Floor Statements

Mr. President, as a member of the Impeachment Trial Committee, I had the privilege of carrying out a constitutional duty that fortunately is a rare occurrence. I commend the work of Chair McCaskill and Vice-Chair Hatch, as well as the staff of the committee, Senate legal counsel, and CRS. They have done an excellent job of making a complex and time-consuming process as clear and straightforward as possible.

I began the impeachment process with the belief that my legal background would help guide my judgment as to whether or not Judge Porteous is guilty. As the attorney general of New Mexico for 8 years and a former assistant U.S. attorney, I saw the impeachment process as closely analogous to a criminal trial. It turns out, however, that the two are very different in many key aspects.

Unlike a criminal trial, our role is not to punish the guilty, but is instead to protect the integrity of the judiciary. The U.S. Judicial system is the greatest in the world, but it can only remain so as long as the integrity and impartiality of our judges is never in doubt. Judge Porteous's actions were so contrary to everything we demand of our judges that I have no hesitation in voting to convict him on each article.

One of the primary aspects that make an impeachment trial unique from a criminal trial is the standard of proof. I began the impeachment process believing that the House must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in order for a conviction. This is not the case.

Obviously Judge Porteous would like all of us to use the standard of ``beyond a reasonable doubt,'' while the House managers would prefer a ``preponderance of the evidence standard.'' Some scholars have urged a middle ground, suggesting that the appropriate standard of proof should be ``clear and convincing evidence.'' But the fact is that we each have to make our own decision.

I believe that the ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' standard is too high. The Senate does not have the authority to take away Judge Porteous's liberty but only the authority to remove him from a position of public trust. I also believe that whether you use a clear and convincing evidence standard or a preponderance of the evidence standard, the House managers have met their burden.

Another important question each of us must decide is what constitutes an impeachable offense. Judge Porteous's attorneys argue that much of his conduct is not impeachable because it does not meet the constitutional standard of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' They also argue that most of his conduct occurred prior to his confirmation to the Federal bench or was not related to his duties as a Federal judge, and therefore not grounds for impeachment. I do not believe any of these arguments are persuasive.

I initially thought of ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' in the context of a criminal trial. My prosecutor experience made me ask what elements had to be proven in order to convict on each article. But now I understand that an impeachment is so fundamentally different than a criminal trial that such comparisons do not work.

Alexander Hamilton wrote that impeachable offenses ``proceed from . . . the abuse or violation of some public trust'' and ``relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.'' The Framers also did not use the term ``misdemeanor'' to mean a minor crime, as it is used today. At the time of the Constitution's drafting, a misdemeanor referred to the demeanor or behavior of a public official.

Judge Porteous's counsel made several references to the fact that the judge was not criminally charged for his actions. But this is not a relevant consideration. The 1989 report on the impeachment of U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon provides us with guidance as to what constitutes an impeachable offense. It states:

The House and Senate have both interpreted the phrase other

high Crimes and Misdemeanors' broadly, finding that

impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.

Congress has repeatedly defined [the phrase] to be serious

violations of the public trust, not necessarily indictable

offenses under the criminal law.

Thus, the question of what conduct by a Federal judge

constitutes an impeachable offense has evolved to the

position where the focus is now on public confidence in the

integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. When a judge's

conduct calls into question his or her integrity or

impartiality, Congress must consider whether impeachment and

removal of the judge from office is necessary to protect the

integrity of the judicial branch and uphold the public trust.

We are also faced with deciding whether impeachable offenses are limited to acts occurring after an individual became a Federal official. According to the Congressional Research Service, ``it does not appear that any President, Vice President, or other civil officer of the United States has been impeached by the House solely on the basis of conduct occurring before he began his tenure in the office held at the time of the impeachment investigation, although the House has, on occasion, investigated such allegations.''

I do not see how we can restrict our authority to impeach and convict a Federal official to conduct that only occurred after he or she took office. To do so would lead to a perverse result, one in which, as the House managers argue, ``makes the position of federal judge a lifetime safe harbor for someone who is able to hide his misdeeds and defraud the Senate into confirming him.''

In considering whether pre-Federal conduct should be considered as a basis for impeachment, Professor Michael Gerhardt testified before the House that, ``[t]he critical questions are whether Judge Porteous committed such misconduct and whether such misconduct demonstrates the lack of integrity and judgment that are required in order for him to continue to function'' as a Federal judge.

