Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have been trying for 25 years to get a vote on ANWR. I fully intend to offer ANWR as an amendment in the second degree to the Senator's amendment, and then I want to help him get a vote. I want to help him get a vote right now. That is exactly what I have been waiting to do for 25 years. So I serve notice, I will offer an amendment in the second degree, the ANWR bill. I do hope we will vote on it today.

Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, will that bar my offering of my amendment on ANWR? Is the amendment still subject to an amendment in the second degree?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, this does not bar an amendment in the second degree; is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS. I object.

Mr. STEVENS. I object.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I repeat my parliamentary inquiry. Does the Senator's request----

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Call Home Act of 2006 would require the Federal Communications Commission to take such actions as may be necessary to reduce telephone rates for Armed Forces personnel deployed overseas, including the waiver of government fees, assessments, or other costs. In seeking to reduce phone rates, the legislation would require the FCC to evaluate and analyze the costs of calls to and from official duty stations including vessels whether in port or under way; evaluate methods of reducing rates including deployment of new technology such as Voice over Internet protocol, VOIP, or other Internet protocol technology; encourage phone companies to adopt flexible billing procedures and policies call to and from Armed Forces personnel; and seek agreements with foreign governments to reduce international surcharges on phone calls. The legislation would, however, prohibit the FCC from regulating rates in order to carry out the Call Home Act's requirements. The Call Home Act of 2006 would replace similar legislation from 1992 that limited the FCC's efforts to reduce rates to specific countries. The Call Home Act would expand the FCC's efforts to benefit troops wherever they are deployed in support of the global war on terrorism. We have received a letter of support from the Military Coalition, which represents 36 military and veterans groups. We have also received letters of support from individual members of that coalition and others urging Congress to enact this legislation: Veterans of Foreign Wars; Association of the United States Army; Enlisted Association of the National Guard; Military Officers Association of America; American Legion; Naval Reserve Association; Naval Enlisted Reserve Association; Gold Star Wives of America; and Air Force Sergeants Association. The Veterans of Foreign Wars' letter of support says that calls home are ``lifeline'' for the brave men and women stationed abroad. I urge you to vote for this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent letters in support of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Call Home Act of 2006 would require the Federal Communications Commission to take such actions as may be necessary to reduce telephone rates for Armed Forces personnel deployed overseas, including the waiver of government fees, assessments, or other costs. In seeking to reduce phone rates, the legislation would require the FCC to evaluate and analyze the costs of calls to and from official duty stations including vessels whether in port or under way; evaluate methods of reducing rates including deployment of new technology such as Voice over Internet protocol, VOIP, or other Internet protocol technology; encourage phone companies to adopt flexible billing procedures and policies call to and from Armed Forces personnel; and seek agreements with foreign governments to reduce international surcharges on phone calls. The legislation would, however, prohibit the FCC from regulating rates in order to carry out the Call Home Act's requirements. The Call Home Act of 2006 would replace similar legislation from 1992 that limited the FCC's efforts to reduce rates to specific countries. The Call Home Act would expand the FCC's efforts to benefit troops wherever they are deployed in support of the global war on terrorism. We have received a letter of support from the Military Coalition, which represents 36 military and veterans groups. We have also received letters of support from individual members of that coalition and others urging Congress to enact this legislation: Veterans of Foreign Wars; Association of the United States Army; Enlisted Association of the National Guard; Military Officers Association of America; American Legion; Naval Reserve Association; Naval Enlisted Reserve Association; Gold Star Wives of America; and Air Force Sergeants Association. The Veterans of Foreign Wars' letter of support says that calls home are ``lifeline'' for the brave men and women stationed abroad. I urge you to vote for this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent letters in support of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I asked Senator Leahy to take my place in the chair because I want to show that a Republican agrees with him, in part. I do support the statements made by the Senator from Vermont concerning the derogatory statements that may have been made concerning any racial connections with this bill. However, I cannot support cloture on the bill because it still contains the provisions with regard to felons. The amendment we tried to vote on the other day, I am informed, is probably not possible to consider if we vote cloture on this bill at this time. So I regret that I cannot support cloture. I stated that I would vote for cloture on the bill as it came from the Judiciary Committee. Under the circumstances, once it was discovered, with the provisions with regard to prior convictions for felonies, I supported that amendment the other day by voting not to table it. I believe that amendment should be considered before we vote cloture on this bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be excused from voting until the first vote that occurs on April 24.