Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. What is the number of Senator Sununu's amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to briefly discuss this amendment that has been offered by the Senator from New Hampshire and others and tell the Senate this is opening the door to a whole series of agreements that were made in previous Congresses and approved by the President, and it is a subject I intend to debate at length. I will tell the Senate a little bit of history tonight and take an opportunity to more subsequently discuss this issue. This amendment that has been offered will prevent the use of Federal funds to plan, design, study, or construct new forest development roads in the Tongass. The Tongass National Forest is our largest national forest. It has a southern division and a northern division. When I came to the Senate, the harvest level was about 1.5 billion board feet a year from the total Tongass. In subsequent years it has been under attack severely, until today I think it is less than 17 percent of the Tongass is available for harvesting timber. This amendment discriminates against Alaska. There are national forests in many States and the Forest Service spends a lot of money on forest roads, but this would say that only in Alaska can the Forest Service be prohibited from spending money for forest roads. Let me go back a little bit in the history. I am gathering the information we need to address the matter in depth tomorrow and subsequently. This area is not unique in the sense of timber harvest. The Forest Service follows about the same regulations in Alaska they would in any other national forest. The difference is that we had, in 1980, the Alaskan National Interests Conservation Land Act which withdrew a great portion of this forest from any future harvesting of timber; then after that we had the Tongass Timber Reform Act which further limited the amount that could be harvested from the Tongass; and then we had the enormous dispute over roads in the Tongass. This is another way to limit the development of Alaska's timber because of the policies of our national Government with regard to harvesting the national forests. The debate over forest roads also has included the question of the provisions in the 1980 act which prohibited any further withdrawal of Alaska's lands without prior approval of the Congress. This is an amendment that looks as if there is an economic concept involved, but really it is one of the goals of those who want to limit further use of the Tongass to produce timber. Regarding the roadless concept, they tried to apply it to our national forests, the Tongass National Forest. Because of the provisions in the 1980 act which prohibit further withdrawals of Alaska's land without prior approval of the Congress, that concept did not get applied to the Tongass. The last President did issue an Executive order which purported to change that, but that has been rescinded as that was an error on the part of the last administration. We are operating under the basis that there could be roads built in the portions of the Tongass that have not been withdrawn. The problem is this: The cost of developing roads in Alaska are different from other States. In most States, there is a road infrastructure in the area that surrounds the national forest. As a matter of fact, most national forests have a Federal highway going right through them. Southeast Alaska has no roads. It is an island community. There is no connection between those islands. There is no attempt to build a highway system in southeast Alaska. As a matter of fact, our capital city has no roads that can be used to enter Juneau from another area. I think it is the only capital you can reach only by boat or air. There is no way to drive to our capital because it is on one of the islands I am talking about. When we look at the situation of southeast Alaska, we have to realize one of the costs of developing a timber industry in southeast Alaska is building roads on islands on which there are no roads. They are temporary roads built under specification of the Forest Service and designed to become wilderness, in effect, once the regrowth is commenced. What I am saying is, once the timber is harvested, the natural product of what we call the ``slash'' that comes from developing and cutting the timber is laid across the ground, and within a very few years that area will be totally grown over again. In most instances, we will not find the roads because they have been eliminated by regrowth. I invite everyone to take a look at Admiralty Island, across from Juneau. That at one time was cut for timber and now is regrown to such an extent that it has been named a wilderness area. It is the only area in the country that is a wilderness area despite the fact that its timber was once cut. As we get the information I am seeking from the Forest Service and from other agencies, I want to demonstrate to the Senate that the only way to be able to harvest the timber we are entitled to harvest is to follow the process the Forest Service itself has selected; that is, that it build the forest roads. As it selects an area for timber harvest, it will build the roads, and the purchaser of the timber will agree to pay the cost of those roads as part of the cost of the contract to harvest the timber. As time has passed and many of our areas have been selected for harvest in the area set aside for timber production now--I remind the Senate that well over three-fourths of the Tongass has been set aside as national parks, wild and scenic rivers, forest wilderness, and is not