Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. What is the pending business, Mr. President?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be set aside so I can offer an amendment to the Reid amendment No. 4.

Mr. STEVENS. I have the amendment at the desk, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the current Senate rule requires Members to pay the cost of a first-class plane ticket for travel on a private plane. The amendment does not substantially reform our lobbying laws, and this amendment will place an undue burden on Members from rural States, at great expense to the taxpayers. Most Members who take private flights do so to complete official business. These flights enable Members from States such as Wyoming, Montana, and my State of Alaska access to rural areas. Our State does not have the infrastructure found in more densely populated States throughout the country. Many of our constituents live in communities that cannot be accessed by road. We need to fly to these remote communities. Despite this rule, or any other rule, these flights are essential and will continue and must continue to take place. This amendment will not provide meaningful reform. It will increase the amount of money Members need from the Treasury to pay for these flights. The taxpayer will foot the bill for the amendment, and the only real change will be more money in the pockets of those who own and operate the private planes. Those representing States with less-developed infrastructure and many geographically remote communities--my friends from other rural States and even some large States such as California--have this problem. It is a unique problem. It is essential to take flights into these rural areas because there are no roads to get there. In Alaska, almost 80 percent of our towns and villages cannot be accessed by road year-round. Even our State capital, Juneau, can only be reached by boat or by plane. There are few scheduled commercial flights a week to many villages in our State. Our State uses planes the way people in the lower 48 use cars, buses, and taxis. It is literally true. If I took a Senator to Bethel, for instance, and wanted to go upriver to visit some of the mines or the small villages, there is only one way to get there, and that is by plane, and in many instances a floatplane. But these are still private aircraft and would be banned by this amendment--or the actual cost of the operation of the plane would be required to be paid, but I would be paying that from taxpayers' funds, not from my funds but from the taxpayers' funds if this amendment passed. Flights on private planes are necessary in our State, particularly when traveling to areas which are only accessible by private planes or by long boat rides in the summertime. Along the great rivers such as the Yukon or the Kuskokwim, you could take a boat. It would take you several days to wind up those rivers to go to a village you might be able to fly to in 30 minutes. I use private planes to visit constituents who cannot afford to come to Washington to visit with our congressional delegation. On many occasions, I am asked to come to these villages to talk to them about their problems, and I can only go there by private plane. I use private planes to view the conditions in rural communities and villages. For instance, this last October, I visited the village of Kivalina in my State to view the catastrophic damage caused by winter storms there. Now, at times we do have available the Air National Guard planes. But in times of war such as this right now, to use these National Guard planes puts a substantial burden on the Guard because so many of their people are deployed. Now, I can recall several occasions when I have traveled with other Members on private planes to show them areas of our State which were subject to important legislation. These trips have been invaluable to our deliberations on the floor. I recall taking a group of Senators on a CODEL--``congressional delegation;'' that is ``CODEL''--to Prudhoe Bay to help them understand Alaska's oil industry. There is no public access to Prudhoe Bay and no commercial flights. We must fly in on an industry plane. We continued the CODEL. After we got there--we went up by their jet-- we took a helicopter flight over the Coastal Plain of ANWR. Now, that, again, was about an hour and a half flight, out and back, on a helicopter. That flight was on a private helicopter, owned by some entity within the oil industry there at Prudhoe Bay. Had this proposed amendment been in effect, that trip would not have been possible, as the cost of the trip would have been prohibitive. Now, other people were going up there anyway and we flew up on their plane to Prudhoe Bay. On the helicopter, they wanted us to go out and see these conditions where drilling would take place. But it would not have been possible for the Senators who were our visitors to see this area firsthand. The area we went to and had them look at is an area that currently is producing 16 percent of our Nation's energy. If you want to go visit that industry in Oklahoma or somewhere like that, you would go to a town by commercial aircraft and you would get probably in a private car and they would drive you out. I doubt that you would have to have a helicopter. But what I am saying is, our conditions require air where other people use buses, taxis, or private automobiles. There are countless examples of how we use these airplanes. For instance, about 3 years ago, I went along on a flight that was going to Bethel, AK. This is an area out in the Kuskokwim Delta area of our State. The person who asked me to go with him wanted me to personally experience the use of a capstone variant. A capstone is a system that has revolutionized the airline safety industry in our State. In the 1990s, for instance, an airplane crashed on average every other day in my State. We had an aircraft-related fatality every 9 days. Capstone and these related technologies, which make cockpit technology available to the pilot to know what is going on and what the threats are, have reduced these airplane crashes by 40 percent. The reason I went along was they wanted me to see that system and to experience it so I would understand it and support the money the FAA was going to ask for in terms of development of