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join Senator Mikulski in cosponsoring her amendment because it is of great importance to the State of Alaska. Seasonal workers are vital to our Nation's economy. Without the services these workers provide, many of our businesses would cease to operate. These visas are particularly important to the seafood and hospitality industries. Currently, the United States caps H-2B visas at 66,000 per year. Last year, Congress adopted the ``Save Our Small Businesses Act,'' which allocates the seasonal visas more equitably between the winter and summer months. It also exempts certain returning Seasonal Workers from the cap, making more visas available to new workers. Prior to the act's adoption, the H-2B visa cap was often met during the winter months, well before the summer season, resulting in a lack of available visas for much needed summer workers in the seafood and hospitality industry. Alaska's salmon industry is especially vulnerable when there are not enough temporary seasonal visas for the summer months. Salmon roe is a product that must be overseen by Japanese ``Supervisor Technicians'' who grade the salmon roe prior to sale to Japanese consumers. Due to the particular grading and processing demands of the roe, without the technicians and the special certification, the Japanese will not buy the Alaskan roe. In some cases the value of the roe is greater than the flesh of the fish, so you can imagine how important it is to the salmon industry to get these technicians and certifications each year. Senator Mikulski's amendment simply extends to 2009 the ``Save Our Small Businesses Act.'' Securing a reasonable number of visas for seasonal industries is absolutely necessary. I urge the Senate to vote in favor of this amendment. Amendment No. 3193, as Modified, to Amendment No. 3192

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about this important amendment on the Western Hemisphere travel initiative. The Western Hemisphere travel initiative was authorized in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 based on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. It mandates that the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, implement a new documentation program validating citizenship by January 1, 2008. Once executed, all U.S. citizens crossing the Canadian or Mexican Border into the United States will be required to carry a passport or other accepted documentation, such as a passcard, in order to verify their citizenship. The DHS and the State Department are in the process of promulgating rules to implement this initiative and are considering executing the air and sea portion of this initiative by next January. While the need to tighten security at our borders is an important undertaking, I am concerned that in their haste to accomplish this mission pursuant to a congressionally mandated timeline, DHS and the State Department may be overlooking serious concerns about the implementation of this initiative raised by border States and Canada. They are evaluating two options in order to identify citizenship. The first would require a person entering the United States to present a passport. However, passports are expensive and require weeks to acquire. The second alternative is the issuance of a passcard, which would be slightly cheaper but would still require a background check and could only be used for travel between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Each of these options assumes that DHS and the State Department are able to process the flood of requests for passports and passcards. There is no reasonable way they could get all of these requests processed by the deadline, thereby adversely affecting travel and business for millions. Take for example a military family reassigned from the lower 48 to Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, who has to drive from the lower 48 through Canada with all of their belongings. This family may not have the opportunity or funds to acquire passport before traveling. Alaska is the only State in the Nation that you have to pass through a foreign country to get to by land. I have a lot of concerns about how this initiative will affect travel. Each year, a large number of people travel to Alaska from the lower 48 on the Alaska-Canada Highway, also known as the Al-Can. Each summer, we routinely see large numbers of RV's on the road with license plates from New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, California, everywhere. They are now going to need this card or a passport to get to another State. I worry about how that will affect our tourism, as well as the opportunity for Americans to visit one of the most beautiful places in this country. These are just some of the situations which need to be considered before implementing this plan. I believe that DHS and the State Department are operating under an unrealistic time frame imposed by the act. We need to ensure that they have enough time to properly test and implement the system, which includes biometrics and new equipment for the borders, to ensure its effectiveness. We share a special relationship with our friends in Canada, and I would hate to see a hastily imposed initiative negatively affect movement in and out of Canada, or negatively affect our relationship with our neighbors. The deadline Congress gave DHS is fast approaching, and with little progress made so far. I think we need to pass this amendment to give DHS more time. There is just too much at stake to rush this, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. How much time is left?