available for any kind of timber harvest. In the areas where it was agreed timber harvests would be permitted, the Forest Service builds these roads and uses the funds we appropriate for that purpose, and those funds are repaid by the person who harvests the timber. As time has passed, the challenges from the environmental organizations of the country, the environmental costs, the environmental impact statements, and often-repeated environmental impact statements, have added up to the fact that some assert that this is not a profitable endeavor, for the Federal Government to allow timber to be harvested in the Tongass. But they forget--and that is why I am here--they forget there was an understanding and a commitment that a portion of this area would be available for timber harvest. That is one of the local products that is a renewable resource. The cutting cycle in our timber area is over 100 years. It means an area harvested this year will not be put up for sale for 100 years. Under the circumstances, to have a provision that says the roads that are to be built would be built by an individual in advance of getting a contract for timber harvesting means that great speculation would enter into this industry. It would also mean that the decision would be made by nonresidents of the area, speculators. Currently our logging industry is a local industry. They are small logging companies. They log small areas on the islands at a competitive bid to obtain the right to harvest that timber. This is not a case of wasting Federal money. Those who are approaching it from the point of view, saying the Federal Government should not spend this money, do not realize the best way to develop this timber industry was to have roads built by a Federal agency, designed by a Federal agency, and constructed for the safety not only of the people who are going to be working in the area but also for the protection of other resources such as the fish and wildlife resources of the area. The problem for a person who wants to harvest this area is overwhelming if they have to make the decision of where the road should go because there is so much inter-Federal-agency consultation going into the harvests, these roads for timber harvest, that it would be almost impossible for a private sector person to be able to get to the point where there would be approval for the location of the road. The design is determined by the Federal Government, the location is determined by the Federal Government, the safety features are determined by the Federal Government, and the purchaser of the timber has agreed to pay the costs. The way it is done right now is in the best way, in the interests of the environment, and the interest of the people of the area. Once the roads are built, it is possible for the local people to be able to bid to harvest the timber and to make it available to the international community. By Federal law, we do not export this timber. It must be sold in the United States. This is from Federal land, and therefore is subject to the Federal law that prohibits the export of this timber. It is a forest product that would be worth a great deal more if it could be exported. But it is not. Some of the Native-owned timber is exported, but the timber from the Federal lands is not exported. The main reason I am here is to ask the Senate to think about this. This is a provision that applies only in the Tongass National Forest of Alaska. Why not the rest of the country? Why not the forests in New Hampshire? There is a forest in New Hampshire. What about the forests of other areas of the country? I am considering offering a second- degree amendment--I understand second-degree amendments will be in order and are in order--to apply it to the whole country. Above all, what about the commitment made to Alaska when so much of Alaska was withdrawn? In 1980, the law that was passed we called the Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act which withdrew over 100 million acres. That was a hard-fought battle that lasted 7 years in this Senate. We finally reached a conclusion that many of my constituents disagreed with, that in order to go forward with our economy and in order to go forward with our relationship with the Federal Government, we agreed to that act. It became law despite the fact that so many people disagreed with it because it did have some commitments to Alaska. This is one of the commitments, that the areas that were not set aside would be subject to harvest by the timber industry under the concepts that existed at the time. Now if we come along and change those concepts and say you cannot use Federal funds in the beginning, it means we will have to go back and fashion a basic Federal law that deals with the investment of private funds in those roads before the decision has been made--it is almost impossible for anyone to conceive building roads in an area before the final decision has been made that the timber can be harvested. The decision used to be made just by the Forest Service, but it is made by the courts now. Every single sale has gone to court repeatedly. Two years ago, I had an amendment to limit the amount of time that could be taken in those appeals. That is an issue that needs to be examined. But very clearly, the concept of using this approach that none of the funds available in this act may be used for the development of the these roads is another way to make the area wilderness. This is a wilderness bill. This is not an economic amendment. This is an amendment to assure that the commitment was made to us that a portion of the timber in the Tongass could