these new technologies. I went out to Valdez several times on an industry airplane to review the 1989 oil spill in my State, once in a Coast Guard jet. That was my first flight to see that fantastically horrible and great disaster. But we went out several times to try to figure out what to do with our oversight of the oil spill itself. We went out in a private airplane. I also recently took a flight from Point Barrow, which is at the top of our State, the farthest north portion of our State, over to Nome, which is out on the peninsula, and it is a flight--there is no scheduled service between those two places. It is about 300 miles. If I had not taken that flight on a private plane, I would have gone down to Fairbanks from Barrow, gone to Anchorage, and then flown back up to Kotzebue and come down to Nome. It actually saved the taxpayers money. This was an official business trip that saved the taxpayers money by going the same way on a private plane, and we compensated the owner of that plane under the current rule with the equivalent of a first-class fare between those two places, had there been such a scheduled flight in the first place. For instance, the flight from Anchorage alone to Nome is 540 miles. It is farther than from here to Chicago. I think that is about 500 miles. Anyway, if this amendment passes, I have to ask the Senate, what should we do, those of us who represent rural areas such as this? I don't think the Senate expects us not to respond to a constituent's request, particularly an organized area such as a village or a city, to come view the conditions in their area when they believe they need Federal assistance. We have to take planes to get to such areas. Last October, I visited several communities along the west coast of Alaska that had been damaged by severe storms, and we used a combination of commercial, charter, and private aircraft. We worked out what was the best advantage to the Government and used different types of aircraft as we went on that trip. I saw firsthand the problems of erosion that are going on there and learned about the needs of those places, particularly the problems these villages will face in the future if continued erosion takes place and they have to move back from these barrier islands on which they live. My charter cost alone, one way from Kotzebue to Bethel, was $1,500. That was the charter cost which we paid on the equivalent because there was no scheduled flight there, a 3-hour flight, more than triple the total cost for commercial and private flight combined. Had this amendment been in effect, there would have been no way that I could have justified spending taxpayers' money for this type of transportation cost. If a Member from another State is going from one town to another and someone is going to drive there, there is no provision that anybody would have to pay for the cost of going in an automobile to another town. The effect of this amendment now would be that whenever I use an aircraft that is a private aircraft, I would have to repay from the Treasury, by asking for the funds, to an organization with a plane that was going to fly there anyway. I think our current rule is very fair. It says we pay the operator of those airplanes the equivalent first-class fare to travel from point to point in our State. It would be unreasonably expensive to apply the provisions of the pending amendment to our State. It is particularly burdensome because of our Senate rules. I don't think many Members think about this. Our office allowances are based on population, not the distance we travel within our State. We would have to pay from our allowances. And each Senator gets a maximum allowance per year from the Senate. This amendment, if enacted, will mean that my budget will run out in the first month or two of the calendar year. It would not permit us to travel to these remote communities throughout the year. It would simply become too expensive to deal with going to these communities to listen to their complaints and to view them and to be able to report to the Senate. I believe that if a plane is going to a village in the direction I need to go, if there is room on that for my staff and me, we should be able to get on that plane and go see the problems they want us to see. And it is reasonable to compensate them at what it would cost to fly on a commercial flight, if there was one. That is what we have been doing. I have never had a complaint from anyone in my years here in the Senate traveling under the existing rule. Taxpayers, however, should not have to pay outrageous costs for us to do our business. As a matter of fact, as I said, once we have exhausted our allowances, and coming from a State that has a small population but is enormous, this is going to be an enormous burden on those of us who represent our State. I have hesitated to try to get an exemption for Alaska. I am not doing that. The amendment I have before the Senate will continue the current rule but would say that we can travel on a privately owned aircraft to the point where there is not commercial service, but we would have to go to the Ethics Committee and show there is no appearance or actual conflict of interest in taking the trip, and the trip would have to be approved by the Ethics Committee. I think that gives it a transparency. We not only will report after we take the trip, but we will get approval of the Ethics Committee before we take the trip. There is a lack of commercial air service in many areas in the lower 48 that this would apply to, the larger States in the West in particular. We just do not have frequent flights between our communities that other States enjoy. We travel great distances to see our constituents. When I go west from Anchorage out to Shemya--that is the place where the X-band radar was going to be and where the current radars they operate in the North Pacific are, a former large air base that is not very large now--that is 1,200 miles. If I go out farther than that to Adak, it is almost 1,800 miles. If I fly from Anchorage to Unalakleet, the charter rate under the Reid amendment would be thousands of dollars. I should go to places like that at least once a year. I try to do that. The effect of this prohibition against using these private planes unless we pay the charter rate is really very oppressive.

