Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I have been waiting for time. I would hope we would not enter a unanimous consent request without some consultation.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my blood pressure goes up when this amendment comes up because I was in the Eisenhower administration, and I was one of those who participated in drawing the order which led to the creation of the Arctic National Wildlife Range. That order stated specifically that the area involved was withdrawn from all forms of appropriations under the public land laws, including the mining but not the mineral leasing laws. So starting in that period in the fifties, the area of Alaska way up in the corner, 9 million acres, was set aside at the request of the Fairbanks Women's Garden Club. My then-boss, Secretary Fred Seaton, Secretary of the Interior, decided to take that action, and it was subsequently confirmed by President Eisenhower 2 years later. That land along the Arctic has never been closed--never been closed-- to oil and gas leasing and exploration. In 1980, President Carter signed a law after the election which set aside over 100 million acres of Alaska land. I start off with this map to show our State is the largest State in the Union. One-fifth the size of all the land under the American flag is in Alaska. When one looks at this map, all the colored areas have been set aside by an act of Congress. They are no longer available for development in Alaska. These lands were set aside after prolonged battle over the Alaska lands. One of the few conditions, stipulations we requested was that this area of the Arctic Plain be open for oil and gas exploration. At that time, I parted from my then-colleague, Senator Gravel of Alaska, and allowed this bill to become law in 1980, which President Carter signed based upon the commitment that was made to me by two Senators. This is the photograph that was taken at the time we entered that agreement, Senator Jackson of Washington, Senator Tsongas of Massachusetts, and myself, in 1980. I was the minority whip, Senator Jackson was chairman of the Interior Committee, and Senator Tsongas was a member of that committee. I was in the minority. These gentlemen wished to withdraw over 100 million acres of Alaska. We asked for some stipulations pertaining to access and other such matters that were in the bill President Carter signed. The one area we asked be maintained to be available for oil and gas was the Arctic Plain. I say this in all humility, but those who come to this floor and say that is wilderness are not telling the truth. It is not a wilderness area. It has never been a wilderness area. It was specifically left out of the designation of wilderness and it is not wilderness. Those photographs we have seen of caribou, the caribou are the porcupine herd. They come up from Canada. They come up and they calve in this area in the summertime. Oil and gas exploration does not take place in the summertime. The tundra is soft. We wait until it is frozen and we build ice roads across. The caribou are not there when the oil and gas exploration takes place, and the assertion that it is wilderness is absolutely not true. Those who offer these photographs and claim this is wilderness ought to come in here and say that. By the way, I do not know where that crossing is which the Senator from California is displaying in her chart, but I presume that it is in June sometime when the caribou come up and leave within, at the maximum, 6 weeks. As a matter of fact, in recent years, they have not come up at all. They have gone up to calve on the Canadian side of the Arctic. In any event, of the enormous amount of caribou that reside in Alaska, and they do reside there year round, this herd does not reside there year round. It migrates up for a few days in the summertime. The central Alaska herd which is up around Prudhoe Bay--I heard all of these arguments about caribou and I saw the beautiful pictures at the time the oil pipeline amendment was on the floor to authorize the construction, the right of way of the Alaska oil pipeline. We heard claims that the action in building that pipeline would destroy the caribou, that they would suffer all sorts of harm. As a matter of fact, that is a myth. The caribou herd in the vicinity of the oil pipeline is almost six times larger than it was at the time the pipeline was built. Oil and gas activity does not harm the caribou at all. There is no proof whatsoever it ever harmed the caribou. That is not the only caribou herd. There is a western caribou herd. There are more resident caribou, not migrating caribou, in Alaska than people. I represent more caribou than I do people. I am trying to represent those caribou, too, because they are maligned by this assertion that oil and gas activity has harmed them when their numbers have grown so greatly since that took place. Some claim this oil and gas activity we seek to have take place in the 1002 area, as we call it, is opposed by the native people. We are going to hear that from people on the other side of the aisle. That is not true, either. There is one group of Alaska Indians whose basic home is in Canada, the Gwich'ins, who reside on the South Slope of the Brooks Range. At the most, they number a thousand of our people and some of them are in Canada. They oppose it. All the people of the North Slope and the Alaska Federation of Natives, which represents over 100,000 Alaska native people, support going forward with the oil and gas activity in this 1002 area. The real problem about it is, I have trouble trying to get people to understand the size of Alaska. I want to show Alaska's map superimposed on the South 48, as we call it. As we can see, Alaska is almost as wide and almost as deep as the United States. Up in the corner is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge which was created in 1980, which engulfed the Arctic Range. The Arctic Range came down like this, and this is the 1002 area in green. It is not part of the wildlife refuge. When the oil and gas activity is over, we stipulated it would revert to the Refuge. My colleagues cannot see it, but right up there is a little dot. This green area is a million and a half acres. That little dot is 2,000 acres. We have agreed that not more than 2,000 acres will be used out of the million and a half acres set aside for oil and gas development in prosecuting the exploration and development of oil and gas in the North Slope. I think we have to take a look at what is going on in terms of the estimates that have been made. I understand there have been assertions of fact that I disagree with entirely. The largest untapped oil field in the North American continent is the area of the Arctic Plain, or the 1002 area. There is estimated recoverable oil there of 10.3 billion barrels. For historic basis, let's go back to the time that Prudhoe Bay was discovered and we were trying to build this enormous pipeline from Valdez to Prudhoe Bay. The estimate then was there would be a billion barrels of oil in that reserve at Prudhoe Bay. Last year, out of Prudhoe Bay, we produced the fourteenth billionth barrel of oil. The estimates were conservative fourteen times over. They said there would be about a billion barrels of oil, and we have produced already 14 billion barrels and we know we have more to go. Some people assert this is a small amount of oil. It is more than is produced in Texas. Our reserves are greater than Texas's. The estimated daily production is about 1.4 million barrels a day from the 1002 area, from the area we are talking about. Texas produces 1,065,000 barrels. We can see across the level of production as far as the--we produce 972,000 barrels from Prudhoe Bay now and that is another story. That is one of the stories I did not want to be limited on because I want to tell the Senate this story. At the time we had the Persian Gulf war, at the request of the Federal Government, the throughput of the Alaska oil pipeline was increased from 1.9 million barrels a day to 2.1 million barrels. We went up 200,000 barrels a day to offset the loss of access to oil at that time and the increased demand for oil because of the war. Today, that throughput is 972,000 barrels. That pipeline is less than half full. Why? Since the 1970s, it has been producing from the Prudhoe Bay area, and