Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have sought the floor now to speak on what I consider to be a matter of personal privilege. It has been brought to my attention that the Senator from Illinois unfairly maligned my character in direct violation of rule XIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Rule XIX states: No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator. The Senator from Illinois apparently takes exception to the fact that witnesses who appeared voluntarily before the joint hearing of the Senate Commerce and Energy Committees last week were not sworn in. I would like to set the record straight about the events of that day. The request by Senator Cantwell to swear in the witnesses was delivered to my office at 8:10 a.m. on the morning of the hearing. It was leaked to the press before it was ever delivered to me. As a matter of fact, the Seattle press that morning had reported that I had already rejected the request before I had even received it or read it. While I have accomplished many things in my 37 years in the Senate, the ability to see into the future or read into the minds of other Members is not one of them. Had the Senator from Illinois read the transcript of that hearing, he would have a better understanding of why I took the actions I did as the chairman opening that hearing. I made this opening statement: I remind the witnesses as well as the Members of these committees, Federal law makes it a crime to provide false testimony. Specifically section 1001 of title 18 provides in pertinent part: ``Whoever in any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the Government of the United States knowingly or willfully makes any material false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation shall be fined under this title or be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'' I continued my statement at that time: Having reviewed the rules of the Senate and the rules of the Commerce and Energy Committees and the relevant provisions of title II of United States Code, there is nothing in the standing rules of our committee rules or in the Senate which requires witnesses to be sworn. The statute has the position that everyone appearing before the Congress is in fact under oath. These witnesses accepted an invitation to appear before our committees voluntarily. They are aware that making false statements and testimony is a violation of Federal law whether or not an oath has been administered. I shall not administer an oath today. Earlier, Senator Durbin of Illinois came to the Chamber and said--and I quote from the Record that has been provided to me: You probably heard about the hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee. Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington insisted these oil company executives be sworn in, testify under oath, just as the third base company executives were a few years ago. But Senator Stevens, the chairman of the committee, refused to allow them to be sworn in. Why? So they couldn't be held accountable if they didn't tell the truth. Mr. President, I believe Senator Durbin's comments are a direct violation of rule XIX. I did not swear in witnesses who appeared before our committee because they are required to tell the truth under law. Those are the rules of the Senate, the rules of our committees. To suggest I did not administer an oath to these witnesses to help them lie to Members of Congress is false, inexcusable, and in violation of rule XIX, the longstanding practice of Senatorial courtesy, and I expect an apology from the Senator from Illinois. What is the status of the time now in terms of control of time?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, under the conditions that if the Senator from Montana would yield to our colleagues on this side if they come to make a statement on the bill, I yield to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. No, I am not going to deliver a eulogy.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his courtesy. I do intend to attend the ceremony to eulogize the former Sergeant at Arms of the Senate. (The remarks of Mr. Stevens pertaining to the introduction of S. 2012 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Republican-controlled time on the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations conference report be reserved for later in the day.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I come to the Senate, along with my good friend and coauthor, Senator Dan Inouye of Hawaii, to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. This legislation reauthorizes the law that manages and regulates fisheries in the United States exclusive economic zone. It is cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Cantwell, and Vitter. The law was originally enacted in 1976. A that time it was titled the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Senator Warren Magnuson and I developed the law after Warren sent me to monitor the law of the sea negotiations, which took place all over the world. A concept considered during these negotiations was the expansion of a coastal nation's sovereignty over its seaward waters out to 200 miles. Warren and I took a bipartisan approach to the legislation and developed a bill that established our country's exclusive right to harvest fishery resources from 3 to 200 miles and put in place one of the most successful Federal-State management systems. This system recognized the complexity of our differing fish stocks and the unique regional approaches needed to manage these resources. This is now the seventh authorization of the act we created over 30 years ago. It is the first reauthorization I have been a part of as chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over this legislation. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 2005 implements many of the recommendations made by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy--the first such commission authorized by Congress to review our nation's ocean policies and laws in over 35 years. This was coauthored by my great friend from South Carolina, Senator Ernest Hollings. The Commission's recommendations were important to the development of this act we present to the Senate today. The intent of this legislation is to authorize these recommendations and to build on some of the sound fishery management principles we passed in the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996, which was the last time we reauthorized the act. Our bill will preserve and strengthen the regional fishery management councils. The eight regional councils located around the United States and Caribbean Islands are a model of Federal oversight benefiting from local innovation and management approaches. This reauthorization establishes a council training program designed to prepare members for the numerous legal, scientific, economic, and conflict of interest requirements which apply to the fishery management process. In addition, this reauthorization addresses concerns over the transparency of the regional council process--it provides additional financial disclosure requirements for council members and clarifies the act's conflict of interest and recusal requirements. In order to prevent overfishing and preserve the sustainable harvest of fishery resources in all eight regional council jurisdictions, this bill mandates the use of annual catch limits which shall not be exceeded. Under the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, overfishing of overfished stocks was to end. To meet this goal, we required the implementation of rebuilding plans which would restore any overfished species to sustainable levels. It has been almost 10 years since we passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act and overfishing of overfished stocks remains a significant problem. The legislation we are introducing today requires every fishery management plan to contain an annual catch limit which is set at or below optimum yield, based on the best scientific information available. This bill also requires that any harvests exceeding the annual catch limit be deducted from the annual catch limit for the following year. An important recommendation from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy was to establish national standards for quota programs. Our legislation establishes national guidelines for the harvesting of fish for limited access privilege programs, which are also called LAPPs. These guidelines would require that any LAPP must accomplish important objectives, including: assisting in rebuilding an overfished fishery; reducing capacity in a fishery that is overcapitalized; promoting the safety of human life at sea; promoting conservation and management; and providing a system for monitoring, management, and enforcement of the program. The regional councils, the administration, and to a lesser extent the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, all recommended we address the inconsistencies between the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Environmental Protection Act. They recommended we resolve timeline or ``process'' issues which have required councils to spend much of their time and funding developing litigation-proof environmental impact statements and environmental assessments under NEPA. This bill provides a uniform process under which councils can consider the substantive requirements of NEPA while adhering to the timelines found in Magnuson-Stevens when they are developing fishery management plans, plan amendments, and regulations. Several of the provisions in this bill strengthen the role of science in council decisionmaking, which was another strong recommendation made by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Our bill specifies that the scientific and statistical committees, called SSCs, are to provide their councils with on-going scientific advice needed for management decisions. This may include recommendations on acceptable biological catch or optimum yield, annual catch limits, or other mortality limits. The SSCs are also expected to advise the councils on a variety of other issues, including stock status and health, bycatch, habitat status, and socioeconomic impacts. We have enhanced the overall effectiveness of this act by improving data collection and management. Our legislation authorizes a national cooperative research and management program, which would be implemented on a regional basis and conducted through partnerships between Federal and State managers, commercial and recreational fishing industry participants, and scientists. This will improve data related to recreational fisheries by establishing a new national program for the registration of marine recreational fishermen who fish in Federal waters. Our legislation also directs the secretary, in cooperation with the councils, to create a regionally based bycatch reduction engineering program which will develop technological devices and engineering techniques for minimizing bycatch, bycatch mortality, and post-release mortality. The Magnuson-Stevens Act has worked well. It has enabled effective conservation and management of our fishery resources and allowed for sustainable harvests. Both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission singled out the