Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to introduce a bill, which seeks to honor Congress' commitment to our Vietnam Veterans. Joining me in sponsoring this legislation is Senator Hagel, a Vietnam veteran himself. On November 5, 2003 this body passed the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center Act by unanimous consent. That bill authorized the construction of a center to educate the nearly 4 million visitors annually to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. This center will be an important resource for current and future generations, enabling them to have a better understanding of the Vietnam War and to pay tribute to the brave Americans who answered the call to duty. Unfortunately, the Visitor Center project has stalled due to bureaucratic delays. This bill would create a 30-day deadline following its enactment for the approval of the Visitor Center. We owe it to the Vietnam Veterans, and to the Wall's future visitors to follow through with this project. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to introduce a bill, which seeks to honor Congress' commitment to our Vietnam Veterans. Joining me in sponsoring this legislation is Senator Hagel, a Vietnam veteran himself. On November 5, 2003 this body passed the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center Act by unanimous consent. That bill authorized the construction of a center to educate the nearly 4 million visitors annually to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. This center will be an important resource for current and future generations, enabling them to have a better understanding of the Vietnam War and to pay tribute to the brave Americans who answered the call to duty. Unfortunately, the Visitor Center project has stalled due to bureaucratic delays. This bill would create a 30-day deadline following its enactment for the approval of the Visitor Center. We owe it to the Vietnam Veterans, and to the Wall's future visitors to follow through with this project. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3007