Mr. STEVENS. I do yield without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. The pending amendment will not improve the system as far as those of us from these rural States are concerned. It will hurt our constituents. I think it will punish the taxpayers. Some have suggested that raising the cost of private plane travel is important because it gives the appearance of fairness. The reason is that citizens cannot fly on private planes, so we should not be able to fly on them, either. The difference is that a private citizen in my State doesn't have to go to Kivalina, doesn't have to go to Unalakleet, doesn't have to go to these places where changes are taking place as we speak. The whole Arctic is changing because of the current circumstances. I think the Senate is going to hear more about that. But as these changes take place, we must go there. We must try to take people from the administration there. We must try to get the Corps of Engineers and other agencies to go with us to see what can be done to meet the problems our constituents face. I don't think there are many Senators who would have to visit four or five communities in one weekend that are so far apart. We usually only have a weekend to make trips such as this. If those of us who have to do this have to pay this charter rate, it is not our money, this is official business. If this amendment passes, I will be asked to spend part of the allowance I get to run my Senate office at enormous cost to pay the full cost of flying the plane on a charter rate even though there are other people in that plane who are already going on company business and they are willing to take us along on the basis of paying what would be the equivalent in terms of a commercial rate. We need transparency. I support that. We want to try to do this without additional burden to our taxpayers. I think we should disclose flights on private planes, and we do. We disclose them. Today we disclose. Under the current rule, we disclose whom we paid when we go on these flights. From my point of view, we ought to look at this amendment from the point of view of appearances, but it really is not totally appearances. It is necessity. If this amendment passes, we will face the difficult choice of either flying to remote communities at considerable cost to the taxpayer or to the State and the developed communities or failing to do the duty to those we represent who live in these remote areas. I think Alaska has probably the most pressing problems of any State in terms of the changes that are coming back because of global climate change. There is no question about that. We will do everything we can to assist a Senator who faces problems such as that but not do it in a way that will increase substantially the cost to the taxpayers and reduce our ability to do our jobs as Senators. If I have to use this money to take those trips to these small cities, I will not have the money to do the things I would normally do--for instance, flying from here to Alaska. The same funds that are available to us to pay these charters flights are the funds I use to fly to Alaska. I parenthetically say, Mr. President, when I came here, a Senator was allowed two trips a year. One to come down and go back and another to go home. Today, many of us make 10, 15, 20 trips. One time, I made 35 trips home to my State of Alaska because there were so many problems and things we had to do. It was not for campaigning or an election year, it was to talk to people about problems they were facing. I don't think this amendment is part of lobbying reform. I understand the need to find some way to deal with it. I, also, believe we should have some exception in the amendments that deals with the problems we face, where we cannot travel except by the use of private planes. I hope the Senator from California will take occasion to look at this amendment. I know that being a Californian, there are problems she faces, too, but not on the regular basis that we face, in terms of dealing with Alaska. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 16 be withdrawn. There has been confusion over the interpretation of that amendment. I will look at it and redraft it.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President. Today I reintroduce legislation which will resolve an ongoing dispute in my State concerning rights of way in the Copper River Valley region. In the 109th Congress, both the Senate and House of Representatives held hearings on this bill. It is my hope that we can move this important legislation quickly through the Senate. When Congress attempted to settle outstanding land claims in Alaska, it unintentionally created a land dispute between Native allotees and utility companies. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Federal Government and the State of Alaska granted rights of way to the Copper Valley Electric Association to run power lines across areas in our state that were later claimed by Alaska Natives. These rights were conveyed before Alaska Native allotment claims had been filed and processed. In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980, which legislatively ratified native allotment land claims subject to the valid existing rights of other land holders. However, several Native allottees challenged the existing rights of other land holders and claimed that the Copper Valley Electric Association was trespassing on their lands. In 1987, the Department of Interior's Interior Board of Land Appeals affirmed this position, finding native allotees have priority over other competing uses of land--in this case, those of the utility company--regardless of the fact that the rights of way were granted prior to the conveyance of the property in question to the allotees. This situation is still