Mr. STEVENS. Ten minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to express my concerns regarding the creation of the Office of Public Integrity. We discussed this proposal in committee, and I joined a bipartisan group of Senators in defeating it, and rightly so. The proposed Office of Public Integrity would duplicate the efforts of the Senate Ethics Committee. Our Ethics Committee was established pursuant to the Constitution, which states each body of Congress must make its own rules. This office would, in effect, replace--or duplicate--the current rule of the Senate. The implication the sponsors here make is that in order to restore public confidence, we have to create something new. I do not think we should replace the Senate Ethics Committee, nor do I think we should imply that our current system is not working. I happen to have been the target of complaints to the Ethics Committee, and I can tell you it has a qualified staff headed by a very capable chairman and ranking member who have the public's trust. As a matter of fact, I once chaired this committee, and believe me, it is a difficult and thankless job, but one Chairman Voinovich is doing very well. If the Ethics Committee process is broken, we should fix, it. We should not create another layer of bureaucratic red tape and ask American taxpayers to pay $2 million a year to fund it. What's more, I am concerned that the Office of Public Integrity could be used as a partisan, political tool. The climate in Washington today is the most partisan I have experienced in my 37 years in the Senate, and we should think carefully about offering up another tool for partisan critics of either party to abuse. Under this proposal, accusations don't have to be verified, those making accusations are not under oath. This proposal will add another layer to what is already a very expensive process. Who will pay those costs? A Senator could face multiple accusations presented to this OPI--and the Senate Ethics Committee. The costs of legal assistance in such instances will be doubled. In my judgment, this proposal points us in the wrong direction, and it's a slap in the face to Chairman Voinovich and Senator Johnson, and all past chairmen for that matter. I have some concern about this amendment. I can state, as President pro tempore of the Senate, I would have a series of duties under this amendment subject to being told exactly what to do by the two leaders of the Senate. However, as I view this amendment, it does not create an entity that makes any decisions. I think the Senator from South Dakota is absolutely correct. The impact of this amendment would be that the Director of this office would become the investigatory arm of the Senate Ethics Committee. As a matter of fact, once the Director gets a complaint, he then has to make recommendations to the Senate Ethics Committee. The Senate Ethics Committee either approves or denies the recommendation. In terms of the investigation concept, the complaint with the Office of Public Integrity is not made under oath, it is not made under normal procedures. I agree with the Senator from South Dakota, I don't know how the Senate has the authority to create an independent body that is spending taxpayers' money that has the job of duplicating the investigatory arm in the Senate Ethics Committee. We have a Senate Ethics Committee investigating group, and it does a very good job. I happen to have been chairman of the Ethics Committee in the past, and I have also have been the subject of investigation by the Ethics Committee. I can assure my colleagues they do a good job. I can also assure my colleagues that it costs a considerable amount of money to comply with the inquiries of an ethics complaint. All this does is set up another entity that also will cause more attorney's fees and more time of the Senator to deal with the problem of someone having presented a complaint against him. If the Director decides to dismiss a complaint, it goes back to the Senate Ethics Committee. They decide whether it is frivolous. The Director doesn't make that decision. Again, it is back to the committee. I don't understand the Senator from Arizona saying this is supposed to take the workload off the Senate Ethics Committee. To the contrary. I agree with the assertion that has been made that I don't know of any Senator who would serve the Ethics Committee under this rule. I certainly would not. Whenever the Director determines there are sufficient grounds to conduct an investigation, he notifies the Senate Committee on Ethics, and the committee may overrule that. In other words, there is nothing this Director does without going back to the Ethics Committee and burdening the Ethics Committee. Under current Senate rules, the Ethics Committee can continue to investigate complaints presented to it. They have the procedures and they have the rules. They would have to follow them if the complaint was directed to that committee. There is nothing in here saying you can only present a complaint to the Director of this Office of Public Integrity. If the Director determines there is cause to proceed further, what does he do? He goes back to the Senate Ethics Committee and says that is his determination. The Ethics Committee then has the right to vote on that. I don't know how we are restoring public confidence in the system if we create an investigatory arm that comes back to the Senate Ethics Committee every time it wants to do something. They are the people who make the decisions now, and the process is working. I don't understand because of some complaints from public interest groups