Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased the amendment I cosponsored was agreed to. That amendment did three important things. First, it made clear that any plan put forward to provide local broadcast signals to rural areas takes into account service to Alaska and Hawaii. Under my amendment these non-contiguous States are elevated from afterthoughts to priority consideration. We also altered another priority in this bill that could have inadvertently penalized the most rural States. Originally the bill mandated that the cost per household of providing service be a top priority. Such a provision sounds good on its face but the high cost of service to outlying areas is one reason why the incumbent satellite and cable providers are not serving our areas. My amendment doesn't remove cost as a factor, but it ensures that rural states aren't penalized when proposals are made. Finally, this amendment includes language that would allow high-speed internet access to also be supported by the loan guarantees. I thank Senators Burns, Baucus and Leahy for their help.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, many of us worked very hard last year to reauthorize and update the Satellite Home Viewer Act. Our principle accomplishment was to authorize satellite carriers to provide local television stations to their subscribers. This change has already spurred enormous growth in the satellite industry and is providing growing competition to the cable industry. Unfortunately, the satellite providers--Echostar and DirecTV--made it very clear that their business plans did not contemplate serving rural areas. They were very busy, and they were very upfront in telling us that they were focusing their energies on the top 40 television markets. So it was clear to Senators like myself who represent rural States that local-into-local was not going to be a reality unless we took additional action to encourage coverage for the 50 percent of the population that could watch the service being offered in television ads, but couldn't pick up the phone and order it. We still see a lot of ``not available in Alaska and Hawaii'' fine print on advertisements. They plagued us during telephone days, and now they are plaguing us in this period of rapid extension of new technology. That is where the idea was born to provide loan guarantees to help make this service more available to more Americans. All of us owe Senator Conrad Burns a debt of gratitude for pushing this issue so hard and for drafting the measure that was included in last year's satellite bill. That provision was dropped. While it was unfortunate that this provision was removed from the final bill, I am pleased that it is here today, albeit in another form. It is my hope the Senate will move quickly to adopt this measure and will resist accepting amendments that would threaten its ultimate enactment. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. I am once again humbled by the words of my good friend from West Virginia. There is no man, I think, in history who knows more about the Senate, and loves and serves it better, than the Senator from West Virginia. The honor to be here and serve with him is honor enough for this Senator. I am still humbled by the award I will receive on Saturday night. But I am warmed by the Senator's comments, and thank him for his comments about this honor I will receive. Believe me, I think if there is a Man of Two Centuries, it is the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, just in case there is a session tomorrow, I ask unanimous consent I be excused from any rollcalls until Monday, next Monday morning.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank both leaders for their kind comments about the honor I will receive on Saturday at home. I have been humbled and confused by the decision of those who voted. Having been in our State now for over the last half of the last century, I have known a great many great people who have contributed to our State during the period of the century. For instance, I refer to my first senior partner, E.B. Collins, of Fairbanks, AK, who came to Alaska before the turn of the last century and was a gold miner in Nome. When he was unsuccessful, he walked from Nome to Fairbanks. That is a good 1,500 miles. He read law in an attorney's office, became an attorney, and by 1913 he was named the Speaker of the first territorial House of Representatives. I worked with him and he gave me great advice in the first days when I went to the State. There are so many others who have been so effective and have done so much for the State that I find it hard to accept the honor. I intend to make a speech, of course, about that when I get home on Saturday, and point out the number of people who have done the work for which I get credit. Many of them are right here in this room. We have been, really, very successful in trying to defend the proposition that once Alaska became a State, it should be an equal among equals in our National Government. It has taken many hours on the floor to ask for and receive the support of the Senate to defend the proposition that a new State is entitled to the same benefits, the same prerogatives, as those States that were in the Union ahead of it. I am but the third Senator who has ever served the State of Alaska. My colleague is the fifth. We are unique in the sense we are still a young State. Our State has been a member of the Union only 9 years longer than I have been in the Senate. It is a distinguished privilege to be here. I am certain this award is being given to me because I am a Member of the Senate and because I am alive and others are not. But I do respect those who made the judgment. I question it, but I respect them, and I do thank my colleagues for what they have done today recognizing that.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. The chairman of the Agriculture Committee is correct. Fisheries managers try to ensure that salmon returning to spawn reach their escapement goal, which is the number of spawners needed to return a heathly population of juveniles to the streams and oceans. Historically, managers can accurately estimate how many fish are expected to return based on the lifespan of the salmon and the escapement numbers from previous years. Fisheries managers also track historical trends, which are often linked to long term weather cycles, and their relationship to escapement numbers. The State of Alaska in particular uses in-season management to ensure its pre-season escapement goals. However, occasionally the fish do not return. For example, chum salmon runs in areas of western Alaska were at all time lows in 1997 and 1998. The low chum runs have had a devastating effect on the western Alaska economy. This exactly the type of crisis that could be alleviated by making crop insurance available to salmon fishermen. Fishermen are the farmers of the sea, and they deserve the same protections we afford to our farmers in the inland states.