unresolved and has resulted in years of litigation. We have been unable to settle these disputes through existing remedies. These conflicts now jeopardize existing transportation and utility corridors and threaten future infrastructure development in the region. At my request, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed this situation. The GAO issued its report and recommended solutions. This bill incorporates the GAO's recommendation. It compensates the owners of the Native allotments, while ensuring that the utility companies are able to provide residents with the infrastructure and services they need. I believe this is the most equitable solution available, and I urge the Senate to pass this bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President. Today I reintroduce legislation which will resolve an ongoing dispute in my State concerning rights of way in the Copper River Valley region. In the 109th Congress, both the Senate and House of Representatives held hearings on this bill. It is my hope that we can move this important legislation quickly through the Senate. When Congress attempted to settle outstanding land claims in Alaska, it unintentionally created a land dispute between Native allotees and utility companies. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Federal Government and the State of Alaska granted rights of way to the Copper Valley Electric Association to run power lines across areas in our state that were later claimed by Alaska Natives. These rights were conveyed before Alaska Native allotment claims had been filed and processed. In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980, which legislatively ratified native allotment land claims subject to the valid existing rights of other land holders. However, several Native allottees challenged the existing rights of other land holders and claimed that the Copper Valley Electric Association was trespassing on their lands. In 1987, the Department of Interior's Interior Board of Land Appeals affirmed this position, finding native allotees have priority over other competing uses of land--in this case, those of the utility company--regardless of the fact that the rights of way were granted prior to the conveyance of the property in question to the allotees. This situation is still unresolved and has resulted in years of litigation. We have been unable to settle these disputes through existing remedies. These conflicts now jeopardize existing transportation and utility corridors and threaten future infrastructure development in the region. At my request, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed this situation. The GAO issued its report and recommended solutions. This bill incorporates the GAO's recommendation. It compensates the owners of the Native allotments, while ensuring that the utility companies are able to provide residents with the infrastructure and services they need. I believe this is the most equitable solution available, and I urge the Senate to pass this bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the bill that I introduce today features language that would remove the legal ambiguity that for years has inhibited the Secretary of Transportation from raising fuel economy standards for passenger cars, and the measure would mandate that a fuel economy standard for passenger cars be set at 40 miles per gallon by model year 2017. By providing authority to increase standards for passenger cars, and requiring a specific fuel economy standard target, this bill would provide consumers with fuel savings at the pump, limit the Nation's dependence on foreign oil, and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The bill would remove from the current Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) statute the requirement that the Secretary of Transportation submit to Congress any proposal to increase or decrease fuel economy standards. This requirement has been deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. This legal hurdle, coupled with years of Federal funding legislation precluding the Secretary from reviewing CAFE, has prevented increases in fuel economy in the domestic passenger vehicle fleet. The Secretary recently completed a dramatic reform of the fuel economy standards for the light-truck fleet, and he might have made similar reforms to the passenger fleet but for the statutory ambiguity of the current CAFE statute. I applaud the Secretary for his recent CAFE increases for light trucks, and I commend the administration for its seven light truck CAFE increases in the last six years. But the time has come for the Secretary to increase fuel economy standards for passenger cars as well. In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report that concluded that the benefits resulting from CAFE since its implementation in 1978 clearly warrant Government intervention to ensure fuel economy levels beyond what may result from market forces alone. The NAS panel found that CAFE has led to marked improvements in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, fuel consumption, and dependence on foreign oil. Mr. President, the United States imports almost 11 million barrels of crude oil every day, compared with only five million produced here at home. And over two million imported barrels hail from the Persian Gulf region. The terrorist attacks waged on this country on September 11, 2001, and the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East has brought into focus the need to reduce our dependence on all foreign oil. The savings achieved by increasing fuel economy standards for the entire U.S. passenger vehicle fleet is essential if we are to increase our energy independence and national security. This bill also would require the Secretary of Commerce to create