I believe this is an appropriate standard, and I believe Judge Porteous's conduct as a State court judge was incompatible with the trust we place in our Federal judges. Had his pre-Federal conduct been serious, but outside of the scope of his role as a State judge, I might have been more hesitant to consider it as a basis for impeachment. In this case, however, his corrupt conduct was directly connected to his duties as a judge. In arguing against considering pre-Federal conduct, Judge Porteous is essentially telling the Senate that although he was a corrupt State court judge, that conduct should not be considered in determining his fitness to continue as a Federal judge. I do not find this argument the least bit persuasive.

A final question is whether impeachable offenses should be limited to official acts that are directly related to his duties as a judge. Just as I don't believe pre-Federal conduct must be excluded as a basis for impeachment, I do not feel that nonofficial conduct must be excluded.

In fact, Judge Porteous's own attorney, Jonathan Turley, wrote in a law review article that ``Congress repeatedly rejected the view that impeachable conduct was limited to official acts or abuses of authority. Impeachable conduct often included acts that were incompatible with continuing to hold an office of authority, including crimes or misconduct outside the official realm.''

I believe the question to ask when considering nonofficial acts is the same as that for pre-Federal acts does the misconduct demonstrate a lack of integrity and judgment that are required in order for him to continue to function as a Federal judge? Once again, I found Judge Porteous's nonofficial conduct to reach the level of an impeachable offense. We expect a Federal judge to have the utmost respect for the rule of law, but Judge Porteous knowingly filed for bankruptcy under a false name, an act that he knew was illegal. His attorneys argue that this act was insignificant he filed amended forms a few weeks later and none of his creditors were harmed. But this argument misses the point that a Federal judge had so little respect for the legal process that he would commit perjury in order to avoid embarrassment. Such actions make him unfit for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench.

For the reasons discussed above, I voted guilty on each of the four Articles of Impeachment.

Mr. President, in the more than 9 years that our military has been fighting in Afghanistan, thousands of brave men and women have volunteered their service to our country. They have sacrificed time with their families, travelled to foreign lands, and put their

lives in jeopardy, all in the defense of the ideals we hold dear.

This month, New Mexico lost one of those brave soldiers. His name was James Thode. He was a 45-year-old married father of two who had served for 14 years as a police sergeant for the city of Farmington. He was in Afghanistan as a member of the Utah National Guard as a sergeant first class in the 118th Sapper Company.

Sergeant Thode was killed by a roadside bomb on December 2 when insurgents attacked his unit in Afghanistan's Khost province.

Too often, when we are faced with the loss of one of our brave men or women in uniform, the first thing that is talked about is how they died. A roadside bomb. A firefight with the enemy. Protecting a fellow soldier from harm.

That is important. But it is equally important that we remember how they lived.

That is what I would like to do today. I want to remember how Sergeant James Thode lived.

Those who served with Sergeant Thode saw him as a father figure to the younger soldiers. ``The glue that held people together,'' said one.

He was ``a humble person, soft spoken and had a way of connecting with everybody he met,'' said another.

A third soldier recalled that Thode had an opportunity for a command position with a different unit--but he, quote, ``chose to stay with his men, knowing the risk.''

When he deployed to Afghanistan in July, Sergeant Thode left behind his wife Carlotta and their two children, 18-year-old daughter Ashley and 8-year-old son Tommy. It was his second deployment. His first was to Iraq in 2003.

Back at home, Thode had served as a member of the Farmington Police Department since 1996 as a field training officer, member of the SWAT Team, and eventually a member of the detective unit.

Sergeant Thode was well-known and well-respected within the close- knit Farmington community. As Farmington Police Chief Kyle Westall said upon learning of Thode's death, ``The community lost a truly great man who will be missed by many.''

Sergeant Thode lived a life to which we all should aspire--a life of service to family, community and country.

To Sergeant Thode's wife, children, parents, sister, and extended family and friends, my wife Jill and I offer our deepest sympathies for your loss, and our deepest thanks for your loved one's service to our country. You are forever in our hearts, and we are forever in your debt.

Mr. President, we have heard here and in speaking with the Senators here on the floor about a really appalling action that has been taking place. I have a letter here signed by all of the Republicans who are really threatening to bring this place to a halt, completely bring it to a halt. They have written a letter to Senator Reid, and in the letter, they say:

We write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke

cloture on a motion to proceed to any legislative item.