fisheries managed by the North Pacific Council--which does not have an overfished or endangered species of fish--as an example of proper fisheries management. Let me say that again. They singled out the fisheries management by the North Pacific Council, which does not have an overfished or endangered species of fish, as an example of proper fisheries management. The council consistently sets an optimum yield far below the acceptable biological catch, and the fisheries in its jurisdiction have remained sustainable and abundant. That is the North Pacific Council, Mr. President. Our goal is to build upon this success and ensure the sustainability of this resource for generations to come. Unfortunately, management internationally and especially on the high- seas is lacking. Industrial foreign fleets continue to expand and fish in remote and deep parts of the oceans. When we first developed this legislation over 30 years ago, such practices were unimaginable. The illegal, unreported, and unregulated--we call this IUU--fishing on the high-seas now threatens the good management taking place in U.S. waters that we control. Our bill strengthens U.S. leadership in international conservation and management. It requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish an international compliance and monitoring program and to provide Congress with reports on our progress in reducing IUU fishing. This bill also requires the Secretary to promote international cooperation and strengthen the ability of regional fishery management organizations to combat IUU and other harmful fishing practices. In addition, this legislation allows the use of measures authorized under the High Seas Driftnet Act to force compliance in cases where regional or international fishery management organizations are unable to stop IUU fishing. I have been pleased with the bipartisan approach we have taken on this bill. My co-chairman, Senator Inouye, and I have worked together on this reauthorization, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee to move this legislation forward.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I introduce today a bill to implement the provisions of the ``Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population''. This bill is co-sponsored by Senator Inouye. The United States-Russia Polar Bear Conservation and Management Implementation Act of 2005 will amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act adding provisions to create a binational U.S. and Russian Polar Bear Commission. This commission will be authorized to determine annual take limits and the adoption of other measures to restrict the taking of polar bears for subsistence purposes. The Commission will also identify polar bear habitats and ``develop recommendations for habitat conservation measures.'' Additionally, it prohibits the possession, import, export, transport, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase of any polar bear, or any part or product thereof, that is taken in violation of the Agreement. This bill will simultaneously support the conservation of U.S. and Russian Polar Bear populations and the historical traditions of indigenous peoples in the arctic region. This implementing legislation for the Polar Bear Treaty is necessary to establish the needed regulatory and management entities in both the U.S. and Russia. The shared population of Polar Bears that migrate between our two nations deserve the added protections and conservation this bill will provide. The U.S.-Russian Polar Bear Treaty was completed and signed by both countries on October 16, 2000. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the treaty in June of 2003, and reported it out favorably on July 23, 2003. The full Senate agreed to the resolution of advice and consent on the treaty on July 31, 2003. This legislation is needed for the U.S. to ratify and implement the treaty. The administration is supportive of the treaty and the proposed legislation, as are Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska, and conservation groups. Russia has indicated that once the U.S. ratifies the treaty, it will promptly do the same.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I come to the Senate, along with my good friend and coauthor, Senator Dan Inouye of Hawaii, to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. This legislation reauthorizes the law that manages and regulates fisheries in the United States exclusive economic zone. It is cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Cantwell, and Vitter. The law was originally enacted in 1976. A that time it was titled the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Senator Warren Magnuson and I developed the law after Warren sent me to monitor the law of the sea negotiations, which took place all over the world. A concept considered during these negotiations was the expansion of a coastal nation's sovereignty over its seaward waters out to 200 miles. Warren and I took a bipartisan approach to the legislation and developed a bill that established our country's exclusive right to harvest fishery resources from 3 to 200 miles and put in place one of the most successful Federal-State management systems. This system recognized the complexity of our differing fish stocks and the unique regional approaches needed to manage these resources. This is now the seventh authorization of the act we created over 30 years ago. It is the first reauthorization I have been a part of as chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over this legislation. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 2005 implements many of the recommendations made by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy--the first such commission authorized by Congress to review our nation's ocean policies and laws in over 35 years. This was coauthored by my great friend from South Carolina, Senator Ernest Hollings. The Commission's recommendations were important to the development of this act we present to the Senate today. The intent of this legislation is to authorize these recommendations and to build on some of the sound fishery management principles we passed in the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996, which was the last time we reauthorized the act. Our bill will preserve and strengthen the regional fishery management councils. The eight regional councils located around the United States and Caribbean Islands are a model of Federal oversight benefiting from local innovation and management approaches. This reauthorization establishes a council training program designed to prepare members for the numerous legal, scientific, economic, and conflict of interest requirements which apply to the fishery management process. In addition, this reauthorization addresses concerns over the transparency of the regional council process--it provides additional financial disclosure requirements for council members and clarifies the act's conflict of interest and recusal requirements. In order to prevent overfishing and preserve the sustainable harvest of fishery resources in all eight regional council jurisdictions, this bill mandates the use of annual catch limits which shall not be exceeded. Under the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, overfishing of overfished stocks was to end. To meet this goal, we required the implementation of rebuilding plans which would restore any overfished species to sustainable levels. It has been almost 10 years since we passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act and overfishing of overfished stocks remains a significant problem. The legislation we are introducing today requires every fishery management plan to contain an annual catch limit which is set at or below optimum yield, based on the best scientific information available. This bill also requires that any harvests exceeding the annual catch limit be deducted from the annual catch limit for the following year. An important recommendation from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy was to establish national standards for quota programs. Our legislation establishes national guidelines for the harvesting of fish for limited access privilege programs, which are also called LAPPs. These guidelines would require that any LAPP must accomplish important objectives, including: assisting in rebuilding an overfished fishery; reducing capacity in a fishery that is overcapitalized; promoting the safety of human life at sea; promoting conservation and management; and providing a system for monitoring, management, and enforcement of the program. The regional councils, the administration, and to a lesser extent the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, all recommended we address the inconsistencies between the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Environmental Protection Act. They recommended we resolve timeline or ``process'' issues which have required councils to spend much of their time and funding developing litigation-proof environmental impact statements and environmental assessments under NEPA. This bill provides a uniform process under which councils can consider the substantive requirements of NEPA while adhering to the timelines found in Magnuson-Stevens when they are developing fishery management plans, plan amendments, and regulations. Several of the provisions in this bill strengthen the role of science in council decisionmaking, which was another strong recommendation made by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Our bill specifies that the scientific and statistical committees, called SSCs, are to provide their councils with on-going scientific advice needed for management decisions. This may include recommendations on acceptable biological catch or optimum yield, annual catch limits, or other mortality limits. The SSCs are also expected to advise the councils on a variety of other issues, including stock status and health, bycatch, habitat status, and socioeconomic impacts. We have enhanced the overall effectiveness of this act by improving data collection and management. Our legislation authorizes a national cooperative research and management program, which would be implemented on a regional basis and conducted through partnerships between Federal and State managers, commercial and recreational fishing industry participants, and scientists. This will improve data related to recreational fisheries by establishing a new national program for the registration of marine recreational fishermen who fish in Federal waters. Our legislation also directs the secretary, in cooperation with the councils, to create a regionally based bycatch reduction engineering program which will develop technological devices and engineering techniques for minimizing bycatch, bycatch mortality, and post-release mortality. The Magnuson-Stevens Act has worked well. It has enabled effective conservation and management of our fishery resources and allowed for sustainable harvests. Both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission singled out the fisheries managed by the North Pacific Council--which does not have an overfished or endangered species of fish--as an example of proper fisheries management. Let me say that again. They singled out the fisheries management by the North Pacific