that the process is not working, mainly because--I applaud the initiative of Senator Voinovich and Senator Johnson and the decision by the committee to publish a report. I think that is a good one. That is a complaint that was heard back in the days when I was chairman of the committee. We, by nature, kept those decisions within the Senate, except when there was a final decision made. I was here when one Senator was censored and one other expelled from the Senate because of a Senate Ethics Committee investigation. Whatever decision is made, whether the office is going to refer something to the Department of Justice, what do they do? The Director comes back to the committee and tells them the Director thinks it should be referred to the Department of Justice, and then the Senate committee votes on whether it should go to the Department of Justice. I tell the Senate, from my point of view, the Constitution gave us not only the right but the duty to create our own rules, and the rules we have--and they are very important--are the rules concerning our ethics. They are enforced internally by the Senate itself. The decisions made under this amendment would be no different than right now. The final decision will be made by the Senate Ethics Committee. All this really does is find a way to further publicize that complaints have been made. I know it says if there is a frivolous complaint made, then this Director can say you cannot present the complaint any longer to the Office of Public Integrity. There is nothing barring them from complaining to the Senate Ethics Committee again. The Senate rules are there. Anybody can file a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee, and they are reviewed by very fine staff. I have to tell my colleagues, if we take the action to create something in the public--call it Office of Public Integrity--and it has no teeth, how have we restored confidence in the system? This is not a way to restore confidence in the system. The way to restore confidence in the system is for Senators to stop repeating rumors about the Senate, to stand up and say: The Senate has integrity and the Senate is doing its job. The Senators who serve on this Ethics Committee--and believe me, I remember trying to get someone to take my place. It took a long time to find someone to take my place because we had just gone through a long investigation of a Senator, and it was really a bitter period of time for the Senate Ethics Committee. No one wanted to serve on it anymore. This is going to present a situation where no one will serve on this committee. Why would they do it? They have someone, a director, who comes to them and tells them the director thinks some Senator has done something wrong. The Senate votes. Then what do they do? If he disagrees, then they publish it. What good does that do? The problem is the integrity of the rules. And I think, serving on both this committee--and I have been the chairman of this committee also, and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--these are heavy burdens, to carry out these responsibilities. The Senate Ethics Committee is a heavy burden. It takes more time than any Senator who hasn't served on the committee can possibly determine. Talk about reading. You have to read depositions, go through files; enormous time is put into this. What are we going to do now if we create this Office of Public Integrity? Someone else is going to do the investigations and bring it to the committee and say: What do you think about this? Guess what. In the final analysis, there is one section that says, in any event, the committee will comply with the Senate rules. So the whole body of Senate rules and the precedent behind Senate rules are still in place, but we create a new Office of Public Integrity on top of it to start the investigations. The investigatory process of the Senate Ethics Committee is a very unique one, and I urge the Senators to at some time read that rule and read the precedents under that rule which are set forth in the publication the Senate Ethics Committee has made. I agree we have to restore public confidence, but this is one aspect that destroys public confidence because it says you cannot have confidence in the investigatory side of the ethics process. There is nothing that says you can't have confidence in the committee itself because every final decision in this process is still made by the Senate Ethics Committee. That, to me, is not an improvement at all of the process. Furthermore, we ought to take into account the situation that exists right here in Washington, DC, now. In the 37 years I have been in the Senate, I have never seen such partisan people outside of the Senate on both sides accusing Members of the Senate. It is part of the political process now, it is not part of the ethics process. We have people accusing us almost daily of having done something wrong and publishing it through blogs and all that. I think we should be very careful in setting up another tool for these bloggers and these people to use to create more news, to create more charges against the Senate. So I urge the Senate to vote against this amendment and keep confidence in our own rules and our own procedure. It is my hope the Senate will follow the example of the Majority of the Rules Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee. We will closely scrutinize this and other amendments before us. I cannot support an amendment that either replaces the Senate Ethics Committee or adds another layer to our already expensive and time- consuming process. I urge the Senate to defeat this provision.