They will not proceed to any legislative item until they get what I would characterize as these taxpayer-funded bonuses for millionaires and billionaires. So they are going to bring the entire Senate to a stop.

Their letter quotes President Obama saying:

We owe it to the American people to focus on those issues

that affect their jobs.

Well, I have a bill right here that will affect the jobs of the American people. It is called the clean energy bill. This is a clean energy bill. It is S. 1574, the Clean Energy for Homes and Buildings Act.

As all of us know, clean energy is going to be the industrial revolution of the future, trying to move us toward renewable energy-- solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal. This is where we are going to see job growth in the future. This is our chance to be out there in front on the technology we invented here in the United States. This is the way you create clean energy jobs.

So the demand they have issued to us--the ultimatum, really--is, you can't bring a clean energy jobs bill, which we have worked on very hard to get to the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Energy Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1574; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record at the appropriate place.

Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming has said these bills we are trying to bring to the floor here aren't out of committee. I believe he is incorrect when it comes to things such as the START treaty.

Here we have the Republican Party saying they aren't going to consider anything else until they get these taxpayer-funded bonuses for their millionaires and billionaires. That is what they are saying. Yet we have a treaty that is pending. It is on the calendar, Mr. President. If we look on that Executive Calendar there, it is on the calendar. We want to bring that up. In fact, I believe Senator Kyl said today that we are not going to bring that up. We are going to stop everything. I saw him on television talking about how we are going to stop everything and that we are just not going to bring up that treaty.

So there are things pending on the calendar that are ready to go. And this treaty in particular deals with our national security. National security used to be an issue where Democrats and Republicans worked together. But with this letter, it looks as if they are not going to be bipartisan. They are going to issue this ultimatum, and they are not going to try to work with us on these kinds of issues.

While they are doing that, we no longer have inspections, we no longer are allowed to go to Russia and look at their sites and find out if they are complying with previous treaties. This new START treaty would allow us to do that. But, instead, what we are seeing here, over and over again, are these kinds of objections.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for many of those who experienced it, the Bataan Death March marked the end of lives that made up in courage what they lacked in length. For Eliseo ``Cheo'' Lopez a native of Springer, NM, this atrocity was only the beginning of a life lived to the fullest. That life ended on November 11 after 92 years. Fittingly, November 11 is Veterans Day, a day where our Nation pauses to honor and remember the veterans who sacrificed so much to keep our country safe.

The brave Americans who fought at Bataan were heroes in a story that was central to the broader story of Allied victory in World War II. It is a story too few Americans know. The soldiers who fought at Bataan helped slow the Japanese advance at the beginning of the war in Asia, which would eventually give Allied troops the time to reorganize and reverse Japan's progress. Thanks to the heroism of these troops, America was able to recover from Pearl Harbor and take the fight to the Axis powers in Asia and the Pacific Islands, leading to V-J day in 1945.

When the troops in Bataan were finally forced to surrender, they faced inhumane conditions and atrocities at the hands of their captors. By the time they were rescued, toward the end of the war, half of New Mexico's 1,800 soldiers had died. Another 300 would die within a year of returning to the U.S. as a result of complications related to their captivity. Mr. Lopez was forced to work in copper mines as a slave laborer and spent time in several Japanese prison camps until he was rescued in September 1945 nearly 3\1/2\ years after he was captured. He was part of a brotherhood of troops belonging to the 515th Coast Artillery Unit, of whom only 69 are known to still be living. The 515th, and all who fought in Bataan, played a crucial role in our country's history, showing valor that I believe is deserving of a Congressional Gold Medal.

When he returned to New Mexico, Mr. Lopez went to work for a bank in his hometown of Springer. He later left the bank for a job with a manufacturing company in California, where he worked for more than 30 years. In 2003, Mr. Lopez was recognized as Alabama Ex-POW Veteran of the Year by the National Veterans Day Organization of Birmingham, AL.

Mr. Lopez leaves behind his wife Katherine Young, who was raised in Las Vegas, NM, along with two daughters, two grandchildren, a brother, and two sisters. He will be buried with full military honors this week at Santa Fe National Cemetery.

