Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed; that prior to each vote, except as noted below, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments in this agreement; that after the first vote in the sequence, the remaining votes be limited to 10 minutes each; that prior to the vote in relation to the Kyl amendment No. 634, there be 10 minutes of debate, with 5 minutes each for Senators Kyl and Lautenberg; Murkowski, No. 599; Inhofe, No. 613; Thune, No. 635, as modified; Kyl, No. 634; and Crapo, No. 638.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I understood that under the order previously entered today, the Senate was to begin voting at 5:30 on amendments to the pending legislation.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 634

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was not agreed to.

Madam President, the leader is correct.

Madam President, in keeping with the statement of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and that amendment No. 634 by Senator Kyl, No. 613 by Senator Inhofe, and No. 638 by Senator Crapo be called up.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, in presenting the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act to the Senate. This bill contains the nine regular appropriations bills that have not been enacted and accounts for nearly half of all regular discretionary spending for the 2009 fiscal year.

I am supporting the approval of this bill by the Senate even though the process that has brought us to this point has left a lot to be desired.

I also share with those on my side of the aisle the concerns about the level of discretionary spending contained in this bill, which is $20 billion over President Bush's request.

I voted against the budget resolution that established the discretionary spending allocations for this bill, and I voted in favor of Senator Gregg's motion to instruct the conferees on the budget resolution to lower the discretionary caps to more modest levels. That motion was defeated by one vote, and the conference report on the budget resolution was adopted.

I commend my distinguished friend from Hawaii for resisting pressures to add controversial new policy matter to this bill. This is new legislation as opposed to a conference report, and as such any number of policy riders could have been included in the bill. A few provisions, such as language dealing with the Endangered Species Act, were included, but, largely, the bill stays within the legislation represented by the House and Senate bills.

Of the nine bills in this omnibus measure, none were ever considered on the floors of the House or the Senate. Two of the bills were never marked up in the Senate committee, and six of the bills were not marked up in the House committee. But I can assure the Senate that the content of the legislation before us is consistent with the parameters established by the individual House and Senate bills, even though some of those bills were never presented formally to either body.

Previous omnibus bills have been comprised of individual bills reported by the House and the Senate committees, and generally of bills that were passed by at least one of the legislative bodies. The bill before us today is a new kind of legislative document which I hope we will not see replicated in the future.

Last year, the bicameral leadership made a conscious decision not to engage President Bush on spending issues and to avoid taking votes on extending the ban on Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing. Perhaps that decision had some political benefits for some Members, but procedurally and substantively, it had detrimental impacts.

First of all, the moratorium on Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing has been removed from the Interior appropriations bill. Second, for the last 6 months, most Federal agencies have been compelled to operate at funding levels very similar to those they would have received had we simply enacted the individual bills in a form that President Bush would have signed.

Today, we could be discussing the merits of supplemental appropriations if they had been needed rather than starting from scratch halfway through the fiscal year. Had we enacted the appropriations bills last fall, agencies

would have been carrying out their responsibilities with approved levels of funding.

Funding for buildings, roads, trails, and water projects would have provided jobs and would have been obligated by now. To the extent those activities might have helped stimulate the economy, they would have been very beneficial. Instead, due to inaction by Congress, agencies have been in a holding pattern for nearly half of the fiscal year under the terms of the continuing resolution.

Two weeks ago, Congress sent to the President a huge stimulus bill. It contains some $311 billion in appropriations for a variety of programs. We had a vigorous debate about the bill in the Senate, and it passed with the minimum number of votes required. I voted against the stimulus bill in part because the bill included large amounts of funding for programs that are not immediately stimulative such as health information technology and broadband deployment. These would have been more appropriately considered in the context of a Presidential budget and at the more measured pace of the annual appropriations process. We will be living with the impacts of these decisions made in the stimulus bill--all made in great haste--for years to come. It is fair to ask to what degree does the omnibus bill duplicate the stimulus bill.

There is no question that the order in which we are considering the stimulus and the omnibus is exactly backward. We should have used the stimulus bill to supplement regular appropriations, not the other way around.