we need additional daily production. Where is it to come from? Where did we believe it would come from? We believed it would come from the 1002 area, from the area that is in dispute as to whether or not we should drill it. If that area is not drilled and we do not get additional reserves, the time will come when it will be uneconomical to use the oil pipeline. That is really what these people want. They want to go back and reverse history because they do not like the oil pipeline becoming filled again. This is the greatest reserve we have in the United States. This is another depiction of the situation at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This is the refuge. The area in light brown is wilderness. The area in green is not wilderness. It is reserved for oil and gas exploration, and the balance of the area is wildlife refuge. The Coastal Plain is the 1002 area, a million and a half acres. Its description and its boundaries were drawn by Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas in order to make sure the area would be available to oil and gas exploration. As a matter of fact, when he signed the bill, President Carter referred to that. I quote from the signing ceremony from the administration of Jimmy Carter in 1980: This act reaffirms our commitment to the environment. It strikes a balance between protecting areas of great beauty and value and allowing development of Alaska's vital oil and gas and mineral and timber resources. The only area covered by that bill that had any oil and gas potential was the 1002 area. We have the right to explore and develop this 1.5 million acres, and President Carter withdrew over 100 million acres. Now this amendment seeks, once again, to renege on that commitment my two friends from the Senate in 1980 made and put into law. It was not just a verbal commitment but a proposed development of the Arctic Coastal Plain of up to 1.5 million acres. We have included in this resolution a reference to income that will come from the bidding to develop oil in that area. It is $2.1 billion. That is the beginning. We estimate the income to the Federal Government from the development of that area on an annual basis will be roughly $1 billion a year. That is from the royalties that come from developing Federal land. What has to be recognized is this is an area of barren tundra. Ask anyone who has been there in the wintertime. This is not some picture of caribou and lakes and a dreamy sort of place to be. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons the caribou do not come up is, the bugs are so bad, they go into Canada. When they are really bad in that part of Alaska, they go to Canada. They go up there and get in the water to avoid the bugs. If they want to show a picture of the 1002 area, that is it, as far as you can see--nothing but frozen tundra. You do not see any caribou; you do not see any bears; you do not see pictures of beautiful flowers. There are tourists in the summertime, the 6 weeks the caribou are there, and they leave with the caribou. My Eskimo people stay there and live there. They want this land drilled so they can have some income to support their lifestyle. Before the oil and gas came up there, I used to go up there in the 1950s, and it was a terrible place, to see how those people lived. Now, because of the revenue they get from the development of oil on the North Slope, they have nice homes, they have nice buildings, they have one building with a nice elevator, they have a beautiful small college, they have one of the most beautiful set of schools to be found anywhere in America. They support it with their money, coming from the taxes they derive from drilling and activities on their land. One time I took a postmaster general up there to visit the area. We got into a bus right off the airplane and went over to the post office. He went into the post office. I thought he would faint because the digital thermometer said minus 99. It was a wind chill factor thermometer, minus 99. My people were living up there. We went to the post office; we went to lunch that day. This is a picture of some of these children in Kaktovik. This is the one village in the center of the area that people say is a wilderness area. Right in the center is this village of Kaktovik. You do not have development in wilderness--that is my memory. These are beautiful people. And they know what they want. They want that area drilled so they can continue to get the income, send their children to school, have telephones, and have the kind of facilities we have everywhere else in the country. Without it, they have no basic income. Their income is in resources. By the way, to shock the Senate, half the coal in the United States is also in Alaska. We do not produce it because a Senator came on the floor one day and offered an amendment to prohibit the mining for coal unless the natural contour was restored after taking the coal out--a virtual impossibility: Take tons of coal out of the tundra, and you are supposed to restore the natural tundra. That has blocked coal development in Alaska for 45 years. That is another typical type of amendment that comes from people with minds that oppose this. Look at that picture. I hope the camera can compare that with where the children are in wintertime. This is propaganda of the worst sort, from the richest people in the United States, who finance these extreme environmental organizations and come here and tell us how to live in Alaska. They spend more money in lobbying than the oil industry. They spend less money than the oil industry in protecting the environment. I have an aside on that, too, which I will get to tomorrow. Another aspect of this is pipeline prices. One of the problems about the supply of oil in the United States is the ability to maintain some stability in prices. This is a busy chart, but it shows the relationship of the throughput of Alaska pipeline to the price of oil in the United States. The green line is the throughput of the oil pipeline. The red line is the price of oil. As the throughput started, as we started to build the pipeline, the price kept going up. But when we reached the peak of production, the price was the lowest in the United States that it has been in 30 years. When we keep going, as the pipeline throughput declined--and this is the current situation--the price of gasoline in the whole United States went up. Our ability to produce 25 percent of the domestically produced oil in the United States stabilizes the price of oil and stabilizes the price of gasoline in the United States. The price of gasoline today is up considerably. The price of aviation gas is almost double. The spiking price on gas, top demand gas, went up about 900 percent this last week. We are running short of both oil and gas domestically produced. The way to keep prices down is to maintain the ability to approve a substantial portion of what we consume. At the time of the oil embargo of the 1970s, we imported 34 percent of our oil. Today, we import 56 percent of our oil. That is what is causing that price to go up. This is a chart that shows the potential of production from ANWR to the amount of imported crude oil by the barrels we are bringing in. We are bringing in 1.5 million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia; Canada sends 1.4; Mexico, 1.2; Venezuela, 1.2; Iraq, half a million, but the stability for prices comes from our ability to produce oil. What is happening today is, the pipeline is less than half full. We need to get greater reserves and start producing at the rate of at least 1,000 barrels a day, fill up the pipeline, and we will maintain some stability in the price of oil. Now to the problem of people who I call extremists who say there is only a 6-month supply of oil in ANWR. That assumes ANWR has only 3 billion barrels, and the estimate is at least three times that. It also assumes the only oil the United States uses in that 6-month period is that from ANWR. You could apply the same suggestion to Texas. If all the current production of Texas was used and that was the only oil we used, it would be a 9-month supply. This one deposit in Alaska, under their computation, is 6 months. That is the worst statistic economically I have ever seen used on the floor of the Senate. It is so misleading as to be dishonest. It is a dishonest