be harvested. This will be reneging on that commitment. There is no way now for us to proceed with this type of road construction until we identify the purchaser of the timber, and there is no way really to get to the point of purchasing the timber until the roads are created. There are no roads available in the area except the ones to be constructed by the logging company that will cut the timber. I am sure the sponsors of this amendment do not realize what they are setting in motion. They are setting in motion a total block to development of the Tongass and a total reneging on the commitment that was made to our State that timber in this area would be subject to harvest. I hope to have an amendment that will make this apply to the whole country. I also have an amendment that I would want the Senate to consider, and that is that there should be a study made of the developing of these roads in the forest system, and that there be a report on a new process to develop roads in the units of the National Forest System if we are not to use Federal funds to build the roads. Again I say, from the point of view of safety, from the point of view of consistency as far as environmental protection, having the Forest Service build the roads in the areas that they agree to be available for timber harvesting is the best way we have devised so far. This concept, if it is to be studied, it ought to be studied throughout the whole National Forest Service System, not just my State, not just our State. I do think there is a great deal more to this debate that needs to be brought up to the Senate. But above all, people have asked: Why don't we just have a vote? The main reason is I think there are Senators here who really do not know the history of the development of this relationship between Alaska and the Federal Government with regard to the resources of our State. If you look at the 1980 act that withdrew over 100 million acres, you will find that because of those withdrawals you cannot build a north- south road in Alaska. You cannot build an east-west road in Alaska. There is no way to get through the various passes and across the rivers where you should be able to do it because withdrawals were made for national parks, wild and scenic rivers. There are a whole category of withdrawals to prevent that kind of development. There actually was a Senator on the floor of the Senate at one time who said our whole State should be made a national park and we should not be allowed to develop any portion of it. Our State is one-fifth the size of the United States. It is as big as at least 20 of the 48 States of what we call the South 48. We are entitled to a lifestyle. We are entitled to be treated as a State. We fought long and hard to become a State. What we are seeing here is this inching away from being treated as a State. This amendment only applies to Alaska. Of all the units of the forest system in the United States, it would only apply to Alaska. I think that type of discrimination should be reason enough for any Senator to vote against this amendment. But above all, I do hope the Senate will take time with us. My colleague, Senator Murkowski, will be with me tomorrow, and we will discuss this amendment at length. Right now, I just have to express my deep disappointment in an amendment of this type. I cannot conceive of offering an amendment to discriminate against another State. We sought to become a member of this Union because we thought we would be equal to other States. We have witnessed, time and time again, this attitude of people from other parts of the country that we are not entitled to the same rights as other Americans in terms of our relationship to the Federal Government. I think this is an area that needs examination. And it needs understanding. I cannot recall since I have been here holding up an appropriations bill. This one I do think is going to be held up. I want the Senate to know that I have a whole series of amendments that will be offered to this amendment. I do not take lightly the attack on our State, a discriminatory attack on Alaska. There are few Senators who have been privileged to be part of a battle for statehood for their State who end up on the floor of the Senate. I think one of my duties as a Senator for Alaska is to see to it that we are not discriminated against. And this is a discriminatory amendment, one that really disturbs me, as I have indicated, greatly. I do hope those who come from States that have national forests will examine the practices in their States. One of the strange things about this is we have inquired from the Forest Service about the money they are spending for roads in each of the forests. The way they handle the money, it is not too easy to find out how much money is being spent in each of the forests. But clearly we know there are forest roads being built in the national forests in other States. I believe the Senate should understand the gravity of this kind of discrimination against my State. I am not offering these amendments yet because I want to confer with my colleague who went home this past weekend since there are no votes today. I will be here tomorrow to try to explain further our amendments. But I do want to explain to my friends who are the managers of this bill, I hope they will not become overly disturbed with us. But we want to find some way to convince the Senate not to discriminate against our State. If there is some change that should be made to forest roads, it should apply to all forests. And if there is some concept of making a decision with regard to the economics of this aspect of this, let's decide what to do with the Forest Service altogether, not just the Forest Service that applies to Alaska. I close with what I started. Last year, I think we harvested less than 200 million board feet of timber, less than one-seventh of what was harvested the year I came to the Senate. Successive Congresses have found ways to whittle away, whittle away, whittle away at our ability to use the resources of our State. I think this is a time to ask the Senate to pause and consider that. I yield the floor.