There are a number of accounts and programs funded in this omnibus bill that are also funded in the stimulus bill. In most cases the omnibus funds those programs at or near prior year levels, and one can argue the stimulus funding for those programs was a deliberate supplement. In other cases, the omnibus funds the same accounts contained in the stimulus but for different purposes. There are a few programs in the omnibus that, quite frankly, should have been scaled back based on the contents of the stimulus bill. So despite the unconventional and unfortunate process by which this bill was produced, it does represent a product that was fairly negotiated.

Some would like us to enact a continuing resolution for the remainder of the year that holds programs to their fiscal year 2008 funding levels, thereby saving billions of dollars. But knowing the impact that a full-year continuing resolution would have on individual programs, I don't think the majority would propose such a measure, and I don't think the President would sign it either.

Another possible outcome would be a modified continuing resolution similar to that enacted for fiscal year 2007--something that would eliminate all manner of congressional directives and oversight mechanisms but spend no less money than we are currently considering. Surely there are other possible outcomes. But, in my view, continued uncertainty in the day-to-day operations of the Federal Government at a time of national crisis is not worth the marginal and highly speculative gains that might come from defeating this bill.

We now have received a preliminary budget from the new President. In a few weeks, we will be considering the budget resolution for fiscal year 2010, and we will be debating such things as appropriate discretionary spending levels. I look forward to a debate on that as there is much in the President's budget request worth debating.

But it is time to put the fiscal year 2009 budget to rest. I am committed to do everything in my power not to repeat the dismal process that has brought us to this juncture, and I know the chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, shares that commitment. Neither of us wants to deny Senators the opportunity to help shape appropriations bills in the early parts of the process through amendment and discussion of alternatives. Neither of us wants to hide anything from the scrutiny of the legislative process, and neither of us wants Members to have to pass judgment on nine appropriations bills all at once rather than individually.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii for the job he has done as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He is leading the committee through a trying time, but he is doing it in the very best sense of bipartisanship and establishing working relationships that will serve the interests of not only the Senate but of the American people. These are relationships our committee can contribute to in the future, and I know they will under his leadership. I look forward to continuing to work with him to achieve timely and open consideration of other appropriations bills.

I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding to me.

Mr. President, yesterday marked the 139th anniversary of the seating of Hiram Rhodes Revels, as a United States Senator from the State of Mississippi. He was the first African-American to serve as a U.S. Senator.

Senator Revels was born in Fayetteville, NC. His father was a Baptist preacher, his mother was of Scottish descent. He moved north to complete his education at Beech Grove Quaker Seminary in Liberty, IN. In 1862, Hiram Revels recruited soldiers to serve in the Union Army and became Chaplain for a Black regiment in Mississippi.

Senator Revels began his political career after the war as an alderman in Natchez, MS. In 1869, he won a seat in the reconstructed Mississippi State Senate. One of the primary tasks of the newly elected State senate was to fill U.S. Senate seats in preparation for the State's return to the Union. In 1870, the new Mississippi State Legislature elected Hiram Revels to fill a term due to expire in 1871.

During his service in the United States Senate he worked on education issues. Upon his return to Mississippi, he became the first president of Alcorn State University.

During Black History Month it is appropriate that Hiram Rhodes Revels be remembered for his leadership and significant contributions to Mississippi and our Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Biographical history of Mr. Revels and a New York Times article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, although I voted against the motion to waive the Congressional Budget Act on the conference report to accompany H.R. 1, the so-called stimulus bill, and on the adoption of the conference report to H.R. 1, I must acknowledge the courtesies and thoughtful leadership of the Appropriations Committee by the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye.

He carried out his responsibilities as chairman of our committee in a fair minded way that reflected credit on the Senate.

This legislation was written by our committee, but in many respects it reflected the attitude and interests of the other body. The bill in my opinion creates too many new programs and policies that will have a major impact on the Federal budget for years to come.

Our Nation faces an economic emergency, but a health information program is not an emergency and should not have been included in this bill. Upgrading the elective grid is not an emergency and neither is improving our Nation's scientific capacity, but they should have been considered in the President's budget request and through a deliberative congressional process.

There are many things like this that should not have been included in this bill.

The process has been anything but deliberative.