statistic. I really believe we have to find some way to get Senators to understand what this is basically all about. When Prudhoe Bay was developed, the technology then required using a substantial amount of land. Of the 19 million acres in the area known as ANWR, the Coastal Plain is 1.5 million acres, as I have said. The limitation under the proposal before the Senate is 2,000 acres. This would depict the size of Dulles Airport--13,000 acres. We are looking at an area that is so small it would fit into Dulles Airport more than six times. We are not using a lot of land. We will not use a lot of land. We agreed to this limitation. Not more than 2,000 of the million and a half acres will be used for oil and gas development. The other thing they say is there will be permanent damage to our arctic tundra. This is an area that was developed. That was an oil well at one time. The whole area has been restored. One of the interesting sidelights is what the University of Alaska did when there was development of the Arctic. They developed a whole new set of grasses that are planted in the area which produced some of the best forage for caribou that was ever known. That is why that one herd increased almost six times. This, at one time, what I just showed you, was a well right here similar to this well. As a matter of fact, it has been totally restored by virtue of the activities of our universities, as they have led the country in rehabilitation of land used for oil and gas development. We have a commitment in every contract for drilling in Alaska to restore the area to its original state or better. There will be no real problem. In terms of restoration, to date the oil industry has spent over $200 million in restoring the area that is used for oil development. We also have more than $30 million committed to go further, to restore and study the vegetation, make certain everything is going to survive. We have a problem with regard to gravel. Gravel itself has been removed from drill beds and replaced. This is the most scientifically designed oil and gas development in the world, on Alaska's North Slope. What the opponents would rather have us do is go to Russia, I guess. One of them even suggested that in a debate last year, we should look to Russia. I know Russia is going to produce substantial oil in the future. But there is no question that assertions made that we will be permanently damaging this property is wrong. As a matter of fact, the permit issued by the Federal Government to use this land states categorically that if and when the permittee desires to abandon the activity authorized by the district engineer, the permittee must restore the area to a condition satisfactory to the engineer. The State of Alaska says: All operating areas shall be maintained and on completion of the operation shall be left in a condition satisfactory to the director. We have absolute control over anyone's ability to abandon an area. They must restore it under Federal and State law. Where are we, when it comes right down to this? The real problem is-- what are we talking about? We are talking about jobs for our people, and not just jobs for Alaskans, by the way. But I believe the experts, in terms of job creation, are America's unions. America's unions are behind us in terms of our desire to open this area for oil and gas exploration: The Teamsters, the Seafarers International Union, the Building Construction Trades, the Iron Workers, Laborers, Operating Engineers, Masons, Sheetmetal Workers, Maritime Workers, Carpenters, Plumbers and Pipefitters. There is no question in my mind that those people who are interested in the security of the United States, in terms of energy, should look to the Arctic. I heard the Senator from Massachusetts talk about windmills. I invite him to go to Alaska. We have some windmills in Alaska. They are working fairly well to supply power to very small areas. He mentioned the United Kingdom and their fuel supply. Forty percent of the United Kingdom's fuel supply comes from natural gas; 32.2 percent comes from petroleum oil; only 1.1 percent comes from renewable energy. Are we to rely on the 1.1 percent for the future of America? He had a chart here that shows how much land it would take to have the equivalent of this energy reproduced with wind power. It is something one must look at. I will refer to it as soon as it gets here. One of my predecessors as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield, stood here on the floor one day and explained to the Senate why he was voting for the development of this area. He said he hoped never to see the day when one American would have to go overseas to try to protect an area's oil production when that could be produced in the United States, that oil could be produced here in the United States. This is a sound proposition for America, I believe. The equivalent of Rhode Island and Connecticut both would have to be totally in wind power to equal the daily product that will be produced from this area, roughly 1.4 million barrels of oil a day. People who want to talk about wind power ought to talk about how much land it will take. We are going to take 2,000 acres to drill for oil, on an area that is 1.5 million acres on the Arctic. It would take 3.7 million acres to have wind power sufficient to have the same amount of energy produced on a daily basis. I should allow other people to speak, as the Senator from California has indicated. I intend to speak a little bit more tomorrow when we come back to the amendment. I know of nothing in my service in the Senate that represents the issue this is for me because at the time that 1980 bill passed, I went against the other members of my delegation, Congressional delegation, to support getting a bill done. We had been arguing 7 years over how much of Alaska's land should be withdrawn. We finally came to a conclusion and that conclusion is represented by the basic map I have here. All of those areas there, all of them, were withdrawn by President Carter. The only thing we got out of the whole bill in land guarantees was the guarantee that 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Plain would remain open to oil and gas. It was left open by President Eisenhower. I understand the Senator from California mentioned President Eisenhower. It remained open. It was specifically mentioned in the order that was issued on the Arctic Wildlife Range that it was open to oil and gas. As these withdrawals were made--just think of this. Think of this: That bill created 13 new national parks and added land to 3 other national parks; it created 9 wildlife refuges and added additional land to another 9 wildlife refuges. And all that Alaskans received, when all of those lands were set aside, was a commitment that these 1.5 million acres would remain open for oil and gas exploration and would not be part of the refuge until that period of oil and gas exploration was completed. Now, I do not know what other people think, but I have always acted on the basis that Members of the Senate would be bound by the law, that we would follow the law and understand what led to the passage of the law, that we would honor the commitments that were made by our predecessors, and if they were wrong, we would find some way to handle a matter of correcting their wrong without damaging the people who had relied upon the commitment that was made by the United States in a public law. The people of my State on the North Slope relied upon that commitment that oil and gas exploration would be permitted. We started in 1981 to fulfill that commitment. This is 22 years later, and we are still here arguing against the same people who tried to block the Alaska oil pipeline, and may well block this. It is a very close vote for everyone. So was the Alaska oil pipeline. That pipeline, as I said in the beginning, was authorized after an action here in the Senate based on a tie vote, which Vice President Agnew broke when he voted for the building of the Alaska oil pipeline. I hope Senators tomorrow, when we vote, will think about the history of this area, the commitments that have been made to the people of this area by the Senate and by the Congress of the United States, and will vote no on the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from California and the Senator from Connecticut. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. I have withdrawn my request. If the Senator wishes to ask me a question, I will be glad to answer the question. I would be pleased to make a request that the Senator from Wyoming be accommodated in his request to speak for 10 minutes. I do not wish at this time to be limited to the amount of time I can speak. I am speaking about my State. I am speaking about the future of my State, and I do not see why I should be yielding back and forth 5 minutes at a time in terms of speaking on this issue. It is a very important issue to me. I do not know how long I am going to speak, but I am not going to speak all night, obviously. I am not prone to long speeches, but I do not wish to say how long I am going to speak at this time. I renew the request that the Senator from Wyoming have 10 minutes; after that, I be recognized to make my statement about an issue so vital to my State.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a request pending, and I ask it either be agreed to or I be permitted to start speaking. I believe I still have the floor; is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I say to the Senator that I will speak now, and then I will yield to him later. I have the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am glad to see an Alaskan in the chair as I make this statement. This morning, as it usually happens, when I turned on my computer, I found a series of e-mails from friends at home. I do not always have time to read them then, but I saw one from a very close friend, who has been a friend now for over 50 years-- Frank Reed, a former neighbor, a person who has helped me in many ways in my life. He asked me to read this article he attached to his e-mail. I get a little disturbed when I see that the testament is a little longer than the e-mail. But I found that he had sent me a verbatim transcript of an article by Alistair Cooke entitled ``Peace For Our Time,'' that was on the BBC News on Monday, February 3 of this year. I want to read that tonight because I think it reflects what I have been trying to say on the floor of the Senate these past several weeks. The following was written and spoken by Alistair Cooke. He said this: . . . I promised to lay off topic A--Iraq--until the Security Council makes a judgment on the inspectors' report and I shall keep that promise. But I must tell you that throughout the past fortnight I've listened to everybody involved in or looking on to a monotonous din of words, like a tide crashing and receding on a beach--making a great noise and saying the same thing over and over. And this ordeal triggered a nightmare--a day-mare, if you like. Through the ceaseless tide I heard a voice, a very English voice of an old man--Prime Minister Chamberlain saying: ``I believe it is peace for our time''--a sentence that prompted a huge cheer, first from a listening street crowd and then from the House of Commons and next day from every newspaper in the land. There was a move to urge that Mr. Chamberlain should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In Parliament there was one unfamiliar old grumbler to growl out: ``I believe we have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat.'' He was, in view of the general sentiment, very properly booed down. This scene concluded in the autumn of 1938 with the British prime minister's effectual signing away of most of Czechoslovakia to Hitler. The rest of it, within months, Hitler walked in and conquered. ``Oh dear,'' said Mr. Chamberlain, thunderstruck. ``He has betrayed my trust.'' During the last fortnight a simple but startling thought occurred to me--every single official, diplomat, president, prime minister involved in the Iraq debate was in 1938 a toddler, most of them unborn. So the dreadful scene I've just drawn will not have been remembered by most listeners. Hitler had started betraying our trust not 12 years but only two years before, when he broke the First World War peace treaty by occupying the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland. Only half his troops carried one reload of ammunition because Hitler knew that French morale was too low to confront any war just then and 10 million of 11 million British voters had signed a so-called peace ballot. It stated no conditions, elaborated no terms, it simply counted the numbers of Britons who were ``for peace.'' The slogan of this movement was ``Against war and fascism''--chanted at the time by every Labour man and Liberal and many moderate Conservatives--a slogan that now sounds as imbecilic as ``against hospitals and disease.'' In blunter words a majority of Britons would do anything, absolutely anything, to get rid of Hitler except fight him. At that time the word pre-emptive had not been invented, though today it's a catchword. After all the Rhineland was what it said it was--part of Germany. So to march in and throw Hitler out would have been pre-emptive--wouldn't it? Nobody did anything and Hitler looked forward with confidence to gobbling up the rest of Western Europe country by country--``course by course'', as growler Churchill put it. I bring up Munich and the mid-30s because I was fully grown, on the verge of 30, and knew we were indeed living in the age of anxiety. And so many of the arguments mounted against each other today, in the last fortnight, are exactly what we heard in the House of Commons debates and read in the French press. The French especially urged, after every Hitler invasion, ``negotiation, negotiation''. They negotiated so successfully as to have their whole country defeated and occupied. But as one famous French leftist said: ``We did anyway manage to make them declare Paris an open city--no bombs on us!'' In Britain the general response to every Hitler advance was disarmament and collective security. Collective security meant to leave every crisis to the League of Nations. it would put down aggressors, even though, like the United Nations, it had no army, navy or air force. The League of Nations had its chance to prove itself when Mussolini invaded and conquered Ethiopia (Abyssinia). The League didn't have any shot to fire. But still the cry was chanted in the House of Commons--the League and collective security is the only true guarantee of peace. But after the Rhineland the maverick Churchill decided there was no collectivity in collective security and started a highly unpopular campaign for rearmament by Britain, warning against the general belief that Hitler had already built an enormous mechanized army and superior air force. But he's not used them, he's not used them--people protested. Still for two years before the outbreak of the Second War you could read the debates in the House of Commons and now shiver at the famous Labour men--Major Attlee was one of them--who voted against rearmament and still went on pointing to the League of Nations as the savior. Now, this memory of mine may be totally irrelevant to the present crisis. It haunts me. I have to say I have written elsewhere with much conviction that most historical analogies are false because, however strikingly similar a new situation may be to an old one, there's usually one element that is different and it turns out to be the crucial one. It may well be so here. All I know is that all the voices of the 30s are echoing through 2003 . . . Madam President, I was but 14, not 30. I remember the tension we all felt at that time, as country after country became destroyed by Hitler. Previously on the floor of the Senate, I mentioned Hitler and compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler. I was criticized even by the papers at home in Alaska. I was delighted to read Alistair Cooke's article that Frank Reed sent to me this morning, and I commend it to the rest of the Senate. This haunts me. It haunts those of us who lived through the thirties to know we might go through the thirties again because too many people refuse to listen to the truth, refuse to listen to what some of us see in Saddam Hussein, as being another Hitler. (The remarks of Mr. Stevens pertaining to the introduction of S. 628 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, on February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia was lost during re-entry into Earth's atmosphere. We all mourn that tragic loss. But although our hearts