Mr. STEVENS. My good friend, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, is correct. The State of Alaska has been managing wild salmon since statehood more than 40 years ago. In fact, one of the driving forces behind our statehood movement was to gain management control over our resources, particularly the salmon fisheries. I see my friend, the Senator from Kansas, may have a question on fisheries management.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Kansas for their hard work on this important legislation and for addressing my request.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. tomorrow. Following the recess for the weekly party caucus luncheons, the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 5, the Social Security earnings legislation. There will be approximately 4 hours of debate with three amendments in order to the bill. The majority leader has announced that any necessary votes on those amendments will occur on Tuesday afternoon. However, a vote on final passage is expected to occur on Wednesday morning. During the remainder of this week, the Senate may begin consideration of the crop insurance legislation or any other executive or legislative items cleared for action. As a reminder, Senators can expect votes throughout the week of March 27, including March 31, in anticipation of the consideration of the budget resolution.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, it is with deep regret and personal sorrow that I come to the Senate today to report the death of my good friend Marshall Coyne. He died in his sleep on March 16. He was 89 years old. Marshall became my friend years ago. Actually, it was with former Senator and Ambassador Saxbe that I first met Marshall Coyne. He had served on the symphony board with my wife Ann. The two developed a great friendship. Following her death, he continued to be my friend, and has continued now for many years to be a dear and loyal friend to me and my wife Catherine, our daughter Lily, and our whole family. He was a rare man. First, let me state that in all the time I knew him, he never asked me how I voted, suggested how I should vote, or indicated that he had anything he wanted me to do on this floor. He did ask me for some information once in a while about various things going on in the city, the District, that is. But he was a very different person. We developed such a close friendship that as I chaired Senate delegations going overseas, he would ask me where I was going, and he would show up there. He showed up in Geneva when we were there for the Senate arms control talks with the Soviets--going back that far. He showed up in London when we had the British parliamentary talks with Members of the Senate. And he showed up in Paris when we were there for the Paris Air Show. Marshall was the kind of friend who was always welcome. I never knew any Senator to object to the fact he was there. They all knew he was my friend and that he would come along. We have had such a rare relationship. He had lunch with me every Friday that I was in the District of Columbia, I think, in the last 10 years. He had been to my home either one or two times a month during that whole time when we would be in Washington, DC. He was the kind of friend I think every Senator needs and should have. We fished together. We fished together in Alaska. I remember how surprised he was one time when he saw a bear when we stopped at a stream. He, with my late friend Mike Joy, traveled around Alaska with me many times fishing. We fished off the coast of Costa Rica. We fished in Florida. He discussed his trips with me when I was not able to go. He went to Mongolia once, and he came back very impressed with that place. Of course, our mutual interest was China, where I had served in World War II. He was one of the first Americans to reenter China after President and Mrs. Nixon's historic visit. He personally once a year visited Iceland. Another example of Marshall's interest in international affairs was his support for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a premier public policy institution dedicated to policy analysis on the world's major geographic regions. He was, I think, a friend to many Members of the Congress and to many members of the military. Mr. Coyne organized the Ambassadors' Round Table at his Madison Hotel here in Washington so that new ambassadors to our country got to meet each other socially. He also organized a series of meetings for former Cabinet members and distinguished military leaders who had reached the top of our military structure so they could come together and share their interests and remember old times together. He said to me once: A person really was not your friend unless he really remembered you after he left office. He developed friendships that I think the memories of will last for a long time. It is a difficult thing for me to think of not having my friend in the Senate dining room with me for years to come. But I want the Senate to know that I think this is one man who contributed a great deal to the friendships of our Senate. Oftentimes he had dinners at his home, at my suggestion, to help bring together some of the Members of the Senate and the House, so we might meet together socially and discuss nonbusiness subjects and get to know one another better. I am hopeful that the District will remember that he was a member of the board that controlled the District of Columbia before the District became independent and elected its own Mayor. Marshall served on the Opera Board at the Kennedy