Mr. President, there is no objection on this side. We appreciate the accommodations of the manager of the bill.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I am bringing to the attention of the Senate my opposition to an amendment that has been offered on this bill. Earlier today, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, offered amendment No. 140 to create a so-called ``earmark point of order'' that would lie against appropriations provisions before the Senate. This amendment, if it should be adopted, serves no desirable purpose. In my opinion, on the contrary, it would only serve to weaken the Congress as an institution, and in relationship in particular to the administration, and would yield more authority to the unelected bureaucracy of the Federal Government to make decisions that all of our constituents in all of our States sent us here to make. It is, in effect, a restriction of the power of Congress and the direct representatives of the people and the States.

Individual appropriations bills should be brought to the floor subject to amendment by any Senator, whether a member of the Appropriations Committee or not, without any restrictions. This makes the Senate different from the House of Representatives, as all Senators know. The House has a Rules Committee. When legislation is brought to the floor of the House of Representatives, the originating committee has to go before the Rules Committee and basically get permission to call up the bill and present it to the body. The Rules Committee decides whether amendments will be in order and, if so, which amendments, and how much time for debate on the amendments. Here, we don't have a rules committee; it is not necessary. Each Senator is, in effect, the member of the rules committee. The Senate decides under its rules as a body, with each individual Senator having equal power and equal say as to what amendments can be offered. Any Senator should have the right to offer an amendment to any bill, and it doesn't have to be germane, unless cloture has been invoked.

So what this amendment seeks to do, intentionally or not, is to limit the power of this body to be involved in the process of deciding how taxpayer funds are going to be spent by the Federal Government and for what purposes. So this is an unnecessary abrogation of a constitutionally vested responsibility in the Senate. It subrogates the Senate to the power of the executive, and this amendment should be defeated.

The bill that contains the legislation offered by the Senator would not do anything about $100 billion in new programs that are being funded in this stimulus bill to which the amendment is being offered. There are 128 pages of legislation in the bill before the Senate dealing with health information technology, and $23 billion of funding is associated with that language--$23 billion. It is a new program that has not been authorized by the relevant committee. Is that subject to a point of order, I ask the Senate? I don't think so. But under the language of this amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin, I suppose it would be subject to a point of order, but nobody is demanding a point of order against the bill containing that provision.

Since I have been in the Senate, I have served on authorizing committees and the Appropriations Committee. The authorization process is an important function of our Senate. The Appropriations Committee works closely with authorizing committees. If any Senator opposes authorizing language that is contained in an appropriations bill, the Senator can offer an amendment to strike it. The Senate can strike the language if it determines that is the appropriate thing to do.

Now, all the committees produce earmarks, not just the Appropriations Committee. When I served on the Agriculture Committee, the farm bill customarily contained specific authorizations for expenditures of funds--entitlement to Federal dollars by certain classes of producers of agriculture products. If any Senator had an objection to any portion of that authorizing bill, he or she could offer an amendment to strike it or amend it. Individual Senators are free and have the power to modify any bill before the Senate, and appropriations bills are no different. But to give a Senator a point of order to raise over some provision with which they disagree is not an appropriate change in the rules of the Senate and should not be tolerated in this legislation. It should be stricken. My experience has shown that because a program is authorized doesn't necessarily mean it is a good idea or that it will be funded. And that is another point.

Supporters of the amendment have made it clear their goal is to get rid of all earmarks--however earmarks may be defined by them-- regardless of what committee may produce them, regardless of whether they have been specifically authorized. This amendment is a step toward that goal, in my opinion. So I suggest that the Senate should look carefully and consider seriously the impact that this amendment may have, and when it is called up, if it is, I hope the Senate will vote it down.

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

Mr. President, if there is no one seeking recognition, I have no objection to yielding back the time, but I wouldn't want to do it without consulting the distinguished Senator from Maryland.

I have no objection.

Madam President, the bill now before the Senate provides $365 billion in new spending reported by the Appropriations Committee and $522 billion in tax and mandatory spending measures recommended by the Finance Committee. The bill as a whole has a price tag of $887 billion. When the borrowing costs associated with this spending are included, the cost of the package rises well over $1.2 trillion. The President has suggested that even more measures such as this, other requests to stimulate the financial system, may be needed to resuscitate the housing market and reform financial regulatory institutions. We don't know what the cost of all of these measures will be, but it sounds as if we may be asked to enlarge these commitments even further as time goes by.

