerable skills and calm demeanor. His audition as a Congressional Fellow led to 5 years of service as national security assistant to Senator Byrd, between 1989 and 1994. In that capacity, he advised Senator Byrd, who was then in the midst of his distinguished leadership of the Senate Appropriations Committee, on foreign policy and defense issues. This included serving as Senator Byrd's staff representative to the Armed Services Committee, during which Melvin complemented his growing knowledge of defense issues with his impressive legislative process skills concerning hearings, markups, floor action, conference committee negotiations, and negotiations with other congressional offices and with the Executive Branch.

In 1994, Melvin began his service on the Senate Intelligence Committee. This service continued until now with brief interruptions, including a year during President Clinton's administration in the Office of National Drug Policy where he advised Director Barry McCaffrey on that office's interaction with Congress.

Melvin has contributed to the committee in a variety of positions.

As a professional staff member, which is the general entry point for our staff, Melvin developed expertise in a number of key intelligence community oversight issues, including counter-drug, counterterrorism, international organized crime issues, as well as area expertise concerning Latin America and Southeast Asia. As a professional staff member, he also served as an adviser and liaison to Senator John Kerry and then to me, during the early part of my service on the committee in 2001.

One of Melvin's particular contributions during that time was leadership of the committee's investigation of the tragic April 2001 shoot-down of a U.S. missionary plane in Peru. Our report, entitled ``Report on a Review of United States Assistance to Peruvian Counter- Drug Air Interdiction Efforts and the Shootdown of a Civilian Aircraft on April 20, 2001,'' S. Prt. 107-64, bears witness to a number of his skills. They include an ability to gather and carefully analyze facts, write accurately and clearly, help the Committee draw sound conclusions and make needed recommendations, and do so in a manner that draws bipartisan support. And, I should add, also to do all that expeditiously so that the committee was able to report publicly within 6 months of the incident.

The skills that Melvin amply demonstrated as a professional staff member led to his selection to fill two key staff management positions.

From mid-2001 through 2002, Melvin served as the committee's budget director. Our budget director post is an immensely important responsibility. The total national intelligence budget when Melvin was budget director is classified. But we have declassified the top line for the last 2 fiscal years. The most recent figure, $47.5 billion in fiscal year 2008, conveys the importance of the task of reviewing, making recommendations about, and monitoring implementation of the Nation's intelligence budget. As budget director, Melvin led the committee's budget monitors for each of the individual intelligence community elements in scouring the President's budget numbers and evaluating the broad span of human and technical collection, analytical, acquisition, and management issues they involve. The budget director arranges for the presentation of these issues at classified hearings of the committee, their consideration at committee markups, coordination with the Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees, and negotiation with the House and also with the Executive Branch. This work is at the heart of the committee's responsibilities.

Confidence in Melvin, starting with former Vice Chairman Richard Bryan in 2000 and then myself from 2003 through the 110th Congress, also led to Melvin's designation as deputy staff director, initially on the minority side and then beginning in 2007 as the committee's deputy staff director. There are two aspects of that responsibility. One is leadership within the staff, helping it to maintain the high level of professionalism and effectiveness that has been the hallmark of our Intelligence Committee staffs. The other is being a close adviser to the chairman or vice chairman, as the case may be, on the full breadth of issues relating to the oversight of the U.S. intelligence community.

In both respects, as a partner with the staff director in managing the committee and as a close adviser to me, Melvin performed magnificently. On a daily basis, I most often saw Melvin as a trusted adviser. In that role, Melvin combines key capabilities and attributes.

Melvin knows his material. This includes current intelligence and historical background. It includes detailed knowledge of the elements of the intelligence community, from the CIA, to components of the Defense Department, to intelligence elements in the State, Treasury, and Energy Departments, as well as the FBI. And it includes knowledge of the functioning of the Senate, with respect not only to the Intelligence Committee, but also to the committees with which we work, and its leadership and floor proceedings.

Melvin has an admirable ability to express his considerable knowledge succinctly and clearly. He has no hesitation in expressing disagreement or dissent, respectfully but clearly, particularly when a matter of principle is involved, as is often the case when addressing sensitive matters. When a decision is made, he has an uncanny ability to find and recommend the right words for remarks in committee, on the floor, in letters or press releases, or in speeches outside the Senate. And, in all of our endeavors, Melvin has been forever guided by a deep commitment to the protection of our Nation and our values.