have been filled with sorrow, we have also taken comfort in the knowledge that there was so much about these heroic astronauts for us to be grateful for. They were, indeed, remarkable people for they truly represented the best of the human spirit. As such, it is only fitting that we endeavor to remember them for their outstanding contributions. Today, along with Senators Bond and Mikulski, I introduce legislation to construct a memorial to the crew of the Columbia Orbiter at Arlington National Cemetery. This memorial would be located in close proximity to the memorial to the crew of the Challenger Orbiter at Arlington Cemetery and that the design of the Columbia Memorial is intended to be consistent with the artistic sensibilities of the Challenger Memorial. This legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with NASA, to place the Columbia Memorial at Arlington and would make available $500,000 from funds already appropriated in the Fiscal Year 2003 DOD Appropriations Act for the Memorial. The bill also authorizes NASA to collect gifts and donations for the Columbia Memorial at Arlington Cemetery or for another appropriate memorial or monument. This authority to collect donations and gifts expires after 5 years. We will never forget the wonderful legacy of the Columbia astronauts. They have been an inspiration to us all. Lastly, I take this opportunity to invite any Senator to join with me in cosponsoring this legislation to establish this memorial to these outstanding individuals. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be held at the desk until the close of business Wednesday, March 19, so that such Senators will be shown as original cosponsors of this legislation. It is my further hope that this bill will be speedily cleared on each side of the aisle so that it may be sent to the House next week, if at all possible. I send the bill to the desk, Madam President.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, on February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia was lost during re-entry into Earth's atmosphere. We all mourn that tragic loss. But although our hearts have been filled with sorrow, we have also taken comfort in the knowledge that there was so much about these heroic astronauts for us to be grateful for. They were, indeed, remarkable people for they truly represented the best of the human spirit. As such, it is only fitting that we endeavor to remember them for their outstanding contributions. Today, along with Senators Bond and Mikulski, I introduce legislation to construct a memorial to the crew of the Columbia Orbiter at Arlington National Cemetery. This memorial would be located in close proximity to the memorial to the crew of the Challenger Orbiter at Arlington Cemetery and that the design of the Columbia Memorial is intended to be consistent with the artistic sensibilities of the Challenger Memorial. This legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with NASA, to place the Columbia Memorial at Arlington and would make available $500,000 from funds already appropriated in the Fiscal Year 2003 DOD Appropriations Act for the Memorial. The bill also authorizes NASA to collect gifts and donations for the Columbia Memorial at Arlington Cemetery or for another appropriate memorial or monument. This authority to collect donations and gifts expires after 5 years. We will never forget the wonderful legacy of the Columbia astronauts. They have been an inspiration to us all. Lastly, I take this opportunity to invite any Senator to join with me in cosponsoring this legislation to establish this memorial to these outstanding individuals. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be held at the desk until the close of business Wednesday, March 19, so that such Senators will be shown as original cosponsors of this legislation. It is my further hope that this bill will be speedily cleared on each side of the aisle so that it may be sent to the House next week, if at all possible. I send the bill to the desk, Madam President.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Sunday, March 9, 2003 Washington Post editorial entitled ``Moment of Decision'' be printed in the Record at the appropriate place.

Mr. STEVENS. I believe this editorial accurately describes the current impasse at the U.N. Security Council over whether to enforce Security Council Resolution 1441. That resolution gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to disarm and provided for ``serious consequences'' should he fail to comply. It is now clear that Saddam Hussein is in violation of Resolution 1441, yet some member states on the Security Council are using this forum to press an unrelated agenda that is hostile to the interests of the United States. By pursuing this course of action, these member states are contributing to the global threat that Saddam Hussein poses and undermining the very purpose of the United Nations--to ensure the peace and security of the international community. We know that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. We know that Saddam Hussein will use those weapons against those who oppose his tyranny. We know that Saddam Hussein has failed to disarm in violation of Security Council Resolution 1441. Yet, rather than holding Saddam Hussein accountable for his defiance, these member states have reduced the Security Council to a debating society, hardly relevant to the tough decisions the United States and its allies face in the war against terrorism. Only by standing together will the United Nations finally fulfill its commitment of ensuring global peace and security. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Mar. 9, 2003] Moment of Decision The Debate on Iraq at the United Nations Security Council no longer concerns whether Iraq has agreed to disarm; in fact, it hardly concerns Iraq at all. At Friday's meeting, once again, neither chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix nor any member of the council contended that Saddam Hussein has complied with the terms of Resolution 1441, which offered him a ``final opportunity'' to give up weapons of mass destruction. But most members chose not to discuss the ``serious consequences'' the council unanimously agreed to in the event of such non-compliance. Some, such as Mexico and Chile, essentially argued that Iraqi disarmament was less important than avoiding a split of the Security Council. Others, such as Russia and France, sought to change the subject from Iraq to the United States' global role. They argued for using Iraq to establish that international crises should be managed solely by the Security Council--and not through military action that necessarily must be led by the United States. It's painful to imagine Saddam Hussein's satisfaction in observing the council once again descend into internal quarrels rather than hold him accountable for his defiance of its resolutions. But it's not hard to understand much of the diversionary argument. Few countries outside of the Middle East feel directly threatened by Iraq, other than the United States. Many have an understandable aversion to war when their own citizens' lives don't appear to be at risk. Some, notably Russia and France, have been unsuccessfully seeking for a decade to check American influence and create a ``multipolar world''; the Iraq crisis offers a fresh platform for an agenda more important to them than the menace of a Middle Eastern dictator. The Security Council's action on Iraq ``implies the international community's ability to resolve current or future crises . . . a vision of the world, a concept of the role of the United Nations,'' said French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. ``There may be some who believe that these problems can be resolved by force, thereby creating a new order. But this is not what France believes.'' To oppose the use of force in Iraq, in other words, is to oppose the exercise of the United States' unrivaled power in the world. We share the concern of those on the council who spoke of the damage of an enduring rift over Iraq--damage for which the Bush administration's clumsy and often high-handed diplomacy will be partly responsible. Yet we would argue that the only way to preserve international cohesion is for the council to face up to the tough question that it has been avoiding for