Proponents of this bill say that the fiscal cost of inaction is also substantial. They argue that failure to enact the bill will lead to lower growth and diminished tax receipts. Yet there is little documentation to back up that claim. Those suggestions have not been described in any detail by administration officials or their economic experts.

In size alone, this measure has few precedents. We are considering this bill in the absence of any formal request or documentation from the executive branch. This bill has been described as President Obama's recovery plan. Yet we have not had an official request from the administration for these funds. I am not one who believes Congress must always wait for the executive branch to lead, but with regard to this bill, we are giving the executive branch immense latitude in the disbursement of the spending it contains. We are doing so without any official request and without any documentation that speaks to the issue of how this spending will stimulate the economy or what the long-term implications of the spending will be. Normally, this kind of information would be contained in an administration budget or supplemental request. For items that are well understood to have a short-term stimulative effect, most of us will feel comfortable debating their merits as part of an emergency measure. But there is a great deal of spending in this bill that is not immediately stimulative.

The majority describes it as investments in our Nation's future. We have the responsibility to be deliberate and consider these items carefully in the context of the President's formal budget request.

The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who is my dear friend, made a sincere effort to accommodate priorities expressed by Republican members of the committee and others who are not on the committee and to respond to some of their concerns. He resisted efforts to clutter the bill with controversial policy initiatives that might detract from the focus of the legislation or slow down the progress of the bill. He also insisted on a committee markup of the bill. All of these actions demonstrate his unquestioned sense of fairness.

The fact remains, however, that the Senate is being asked by the administration to take a big leap of faith that the massive spending proposed in this bill will, in fact, stimulate growth of the economy, even though much of the funding will not be spent in the next year or two.

We are all searching for solutions that will help the economy in the short term. Yet we must consider the long-term effects of any so-called stimulative actions we take today. Will the jobs associated with these proposals be created just as the economy is recovering, causing inflationary pressures that may not be welcome 2 years from now? What will be the impacts on Federal borrowing costs of this additional deficit spending, particularly once recovery is underway and we are no longer able to borrow money as cheaply as we are now? And perhaps of greatest concern, is it reasonable to expect stimulus spending to cease after 18 months or 2 years' time? The Federal Government's track record for terminating programs is not very good.

Let me share some of the provisions of this specific legislation. There are well over 20 new spending initiatives and programs that are either being authorized in this bill or being funded for the first time. These programs account for over $230 billion of the appropriated spending in the bill.

The bill allocates $16 billion to build and repair local schools, something which has not before been considered the responsibility of the Federal Government. That is a State and local responsibility.

The bill provides $9 billion to construct broadband infrastructure throughout the country, even as it requires development of a plan to actually spend this money, and the creation of a broadband infrastructure map that might inform development of that plan. Is this putting the cart before the horse or at least maybe putting it alongside the horse?

The bill appropriates $23 billion to create an improved health information technology system, virtually from scratch. This is not a 1- or 2-year project; it is an expensive, long-term program for which there is barely a foundation. Yet we are putting taxpayers on the hook for $23 billion.

The bill invests heavily in science and energy programs. Like many of my colleagues in the Senate, I supported passage of the America COMPETES Act during the last Congress. The goal of that legislation was to ensure that science education in America is of a quality that will sustain our economy in the 21st century. I also supported passage of Energy bills in the last 5 years in the hope that they would enhance our Nation's energy security. Yet I did not support any of these bills with the expectation that their various elements would be immediately funded in their entirety or that they would be funded outside the context of our Federal budget, the regular annual process.

Like most Senators, I assumed we would evaluate the merits of the individual programs as part of the annual budget and appropriations process. Even if this spending may be entirely appropriate, it is reckless to be providing it in the absence of any budgetary context and having done very little due diligence.

Much of the spending will have little stimulative effect. Projected spend-out rates are very slow. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office observed in a January 28 letter to the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee:

Throughout the federal government, spending for new

programs has frequently been slower than expected and rarely

been faster.