Center and he served on the Boards of both Georgetown and George Washington Universities. He was proud to call himself a Mason. He had a collection of rare manuscripts and books. I will be very interested to see what happens to them. He had signatures he collected of almost every well-known politician, President, and Cabinet officer in the history of the United States. He obviously had a very large Lincoln collection, for he was a great admirer of Lincoln. Since I have been Chairman, when one enters the anteroom of the Senate Appropriations Committee, they will see a bust of Lincoln--it is really a reproduction of a bust of Lincoln that Mr. Coyne gave me--so people might understand the importance of Lincoln to the process we all are pursuing here; that is, equal justice for all. I do hope other Members who have known Mr. Coyne will share their knowledge of his activities with us on the floor. But in any event, Madam President, thank you very much for the privilege of addressing the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article from March 17 concerning Mr. Coyne be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 96 introduced earlier today by Senators Sarbanes, Snowe, Daschle, and others.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related thereto be printed in the Record, with no intervening action.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10 a.m. Tuesday, March 21. I further ask consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin, or his designee, 60 minutes; Senator Ashcroft, 15 minutes; Senator Brownback, or his designee, 30 minutes; Senator Thomas, or his designee, 30 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes at this time to congratulate the majority leader, Chairman John McCain, Senator Slade Gorton, Representative Bud Shuster, and everyone in Congress who has worked so hard to produce a conference report on the FAA. Many of my colleagues have discussed the importance of this bill to our national aviation infrastructure, so I will not repeat now their comments. It is my purpose to remark to the Senate how important this bill is to my State of Alaska. Mr. President, 75 percent of Alaska's communities are accessible only by air. We have enormous needs and, frankly, those needs have often taken a back seat to major metropolitan areas of the lower 48. It is my hope this bill will address some of those inequities, and I congratulate my Congressman, Don Young, for his hard work on this bill. We have 71 unlighted airports in Alaska. In an area where we spend half of our year in darkness, those airports are unlighted. One hundred and fifty airports in my State are less than 3,300 feet in length. More than half of our rural airports are without minimal passenger shelters. You reach the airport, get off the airplane, and there is literally nothing there. One hundred and seventy-six public use airports do not have basic instrument approach capability, and 194 locations in Alaska lack adequate communication, navigation, and surveillance. This bill does not address all of those needs, and I hope to work with the Members of the House and Senate on the Appropriations Committee to fill a few of those gaps. This is a classic case in which some congressional earmarking is appropriate because the national administration too often has written off Alaska as a priority in matters relating to aviation. I am pleased my colleagues agreed with my proposal to increase the percentage of airport improvement program funds that flow to airports engaged in cargo operations. This modification will bring additional moneys, almost $6 million, to the Anchorage International Airport, which is now the busiest cargo airport in this Nation--Anchorage, AK. It is also encouraging to see the committee once again included my language to allow the Administrator of the FAA to modify regulations to take into account special circumstances in Alaska. Sometimes rules that appear to make sense in the lower 48 simply do not work in our north country. That is why the conference agreed to exempt Alaska from provisions that bar new landfills within 6 miles of an airport. This provision is literally unworkable in Alaska where most of our remote villages are surrounded by Federal refuges and, despite repeated efforts, we are not even allowed to build a road a mile long because of intervention of an alphabet soup type of Federal agency domination. That may sound strong, but it is literally true. Many of you may have heard I was concerned about a provision in the budget treatment section of the final compromise package on the FAA. That is true, and I would like to briefly discuss it. The practical effect of the provision that the House ultimately agreed to delete from this bill would have been to bar any Senate bill or conference report or budget resolution from being considered that did not slavishly adhere to the legislative structure or levels of funding in this bill. Such a provision amounted to an ultimatum to the Senate that presented an unwarranted intrusion into the legislative process. The provision would have given a small number of House Members the ability to completely derail an appropriations conference report, agreed to by the House and the Senate, on completely procedural grounds. This provision could have had severe and damaging unintended consequences. For example, the House insistence on the across-the-board cuts in last year's wrapup bill would have triggered that provision, and the omnibus bill would not have been in order on the floor of the House. The minority party in the House could have used this provision to oppose a transportation appropriations conference report, a supplemental conference report, or an omnibus bill if the guaranteed levels or program structures were modified in any fashion, pursuant to the waiver provisions contained in the law, even if such modification were made at the request of the leadership or of the authorization committees. The bottom line when considering this particular provision is that it is hard to predict the future. Budget constraints, shifting congressional priorities, administration priorities, and other aviation issues that emerge after enactment of a reauthorization bill often require modification of other legislative provisions. The (C)(3) provision that has been deleted failed to provide for such exigencies, and I am pleased the conferees have deleted it. I hope we will not face that proposal again. Beyond that, the budget treatment in the FAA reauthorization bill is challenging for the Appropriations and Budget Committees, but it is manageable. It will necessitate that the Senate and the House make some choices between discretionary priorities, transportation, and other priorities during the consideration of the budget and the funding bills for the year 2001. Above all, it will require the House and the Senate to agree to a budget at levels that will enable us to keep the mandates of the FAA reauthorization bill. This bill adds between $2.1 and $2.7 billion in aviation spending above the fiscal year 2000 levels. I support that. I support spending as much on aviation as we can afford. I am not unmindful of the pressure that this and other guaranteed spending will place on the budget, the Budget Committee, and the appropriations bills. We will have to all work together on these matters. Once again, I thank the members of the conference and my staff, including Steve Cortese, Wally Burnett, Paul Doerrer, Mitch Rose, and my legislative fellow Dan Elwell, for all of their work on this measure over the past year. I yield the floor. 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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Alaska in introducing this important piece of legislation. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee he is all too aware of the need for equity in our tax system and simplicity in our Tax Code. The first portion of the bill we introduce today would allow fishermen to average income and would not penalize that election with the alternative minimum tax. Up until 1986, individuals, including farmers and fishermen, could elect to average income under section 1301. That choice was no longer available after Congress repealed section 1301 in 1986. Later, in 1997, Congress inserted a new version of section 1301 with a modified form of income averaging for farmers. Section 1301 currently allows farmers engaged in an eligible farming business to average income for tax purposes. This allows farmers to take the fluctuations of their markets, prices and crop conditions into account when calculating income taxes. Fishermen should be afforded the same opportunities as farmers--they are the farmers of the sea and should be treated as such under the Tax Code. A provision similar to this was included in the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 that was vetoed by the President last year. It is not a controversial measure, and its impact on the Treasury is minimal. The Joint Committee on Tax estimated last summer that this provision would cost approximately $5 million over the next ten years. This is a small price to pay to create equity and fairness in our Tax Code and to ensure fishermen receive the same benefits as farmers. While this is one step toward equal treatment for our fishermen, it is an important part of ensuring the long-term sustainability of our fishing industry. The second portion of the bill we introduce today would allow fishermen to establish tax deferred risk management savings accounts to help them through downturns in the market. The Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 included similar language. These new risk management accounts would be used to let fishermen set aside up to 20 percent of their income on a tax deferred basis. The money could be held for up to five years, then it would have to be withdrawn from the individual's account. Once the money is withdrawn from the account, the fishermen would pay tax on the amount that was originally deferred. Any interest earned on the money in the account would be taxed in the year that it was earned. This approach to encouraging fishermen to set some money aside for downturns in the market makes sense. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated last year that allowing fishermen to set aside 20 percent of their income into these tax deferred accounts would cost only $18 million over 10 years. This is a small price to pay to encourage fishermen to be pro-active in planning for downturns rather than having to be reactive when markets collapse or fishing stocks are weak. In previous years we have had to bail out fishing areas that have been hit hard by fishery failures. A recent fishery failure in Alaska, and the impact of that failure on families and communities, is still being felt today. We were forced to allocate $50 million to bail out those fishermen and the local communities. This provision, at a cost of $18 million over ten years, is a far-sighted way to let fishermen play a part in a disaster recovery and preserve the proud self-reliance that marks their industry. I thank my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, for his support of this bill and I encourage all Senators to support these provisions.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Alaska in introducing this important piece of legislation. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee he is all too aware of the need for equity in our tax system and simplicity in our Tax Code. The first portion of the bill we introduce today would allow fishermen to average income and would not penalize that election with the alternative minimum tax. Up until 1986, individuals, including farmers and fishermen, could elect to average income under section 1301. That choice was no longer available after Congress repealed section 1301 in 1986. Later, in 1997, Congress inserted a new version of section 1301 with a modified form of income averaging for farmers. Section 1301 currently allows farmers engaged in an eligible farming business to average income for tax purposes. This allows farmers to take the fluctuations of their markets, prices and crop conditions into account when calculating income taxes. Fishermen should be afforded the same opportunities as farmers--they are the farmers of the sea and should be treated as such under the Tax Code. A provision similar to this was included in the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 that was vetoed by the President last year. It is not a controversial measure, and its impact