Council, which does not have an overfished or endangered species of fish, as an example of proper fisheries management. The council consistently sets an optimum yield far below the acceptable biological catch, and the fisheries in its jurisdiction have remained sustainable and abundant. That is the North Pacific Council, Mr. President. Our goal is to build upon this success and ensure the sustainability of this resource for generations to come. Unfortunately, management internationally and especially on the high- seas is lacking. Industrial foreign fleets continue to expand and fish in remote and deep parts of the oceans. When we first developed this legislation over 30 years ago, such practices were unimaginable. The illegal, unreported, and unregulated--we call this IUU--fishing on the high-seas now threatens the good management taking place in U.S. waters that we control. Our bill strengthens U.S. leadership in international conservation and management. It requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish an international compliance and monitoring program and to provide Congress with reports on our progress in reducing IUU fishing. This bill also requires the Secretary to promote international cooperation and strengthen the ability of regional fishery management organizations to combat IUU and other harmful fishing practices. In addition, this legislation allows the use of measures authorized under the High Seas Driftnet Act to force compliance in cases where regional or international fishery management organizations are unable to stop IUU fishing. I have been pleased with the bipartisan approach we have taken on this bill. My co-chairman, Senator Inouye, and I have worked together on this reauthorization, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee to move this legislation forward.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I introduce today a bill to implement the provisions of the ``Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population''. This bill is co-sponsored by Senator Inouye. The United States-Russia Polar Bear Conservation and Management Implementation Act of 2005 will amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act adding provisions to create a binational U.S. and Russian Polar Bear Commission. This commission will be authorized to determine annual take limits and the adoption of other measures to restrict the taking of polar bears for subsistence purposes. The Commission will also identify polar bear habitats and ``develop recommendations for habitat conservation measures.'' Additionally, it prohibits the possession, import, export, transport, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase of any polar bear, or any part or product thereof, that is taken in violation of the Agreement. This bill will simultaneously support the conservation of U.S. and Russian Polar Bear populations and the historical traditions of indigenous peoples in the arctic region. This implementing legislation for the Polar Bear Treaty is necessary to establish the needed regulatory and management entities in both the U.S. and Russia. The shared population of Polar Bears that migrate between our two nations deserve the added protections and conservation this bill will provide. The U.S.-Russian Polar Bear Treaty was completed and signed by both countries on October 16, 2000. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the treaty in June of 2003, and reported it out favorably on July 23, 2003. The full Senate agreed to the resolution of advice and consent on the treaty on July 31, 2003. This legislation is needed for the U.S. to ratify and implement the treaty. The administration is supportive of the treaty and the proposed legislation, as are Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska, and conservation groups. Russia has indicated that once the U.S. ratifies the treaty, it will promptly do the same.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I will be glad to have you occupy the Chair right now, as President pro tempore.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator take a division vote? A standing vote? A division of the Senate, a standing vote? All those in favor stand?

Mr. STEVENS. Where there is no objection, yes.

Mr. STEVENS. How about a unanimous consent request?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Levin amendment, which would eliminate all funding for long-lead items for the ground- based interceptors Nos. 31 through 40, and funding for the silos for those missiles. Realigning funding from this program would have significant impact, significant consequences for our national missile defense system. In addition to breaking the production line for these interceptors, it would add an additional $270 million to the cost of the program. Further, it would delay emplacement of the additional interceptors by at least 1 year. I do not believe we can afford that delay in our national missile defense system. Reducing interceptor quantities places second and third tier industrial-based suppliers at a substantial risk of exiting the manufacturing of components for the interceptors. They are currently manufacturing these. If there is a delay, those small businesses would have to leave that system. It will increase the probability of component quality problems because new suppliers would have to be found. We should not interrupt this system. This amendment would break this production line and affect the subcontractors all along the line. My great concern is that quality and process improvement efforts that were initiated by the Missile Defense Agency would be significantly impacted if this amendment were agreed