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 ask unanimous consent that I be excused from the Senate between the hours of 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. today.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk legislation to designate the U.S. Post Office located at 7172 North Tongass Highway in Ward Cove, AK after Alice R. Brusich. Alice Brusich started her career with the Postal Service in 1954 as an Assistant Postmaster. Through her hard work and efforts, she became Postmaster in 1956. During her service with the Postal Service, Alice was also one of the founders of the Tongass Community Club. She was also one of the founding members and top officer of the Alaska Chapter 51 National Association of Postmasters in the United States. Alice was also in charge of the Ketchikan Post Office in the 70's. In 1985, Alice retired after 31 years of service. She remains an active supporter of the Postal service and is dedicated to improving the services at the Ward Cove Post Office. Alice has always been a strong advocate of improving and maintaining the Postal Service in Alaska, and it is only appropriate that we honor her service by dedicating the Ward Cove Post Office after her.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk legislation to designate the U.S. Post Office located at 7172 North Tongass Highway in Ward Cove, AK after Alice R. Brusich. Alice Brusich started her career with the Postal Service in 1954 as an Assistant Postmaster. Through her hard work and efforts, she became Postmaster in 1956. During her service with the Postal Service, Alice was also one of the founders of the Tongass Community Club. She was also one of the founding members and top officer of the Alaska Chapter 51 National Association of Postmasters in the United States. Alice was also in charge of the Ketchikan Post Office in the 70's. In 1985, Alice retired after 31 years of service. She remains an active supporter of the Postal service and is dedicated to improving the services at the Ward Cove Post Office. Alice has always been a strong advocate of improving and maintaining the Postal Service in Alaska, and it is only appropriate that we honor her service by dedicating the Ward Cove Post Office after her.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to maintain the solvency of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund established pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Shortly after midnight on March 24, 1989 the Exxon Valdez went aground on Bligh reef and caused an oil spill in Prince William Sound that is to this day still being monitored, studied, and restored. I wrote the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 in the aftermath of this disaster to provide the needed regulatory safeguards to reduce the potential for a similar spill to happen again and mitigate the environmental impacts in such an instance. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is the cornerstone of the Oil Pollution Act ensuring funds for expeditious oil removal and providing for uncompensated damages to the environment. It is the ``polluter pays'' policy under the Act that requires the responsible party to pay back into the Fund all costs and damages related to a spill. Unfortunately, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is rapidly running out of money. At a recent Commerce Committee hearing the Commandant of the Coast Guard testified that the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund would likely be depleted by 2009. And in its report on the ``Implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990'', released May 12, 2005, the Coast Guard announced at the end of fiscal year 2004 there was $842 million remaining in the Fund. This is compared to previous years when the un- obligated balance was well over $1 billion, as was required under the Act through a 5 cents per barrel of oil tax collected from the oil industry on petroleum produced in or imported to the United States. The tax was suspended on July 1, 1993 when the un-obligated balance in the Fund exceeded $1 billion. Thereafter, the tax was reinstated on July 1, 1994 when the balance declined below $1 billion. However, the tax expired on December 31, 1994 pursuant to the sunset provision under the Act. Since this time, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund has been unable to maintain a funding level above $1 billion from its various revenue sources prescribed under the Act, which consist of transfers from other existing pollution funds, interest on the Fund principal from U.S. Treasury investments, cost recoveries from responsible parties, and penalties. The only viable option to maintain the Fund's solvency is the reinstatement of the 5 cents per barrel of oil tax. The bill I introduce today will require the 5 cents tax go into effect after the last day of the first calendar quarter ending more than 30 days after the date of enactment. In addition, the bill provides that the Oil Spill Liabillty Trust Fund be funded at $3 billion, and if the fund drops below $2 billion the 5 cents per barrel tax will automatically be reinstated until the fund exceeds $3 billion.