weeks--not world order or U.S. power but Saddam Hussein's defiance of an unambiguous Security Council disarmament order. In their bid for global opinion, the French and Russians now invoke principles they would never agree to if they were applied to Chechnya or Francophone Africa. As President Bush pointed out in his news conference Thursday, Iraq's continued stockpiling of banned weapons is a direct threat to the United States, and the country has a right under the U.N. Charter to defend itself against that threat. By taking its case to the United Nations, the Bush administration tested whether the Security Council--which only rarely in the past 50 years has been able to respond to the world's crises--could serve as a place where such threats could be addressed. Yet after six months of intensive effort, France, Russia, Germany and others refuse to accept the consequences of the process they claim to favor. They would rather the Security Council abandon its own resolutions, or split apart, than endorse a U.S. use of force against an outlaw tyrant. If their goal is really to preserve the U.N. security system, they should join in supporting the enforcement of U.N. resolutions; if it is merely to contain the United States, they should not be allowed to succeed. The United States, for its part, must remain open to reasonable compromise. If a few more weeks of diplomacy will serve to assuage the legitimate concerns of undecided council members, the effort--even at this late date--would be worth making.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this disturbs me greatly. For the last 20 years, 21 years, I have been privileged to attend the Paris Air Show, along with a substantial number of Americans and our American companies. I visited those companies in their chalets there. We tried to develop what was called a ``two-way street.'' We would buy some materials from them and they would buy some from us. There is no need for France to sell equipment to Saddam Hussein. It is international treason, Mr. President. It is in violation of a U.N. resolution, and there should be no question about French officials-- they should come forward quickly to deal with this story. As a pilot and former war pilot, it disturbs me greatly that the French would allow, in any way, parts for the Mirage to be exported so the Iraqis could continue to use those planes. They are good planes, Mr. President. The French make very good aircraft parts. But they should not be finding their way to Saddam Hussein at this time. I share the concern of the writer of that article about the position of the French government, in view of this information now disclosed by our intelligence officials. As Senator Warner stated, as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I intend to get to the bottom of that. We intend to make inquiries today and find out what more we know about what is disclosed in the article regarding the shipment of military parts from either France or Germany into Iraq. I believe the American people need to know more about this. We need to know why these two countries, among the best of our allies, are standing on the sidelines as we prepare to try to destroy this regime that threatens the world. In my judgment, it is something the Senate must take very seriously if either of those governments has allowed the export of war materials to go to Iraq at this time. I thank my friend for allowing me this time. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Times, Mar. 7, 2003] Iraq Strengthens Air Force With French Parts (By Bill Gertz) A French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its fighter jets and military helicopters during the past several months, according to U.S. intelligence officials. The unidentified company sold the parts to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the parts through a third country into Iraq by truck. The spare parts included goods for Iraq's French-made Mirage F-1 jets and Gazelle attack helicopters. An intelligence official said the illegal spare-parts pipeline was discovered in the past two weeks and that sensitive intelligence about the transfers indicates that the parts were smuggled to Iraq as recently as January. Other intelligence reports indicate that Iraq had succeeded in acquiring French weaponry illegally for years, the official said. The parts appear to be included in an effort by the Iraqi military to build up materiel for its air forces before any U.S. military action, which could occur before the end of the month. The officials identified the purchaser of the parts as the Al Tamoor Trading Co., based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. A spokesman for the company could not be reached for comment. The French military parts were then sent by truck into Iraq from a neighboring country the officials declined to identify. Iraq has more than 50 Mirage F-1 jets and an unknown number of Gazelle attack helicopters, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. An administration official said the French parts transfers to Iraq may be one reason France has so vehemently opposed U.S. plans for military action against Iraq. ``No wonder the French are opposing us,'' this official said. The official, however, said intelligence reports of the parts sale did not indicate that the activity was sanctioned by the French government or that Paris knows about the transfers. The intelligence reports did not identify the French company involved in selling the aircraft parts or whether the parts were new or used. The Mirage F-1 was made by France's Dassault Aviation. Gazelle helicopters were made by Aerospatiale, which later became a part of a consortium of European defense companies. The importation of military goods by Iraq is banned under U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Nathalie Loiseau, press counselor at the French Embassy, said her government has no information about the spare-parts smuggling and has not been approached by the U.S. government about the matter. ``We fully comply with the U.N. sanctions, and there is no sale of any kind of military material or weapons to Iraq,'' she said. A CIA spokesman had no comment. A senior administration official declined to discuss Iraq's purchase of French warplane and helicopter parts. ``It is well known that the Iraqis use front companies to try to obtain a number of prohibited items,'' the official said. The disclosure comes amid heightened anti-French sentiment in the United States over Paris' opposition to U.S. plans for using force to disarm Iraq. A senior defense official said France undermined U.S. efforts to disarm Iraq last year by watering down language of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 that last fall required Iraq to disarm all its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. France, along with Russia, Germany and China, said yesterday that they would block a joint U.S.-British U.N. resolution on the use of force against Iraq. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told reporters in Paris on Wednesday that France ``will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force.'' ``Russia and France, as permanent members of the Security Council, will assume their full responsibilities on this point,'' he stated. France has been Iraq's best friend in the West. French arms sales to Baghdad were boosted in the 1970s under Premier Jacques Chirac, the current president. Mr. Chirac once called Saddam Hussein a ``personal friend.'' During the 1980s, when Paris backed Iraq in its war against Iran, France sold Mirage fighter bombers and Super Entendard aircraft to Baghdad, along with Exocet anti-ship missiles. French-Iraqi ties soured after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that led to the 1991 Persian Gulf war. France now has an estimated $4 billion in debts owed to it by Iraq as a result of arms sales and infrastructure construction projects. The debt is another reason U.S. officials believe France is opposing military force to oust Saddam. Henry Sokolski, director of the private Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said French transfers of military equipment to Iraq would have ``an immediate and relevant military consequence, if this was done.'' ``The United States with its allies are going to suppress the Iraqi air force and air defense very early on in any conflict, and it's regrettable that the French have let a company complicate that mission,'' Mr. Sokolski said. Secretary of State Collin L. Powell last month released intelligence information showing videotape of an Iraqi F-1 Mirage that had been modified to spray anthrax spores. A CIA report to Congress made public in January stated that Iraq has aggressively sought advanced conventional arms. ``A thriving gray-arms market and porous borders have allowed Baghdad to acquire smaller arms and components for larger arms, such as spare parts for aircraft, air defense systems, and armored vehicles,'' the CIA stated. Iraq also has obtained some military goods through the U.N.-sponsored oil-for-food program. A second CIA report in October on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stated: ``Iraq imports goods using planes, trains, trucks, and ships without any type of international inspections--in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.''