on the Treasury is minimal. The Joint Committee on Tax estimated last summer that this provision would cost approximately $5 million over the next ten years. This is a small price to pay to create equity and fairness in our Tax Code and to ensure fishermen receive the same benefits as farmers. While this is one step toward equal treatment for our fishermen, it is an important part of ensuring the long-term sustainability of our fishing industry. The second portion of the bill we introduce today would allow fishermen to establish tax deferred risk management savings accounts to help them through downturns in the market. The Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 included similar language. These new risk management accounts would be used to let fishermen set aside up to 20 percent of their income on a tax deferred basis. The money could be held for up to five years, then it would have to be withdrawn from the individual's account. Once the money is withdrawn from the account, the fishermen would pay tax on the amount that was originally deferred. Any interest earned on the money in the account would be taxed in the year that it was earned. This approach to encouraging fishermen to set some money aside for downturns in the market makes sense. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated last year that allowing fishermen to set aside 20 percent of their income into these tax deferred accounts would cost only $18 million over 10 years. This is a small price to pay to encourage fishermen to be pro-active in planning for downturns rather than having to be reactive when markets collapse or fishing stocks are weak. In previous years we have had to bail out fishing areas that have been hit hard by fishery failures. A recent fishery failure in Alaska, and the impact of that failure on families and communities, is still being felt today. We were forced to allocate $50 million to bail out those fishermen and the local communities. This provision, at a cost of $18 million over ten years, is a far-sighted way to let fishermen play a part in a disaster recovery and preserve the proud self-reliance that marks their industry. I thank my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, for his support of this bill and I encourage all Senators to support these provisions.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, later today I will join Senators Ionuye, Warner and Levin in hosting a reception to bid farewell to Joe and Dede Ralston, as General Ralston concludes his second tour as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Happily, this event does not signify General Ralston's retirement, but his advancement to the position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe, in charge of all NATO forces, and all U.S. Forces stationed in Europe. Joe Ralston has pursued a career of firsts, and breakthrough leadership success. His assignment as the first Air Force officer to command NATO is typical, and indicative, of his tremendous talents, and force of personality. Remarkably, Joe Ralston has achieved success in several distinct military disciplines over his career, spanning more than 34 years. Joe Ralton's military career is founded in his experience as a combat and command pilot during the Vietnam war. During two combat tours, in F-105 fighters and F-105 wild weasel jets, Joe honed his warfighting skills. In the 1980's and early 1990's General Ralston played a key role in the technological revolution in air warfare. While many of these programs are still very sensitive, the direct impact of General Ralston's service in technology development and acquisition played a prominent role in our victories in Desert Storm and Kosovo. Moving into more senior leadership positions, General Ralston contributed to reorganization of the Air Force during his tenure as commander of the 11th Air Force, Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff of Plans and Operations and Commander of the Air Combat Command. Most recently, General Ralston served with great distinction as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Over these past four years, General Ralston has left and indelible mark on our nation's military, now, and for many years ahead. An architect of the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, General Ralston helped shape the force structure and training doctrine now followed by our Nation's Armed Forces. The modernization plan presented in the QDR has moved us forward on recaptilizing our air and naval forces, and achieving Secretary Cohen's goal of $60 billion for procurement for FY 2001. These accomplishments proceeded during a period of overseas military activity across the globe unmatched since the end of the Second World War. My colleagues here recognize that I have not always supported this administration's policies in the deployment of U.S. Forces overseas. Regardless of how and why those deployments commenced, the performance and success of the U.S. military in these assignments reflects the leadership that General Ralston and all the Joint Chiefs have provided. Looking ahead, to the continued opportunity for service General Ralston has accepted in moving to the Supreme Allied Commander job, this will be his toughest challenge. General Ralston proceeds to Brussels following another great American Commander, General Wes Clark. Having visited General Clark many times at his headquarters, and in the Balkans, there is no question that he provided the glue that held the alliance together in Bosnia and Kosovo. General Clark did so facing limitations unlike those encountered by any previous alliance commander. He merits our accolades. General Ralston succeeds General Clark in an era where our allies must decide the nature of their military forces in the future, and the role of Europe, compared to NATO, in future security matters. To me, there is no officer in the U.S. military today better prepared, by experience or temperament, to accept this challenge. While that is a strong claim, I make this comment to the Senate based on my personal experience in watching General Ralston command. Catherine and I have known Joe and Dede Ralston since 1992, when they arrived in Alaska to take on the responsibility of commanding all U.S. military forces in my