Today, the town of Springer and all of New Mexico mourn a dear friend and America marks the passing of a true hero. I wish to honor Mr. Lopez's memory. It will live on in the hearts of all who knew him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent

that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began nearly 9 years ago, 72 service members with New Mexico ties have lost their lives while defending our Nation and the freedoms we hold dear.

Seventy-two. They were brothers and fathers and husbands and sons and friends. Each was irreplaceable to his family. Each had a different story. Today, I rise to tell the story of one of those men.

U.S. Army PVT Charles High was 21 years old, a son of the city of Albuquerque who attended Eldorado High School.

Known as ``Charlie'' to his friends, he played the viola in his high school orchestra. He ran track. And he taught himself how to play guitar.

Charlie's dad says he always knew that his son would join the military. He signed up for Junior ROTC when he was 14, and his dad said he was hooked. He went on to join the Army in June of 2007 and was stationed at Fort Campbell in Kentucky as part of the elite 101st Airborne Division.

His tour in Afghanistan was his second overseas. He served his first tour in 2008 in Iraq.

Charlie was killed last month when an IED detonated near his vehicle, which was patrolling in Afghanistan's Kunar Province.

He leaves behind his dad Charles, his mom Kimberlea Johnson of Illinois, his fiancee Maggie Jo Simmonds, four siblings, his grandparents and great-grandmother, and dozens of other family members and friends.

A month before he was killed, Charlie had gone home to Albuquerque for a visit with friends and family. Here is what his Dad said when asked about his son's death:

I would say he's a true American hero. He fought and died

for his country. He died doing what he wanted to do. I hate

to see him go so young, but he was quite a young man all the

way around. When he was home, we could see how much he had

grown.

Charlie's impact on all who knew him was evident in the messages of condolence left for his family after his death.

``He was a great friend and example,'' read one.

``You never gave up and never surrendered,'' said another.

``He gave his life for freedom.''

``He is a hero to us all.''

Private High: you truly are a ``hero to us all.'' You are forever in our hearts, and we are forever in your debt.

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

Mr. President, cell phones today are becoming ubiquitous and more essential to our everyday lives. Americans today have 285 million wireless phones.

We use these phones in new and innovative ways. Consumers today increasingly use their cell phones for much more than just talking. Mobile broadband services now allow us to surf the Internet, search for nearby shops or restaurants, and watch videos right on our wireless handsets.

Since we now use these devices in new ways, it can be more difficult for consumers to realize they have exceeded their monthly subscriptions for cell phone service. This can have dramatic consequences for consumers.

Consider the case of a Navy ROTC midshipman who mistakenly left his smartphone's roaming function turned on while he was abroad. His phone downloaded e-mail messages, and he was sent a bill for almost $1,300. News outlets have highlighted other cases from across the country, including cases where children on family subscription plans racked up thousands of dollars in extra charges. A 13 year-old's cell phone data usage led to a bill for almost $22,000. Another man was billed $18,000 for a 6-week period when his son used a cell phone to connect a computer to the Internet. These stories we hear about in the media are certainly not isolated cases, just the most egregious.

In fact, a recent Federal Communications Commission, FCC, survey found that 30 million Americans, or 1 in 6 adult cell phone users, have experienced cases of ``bill shock.'' Cell phone bill shock is when a consumer's monthly bill increases when they have not changed their plan. In about one in four cases, the consumer's bill increased by more than $100. According to a survey by Consumers Union, the publishers of Consumer Reports magazine, the median bill shock amount was $83.

Although consumers can already access their phone usage by requesting this information from their cell phone provider, the FCC survey found that almost 85 percent of American consumers who suffered bill shock were not alerted that they were about to exceed their allowed voice minutes, text messages, or data downloads.

In many cases, a simple alert message would help consumers avoid bill shock. That is why today I am introducing the Cell Phone Bill Shock Act of 2010.

My legislation would require that cell phone companies do two things; first, that they notify cell phone customers when they have used 80 percent of their limit of voice minutes, text messages, or data usage. This notification could be in the form of a text message or email, and should be free of charge. Secondly, this legislation would require cell phone companies to obtain a customer's consent before charging for services in excess of their limit of voice, text, or data usage. Customers could give such consent by calling or sending a free text message or e-mail to their phone company.

In the European Union, wireless phone companies already provide similar notifications when wireless consumers are roaming and when they reach 80 percent of their monthly data roaming services.