Is our putting it in this one bill going to change that? What will be the cost of these programs 5 years from now? If we control the overall level of discretionary spending in future years, what programs and priorities will these new initiatives displace? If the spending is entirely additive, what are the impacts of that spending on our national debt or on future tax rates? These questions are difficult to answer without supporting documentation and without having held any hearings.

It seems to me there will be time enough to consider these long-term investments in the regular order and in the context of future Federal budgets.

As former Clinton Budget Director Alice Rivlin recently testified:

. . . a long-term investment program should not be put

together hastily and lumped with an anti-recession package.

The elements of the investment program must be carefully

planned and will not create many jobs right away.

Yet it is not just these new programs that should concern us. This bill also greatly expands a number of programs such as Head Start, Pell grants, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. These are all programs with merit. I have supported them all, with supporters on both sides of the aisle each year approving bills to extend the authorizations and fund the programs. But the question is, Do they

stimulate the economy? How? Is it realistic to expect funding levels for these programs to revert to today's levels once the economy recovers? I think it is safe to expect just the opposite.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, cochaired by former Congressman Bill Frenzel, my friend, and another of President Clinton's former Budget Directors, Leon Panetta, another friend, recently warned of this danger. Speaking of stimulus recommendations like planting grass on the national mall, the committee said such things are ``a distraction from the bigger risks in this bill.''

More troubling is the number of items in the stimulus plan that are really intended to be permanent new policies rather than temporary items to help boost the economy.

They said:

While we need deficit spending now, extending out borrowing

beyond the economic downturn will make our already-dismal

fiscal picture far, far worse.

They go on to say:

The economy simply can't handle that. There is a very real

risk that many of these items will become a permanent part of

the budget and unless Congress suddenly shows an

uncharacteristic willingness to pay for the new items, the

deficit will deteriorate even further.

The committee they chaired went on to say:

Many of these items may be worthwhile, but an emergency

measure is the wrong way to push through permanent changes to

the budget. If politicians want to enact long-term spending

or tax policies, they should be enacted through the normal

legislative process.

I think that is very well put. I think we ought to pay attention to what people like that are saying.

The President's Chief of Staff recently said--probably in jest, maybe in jest--

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.

Well, clearly we are seeing the efforts by some--and I am not saying the President's Chief of Staff--to use this stimulus bill to achieve long-term objectives that go beyond addressing our short-term economic policies and problems.

But we agree--I think all Senators agree--the economy is under severe pressure and Congress should take quick but sharply focused action to do those things we are confident will have an immediate stimulative impact on the economy and improve economic prospects. We should address the housing problem that seems to be the central problem in this crisis. We should not, however, rush headlong into fiscal commitments that may haunt us for years to come.

If Federal spending on infrastructure and other programs is truly stimulative, is it not unfortunate Congress has failed to enact 9 of the 12 regular appropriations bills for this fiscal year? These bills account for almost half of all discretionary spending. Yet the agencies and programs supported by those bills have essentially been idling for 4 months under a continuing resolution. This is funding at last year's approved levels of spending; whereas, if enactment had taken place in a timely fashion by this Congress--this Senate and the House of Representatives working together--we would have much of this money that has previously been budgeted and approved by committees, approved by the Congress.

Funding contained in those bills is for projects such as roads, bridges, water projects, Federal buildings, and other activities that might provide jobs now, and they have been held in abeyance under the terms of a continuing resolution, which is continuing this fiscal year to spend at the levels appropriated for spending during the last fiscal year.

That is not something that can be laid at the feet of President Bush. That is the Congress. We hear a lot of criticism of the former President, such as he is the reason for all this. We need to look at ourselves. Congress did not even try to enact the bills. The bicameral leadership made a conscious decision not to engage the former President on spending issues or Outer Continental Shelf oil-and-gas leasing-- another example of something that could be labeled ``stimulative.''

Had we enacted those appropriations bills last fall, agencies would already be contracting, hiring, and spending their funding allocations. This week we would be having a debate probably about the merits of supplementing some of those allocations of Federal funds. Instead, we are considering a bill that supplements many existing programs without Members even knowing what the regular appropriations bills contain for those same programs.