State. Joe immediately established himself as not just a military commander, but a real Alaskan. In fact, as Joe and Dede saw the close of this assignment as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs approaching, they made plans to establish a home in Alaska--coming home as neighbors. While disappointed that we cannot look forward to their imminent return to Alaska, I join all Alaskans in congratulating General Ralston on the successful conclusion of his tenure as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and wishing him well as he proceeds to this next position of military and diplomatic responsibility. I am confident that I can also speak for my colleagues here in the Senate in that wish, and commitment to work with General Ralston to meet the needs of our own military forces in Europe, and foster continued close ties with NATO. Let me also take one moment to welcome General Ralston's successor as Vice Chairman, General Dick Myers. Senator Inouye and I enjoyed a close relationship with General Myers during his tenure as commander of the Pacific Air Forces, which included units in our States of Alaska and Hawaii. Most recently, General Myers served as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Space Command. I know he will bring the same skills and judgment to this position that he demonstrated in these earlier assignments. All Senators are invited to the reception at 5 p.m. this afternoon in S-128, in honor of the conclusion of General Ralston's tenure as Vice Chairman. Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to take just a few minutes to express why so many of us are sad to see Joe and Dede leave Washington, but proud of their service, and the new challenges they will assume on behalf of our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to have been here as Senator Bennett presented his report. He does deserve the credit he has rightly claimed, and his committee has done its work very well. I am most pleased to be able to congratulate him for a job well done.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want the Record to show that I ask unanimous consent to be excused from voting on Thursday and Friday of this week. I am leaving for the West Coast for a matter of urgent personal concern in connection with the airline crash, and I will not be here to vote. I want the Record to show why I am not here.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am here because I am deeply saddened to report to the Senate a very serious loss, as far as the country is concerned and a real sad loss for myself personally. I was saddened last night when my wife and I received a call about the loss of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 on a flight from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, to San Francisco. Eighty-eight people were on board that plane, many of them apparently employees or relatives or friends of employees of that airline. While the search continues, we have been told now that no survivors have been found. My thoughts and prayers and I hope all of our thoughts and prayers are with the families of these people who have perished. Among those on the plane were at least five Alaskans. We think there were more. One was one of my very close and dear friends, Morris Thompson--we called him Morrie--his wife Thelma and their daughter Cheryl. Morrie Thompson has been a respected leader of the Native community of our State and a businessman. Just last fall, he retired as the chief executive officer of Doyon Limited, which is one of 12 regional corporations for our Alaska Native people. Because of Senate business, I was unable to attend that retirement dinner in Fairbanks, but my granddaughter Sara went as my representative. Morrie had a tremendous background. He was not only a great leader for the Native people of Alaska, but he was a leader in his own right nationally. He was a member of the University of Alaska's Board of Regents. He served as president of the Alaska Federation of Natives. During the Nixon administration, he was the Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs for our Nation in Washington, DC, and a special assistant to the Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior. He was president of the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce and in 1997 was named Business Leader of the Year by the University of Alaska. He is going to be remembered for his work on the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, landmark legislation in 1971, which was a tremendous economic boost for our Native people. His greatest legacy will be among the young people of our State who have benefited from Morris Thompson's fellowship program and the Doyon Foundation, which he created to subsidize tuition for Native students in Alaska. My heart goes out to the Thompsons' surviving daughters, Nicole and Allison, and to all the members of their family. Morrie has not just been a political friend or a business friend. We have joined one another in each other's homes for dinner and raised our children together in a way. There are many families, I am sure, mourning over this terrible tragedy. Also on that plane was the son of a former State legislator, Margaret Branson. Her son Malcolm and his fiancee Janice Stokes, both of Ketchikan, were returning from a vacation in Mexico. I have this report for the Senate. I have been in touch with Jim Hall of the National Transportation Safety Board and the Secretary of Transportation, Secretary Slater. It is my intention to go to California on Thursday to meet with NTSB officials in Oxnard and the Coast Guard officials in Port Hueneme, CA, concerning the crash. I say to the Senate that Alaska Airlines has an exemplary safety record. In my State, their pilots and planes fly in the most challenging terrain and weather of our whole Nation, if not the world. This is a great tragedy for that small airline and for our State. My thoughts are with those people who are involved in trying to make certain the airline continues and their personal families of that airline who are affected by this tragedy are cared for as well as the relatives of people who have lost their lives. I thank my colleagues very much for their courtesy in allowing me to make this report to the Senate.