Earlier this year, Congress approved legislation to help consumers avoid bank overdraft fees from everyday debit card and ATM transactions. Banks must now obtain their customer's permission before allowing debit card transactions which would incur overdraft fees. My legislation extends that same concept to cell phone customers, who should benefit from similar protections against ``bill shock.''

The texting and Internet capabilities that make today's cell phones more useful than ever should be applied to help consumers avoid bill shock. Sending an automatic text notification to one's phone or an e- mail alert should not place a burden on cell phone companies. Passing my commonsense legislation will help prevent consumer's from facing ``bill shock'' problems in the future.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, cell phones today are becoming ubiquitous and more essential to our everyday lives. Americans today have 285 million wireless phones.

We use these phones in new and innovative ways. Consumers today increasingly use their cell phones for much more than just talking. Mobile broadband services now allow us to surf the Internet, search for nearby shops or restaurants, and watch videos right on our wireless handsets.

Since we now use these devices in new ways, it can be more difficult for consumers to realize they have exceeded their monthly subscriptions for cell phone service. This can have dramatic consequences for consumers.

Consider the case of a Navy ROTC midshipman who mistakenly left his smartphone's roaming function turned on while he was abroad. His phone downloaded e-mail messages, and he was sent a bill for almost $1,300. News outlets have highlighted other cases from across the country, including cases where children on family subscription plans racked up thousands of dollars in extra charges. A 13 year-old's cell phone data usage led to a bill for almost $22,000. Another man was billed $18,000 for a 6-week period when his son used a cell phone to connect a computer to the Internet. These stories we hear about in the media are certainly not isolated cases, just the most egregious.

In fact, a recent Federal Communications Commission, FCC, survey found that 30 million Americans, or 1 in 6 adult cell phone users, have experienced cases of ``bill shock.'' Cell phone bill shock is when a consumer's monthly bill increases when they have not changed their plan. In about one in four cases, the consumer's bill increased by more than $100. According to a survey by Consumers Union, the publishers of Consumer Reports magazine, the median bill shock amount was $83.

Although consumers can already access their phone usage by requesting this information from their cell phone provider, the FCC survey found that almost 85 percent of American consumers who suffered bill shock were not alerted that they were about to exceed their allowed voice minutes, text messages, or data downloads.

In many cases, a simple alert message would help consumers avoid bill shock. That is why today I am introducing the Cell Phone Bill Shock Act of 2010.

My legislation would require that cell phone companies do two things; first, that they notify cell phone customers when they have used 80 percent of their limit of voice minutes, text messages, or data usage. This notification could be in the form of a text message or email, and should be free of charge. Secondly, this legislation would require cell phone companies to obtain a customer's consent before charging for services in excess of their limit of voice, text, or data usage. Customers could give such consent by calling or sending a free text message or e-mail to their phone company.

In the European Union, wireless phone companies already provide similar notifications when wireless consumers are roaming and when they reach 80 percent of their monthly data roaming services.

Earlier this year, Congress approved legislation to help consumers avoid bank overdraft fees from everyday debit card and ATM transactions. Banks must now obtain their customer's permission before allowing debit card transactions which would incur overdraft fees. My legislation extends that same concept to cell phone customers, who should benefit from similar protections against ``bill shock.''

The texting and Internet capabilities that make today's cell phones more useful than ever should be applied to help consumers avoid bill shock. Sending an automatic text notification to one's phone or an e- mail alert should not place a burden on cell phone companies. Passing my commonsense legislation will help prevent consumer's from facing ``bill shock'' problems in the future.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Solicitor General Kagan's experience. Over the past few months, there has been a lot of talk from our friends across the aisle about whether Ms. Kagan is qualified to be our country's 112th Supreme Court Justice.

They say she has never been a judge. How conveniently they forget that some of the most well-respected Justices in the history of the Supreme Court also brought life experiences outside the ``judicial monastery,'' which President Obama so ably encouraged us to look beyond. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist is one example. Former Justice Lewis Powell, Jr., is another.

They also conveniently forget that just a few decades ago, most Justices had little or no judicial experience. In fact, it is General Kagan's diversity of life experiences that, in my opinion, make her exceptionally qualified for the High Court. President Obama said one of the primary reasons he nominated General Kagan was because of her ``understanding of law--not as an intellectual exercise or words on a page--but as it affects the lives of ordinary people.'' I couldn't agree more.