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, that is why I amended my comment. I certainly do admire greatly the position of Great Britain and its leaders right now. Regarding the comment of the Senator about my memories of 1937, I was 14 then. I recall listening to people who tried to explain to me what was going on in Europe. It wasn't until much later, really, that I learned, as I entered college and started studying about world policies, just really the sadness of that trip Chamberlain made. I join the Senator from Virginia, Mr. President, because I have just total admiration for our President and his fortitude. Would there had been leaders in Europe at the time we are discussing who had the courage to stand up to Hitler and try to put together coalitions to stop him from expanding. Once on the floor I compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler, and I was criticized for that. In my mind, a tyrant is a tyrant and evil is evil. From the days of my youth, Hitler was the epitome of evil. In the time we are now living, I believe Saddam Hussein is the epitome of evil, and the President is correct to talk about evil in relationship to this man and his intentions. Above all, I admire the President for his courage to stand up despite all the criticism, all the apparent division that is developing in this country, and saying: We, as a nation, have declared ourselves to be the agents for freedom in the world, and we are going to pursue our goal of changing that regime so it cannot threaten the world. I am involved, as the Senator knows, with the problems of the development of oil in my State. I shudder every day to think that as the delivery of oil from Alaska to what we call the south 48 States has declined, our purchase of Iraqi oil has increased. I wonder how many Americans realize we are sending daily to Iraq moneys that Saddam Hussein uses to buy this equipment, uses to buy these Mirage parts. The problem of today is we compartmentalize information to the extent of saying: Yes, we know that, but on the other hand, some people say, we should not be disturbed by those facts. I am disturbed, and I wonder, as we do go to war with Iraq, about the future of this country and what happens to that oil and what happens to our Nation as we now import about 55 percent of the oil we consume daily. We used to be self-sufficient in oil and gas. We are not today. It is because we have been lured into thinking perhaps if we traded with tyrants such as Iraq, they would recognize the bond of business rather than the bond of commitment to principle. I hope we will find the day when the Nation as a whole will join President Bush and his advisers--what a wonderful array of advisers he has with Secretary Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary Rumsfeld. I cannot think of a generation of individuals who are better trained to guide this country through a period of crisis than the ones with whom the President has surrounded himself, with the approval of the Senate. I have every confidence in what the President is trying to do. I think it will be a swift and decisive war. It will involve casualties-- casualties that could be avoided if other nations of the world would join with us and the people of Iraq understood the world was joined together to condemn this man and his cohorts. Right know, I believe it is time for us to realize, those who support the President, that we may have to do what he says: We may have to go it alone almost. We will have a coalition. The coalition will actually be bigger than 1991 but not the same partners. I agree with the President, we do not need partners on this one. We do not need them. I believe we have right on our side and we have might on our side and we should use that might for the best interest of the world and the future. I thank the Senator for the privilege of being with him this morning.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. I am always pleased to be with young men, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia is right. As a veteran of World War II and a child of the Depression, I harken back to the days before World War II when we had so much information coming our way concerning the scourge that was threatening and did threaten and almost destroyed Europe. We have tried to be vigilant in this country. We have had a series of debates not only on this occasion but at the time of the decision of the United States to fulfill the request of the United Nations to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. We had similar divisions on the floor of the Senate then. I was sad to hear comments made before that action was initiated, but I was very proud of the Senate that after the decision was made to go to war against Iraq in order to eject them from Kuwait the Senate came together and supported President Bush in 1991 to achieve that objective. Now we face a different circumstance. I like to harken back to the words that my good friend, the former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, said before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last September. He said then: We must consider not only the result of action but the consequences of our inaction. Secretary Kissinger presents the watchwords for this body to consider and think about, especially since this administration and I personally believe that Saddam Hussein represents a clear and present danger to the United States and to those who believe in freedom throughout the world. As a consequence of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the war on terrorism that ensued, Secretary Kissinger pointed out that a new geopolitical reality was born. The world must recognize that the potential connection between terrorists and weapons of mass destruction moved terrorism to a new level of threat. In fact, that nexus should be the overriding security issue of our Nation. President Bush and his team of national advisers has determined that Saddam Hussein is in possession of weapons of mass destruction-- chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear--which could be used by terrorists to threaten the world. There is a great deal of information collected by the United States in the past year concerning that fact. In 2001, an Iraqi defector, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, said he had visited 20 secret facilities for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Mr. Saeed, a civil engineer, supported his claims with Iraqi Government contracts complete with technical specifications. Mr. Saeed said Iraq used companies to purchase equipment with the blessing of the United Nations and then secretly used that equipment for their weapons programs. Iraq admitted to producing biological agents and, after the 1995 defection of a senior Iraqi official, Iraq admitted to weaponization of thousands of liters of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft. Our Defense Department reported in 2001 that Iraq had continued to work its weapons programs, including converting an L-29 jet trainer aircraft for potential vehicles for delivery of chemical or biological weapons. Just think of that, weaponization of an airplane and using an airplane in a way entirely foreign to its original purpose. It reminds me of September 11. This jet trainer is capable of delivering both of these