In closing, I express my heartfelt thanks and appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, the chairman of our Appropriations Committee, for his distinguished leadership and congratulate him on the way he has undertaken to respond to these emergency requests that have been submitted to the committee. He has handled it all in a fair and thoughtful way. It is a pleasure working with him and the other members of our Committee on Appropriations in the Senate.

We, I know, stand ready to continue to work to improve this bill, to listen to suggestions of Senators for changes. It has been an open process, an open, public markup of the bill, an effort to invite suggestions from any member of the committee, and now it is open for amendment. This is no effort to railroad something through here without giving individual Senators the opportunity to carefully consider everything in here, to ask questions of those who maybe were responsible for the inclusion of certain provisions and the like. We are ready to take on these suggestions and consider them carefully to improve this bill over the coming days.

Mr. President, I strongly support the Children's Health Insurance Program and its reauthorization, and I am disappointed that the Senate did not approve the Kids First Act that was offered as an amendment. This legislation would have provided funding to cover low- income children whose families are otherwise unable to afford coverage. Instead of providing health coverage for American children, the Senate decided to consider a bill that will expand government programs, increase the burden on taxpayers, and shift the focus from the primary reason for the creation of the SCHIP, which is the coverage of low- income children. Before the Senate considers expanding SCHIP, we should ensure that all children under 200 percent of the Federal poverty level are covered. Under the current program, the State of Mississippi is unable to cover all children under the current limit of 200 percent of poverty, $44,000 per year. The Senate is now considering legislation that will take tax money paid by Mississippians out of the State and allow other States to cover children in families making up to $88,000 a year. The expansion of benefits to legal immigrant children is also a point of serious concern. Under current law, legal immigrants sign a statement that they will not use Federal assistance programs such as Medicaid and SCHIP for 5 years. This legislation would waive that 5- year waiting period, thus further expanding this program to noncitizens, while American children remain without health coverage. I cannot support any legislation that disadvantages the children of Mississippi even more. I hope this legislation will be changed in the amendment process to reflect the original intent of the legislation and ensure that low-income American children are provided health coverage.

Mr. President, the resignation of the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar in order to undertake the duties and responsibilities of Secretary of the Interior, has left us with a sense of pride and loss. We are very pleased the Department of the Interior will have the benefit of his leadership, but we regret that he will not be able to continue his excellent record of distinguished service in this body.

It has been a personal pleasure to serve with my friend from Colorado. His warm personality and his seriousness of purpose as a Senator have enabled him to serve as a very successful U.S. Senator.

I wish my friend well as he undertakes his new duties. I am sure we will see him often in the Senate working with us as we support him and the Department in carrying out their important responsibilities.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Senator Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. Her service as the Senator from New York for the past 8 years has been proof of her impressive ability to effectively and thoughtfully contribute to the governance of our Nation. I have enjoyed working with her in the Senate, and I look forward to continuing that relationship in her role as Secretary of State.

Our Nation is confronted with serious global challenges, and it is imperative that we work to develop comprehensive strategies and expand our diplomatic efforts in search of peace. President Obama has a tremendous task before him. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, stabilizing the Middle East, securing nuclear material from terrorists are all critical to our own national security. Senator Clinton's experience as First Lady of the United States, her record in the Senate, and her commitment to the people of this Nation have demonstrated her capabilities to lead our Nation's foreign policy and diplomatic agenda.

I urge the Senate to approve her nomination. I thank the Senator, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in congratulating Senator Robert Byrd on his 50 years of exemplary and distinctive service in the U.S. Senate.

Senator Byrd is a distinguished Member of the Senate and has served in many important positions of responsibility in this body during his tenure as Senator from West Virginia. He has served as minority and majority leader, as chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and as President pro tempore of the Senate.

It has been a great privilege to serve with Senator Byrd on the Appropriations Committee. I have learned so much from him since joining this committee in 1981. Senator Byrd has been a good friend as well as a mentor. It has also been a great pleasure to serve with him on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, which we have both chaired.

I look forward to continuing to serve with him in the coming years.