The inscription that greets visitors to the Supreme Court building just across the street reads: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' That inscription is at the heart of the experience General Kagan would bring as the newest member of the High Court.

That experience includes a reputation as one of the Nation's foremost legal minds; as a legal advisor to two Presidents; as the first woman to serve as Dean of Harvard Law School; and as the Nation's first female solicitor general.

It also includes more personal experiences, many of which mirror the lives of the American people she has committed her own life to serve.

She is the child of immigrants. She is the daughter and sister of public schoolteachers, and she has been a teacher herself. She is an advocate for her students. And she is a proponent of discussion and debate that educates, respects and improves upon the lives of all it impacts.

It is because of all of these experiences--as President Obama said on the day he introduced her--that General Kagan will make the Nation's highest Court ``more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.''

I am confident that Solicitor General Kagan has the experience that will make her a stellar Justice, and I look forward to casting my vote in favor of her confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Mr. President, today, I join Senators Bingaman, Bennet of Colorado, and Udall, in submitting a resolution to recognize the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad on its 40th anniversary this August. Representative Lujan, a member of the New Mexico delegation, is introducing a companion resolution in the house.

The Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad has been an integral part of the Northern New Mexico and Southern Colorado economies since its construction in 1880 as part of the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad's San Juan Extension.

From its construction until it was abandoned in 1969, the railroad provided a critical passenger and freight link serving communities throughout New Mexico and Colorado.

In 1970, recognizing the economic impact abandonment of the line would have on communities served by the railroad and appreciating the railroad's historic significance, New Mexico and Colorado came together to purchase the facilities, locomotives, cars and line between Chama, NM and Antonito, CO. To acknowledge the sheer beauty of the route, they renamed it the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad.

Since that time the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad has been recognized as a national historic site and, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, as a civil engineering landmark acknowledging the challenging terrain the railroad crosses.

Today, the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic railroad continues to be critical to the local communities. The railroad offers tourists trips daily between May and October and serves to showcase the history and beauty of this region of the country.

These trips offer a glimpse into railroad travel of the past and provide the visionary tourist a taste of what could be with future expansion of passenger rail in the West.

In August, the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad will celebrate 40 years of co-ownership and this resolution honors its efforts in preserving the history of and building a future for railroad in America.

I ask all my Senate colleagues to join Senators Bingaman, Bennet, of Colorado, Udall of Colorado and me in recognizing the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad days by agreeing to this resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. UDALL of New Mexico pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 581 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, today I stand to recognize one of the greatest scientists and leaders of our time and to introduce a resolution honoring the educational and scientific significance of Dr. Jane Goodall on this the 50th anniversary of her first day's work in what is now Tanzania.

Fifty years ago today, Jane Goodall, a young and ambitious scientist, first set foot on the shores of Lake Tanganyika to begin her research under the direction of Dr. Louis Leakey. In the ensuing years, Dr. Goodall became the world's expert on chimpanzees. She had numerous groundbreaking discoveries. She published articles and books that remain the foundational scientific works on chimpanzee and wildlife studies. She established the Gombe Stream Research Center and the Jane Goodall Institute to support further research.

Jane has received many of the highest honors in her field and has become a prominent advocate for international conservation and peace. Consequently, she has been recognized and honored by political leaders and kings and queens throughout the world. The resolution I submit today recognizes Dr. Goodall for her past, present, and future contributions in the fields of science and conservation.

Beyond her incredible knowledge and skills in the sciences, Dr. Jane Goodall is an amazing human being. Her love of others and of the living things around her is what I believe drove her to achieve such great successes. Anyone

who hears her speak can feel her sincere adoration for the chimpanzees to which she dedicated her life. It is that love and drive that have made Dr. Goodall world-renowned in her field and admired and beloved throughout the world.

I imagine the ambitious young Jane, who boldly set out on the shores of Lake Tanganyika, was much like the many inspired young people who now work for her and with her. Across the globe, the same hope and inspiration that took Jane into the jungles of Africa now drive thousands of young people to organize conservation and community programs through the Roots and Shoots program which was founded in 1991. These young people care about their communities, their natural resources, and about the living things around them. They, like the young Jane Goodall, want to make a difference in the world, and they strive every day in their own lives to be a catalyst for positive change.