systems, chemical and biological weapons. In fact, Iraq has not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of unfilled munitions, including Scud variant missile warheads. It has not accounted for at least 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred vehicles for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for almost 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agents. Iraq is still purchasing chemical weapons agent precursors and applicable production equipment. It is making an effort to hide the activities at the Fallujah plant, which is one of Iraq's chemical weapons production facilities, which was one of those production facilities before the gulf war. At Fallujah and three other plants, Iraq has chlorine production capacity far higher than any civilian need for water treatment. Evidence indicates that some of its chlorine imports are being diverted for military purposes. A report issued by the International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material. In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specifically designed aluminum tubes which intelligence officials believe were intended as components for centrifuges to enrich uranium. Iraq has withheld documentation relative to its past nuclear program, including data about enrichment techniques, foreign procurement, weapons designs, experimental data, and technical documents. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly met with his nuclear scientists over the past 2 years, signaling his continued interest in developing a nuclear program. Iraq is believed to be developing ballistic missiles with a greater range than 150 kilometers, as prohibited by U.N. Security Council Resolution 687. Iraq continues to work on the al-Samoud liquid propellant short-range missile which can fly beyond the 150 kilometers barred by the agreements into which it has entered. The al-Samoud and the solid propellant Ababil-100 appeared in a military parade in Baghdad on December 31, 2000, suggesting that both were nearing operational deployment. The al-Rafah-North facility is Iraq's principal site for testing liquid propellant missile engines, and it has been building a new larger test stand there that is clearly intended for testing prohibited long-range missile engines. Each of these actions point to the creation of an environment that will permit Saddam Hussein to go after his enemies, whether they are in Iraq or any other region in the world. And we have seen time and time again Saddam Hussein has no regard for the ideals of freedom, equality, and justice for others. He lives in an empty echo chamber of evil. What we must face is that the United Nations resolutions were systematically and brutally ignored and violated for the past 12 years. It was the U.N. inspectors who found it impossible to do their job and had to leave their work unfinished. They returned, and they have been at it again, trying to find the evidence to prove what we all believe is true. Clearly, the Senator from New Hampshire has just stated Iraq has ignored now 17 resolutions and blatantly violated the agreement it made after defeat in 1991. What we face is existence of a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction. I wonder if anyone here denies that. They have the willingness to use these weapons and have demonstrated in the past, both against the Kurds and Iran, that they have a hatred for the civilized world. It is a terrorist state now, in my opinion. If we were to go to war with Iraq again, we will not be ignoring our war on terrorism but trying to stamp out the source of it. Americans must face this responsibility and the realization that we are the one country in the world that can both eradicate this man, bring him to justice, and bring the seeds of democracy to a new nation. I hope we will finally hear soon that all of the nations we believed were our partners in seeking freedom will support the objectives of the U.N. resolutions that have already passed. I think if we would enforce those, we would achieve a safe and lasting peace for Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. In fact, I remind the Senate and the President of section 6 of the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, which urged then-President Clinton to call upon the U.N. to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials, including his sons Qusay and Uday, who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law. Mr. President, I also awakened this morning to find the Washington Times. This story bothers me considerably. It is a story headlined ``Iraq Strengthens Air Force with French Parts.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on February 14, 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt signed the bill that established the Department of Commerce. In doing so he authorized the creation of what had been, to date, one of the largest and most complicated departments in the Federal Government. The original Department of Commerce was responsible for an overwhelming set of tasks, including the administration of the census, and the development of foreign and domestic commerce. Over the past decade the Commerce Department's role has evolved, but it has always kept the vitality of American industry as its core value. My State has a lot at stake in the daily operations of this department; among its original duties was the supervision of the Alaskan fur-seal harvest and our State's salmon fisheries. When the House debated the Commerce Department's founding in 1903, Congressman Robert Mann of Indiana noted that the Department was possibly the best hope we had of saving the Alaska salmon fisheries from extinction. Alaska assumed control of its salmon fisheries after Statehood, but the Commerce Department is still involved with our fisheries. One hundred years later the people of Alaska work closely with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service to manage the most productive groundfish fisheries in the world in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. The past century has confirmed what the groups and individuals who originally lobbied for the Department of Commerce knew 100 years ago; ours is a distinctly commercial and industrial nation. The ingenuity of our workers, the dedication of our citizens and the perseverance demonstrated by our entrepreneurs are what make our Nation's economy unique and enduring. However, ingenuity, dedication and perseverance remain untapped resources without leadership and guidance to help them fulfill their potential. For 100 years the Department of Commerce has provided that leadership. In 1981, Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige wrote that the Commerce Department's mission was to ``serve the nation, its business community, and its individual citizens.'' That mission lives today in the daily work of the Department and in the leadership of Secretary Don Evans. I have served with seventeen Secretaries of Commerce since I first came to the Senate, and consider many from both parties, including Malcolm Baldrige, Bill Daley, Norm Mineta, and of course Don Evans, to be my good friends. Today, on behalf of all Alaskans, I congratulate the Department on a century of great achievement.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the distinguished majority leader, the Senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the conference report with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I withdraw the request.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. All right.

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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, under the previous consent request, that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report on H.J. Res. 2 and that it be considered under the following limitation: 20 minutes of debate equally between myself and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee; 10 minutes under the control of Senator Dodd; 15 under the control of Senator Boxer; further, that following the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to a vote on adoption of the conference report, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. STEVENS. I am pleased to add that addition to my request. I am pleased to modify the request so the Senator's request is complied with.