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to maintain the solvency of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund established pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Shortly after midnight on March 24, 1989 the Exxon Valdez went aground on Bligh reef and caused an oil spill in Prince William Sound that is to this day still being monitored, studied, and restored. I wrote the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 in the aftermath of this disaster to provide the needed regulatory safeguards to reduce the potential for a similar spill to happen again and mitigate the environmental impacts in such an instance. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is the cornerstone of the Oil Pollution Act ensuring funds for expeditious oil removal and providing for uncompensated damages to the environment. It is the ``polluter pays'' policy under the Act that requires the responsible party to pay back into the Fund all costs and damages related to a spill. Unfortunately, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is rapidly running out of money. At a recent Commerce Committee hearing the Commandant of the Coast Guard testified that the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund would likely be depleted by 2009. And in its report on the ``Implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990'', released May 12, 2005, the Coast Guard announced at the end of fiscal year 2004 there was $842 million remaining in the Fund. This is compared to previous years when the un- obligated balance was well over $1 billion, as was required under the Act through a 5 cents per barrel of oil tax collected from the oil industry on petroleum produced in or imported to the United States. The tax was suspended on July 1, 1993 when the un-obligated balance in the Fund exceeded $1 billion. Thereafter, the tax was reinstated on July 1, 1994 when the balance declined below $1 billion. However, the tax expired on December 31, 1994 pursuant to the sunset provision under the Act. Since this time, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund has been unable to maintain a funding level above $1 billion from its various revenue sources prescribed under the Act, which consist of transfers from other existing pollution funds, interest on the Fund principal from U.S. Treasury investments, cost recoveries from responsible parties, and penalties. The only viable option to maintain the Fund's solvency is the reinstatement of the 5 cents per barrel of oil tax. The bill I introduce today will require the 5 cents tax go into effect after the last day of the first calendar quarter ending more than 30 days after the date of enactment. In addition, the bill provides that the Oil Spill Liabillty Trust Fund be funded at $3 billion, and if the fund drops below $2 billion the 5 cents per barrel tax will automatically be reinstated until the fund exceeds $3 billion.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess so Members may greet our guests.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, by request of the Administration, Senator Inouye and I introduce today the ``National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005'', a bill to provide the regulatory framework for the development of aquaculture in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Concurrently, we have introduced an amendment to this bill to allow coastal States to decide whether or not they want offshore aquaculture in the EEZ off that State's coastline. We are cosponsoring Senator Snowe's amendment to strike the Jones Act waiver for vessels supporting offshore aquaculture facilities contained in the Administration's bill. I am also a cosponsor of Senator Inouye's amendment to better clarify language that environmental protections apply. As we review the Administration's measure in detail, there may be additional amendments offered to this bill and I look forward to working with my colleagues to address any concerns with the legislation.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I personally thank Senator Inouye, who is our co- chairman, for his work on this matter. We went to China last year to meet with this delegation, and we have been honored to host them in our country.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have the honor to present to the Senate the Chinese delegation from the National People's Congress to the U.S.- China Interparliamentary Group meeting. Its leaders standing beside me are Vice Chairman and Secretary General of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, Mr. Sheng Huaren. He is joined by the Chairman of the National People's Congress Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Jiang Enzhu. We also have the Vice Chairman of the National People's Congress Law Committee, Mr. Hu Kangsheng; the Vice Chairman of the National People's Congress Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Yang Guoliang; then the Vice Chairman of the National People's Congress Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Lu Congmin; Mr. Lu Baifu, who is a member of the National People's Congress Economic and Financial Affairs Committee; and the Deputy Chief of Mission from the People's Republic of China to the United States, Mr. Zheng Zeguang. I ask that the Senate stand in recess for a few minutes so that Members may greet our guests and have an opportunity to thank them for coming to join us for these historic talks.