I believe Jane's focus on encouraging young people is one of her greatest accomplishments. Through her own experience as a young scientist, she knows the strength of the connection young people develop with nature if they have the opportunity. We live in a world where many young people have no connection to the natural world or to their community--a world where urban areas lack any connection to the rhythms of nature, where video games and indoor activities predominate, where a sense of community is absent. A generation lacking that connection is doomed to failing. Jane saw the need to connect them. She saw the need to inspire them. Roots and Shoots provides that crucial connection.

Dr. Goodall's work with young activists does not focus on one area of the world or on one issue of significance; her Roots and Shoots program is in 120 different countries. Young people from preschool through college gather in classrooms, nature centers, refugee camps, zoos, and many other places to identify issues that concern them, and then they act. And, boy, do they act. They are a force for positive change.

We thank Jane Goodall for all her contributions to making this a better world.

We know that when one person in a community ignites positive action, it is contagious. When each community works for positive change, they connect. Community efforts become national endeavors. And nations take action on a global scale. The world becomes a better place--one person at a time.

With the help of student leaders and adult mentors, these young people create hands-on projects to address the issues impacting their homes and communities. Over the past two decades, tens of thousands of young people have formed a network across the globe and are building upon Dr. Jane Goodall's legacy of positive change in the world. This is a network of hope and a generation of positive actors. Thanks to their young and active hearts, our world will thrive into the future.

For 50 years, Dr. Goodall has worked to expand and improve our world. Her work has spread so widely that Jane Goodall is a household name. And with that name, young people from America to Africa and all around the globe learn the wonders of the natural world and our link to the creatures around us, including Dr. Goodall's beloved chimpanzees.

Dr. Goodall recognizes the power that each person has to make positive change. She is a brilliant example of the great things that are possible when one young person connects with the natural world and is inspired to make a difference.

Today, I honor my good friend Dr. Jane Goodall. I ask my colleagues to do the same. And I thank her for her example, and for her confidence in the immense power that young people have to improve the future.

Let us all work together to make positive change in our communities and support coming generations in their creative and noble ambitions.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the life--and mourn the loss--of one of New Mexico's finest public servants.

The Land of Enchantment suffered a tremendous loss last Saturday, when Polly Arango was involved in a fatal accident in Alamosa, CO. As a long-time resident of Algodones, NM, Polly was one of the most exemplary advocates for children living with disabilities our State has ever known. During her time with us, Polly taught us that regardless of socioeconOmic status, culture, race, religion or health conditions, our children have inalienable rights that we must fight to protect.

Born in Green Bay, WI, Polly moved to our State in 1962 to attend University of New Mexico. After marrying John Arango, she began her career as an advocate placing Ecuadorian orphans with families in the United States while her husband served as Peace Corps director in Panama and Ecuador.

A turning point for Polly and John came with the adoption of their son Nicolas. As Polly learned that Nicolas had a severe developmental disability, she began her work securing full education and access to health care for children with chronic health conditions. Nicolas inspired Polly's work to open the eyes of school officials, policymakers, community leaders, friends and neighbors to the challenges facing children with disabilities. Her efforts were not only for Nicolas, but for thousands of other New Mexican families in need.

In 1992, Polly cofounded a national grassroots network called Family Voices. Today, Family Voices consists of more than 45,000 New Mexican families and friends working together to improve health care for children and youth with special needs. Polly served as the first executive director and most recently served on the board of directors. Polly also cofounded Parents Reaching Out, a statewide network of programs designed to meet the ever changing needs of New Mexican families. Based on her leadership, this organization continues to connect children and their families to resources that will improve their quality of life.

Polly represented families and family-centered care on many national boards, commissions and international forums. She was named to the New Mexico Medicaid Advisory Committee and served as a member of the New Mexico Supreme Court's Court Improvement Project on foster care. She also co-authored several books and many articles on health care, foster children, and families, and she was executive producer and writer of a PBS documentary about inclusion titled: ``What Does Normal Mean?''

Through her work, Polly displayed a noble commitment to fight for the health and civil rights of all children, especially disabled children, who often cannot fight for themselves. Polly actively demonstrated one of our greatest American values: that families can be the most important caregivers, and every child deserves a family.