to. Replacing and recertifying component suppliers would further increase interceptor costs by millions of dollars and take a minimum of 1 year to accomplish. That would delay the fielding of the additional capabilities for these warfighters. This amendment realigns funding from missile defense to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which is called CTR. That has been fully funded at the administration's request and at the administration's amount. There remains a large unobligated balance within the CTR account and a very large undisbursed balance. It is almost $1 billion. I cannot justify adding additional funding to the program at the expense of the Missile Defense Program which has essential requirements when there is already a surplus in that account. The threat is real and imminent, as General Cartwright has testified. General Cartwright is the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command. The CIA and the DIA assess that North Korea is ready to flight test an ICBM that could reach the United States. That is of critical importance to those who live in Alaska. We are closer than any other State to that threat. Iran may have such capability by the middle of the next decade, according to DIA. Despite recent test failures, the technology is mature enough to proceed with fielding even while we continue to test and improve reliability. That is the genius of this system. We have fielded it and, if necessary, we can use it. We are perfecting it as we go. The failures were the result of quality control issues and they do not undermine our confidence that the hit-to-kill technology works. It should be in place. An independent review team has recently concluded that the ground- based midcourse system's design is sound and is capable of providing a defense against long-range ballistic missiles such as the one I described we think is being tested in North Korea. In a hearing before our Senate Committee on Appropriations, General Cartwright described the missile defense system as a ``thin line system.'' Additional interceptors will help the warfighters better defend against ballistic missile attack. According to the warfighters, a primary system limitation is there are too few interceptors. This amendment will delay the ones that should be in place during this fiscal year. I urge the Senate to defeat this amendment. We should not reduce funding for the Missile Defense Program at this critical juncture. We need to test the program, improve it, and continue testing. We should not stop production by realigning funding from the missile defense system, particularly putting it into account when there is almost $1 billion surplus already. The Missile Defense Program, in my judgment, is vital to the security of this country. We should not cause further delay. I strongly urge the Senate to vote against this amendment and reject this reduction in transfer to an account that does not need the money. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today marks the 50th anniversary of the Alaska Constitutional Convention. I speak to pay tribute to those who contributed to this milestone in our State's history. When the Constitutional Convention began on November 8, 1955, Alaska was a territory foundering under the weight of discriminatory Federal legislation. Alaskans were denied control and management of our fisheries. We were denied our share of Federal highway funds. We were denied the ability to expand our economy because of unfair land laws. We were denied the right to vote for our President and Vice President. And we were denied full representation in Congress. Our economy had been damaged by article 27 of the Jones Act, which Congress passed in 1920. This act specifically excluded Alaska from the United States' ship and rail system. It required all goods and services be diverted through Seattle, which drove up prices and pushed many Alaskans out of business. As former territorial governor Ernest Gruening told the convention delegates in 1955, Alaska was ``no less a colony than were those thirteen colonies along the Atlantic seaboard in 1775.'' Governor Gruening then quoted the United States Declaration of Independence and told the delegates it was time for Alaska to ``let facts be submitted to a candid world.'' Fifty-five men and women were chosen to serve as convention delegates. The number 55 was selected to reflect the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, which produced the Constitution of the United States. On November 8, 1955, the delegates met at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. They worked for 75 days, and their efforts produced a precedent-setting constitution, which formed the basis for Congressional approval of statehood. Thanks to the dedication of George Lehleitner of Louisiana and C.W. Bill Snedden, publisher of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, our constitution included Alaska's version of the ``Tennessee plan,'' which had been used successfully by Tennessee, Michigan, California, Oregon, Kansas, and Iowa to gain admission to this Union. Under this plan, our territory elected a Congressional delegation without waiting for Congressional approval. When they began their deliberations 50 years ago today, no one could have predicted how successful our convention delegates would be. They considered the needs of Alaskans who lived in the territory and the needs of those who would later live in our State. Their foresight gave us the document that has stood the test of time and been hailed as a model of state constitutions. And their efforts set in motion the series of events that led to statehood. Before the Constitutional