a national registry system that, for the first time, would enable the automobile industry to trade fuel economy credits with other industries that generate greenhouse gas emissions. Participation in the registry would be voluntary, and any entity conducting business in the United States would be eligible to utilize the services of the registry. Therefore, automobile manufacturers would be able to contribute or purchase emissions credits with other industries that generate greenhouse gases in order to achieve compliance with CAFE and emissions standards. Mr. President, any change to fuel economy standards requires the careful balance of many factors, including national security, consumer preference, domestic employment, as well as the need for powerful and durable vehicles in rural America, including my home State of Alaska. The amendment would provide the Secretary the authority to balance these considerations, and to make the appropriate and necessary fuel economy increases. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the bill that I introduce today features language that would remove the legal ambiguity that for years has inhibited the Secretary of Transportation from raising fuel economy standards for passenger cars, and the measure would mandate that a fuel economy standard for passenger cars be set at 40 miles per gallon by model year 2017. By providing authority to increase standards for passenger cars, and requiring a specific fuel economy standard target, this bill would provide consumers with fuel savings at the pump, limit the Nation's dependence on foreign oil, and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The bill would remove from the current Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) statute the requirement that the Secretary of Transportation submit to Congress any proposal to increase or decrease fuel economy standards. This requirement has been deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. This legal hurdle, coupled with years of Federal funding legislation precluding the Secretary from reviewing CAFE, has prevented increases in fuel economy in the domestic passenger vehicle fleet. The Secretary recently completed a dramatic reform of the fuel economy standards for the light-truck fleet, and he might have made similar reforms to the passenger fleet but for the statutory ambiguity of the current CAFE statute. I applaud the Secretary for his recent CAFE increases for light trucks, and I commend the administration for its seven light truck CAFE increases in the last six years. But the time has come for the Secretary to increase fuel economy standards for passenger cars as well. In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report that concluded that the benefits resulting from CAFE since its implementation in 1978 clearly warrant Government intervention to ensure fuel economy levels beyond what may result from market forces alone. The NAS panel found that CAFE has led to marked improvements in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, fuel consumption, and dependence on foreign oil. Mr. President, the United States imports almost 11 million barrels of crude oil every day, compared with only five million produced here at home. And over two million imported barrels hail from the Persian Gulf region. The terrorist attacks waged on this country on September 11, 2001, and the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East has brought into focus the need to reduce our dependence on all foreign oil. The savings achieved by increasing fuel economy standards for the entire U.S. passenger vehicle fleet is essential if we are to increase our energy independence and national security. This bill also would require the Secretary of Commerce to create a national registry system that, for the first time, would enable the automobile industry to trade fuel economy credits with other industries that generate greenhouse gas emissions. Participation in the registry would be voluntary, and any entity conducting business in the United States would be eligible to utilize the services of the registry. Therefore, automobile manufacturers would be able to contribute or purchase emissions credits with other industries that generate greenhouse gases in order to achieve compliance with CAFE and emissions standards. Mr. President, any change to fuel economy standards requires the careful balance of many factors, including national security, consumer preference, domestic employment, as well as the need for powerful and durable vehicles in rural America, including my home State of Alaska. The amendment would provide the Secretary the authority to balance these considerations, and to make the appropriate and necessary fuel economy increases. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it has been an honor and a privilege to work with Senator Bill Frist for the past 12 years. Bill has been a solid leader for our party and he has served the people of Tennessee with distinction. Senator Frist came to politics through a nontraditional route-- through the operating room. Bill got involved in politics because he believed he could do even more for his patients--and the people of Tennessee--in the Senate. And he was right. Bill's meticulous approach to this job is exactly what you would expect of a person with his training. He never gave up on his goals and worked tirelessly to see them into law. I became President Pro Tempore of the Senate close to the time when Bill became our majority leader. I enjoyed working by his side and thank Leader Frist for including me--as President Pro Tempore--in all leadership meetings. Senator Frist also traveled with us to China for U.S. Interparliamentary Group meetings. Once our meetings were finished, he continued on to Africa for