It would be incomplete, however, to talk only about Melvin at work. A

glance at his wall of photographs, an opportunity to hear him talk about his family, and the chance to meet his wife and two daughters, make it clear that Melvin and his wife Kristine Johnson are loving and imaginative parents, and that Melvin's priorities have always been right on the mark. As may often be the case when someone leaves the Senate for the private sector, daughters Katrina and Eliza may find that Dad is able to get home a little earlier to join them at dinner.

With gratitude for his service to the Senate and the Nation, for myself and the many others who have benefited from it, I wish Melvin the best in the time ahead.

Madam President, today the Senate will pass a comprehensive public lands bill that will protect our Nation's public lands and conserve our planet's oceans. I thank the majority leader and Senator Bingaman for including important bills from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in this package. I commend Senators Inouye, Stevens, Cantwell, Snowe, Lautenberg, and Gregg for their leadership in drafting these bills. Senator Inouye, in particular, has aggressively advocated for improved stewardship of our oceans and this package reflects his careful work as chairman of the Commerce Committee which has jurisdiction over our Nation's oceans. As the incoming chair of the Commerce Committee, I will continue to work closely with my dear friend and mentor Senator Inouye on these issues. And I look forward to collaborating closely with him on oceans policy and other areas in the committee's jurisdiction that are particularly critical to the Hawaiian Islands. Our colleagues should know that the ocean and coastal bills included in the Consolidated Natural Resources Act enjoy broad bipartisan and national support because they are sorely needed and important to our Nation's environmental and economic future.

The Federal Government owns nearly 653 million acres of land in the United States. As the owner of these lands, the Federal Government has a responsibility to protect this land for current and future generations. Likewise, and as importantly, the Federal Government has an equal responsibility to protect and manage our Nation's marine and coastal resources. The oceans cover over two-thirds of our planet, yet we know little about what lies beneath or how the changing climate is affecting marine resources. The United States' Exclusive Economic Zone, covers 3.4 million square miles of the Earth's surface, an area greater than the whole United States. Unfortunately, our efforts to sustainably manage and conserve these submerged lands and living resources are hampered by our limited scientific research and understanding of our Exclusive Economic Zone. That is irresponsible and must change. The five ocean bills included in this legislation will authorize programs necessary to increase our Nation's understanding about ocean and coastal areas, which in turn will enable us to make the best possible decisions about how to manage, preserve, and protect our oceans and their living marine resources for current and future generations

The Ocean and Coastal Exploration and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act is critical to our ability to gather observations and data from areas in the ocean that have never been explored. The legislation would establish a national ocean exploration program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which would conduct interdisciplinary ocean exploration voyages to explore and survey little known areas of the marine environment and inventory, observe, and assess living and nonliving marine resources. In addition, this legislation would establish a coordinated national undersea research program, which would increase scientific knowledge for the management, use, and preservation of oceanic, coastal, and Great Lakes resources through undersea research, exploration, education, and technology development.

These activities are vital given that approximately 95 percent of the ocean floor remains unexplored. Increasing our knowledge of our oceans through exploration and undersea research provides unprecedented opportunities to discover new sources of minerals, drugs, habitats, species, artifacts, and shipwrecks. Expeditions could provide images of ancient human artifacts, rare or previously undiscovered species, and exciting new ecosystems.

The Ocean and Coastal Mapping Act would direct the Federal Government to integrate Federal and coastal mapping activities throughout the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Approximately 90 percent of our Nation's maritime territory remains unmapped by modern technology. Improving our mapping activities, the promotion of the development and dissemination of new technologies, and the coordination of efforts across the 10 federal agencies currently involved in marine mapping are essential. Better mapping of these waters will help to minimize maritime accidents, support the national security missions of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, and improve our knowledge of ocean and coastal ecosystems.

The Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act would establish a national integrated ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes observing system that would collect, compile, and make available data to support marine commerce; navigation safety; weather, climate and marine forecasting; energy siting and production; ecosystem-based resource management; and public safety. This legislation represents an acknowledgement of our need as a country to improve our ability to measure, track, explain, and predict events related to weather and climate change. It represents a consensus that our understanding of natural climate variability and interactions between ocean and atmospheric environments needs strengthening and improvement. Information generated by the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System would assist in providing advanced warning of hazardous coastal and ocean conditions to State managers and potentially affected communities and could help coastal communities prepare for and minimize losses for a range of potentially harmful ocean conditions. Additionally, this Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System has the potential to provide economic and ecological benefits for other coastal and ocean activities. For example, fisheries scientists and managers could use the data to predict biological productivity which would facilitate ecosystem-based management. Fishermen and mariners could better predict sea conditions for safe navigation and transport. Ocean scientists and regulators could better understand, predict, and rapidly respond to the distribution and impacts of marine pollution, harmful algal blooms, or other hazardous conditions. Educators and students could learn more about basic functions and processes of the marine environment.