Convention, there were many who questioned whether Alaskans could be entrusted with statehood. They thought we were too far-removed from the lower 48, too different. Those who participated in the drafting of our constitution changed this. Our constitution affirmed our commitment to the democratic ideals upon which this Union was founded. The 55 convention delegates were devoted public servants who became Alaska's founding mothers and fathers. Today, five of those delegates are meeting in Anchorage. They are: George Sundborg, Sr., a newspaperman who served as chair of the convention's committee on style and drafting. George later served as Senator Ernest Gruening's top aide in Washington, DC. Dr. Victor Fischer, who served as chair of the convention's committee on the Executive Branch. Vic was later elected to the territorial House of Representatives and served the State he helped create in the Alaska State Senate. John ``Jack'' Coghill, who was chair of the convention's committee on administration. Jack was a member of the territorial House of Representatives and later served as mayor of Nenana, State Senator, and Alaska's Lieutenant Governor. Seaborn Buckalew, a member of the territorial House of Representatives who later served as a State Senator, Assistant Adjutant General of the Alaska National Guard, and U.S. District Attorney and Superior Court Judge for the 3rd Judicial District. Burke Riley, who served as chair of the convention's committee on rules. Burke was a special assistant to Governor Gruening and the Secretary of Alaska from 1952 through 1953, a position similar to today's lieutenant governor. He also served in the territorial House of Representatives. Today, these delegates are joined by: Thomas Stewart, who served in the territorial legislature and chaired its Joint Committee on Statehood and Federal Legislation, which drafted the Convention Enabling Act. Tom served as secretary of the convention and later became an Alaska Superior Court Judge. He played a key role in establishing our State's court system. Katherine Hurley, who was the long-time executive secretary to territorial Governor Ernest Gruening and secretary of the territorial senate. Ms. Hurley served as chief clerk of the convention. Doris Ann Bartlett, the daughter of my predecessor, Senator Bob Bartlett. Doris served as librarian of the convention. Also in Anchorage today are three consultants who advised the convention delegates: Dr. George Rogers, who served as temporary secretary and economics consultant, Dr. Vincent Ostrum of the University of Indiana, and Dr. Earnest Bartley of the University of Florida. On behalf of all Alaskans, Senator Lisa Murkowski and I have come to the floor today to thank these men and women whose hard work laid the foundation for the 49th State. In his speech closing the proceedings, Bill Egan, the president of the Constitutional Convention who later served three terms as Alaska's Governor, said: I say to each and every Alaskan: If it had been your good fortune, as it has been mine, to have witnessed the abilities, the diligence, the devotion to duty, of these delegates . . . you would say of their labors, ``well done!'' Bill Egan's words endure today. Well done, thank you, and God bless each of you! I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Murkowski.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to introduce this bill, which repeals a provision in the 1977 reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972--a provision which unduly restricts our ability to get States on the west coast the petroleum supplies they need. In the last several weeks, some of our colleagues have participated in press conferences, sent out news releases, and come to the floor to talk about the impact of high energy prices. They have expressed concern about the effect these prices are having on our economy, our consumers, our businesses, and our national security. I share their concerns. In fact, for over 3 years, I have been urging the Senate to deal with this situation. It took one of the worst natural disasters in the history of our Nation for many to evaluate our energy policy. While the circumstances are tragic, I am glad our colleagues are taking a closer look at this. The plan our colleagues now support aims to achieve the right goal, but it offers the wrong solution. Their plan calls for energy independence--a goal which I support. But they tout conservation as the only way to reach this goal. This approach would put us on the wrong course and fail to solve the larger problem. Our country is in the midst of an energy crisis, and we cannot conserve our way out. To suggest otherwise does a great disservice to all Americans. We don't need a hollow plan, we need results. We cannot get out of this crisis by blaming Americans--who are just trying to live their lives, run their businesses, and get to and from work--for the situation we are in. This is not solely a consumption problem; much of this crisis stems from misguided policies which have locked up our lands and prevented us from building new refineries. The only way to become energy independent is through a combination of initiatives. Conservation is one part of the broader solution. But we also need to develop renewable and alternative sources of energy and invest in nuclear power and we must develop our domestic oil and gas resources which exist on Federal lands. The end to this crisis lies in the balance between conservation and development. Yes, I believe that Americans need to conserve our energy resources, but this alone won't solve our energy crisis. To suggest it will is to greatly mislead the American public. We need to get serious about our energy policy. My good friend and colleague, Senator Domenici, has told us we must expand on the Energy bill. I agree with Senator Domenici, and I look forward to working with him on an energy policy for this country that makes sense. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita exposed a weakness in our domestic production and refining capability, weakness some of us have been warning about for years. All Americans have been hit with higher energy prices in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Some colleagues have expressed concern that this situation was compounded by price gouging. Senator Inouye and I, along with our colleagues on the Commerce Committee, are evaluating several bills pertaining to that issue. In the coming days, we will be moving forward to address some of those concerns. In the process of reviewing these concerns, the claims by those on the west coast were of particular interest to me. Due to current restrictions in the MMPA, it is almost impossible for companies to expand their refineries to increase supply. The provision repealed by my bill is currently impacting the largest refinery on the west coast, affecting more than 300,000 gallons of fuel per day. I introduce this bill to enable us to get petroleum resources to west coast States quickly and urge my colleagues to support this initiative.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to introduce this bill, which repeals a provision in the 1977 reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972--a provision which unduly restricts our ability to get States on the west coast the petroleum supplies they need. In the last several weeks, some of our colleagues have participated in press conferences, sent out news releases, and come to the floor to talk about the impact of high energy prices. They have expressed concern about the effect these prices are having on our economy, our consumers, our businesses, and our national security. I share their concerns. In fact, for over 3 years, I have been urging the Senate to deal with this situation. It took one of the worst natural disasters in the history of our Nation for many to evaluate our energy policy. While the circumstances are tragic, I am glad our colleagues are taking a closer look at this. The plan our colleagues now support aims to achieve the right goal, but it offers the wrong solution. Their plan calls for energy independence--a goal which I support. But they tout conservation as the only way to reach this goal. This approach would put us on the wrong course and fail to solve the larger problem. Our country is in the midst of an energy crisis, and we cannot conserve our way out. To suggest otherwise does a great disservice to all Americans. We don't need a hollow plan, we need results. We cannot get out of this crisis by blaming Americans--who are just trying to live their lives, run their businesses, and get to and from work--for the situation we are in. This is not solely a consumption problem; much of this crisis stems from misguided policies which have locked up our lands and prevented us from building new refineries. The only way to become energy independent is through a combination of initiatives. Conservation is one part of the broader solution. But we also need to develop renewable and alternative sources of energy and invest in nuclear power and we must develop our domestic oil and gas resources which exist on Federal lands. The end to this crisis lies in the balance between conservation and development. Yes, I believe that Americans need to conserve our energy resources, but this alone won't solve our energy crisis. To suggest it will is to greatly mislead the American public. We need to get serious about our energy policy. My good friend and colleague, Senator Domenici, has told us we must expand on the Energy bill. I agree with Senator Domenici, and I look forward to working with him on an energy policy for this country that makes sense. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita exposed a weakness in our domestic production and refining capability, weakness some of us have been warning about for years. All Americans have been hit with higher energy prices in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Some colleagues have expressed concern that this situation was compounded by price gouging. Senator Inouye and I, along with our colleagues on the Commerce Committee, are evaluating several bills pertaining to that issue. In the coming days, we will be moving forward to address some of those concerns. In the process of reviewing these concerns, the claims by those on the west coast were of particular interest to me. Due to current restrictions in the MMPA, it is almost impossible for companies to expand their refineries to increase supply. The provision repealed by my bill is currently impacting the largest refinery on the west coast, affecting more than 300,000 gallons of fuel per day. I introduce this bill to enable us to get petroleum resources to west coast States quickly and urge my colleagues to support this initiative.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: The next amendment is the Wyden amendment on export of oil. I make a parliamentary inquiry if that amendment is subject to the Byrd rule.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, as long as this amendment is not changed and comes back to this floor in the conference report, it will not be subject to the Byrd rule.

Mr. STEVENS. Is there time in opposition?

Mr. STEVENS. In principle, I am opposed, but as long as it does not violate the Byrd rule, I will not vote against it. I yield back the time.