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, having arrived late Saturday night from Hawaii where we attended the memorial services for Senator Inouye's late wife Maggie, my wife Catherine and I were deeply saddened the next morning to learn that Erma Ora James Byrd had passed away Saturday night. I come to offer our sincere condolences to our good friend Senator Byrd and his family. As the leader has said, Senator Byrd and Erma were married at the age of 19. In their nearly 69 years of marriage, Erma was a pillar of strength to our friend. She stood by him as he finished high school and college and attended American University Law School. She was at his side every moment and milestone in his 60 years of public service. As he has often told us, it was Erma who made sure he was polished and well pressed before he left for the Capitol every morning. She took great pride in the work he did for their State and for our Nation. Erma has been part of our Senate family since the Senator was elected to this body in 1958. Those of us who have served with the Senator have come to know her and love her, and we will deeply miss her. She was a true southern lady in every sense--intelligent, graceful, and known for her southern hospitality. As Senator Byrd has often mentioned, she never sought the limelight, choosing instead to keep her focus on their family and their home. Catherine and I were privileged to travel with Erma and Senator Byrd over the years, and my family has always enjoyed being with them. We have looked forward to celebrating Erma's birthday each year. Her annual birthday lunch on Capitol Hill has always included lots of beautiful flowers which Erma loved. We have also been the recipient of Senator Byrd's good wishes for our family, particularly our children over the years. I remember distinctly the comment that Senator Byrd made on the floor when our first grandchild was born, and he has been very kind to our last child, Lily, who has grown up and known Senator Byrd as one of her ``uncles,'' so to speak. Catherine remembers the many hours Erma spent sewing and knitting on Tuesday mornings for the Senate wives' Red Cross projects. We will not forget how gracious and generous she was when she hosted Members of the Senate and the British Parliament in their home State of West Virginia some years ago. It was a lovely evening up on the mountaintop. Those memories will stay with us forever. Erma was not only a great partner to Senator Byrd in life, she was a wonderful mother to their two daughters. Senator Frist has spoken extensively on them. But anyone who wants to understand the depth of the Senator's love for Erma should read the speeches he has come to the floor to deliver each Mother's Day. In his Mother's Day address in 1997, he said this: I could not have put in the countless hours required by my office without [Erma's] extreme patience and forbearance, understanding and good humor and support. Erma is the epitome of traditional family values, and my pride in the accomplishments of my daughters and their children is a clear reflection of the values and lessons they learned from their mother and their grandmother. Mr. President, West Virginia has lost a beloved daughter, and the Senate has lost a dear friend. I think she may have been the longest serving wife of a Senator. Catherine and I extend our deepest sympathies to Senator Byrd, his family, and all who knew and loved Erma. We are deeply saddened by this news.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on vote No. 62, I am recorded as ``yea.'' I intended to vote ``nay.'' I ask unanimous consent to change my vote. It will not change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, over 100 years ago, our country criminalized slavery with the 13th amendment to the U.S. constitution. Yet, thousands of people in our country still live a life of slavery and forced prostitution. According to the State Department, up to 800,000 people worldwide are trafficked across borders each year. As many as 17,000 persons are believed to be trafficked in the United States annually. The majority of these victims are women and children. Most of them are trafficked into commercial sexual exploitation. Human trafficking is a highly profitable and dangerous business. It generates an estimated $9.5 billion annually and is closely connected to organized crime. Human trafficking operations have been linked to money-laundering, drug-trafficking, document forgery, and the funding of terrorist activities. Those involved in human trafficking prey on the most vulnerable in our society. They seek out those living in poverty and those who have not had access to a good education. Human traffickers hold their victims against their will and force them into slavery or the sex industry, where they are threatened and often physically or sexually abused. The State Department is working with other nations to combat this problem internationally, and we must do more here at home. Those involved in human trafficking should face severe criminal penalties. It is my hope that such penalties will discourage this type of activity. Our country is a beacon of freedom for the world, and the idea that thousands of people a year are enslaved right in our own backyard sickens me. This must be stopped. In the past, Congress has passed laws increasing the penalties for human trafficking. I urge my colleagues to join me in increasing these penalties once again. This bill makes the trafficking of humans a capital offense. It not only holds those who lure men, women, and children into a life of slavery and prostitution responsible; it also punishes those involved in the transport or purchase of these victims. This bill gives our courts the tools they need to curb this ongoing epidemic. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, over 100 years ago, our country criminalized slavery with the 13th amendment to the U.S. constitution. Yet, thousands of people in our country still live a life of slavery and forced prostitution. According to the State Department, up to 800,000 people worldwide are trafficked across borders each year. As many as 17,000 persons are believed to be trafficked in the United States annually. The majority of these victims are women and children. Most of them are trafficked into commercial sexual exploitation. Human trafficking is a highly profitable and dangerous business. It generates an estimated $9.5 billion annually and is closely connected to organized crime. Human trafficking operations have been linked to money-laundering, drug-trafficking, document forgery, and the funding of terrorist activities. Those involved in human trafficking prey on the most vulnerable in our society. They seek out those living in poverty and those who have not had access to a good education. Human traffickers hold their victims against their will and force them into slavery or the sex industry, where they are threatened and often physically or sexually abused. The State Department is working with other nations to combat this problem internationally, and we must do more here at home. Those involved in human trafficking should face severe criminal penalties. It is my hope that such penalties will discourage this type of activity. Our country is a beacon of freedom for the world, and the idea that thousands of people a year are enslaved right in our own backyard sickens me. This must be stopped. In the past, Congress has passed laws increasing the penalties for human trafficking. I urge my colleagues to join me in increasing these penalties once again. This bill makes the trafficking of humans a capital offense. It not only holds those who lure men, women, and children into a life of slavery and prostitution responsible; it also punishes those involved in the transport or purchase of these victims. This bill gives our courts the tools they need to curb this ongoing epidemic. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, words cannot express the sadness that my wife, Catherine and I felt when we learned Maggie Inouye had passed away. Maggie was truly Dan's partner in life. Their courtship and marriage was a love story for the ages. As so many of us did during World War II, Dan put his education on hold to serve his country. When he met Maggie, Dan was finishing his undergraduate degree at the University of Hawaii. He knew instantly he wanted to marry her. On their second date, they were engaged. From that point on, Maggie was a constant source of support and friendship for Dan. She had a gift for teaching and a way with words. Maggie worked as a university speech instructor while Dan was finishing college. Many have praised Dan's speeches on the Senate floor, but few know Maggie had a hand in our good friend's eloquence. As Frank Fasi, the former mayor of Honolulu, once said, ``If anyone was responsible, she was responsible for [Dan's] wonderful oratory.'' When Dan decided to go into politics, Maggie supported him, listened to him, and campaigned for him. When Dan was elected to the House of Representatives in 1959, Maggie came to Washington with him to help serve the people of Hawaii. It could not have been easy to leave her family and friends in Hawaii behind, but Maggie was a devoted wife--and in her own, quiet way, a devoted public servant. In his autobiography, Dan tells the story of the day he was elected to the Senate. It was Election Day in 1962, and Dan and Maggie had gone to the polls. As they walked toward the voting booth Dan asked Maggie, ``How do you think you'll like being a Senator's lady?'' Maggie looked at Dan and said, ``Being Dan Inouye's lady is what's important. The rest is just extra.'' That story really tells you who Maggie Inouye was. She was an elegant woman. Her love for Dan was absolute, and she was completely devoted to him. Maggie lived her life with great dignity, grace, and optimism. It was these qualities that drew Dan to her 58 years ago. Even illness could not dampen her spirit. Catherine and I extend our deepest sympathies to Dan, their son Kenny and his wife Jessica, and Maggie's five sisters. Maggie will be sorely missed by all who knew her. As everyone can tell, I too have a mentor in my wife Catherine. Dr. Lindsey Hayes helped me prepare these remarks. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Stabenow amendment would pencil in $5 billion for interoperable radio equipment into the budget resolution but provides no money for the first responders. But when the junior Senator from Michigan has been given opportunity to vote for real money for police and firefighters, she has repeatedly voted no. Not only has she voted no, she actively worked to kill funding for the first responders. The Senate budget reconciliation bill last year included $1 billion in hard dollars for grants to States and local governments for new interoperable radio equipment. Michigan would have received a portion of that money for its police and firefighters, but the Senator from Michigan voted no. The conference report on the budget reconciliation measure dedicated $1 billion for spectrum auction proceeds for interoperable equipment for first responders. Again, the Senator from Michigan voted no. Fortunately, she lost that vote. The bill with $1 billion was signed into law, and money is now being made available for important grants. When the Defense appropriations conference report was considered last December, I added another $1 billion for interoperable communications equipment. That was long after Hurricane Katrina had revealed to all of us the importance of communications equipment in a disaster. The measure included another $1 billion for grants to high-risk cities, such as Detroit. The Senator from Michigan helped filibuster that bill, and then she supported efforts to strip money out of the measure and led the charge against those funds and was successful in deleting the money. You can't have it both ways. I oppose the Stabenow amendment.