medical mission work. As majority leader, Bill carried the administration's message. He fought hard for the President's judicial nominees. And as we saw yesterday during his farewell address, Bill leaves us with great honor and recognition. Our leader will now return to where, in some ways, his heart has always been--the practice of medicine. But deep in my heart, I feel that public service will again call Bill to give of his time and talents to help preserve our democracy and our freedoms. Catherine and I will miss being with Bill and Karyn. rick santorum Mr. President, yesterday I was moved by the emotional farewell of Senator Rick Santorum. He said he still feels the thrill of coming to work in this building every day. The energy he put toward his work in this Chamber, I will remember as one of Senator Santorum's most striking qualities. Senator Santorum's enthusiastic direction of the Republican conference rallied our majority. I believe he jeopardized his own future in Pennsylvania by urging us to think and act for the national good. Pennsylvania has been served well during his time in Congress and so has our Nation. Rick's energy has been of great benefit to many charities, and he has taken a special interest in helping those affected by autism. His efforts on behalf of each of these causes have been exceptional. And despite his many commitments, Rick's dedication to his family and personal convictions never wavered. Catherine and I wish Rick and his family well. george Allen Mr. President, Senator George Allen has served the Commonwealth of Virginia with honor and integrity. George is a principled person, following bedrock beliefs gained growing up in a strong family. These principles have led George to promote and defend freedom in this country and around the world. His legislative accomplishments are aligned with this philosophy. Senator Allen's major accomplishments include the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, increased benefits for the families of fallen troops, funding to upgrade telecommunications infrastructure for minority- serving institutions, and greater protections for intellectual property. In all of this, Senator Allen has not forgotten who his real boss is: the American people. He has always, and will continue, to put the interests of this country above his own. That is a true mark of a leader, ald all Virginians can be proud to have been represented by a man with Senator Allen's character. As many of his constituents, colleagues, and friends know, Senator Allen closed much of his correspondence with the words ``keep winning.'' Just like his dad, a Hall of Fame coach who reached great heights and suffered tough losses on the gridiron, we know George won't let this setback define him. We all expect him to ``keep winning'' for Virginia. Catherine and I wish him and Susan the very best. We know we will hear N O T I C E The Government Printing Office will publish corrections to the Congressional Record as a pilot program that has been authorized by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Corrections to the online Congressional Record will appear on the page on which the error occurred. The corrections will also be printed after the History of Bills and Resolutions section of the Congressional Record Index for print-only viewers of the Congressional Record. By order of the Joint Committee on Printing.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, a well-respected public servant will soon retire after 40 years of outstanding service to our Government and the American people. Anthony J. ``Tony'' Zagami first came to Capitol Hill in 1965, at the age of 13, to serve as a page in the United States Senate. Several years later, Tony returned as an assistant to the Secretary of the Senate. I was the whip for the Republican party at the time, and in this capacity, it was my privilege to work closely with Tony and the Secretary. Tony also spent 9 years as the general counsel to the Joint Committee on Printing, which I was ranking member of from 1987 to 1992. Tony left the halls of Congress in 1990 to become general counsel at the U.S. Government Printing Office, and he has remained in this post for the past 16 years. Tony's legislative background has proven to be a tremendous asset during his tenure as general counsel. His leadership and vision have helped transform the GPO into a profitable, efficient, and thoroughly modern organization. In January, Tony will retire as the longest serving general counsel in the GPO's 145-year history. In honor of his many accomplishments, Tony has also been named the first general counsel emeritus of the GPO. On behalf of my colleagues in Congress, I thank Tony for his dedication and hard work over the years. We all wish Tony, his wife, and their three children the very best.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, be permitted to take the floor following my remarks.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we ought to understand what we are talking about now because the bills that are before the Senate now and the CR should have been enacted by October 1. This bill will move that money out to February now and will not be available to the department agencies until sometime in February. I am concerned about this because prior to this Congress, the quality-of-life money for the members of the Department of Defense was under the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense that I cochair with my friend from Hawaii, Senator Inouye. We are disturbed that Congress has not finished its work on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. To me, the failure to complete this work is inexplicable. I am disappointed we are unable to reach an agreement with the House on the matters contained in this bill and