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it has already been announced that Senator Inouye's wife Maggie has passed away. I ask unanimous consent that the statement made by my great friend about his wife be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to ask a request of the joint leadership. Last year, I introduced S. 1977 to repeal a provision of the 1977 reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. My bill was designed to address the concerns on the west coast about the impact of high energy prices on their economies, their businesses, and their consumers. Upon its introduction, S. 1977 was immediately met with press releases condemning it. I believe the purpose of my legislation was deliberately misinterpreted. By repealing this provision, this bill would ensure that the Cherry Point refinery in the State of Washington could maintain its current capacity. The Cherry Point refinery processes 225,000 barrels of crude oil per day. About 60 percent of the crude oil processed at the refinery comes from my State of Alaska, and 70 percent of its refined product is consumed by businesses, vehicles, and industries located in Washington State. S. 1977 deals solely with the construction or expansion of marine terminals and docks in Puget Sound specifically at Cherry Point. It has nothing to do with the number or size of tankers in Puget Sound. The Coast Guard controls that through regulation. The existing provision of law under consideration limits the expansion of docks which is vital to the area's economy. If this provision is enforced, it will eventually reduce crude oil delivery at the Cherry Point refinery by about 10 percent, reducing fuel capacity for the entire region by about 704,000 gallons per day of refined product. My intention on introducing this legislation was to ensure stable supplies of fuel for the Pacific Northwest at the existing capacity. It would not have increased capacity at all. Some have litigated this issue in the press, politicized this issue, and leveraged it for personal political publicity. Some Washingtonians have appealed to me because they don't like to see a conflict between our State and their State. They contacted me privately and sought to work this out. In particular, one letter convinced me that despite my good intentions, the bill may not be the best policy for the people of Washington right now. But they contacted me. Because of my private consultation with the author of the letter, which I do appreciate very much, I have come to the floor to ask that the joint leadership institute procedures to bring about the permanent postponement of this legislation and indicate we will never take it up. It is my understanding that this is the only procedure available as it is not possible for me to ask to withdraw it. I have never, in my 38 years in the Senate, asked to pull legislation or have any bill I introduced be permanently postponed. But that is my intention now. For years, I have fought for Alaska's right to determine our State's future and to develop our own energy resources, particularly in the Alaska Coastal Plain. I defer to this policy now, and I believe the people of Washington will have to make this decision. It is a decision that will have to be made. But based on the private conversations and the letter I mentioned, I yield to the concerns of Washingtonians on this legislation. I still believe S. 1977 is the right policy, but I respect the rights of those living in Washington State to make the decision as to when that policy should be pursued. Consistent with my personal philosophy, again I ask that the leadership find a way to permanently postpone consideration of S. 1977. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, our country needs additional funding for LIHEAP. Temperatures in rural Alaska have reached 62 below zero. These temperatures have frozen heating systems and water and sewer lines in many of our villages. Alaskans are struggling this winter and paying over $5 per gallon to heat their homes. In fact, the mayor of a North Slope community told me that at one point, a village paid $8 per gallon. While the home heating picture is not as bleak in other parts of our country, all Americans are feeling the effects of high energy prices. In December, I tried to address this situation by including emergency LIHEAP funding in the Defense Appropriations Bill. Our bill created a new revenue stream by authorizing oil and gas development in the Coastal Plain of ANWR--and used this revenue to provide funding for several emergencies. Our bill included $2 billion for LIHEAP and funding for the hurricane victims, first responders, and farmers. The ANWR provision would have created a long-term, dedicated funding stream for home energy assistance. Most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle successfully filibustered consideration of this package under the guise of a Rule XXVIII violation. They then noted to remove the ANWR provision and the funds it provided from the bill, including emergency funding for LIHEAP. It was a sad display of good policy dying a quick death at the hands of partisan politics. It was a particularly sad day for the people this funding was designed to help. Despite this, Americans still need heating assistance this winter. I hoped the Senate would put partisan politics aside and create a long- term funding stream for LIHEAP in December. I believe that would have been the best solution. The measure before us today is the only other solution available, and I urge my colleagues to pass emergency LIHEAP assistance.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to commend Kenneth Mead's service as inspector general of the Department of Transportation. I am joined by Commerce Committee Cochairman Senator Inouye and committee members Senators Burns, McCain, Rockefeller, Lott, Lautenberg, Sununu, Pryor, and Bill Nelson. On February 11, 2006, Mr. Mead announced his retirement as the inspector general of the Department of Transportation after nearly 9 years of service in that position. In those 9 years of service, Mr. Mead and his staff conducted countless investigations in an independent, impartial, and professional manner regarding numerous issues affecting the Department. Mr. Mead appeared before the committee as a witness on several occasions throughout his tenure, and the committee always found that he provided independent, thorough, and relevant commentary and recommendations concerning a wide range of Federal transportation policies and programs. His contributions to transportation safety are greatly appreciated by the current and former members of the committee. On behalf of the Commerce Committee, I ask that the Senate recognize and commend Kenneth M. Mead for his more than 8 years of exemplary service to the Nation as the inspector general of the Department of Transportation, and we express our deep appreciation and gratitude for his long and outstanding service.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached letter from the United States Trade Representative be entered into the Record. It serves as notification to Congress that the President intends to initiate negotiations for a free trade agreement, FTA, with the Republic of Korea.