Increasing carbon dioxide absorption in our oceans is acidifying waters and could be threatening the foundation of the ocean's food web. The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act highlights the need for action to be taken to understand and confront climate change and its impacts on our oceans by authorizing a coordinated Federal research program on ocean acidification. Over the past 200 years, human activities have resulted in dramatic increases in greenhouse gases that are altering the Earth's climate. The oceans mitigate the effects of global warming by absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is changing ocean carbon chemistry and causing the oceans to become more acidic. There is significant concern among the scientific community, resource managers, and policymakers that ocean acidification could adversely impact our Nation's marine ecosystems, the food webs of many fish and marine mammals, and the economies of many coastal States that rely upon the seafood industry and coastal and ocean tourism. The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act would establish an interagency committee, chaired by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to develop and provide Congress with a strategic research plan on ocean acidification. Additionally, it vests the authority within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish an ocean acidification program

within the agency to conduct research and long-term monitoring, education and outreach, and development of adaptation strategies and techniques for conserving marine ecosystems.

The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program Act would authorize the Secretary of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to make grants to coastal States for the purposes of protecting important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values, or that are threatened by conversion from their natural, undeveloped, or recreational state to other uses, and it provides grants for lands to be managed or restored to effectively conserve, improve, or restore ecological function. Estuaries, wetlands, and the watersheds that flow into them support fisheries and wildlife and substantially contribute to coastal economies. The pressures of urbanization and pollution in coastal areas threaten to impair watersheds, undermine natural protections from coastal storms, impact wildlife habitat, and cause irreparable damage to coastal ecology. As our population grows, more and more people are moving to our coasts to enjoy their beauty and recreational opportunities. Coastal land protection partnership programs can help our Nation meet a number of diverse priorities such as promoting recreation, increasing wildlife, improving or conserving ecological quality and diversity, and preserving historical or cultural resources. The legislation would foster partnership programs among the Federal Government, State agencies, local governments, private landowners, and nonprofits to effectively conserve and manage coastal lands.

Over 50 percent of our population lives along our coasts and our coastal economies generate one-half of our Nation's gross domestic product. The planet's oceans produce an untold amount of wealth, both economic and ecological, for our Nation. What is good for the health of our coastal communities and oceans is good for the Nation. Given the reliance our citizens have on our marine and coastal resources and the large gaps exist in our knowledge regarding U.S. ocean and coastal areas, strengthening and improving our marine, coastal, and scientific programs will enable us to make the best possible decisions about how to manage, preserve and protect our oceans.

Madam President, I rise today to honor a giant of the Senate, my colleague and the senior Senator from West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd.

Yesterday we watched a number of new Senators take an enormously important oath to serve our country and to defend our Constitution. I was included in taking that oath and I couldn't help but think of my new colleagues. If these new Senators are looking for an inspiration, a guiding light, or a model, the way that I did some years ago, they need look no further than the seat directly behind our distinguished majority leader.

In that seat they will find a man who took that same oath that we did 50 years ago today. Senator Byrd has taken that oath a total of nine times. He has cast more votes than anyone in the history of the Senate. He has held more leadership positions than anyone in the history of the Senate. He has served longer than anyone in the Senate. He has literally written the book on the Senate and lived the story of the Senate over five decades.

Robert C. Byrd is nothing short of a legend. However, 50 years ago today he was a young man from West Virginia who married a coal miner's daughter. He had spent 4 years in the West Virginia Legislature and 6 years in the U.S. House of Representatives.

No one could know in 1959 that he would be a legend in 50 years. What they did know was Robert Carlyle Byrd was an ambitious self-starter who would put himself through law school while serving in the U.S. Congress.

They knew Senator Byrd was always willing to help a colleague and to provide advice and guidance.

In 1959 they knew Robert Byrd had married his grade school sweetheart--

Erma Ora--who would stand with him her entire life and was just as beloved as he was in West Virginia and in Washington. Senator Byrd always knew Erma's greatness saying she was not only his wife but his best counselor.

Speaking of West Virginia, the Senate knew from his first days here that he would advocate fiercely for the citizens of our State and throughout the years would bring prosperity to West Virginia.

While they knew these things in 1959, today we know Senator Byrd as the conscience of the Senate. We know him as the Senator with the greatest longevity. In West Virginia we now know him as the West Virginian of the 20th century and I am glad the Nation has had the opportunity to get to know Senator Byrd over these last 50 years.

I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Senator Byrd on a record-setting 50 years in the Senate. Senator, I wish you many more.