She was survived by her husband, John; her four children--Carlos Arango, Francesca Wilson, Maria Arango and Nicolas Arango; her seven grandchildren--Sloan Wilson, Conor Arango, Gabby Arango, Kellen Wilson, Grace Arango, Lenor Arango and Isabel Arango; and seven of her eight brothers and sisters--Richard Egan, Kevin Egan, Martha Egan, Kathryn Stout, Patrick Egan, Michael Egan and Thomas Egan.

In her recent obituary, Polly's friends and family kindly thanked me for my role in health care reform and my support for rural health programs. While I appreciate these sentiments, I want to thank Polly. I want to thank her for her invaluable contributions as a mother, friend, and public servant on behalf of all she touched. Our State won't be the same without her. I am blessed to have known her. New Mexico will miss Polly Arango, but we know that her legacy will live on.

As Polly Arango is laid to rest this week, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this remarkable public servant.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues as we mourn the death and celebrate the life of a man who touched all of ours; a man who loved his country, loved the Senate, and dedicated his life to preserving its traditions; a man who above all cherished his State and who every day considered it his highest honor to represent her people.

On Monday morning, Senator Robert Byrd took his rightful place in our history books as a titan of the Senate. On Thursday we will honor him as his body lies in state in this Chamber where he served longer than any other Senator in our history. Today, we grieve his loss with his family and with the entire country.

My family's history with Senator Byrd goes back many years. My father, before he became Secretary of the Interior, served with Senator Byrd, then Congressman Byrd, in the House of Representatives. A half century later, my father's honor became my own. I am proud to have had the privilege of serving in this Chamber with Senator Byrd, of experiencing firsthand his distinguished service and remarkable career.

Senator Byrd will be remembered for many things. He will be remembered for his historic length of service; for his rise from humble roots to the pinnacles of political power; for his encyclopedic knowledge of Senate rules and procedure; and for his love of his wife of 68 years, Erma.

What I will remember Senator Byrd for is his willingness to stand up and fight for what he believed in. Two of the most pressing issues of the past decade are perfect examples--the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the very beginning, Senator Byrd was a voice of opposition to the Iraq war. He delivered what will become one of his most memorable speeches in the days leading up to the Senate's vote to authorize its funding. He spoke out against a war at a time when any opposition to the President's path meant putting his own political future in jeopardy. But he did not waiver.

Here is part of what he said:

No one supports Saddam Hussein. If he were to disappear

tomorrow, no one would shed a tear around the world. I would

not. My handkerchief would remain dry. But the principle of

one government deciding to eliminate another government,

using force to do so, and taking that action in spite of

world disapproval is a very disquieting thing. I am concerned

that it has the effect of destabilizing the world community

of nations. I am concerned that it fosters a climate of

suspicion and mistrust in U.S. relations with other nations.

The United States is not a rogue nation, given to unilateral

action in the face of worldwide opprobrium.

Eight years and thousands of American lives lost later, his words read as prophetic.

But he didn't stop there. Last year--this time with his party holding the reins of power in both the White House and the Congress--he did the same thing. Seven years had passed, and Senator Byrd was older and more fragile than ever before. None of that stopped him from getting to the Senate floor that day. How did I know this? I had a front row seat as the presiding officer of the Senate that day.

This time, he questioned the proposed buildup of troops in Afghanistan--a proposal I myself had questioned many times as well. Here is what Senator Byrd said:

I have become deeply concerned that in the 8 years since

the September 11 attacks, the reason for the U.S. military

mission in Afghanistan has become lost, consumed in some

broader scheme of nation-building which has clouded our

purpose and obscured our reasoning.

He continued:

. . . President Obama and the Congress must reassess and

refocus on our original and most important objective--namely

emasculating a terrorist network that has proved its ability

to inflict harm on the United States.

Time will tell if Senator Byrd's concerns about Afghanistan prove as prescient as those he expressed about Iraq almost a decade ago. Time also will tell if we heed those concerns.

What is clear is that Senator Byrd understood the importance of asking the tough questions, regardless of their impact on himself personally or professionally. In this regard, we could all learn a little bit from Senator Byrd.

I know my Senate colleagues will agree with me when I say this institution, this country, this democracy lost a powerful advocate this week, and all of us in this Chamber lost a good friend.

Today I join with my colleagues in expressing my deepest sympathy to Senator Byrd's family for their loss and remembering a man whose legend and legacy will endure beyond us all.