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached Wall Street Journal article, ``Iraq's Future, Our Past,'' be printed into the Record. This article was written by Mr. Rastislav Kacer, Mr. Petr Kolar, Mr. Janusz Reiter and Mr. Andras Simonyi, respectively, the Slovak, Czech, Polish and Hungarian Ambassadors to the United States. I applaud the Ambassadors' leadership and the work of the Visegrod Group, a partnership of their four countries. Emerging out of a shared history of dictatorship, these Central European countries strive for cooperative and democratic development. They deeply understand the challenges of an emerging democracy but champion its ultimate rewards. Their vision and experience are strong examples for the country of Iraq and they stand ready to lend a helping hand.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. James M. Philpott, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Resource Management, U.S. Army Pacific, who, in early 2006, will retire from a distinguished career spanning 35 years of exemplary service to America. Mr. Philpott began his Federal career as a Comptroller Management Intern with the U.S. Army Pacific in 1971. He has served with Army organizations in Hawaii, Okinawa, mainland Japan, Korea, and Fort Huachuca, AZ. Mr. Philpott also spent 2 years with the U.S. Department of Energy where he directed the Comptroller's independent financial management review and analysis function. During his more than 30 years involved in Army resource management, Mr. Philpott was a highly respected leader and expert on the Army budget and a wide range of related issues concerning the Asia-Pacific region. He played a critical role in the formulation, approval, and execution of U.S. Army Pacific budgets that produced a much-needed strengthening of America's defense posture and enabled our military to fulfill its many demanding commitments within the Pacific area of responsibility. Mr. Philpott developed and led a diverse staff of analysts. Over the years, he mentored and guided a generation of Army budget and management analysts. Mr. Philpott was the primary leader in tracking and resolving budget and realignment matters involving U.S. Army Pacific. He meticulously tracked numerous and complex actions affecting the funding and manpower available to the command. Mr. Philpott has been a loyal and trustworthy adviser to nine commanding generals of U.S. Army Pacific, spanning 19 years. His expertise of Pacific resource management matters is unparalleled. Mr. Philpott produced substantial top-quality analysis on complex economic, fiscal, and budget topics for commanders of U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Army Pacific and other senior leaders. He also improved support for these leaders by initiating important resource management reforms that saved staff time and improved the quality of decisionmaking data. For his extraordinary achievements, Mr. Philpott received the Meritorious Service Award three times. He was awarded the Nick Hoge Award for Professional Development, and Superior Civilian Service Award and Commander's Award two times. He earned the deep respect of leaders throughout the U.S. Army Pacific, Department of the Army, and with Congress's defense oversight committees. These leaders benefited enormously from his exceptional knowledge and dedication. Mr. Philpott's service has substantially helped our Nation's leaders make the wisest possible allocation of its defense resources in order to ensure America's future security. Throughout his distinguished career, Mr. Philpott has had the resolute support of his wife Kathy and his three children. He has earned the deep gratitude of the American people. I join my staff, particularly our Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Staff Director, Sid Ashworth, in wishing Mr. Philpott and his family all the best in the coming years.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I first want to comment about the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter. Knowing the health challenges he has faced in the past, witnessing this Senator's strenuous schedule in the last few months has been something to watch, to have the opportunity to witness his commitment to the Senate and to his role as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I commend him very much for his dedication to his job and to his function as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He has come through some very serious medical periods in his life, but he has distinguished himself in recent months in demonstrating his total commitment to the work of the Senate. I honor him for the job he has done in conducting these hearings.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator who serves with the chairman with great dignity on the Judiciary Committee. I cannot appear here without recognizing the serious illnesses that Senator Specter has gone through and survived and the energy he has shown despite those illnesses. To me, there is no doubt that Judge Samuel Alito is well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. He has served as Assistant to the Solicitor General and as U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. He was unanimously confirmed by this Senate to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and he has argued some 12 cases before the Supreme Court. He is well respected by our Nation's legal community. Seven of his current and former colleagues on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit testified in support of his nomination, and one of the former circuit judges who testified supporting his nomination was the former judge Jim Gibbons, who was a classmate of mine at law school and is a man whose judgment I respect very much. Judge Alito also received a unanimous ``well-qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, and our majority colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have reported his nomination to the Senate favorably on a unanimous basis. In my some 38 years now in the Senate, I have voted to confirm 16 nominees to the Supreme Court and 2 to the position of Chief Justice. In each instance, I have followed the advice of the Judiciary Committee on these votes, and I have always voted for a nominee based upon his or her qualifications. I have not been influenced by a Justice's personal political beliefs or the party affiliation of the President who sent the nomination to the Senate. For me, the decision to vote for Judge Alito is not a simple one. I am proud to come from a family with a long line of very strong pro- choice women, and I have reflected their judgment here in the Senate. I am from a different generation. I remember well when a woman's right to choose to have an abortion was not recognized by our law. The reversal of Roe v. Wade would be destabilizing for our country and for our Federal system. It could and probably would lead to a battle to amend the Constitution to reassure American women of their rights, their constitutional rights. Such a battle is unnecessary as long as the Justices of the Supreme Court honor the doctrine of stare decisis. I asked Chairman Specter to give me some of the pertinent portions of the testimony before the Judiciary Committee, and over the past few days I have spent much time reviewing Judge Alito's answers