to realize the necessity of completing action on the bill in total. We are neglecting our congressional responsibilities by not completing work on this bill. It is unfortunate. We have had a considerable amount of time to do so. This is not a routine disagreement between Members of the House and the Senate. This is a disagreement that affects our Nation while we are at war. We have hundreds of thousands of service men and women deployed around the world. This sends a message we are not willing to take the time to finish the work necessary to assure they have the money, the funding, the facilities to do the work we have asked them to do. It will have an impact on military life and the morale of our armed services. The Military Construction appropriations bill not only contains money for military construction and for quality of life, but it also contains the money for our veterans. In total, it provides critical funding for family housing, barracks, mission facilities, implementation of the base closure and realignment process, maintenance of defense and veterans facilities, environment cleanup, the Defense Health Program, and medical care for our veterans. Now I am told that the CR does now come up to the President's request for the medical health program, and that really removes part of my objection to proceeding on this bill. Without this bill, the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs have to contend with this continuing resolution. Most people do not understand it. It means these moneys will be postponed until mid-February, the additional moneys that are necessary to meet the additional demands being placed on our Armed Services before September 30. We are supposed to finish this bill by September 30. I am told the Department of Defense will not be able to start a single military construction project, although those projects were authorized more than 3 months ago. It means the projects cannot be started until the regular bill is passed. I hope it will be passed in February. Now, I took the time to go to Italy and look at the new Army base there and the new Air Force base there, as we are redeploying our forces from Germany and other places into Italy. Those projects involve barracks, quality of life facilities, and family housing. That cannot go forward. The money will not be available because it was not covered by the 2006 appropriations bill. It is not covered by this continuing resolution. I think it is true now, because of what I mentioned, the Veterans' Administration should be able to sustain the medical care for our veterans without disruption. But I can tell the Senate, they will not be able to go much more than mid-February without running into real trouble. So one of the first bills that ought to be considered when we get back is the Veterans appropriations bill. I am here tonight because I announced to our conference I would oppose this CR unless it contained these bills in it. After consulting, and my staff consulting, with the Department of Defense, the Veterans' Administration, and understanding what the House has done now since that time on the medical portion for the Veterans' Administration, it does not seem possible for me to do that now. All I can do is express my deep reservation about voting for this bill under the circumstances. We should have had at least the balance of the military money and the veterans money made available by this Congress before we went home. And I am really disappointed it is not possible. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Texas, you wish the floor again? The Senator from Ohio would follow me, but you wish to comment?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for those comments. My point is, the Congress as a whole should have finished its job. We should have done this job before this Congress ends, particularly for those bills which impact the men and women in our Armed Services, their families, and the veterans who have served, particularly the new class of veterans now who are coming out of the service, many of whom are wounded. Many of them have readjustment problems. This bill, the bill the Senator from Texas and her subcommittee prepared, would have answered many of those problems. It would have made money available now to deal with them. I am chagrined that bill is not going to pass. I think it is a failure of this Congress. And we ought to admit it is a failure. But as far as this Senator is concerned, we have done everything we can to try to rectify that. It is just not possible to get the Congress to vote. The House has already voted. I do not think it is possible for us to try to amend this bill now. And I am told the agencies involved have reviewed it and say they will find a way to continue their work until February without it. That does not answer the question to me though because the things they should start now would be well underway by February, and it will not be possible with postponing this bill. It is a tragedy we are not able to complete our appropriations process, in my opinion. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4709 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes. The definition of ``IP enabled voice service'' in this bill is not meant to be the universal definition of ``IP enabled voice service'' to be used in future legislation that involves other contexts. And, it should not be interpreted as a signal to the FCC that it should alter or change the definitions of Interconnected or IP enabled voice services that it has used in other contexts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

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

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I send a bill to the desk and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.