to the questions posed to him by members of the Judiciary Committee. Those answers reflect a deep respect for precedent and for the doctrine of stare decisis. On the third day of his confirmation hearing, Judge Alito told the Judiciary Committee this: Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of occasions . . . and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision; sometimes on the merits; sometimes--in Casey--based on stare decisis. And I think that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis for at least two reasons. First of all, the more often a decision is reaffirmed, the more people tend to rely on it. Secondly, I think stare decisis reflects the view that there is wisdom embedded in decisions that have been made by prior justices who take the same oath and are scholars and are conscientious. And when they examine a question and they reach a conclusion, I think it's entitled to considerable respect. And, of course, the more times that happens, the more respect the decision is entitled to. Another portion of Judge Alito's testimony also influenced my thoughts on this vote. On the second day of the hearings, Judge Alito told the Judiciary Committee that if a case involving abortion comes before the Supreme Court while he serves on that Court: The first question that would have to be addressed is the question of stare decisis . . . and then, if I were to get beyond that, if the Court were to get beyond the issue of stare decisis, then I would have to go through the whole judicial decision-making process before reaching a conclusion. This quote reflects the process Judge Alito stated he will follow to evaluate the cases that come before him if he serves on the Supreme Court. I understand his comments to mean he will seek consensus among his colleagues on the Supreme Court regarding the issues involving stare decisis. While serving on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Alito ruled on three cases related to abortion. In each of these cases, he demonstrated a respect for and a deference to established rules of law. He did what he believed the law required; he did not seek to enact a personal political agenda. In fact, he told Senator Sessions during the confirmation hearings, in answer to a question of Senator Sessions: If I had been out to implement some sort of agenda to uphold any abortion regulation that came along, then I would not have voted the way I did in that Elizabeth Blackwell case. Based on his past rulings and his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, I believe Judge Alito would respect stare decisis on the issue of Roe v. Wade or on any issue that comes before the Court where that should be respected. And as I vote to confirm his nomination, I do so on the assumption that Judge Alito will uphold this commitment, which he stated on the record, to stare decisis, a process he outlined for reviewing cases involving stare decisis. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I offer today two private relief bills to provide lawful permanent resident status to Nadezda Shestakova and her son, Ilya Shestakov. The Shestakov family has lived and worked in Anchorage, Alaska for more than ten years. Nadezda has now returned to Russia, and Ilya is attending high school in Canada, in order to avoid further immigration problems, and to demonstrate that they intend to be good citizens who live within the letter of the law. Nadezda's husband, Michail, is a legal immigrant working for Aleut Enterprise Corporation (AEC), an Alaska native corporation, and their youngest son is a United States citizen. Both remain in Anchorage awaiting the reunion of their family. During their time in Alaska, Michail has been an exemplary employee of the Aleut Corporation. As a matter of fact, it was the Aleut Corporation who first brought this issue to my attention, as they wish to support the Shestakov family in any way possible. The children have excelled in school, and Nadezda has remained an at- home mother, pursuant to the terms of her original visa. The Shestakov family's problems began when they overstayed their visa due to an error by their attorney, who did not file the extension paperwork on their behalf, as requested. These are upstanding members of the Alaska community, and they should not be punished due to an error by their former attorney. I would like to see this family reunited in Alaska, so that they can continue to contribute positively to our community.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I offer today two private relief bills to provide lawful permanent resident status to Nadezda Shestakova and her son, Ilya Shestakov. The Shestakov family has lived and worked in Anchorage, Alaska for more than ten years. Nadezda has now returned to Russia, and Ilya is attending high school in Canada, in order to avoid further immigration problems, and to demonstrate that they intend to be good citizens who live within the letter of the law. Nadezda's husband, Michail, is a legal immigrant working for Aleut Enterprise Corporation (AEC), an Alaska native corporation, and their youngest son is a United States citizen. Both remain in Anchorage awaiting the reunion of their family. During their time in Alaska, Michail has been an exemplary employee of the Aleut Corporation. As a matter of fact, it was the Aleut Corporation who first brought this issue to my attention, as they wish to support the Shestakov family in any way possible. The children have excelled in school, and Nadezda has remained an at- home mother, pursuant to the terms of her original visa. The Shestakov family's problems began when they overstayed their visa due to an error by their attorney, who did not file the extension paperwork on their behalf, as requested. These are upstanding members of the Alaska community, and they should not be punished due to an error by their former attorney. I would like to see this family reunited in Alaska, so that they can continue to contribute positively to our community.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I am speaking of the ANWR provisions and Katrina provisions and avian flu provisions. Will they violate rule XXVIII?

Mr. STEVENS. I can't hear the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. So if this consent is granted, rule XXVIII is violated by this conference report; is that correct? Is that my understanding?

Mr. STEVENS. How do I join it? I want an agreement that this bill violates rule XXVIII.

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum. I do suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. STEVENS. There has been some confusion. Let me restate my parliamentary inquiry. If sections C and E are removed, would the conference report as thus constituted contain violations of rule XXVIII?

Mr. STEVENS. I can assure you there are many more. Thank you very much.

Mr. STEVENS. Wait. I will be glad to make a point of order, if you wish me to do it. Just so I understand the ruling, parliamentary inquiry: Did the Chair just say there is no point of order against this bill?

Mr. STEVENS. I want to make sure I understand this. I would be pleased to make a point of order so the Chair will rule, if you want me to do it. We have an understanding that there are violations of rule XXVIII in this bill.