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is not often we get the time to just come to the floor to talk about friendships and about what it means to be friends in the Senate. I wish to take some time today to talk about my friend, the former majority leader, former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and longtime friend, Senator Byrd. It just so happens that we have spent a lot of time together. I remember so well one great trip to London when we went there for the British-American Parliamentary Conference where we had a great deal of time to talk about the past and our own personal lives. But I have come to the floor today to ask the Senate to join me in offering congratulations to my good friend and colleague, Senator Robert Byrd, and his wife Erma, who, on Sunday, will celebrate 68 years of marriage. This is an anniversary few of us will ever see, and as far as I can tell--I have checked with the Historian--no Senator has ever had the opportunity to celebrate 68 years of marriage. As a matter of fact, my oldest son Walter and his wife Debbie will celebrate 23 years of marriage on the same day, this Sunday. Those of us in the Senate have relied greatly upon Senator Byrd's knowledge and love of history. With just a few short days remaining before their anniversary and because we will probably not be in session tomorrow, I think it is appropriate to return the favor and ask the Senate to reflect a moment on Robert and Erma's history together as husband and wife. Robert Byrd and Erma James grew up together on the schoolyard of Mark Twain High School in West Virginia. They were high school sweethearts, although Senator Byrd has said himself he is ``not sure if [Erma] knew she was my sweetheart.'' They were. And they were married on May 29, 1937. Over the years, their family has grown, as Senator Byrd likes to say, ``into a brood of fine people.'' Today, they are proud parents of two daughters and have known the joy of six grandchildren and six great- grandchildren. For 68 years, Senator and Mrs. Byrd have shown us what it means to ``love, comfort, honor, and keep for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health.'' Their story has been called ``one of the great American romances.'' Every year, in May, Senator Byrd comes to the floor to reflect on the meaning of Mother's Day and honor the Nation's mothers. His great speeches often mention Erma, the wonderful home she has made for him and their children, and the joy he takes in his family. Two years ago, when Erma was sick, Senator Byrd stood up during an appropriations debate and told us he was going home. And I quote what he said at that time: There are only two duties that will exceed my duties in the Senate, one is my duty to God and the second is to my family. I think my duty is to my wife. Now, these moments are a great reminder to those of us who are married. We have married in this life, and we must do our best to keep the promises we made long ago. I have had the honor to be married twice myself. One of the reasons I am here today is I remember the great comfort Senator Byrd gave to me when I lost my first wife. He has assisted me and my family in many ways. I also remember when he came to the floor and spoke of my first child in my second marriage and really extolled the concept of marriage at that time. After 68 years, Erma and Robert still have the deep and abiding friendship that began in Beckley, WV; the love of their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren; and the respect of all of us in the Senate. I know of no other Senator who has celebrated over 50 years of service in Congress, and as I said before, there is no other Senator who could say he celebrated 68 years of marriage. It is an overwhelming accomplishment and really a credit to both Robert and Erma. Earlier this month, in his annual Mother's Day address, Senator Byrd reflected on the early days of his marriage to Erma. He said: Nearly seven decades ago, we were the rankest of amateurs at marriage and parenthood. This Sunday, our good friend and his wife will have proven they are now experts in both categories. My wife Catherine and I wish them the best. Senator Byrd has often marked significant events by submitting works of poetry for the Record. I wish I had his capability for remembering poems and works of great art. But today, I offer a poem by the great Alaskan poet, Robert Service, and I offer it in honor of Senator and Mrs. Byrd's 68 years together. Robert Service's poem is entitled ``Home and Love,'' and it goes like this: Just home and love! The words are small Four little letters unto each; And yet you will not find in all The wide and gracious range of speech Two more so tenderly complete: When angels talk in heaven above, I'm sure they have no words more sweet Than home and love. Just home and love! It's hard to guess Which of the two were best to gain; Home without love is bitterness: Love without home is often pain. No! Each alone will seldom do; Somehow they travel hand and glove: If you win one you must have two, Both home and love. And if you've both, well then I'm sure You ought to sing the whole day long: It doesn't matter if you're poor With these to make divine your song. And so I praisefully repeat, When angels talk in heaven above, There are no words more simply sweet Than home and love. I ask the Senate to remember to congratulate my good friend on 68 years of marriage.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have time reserved at 5:30, but I will make a comment before that time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have had the pleasure to work with my good friend, John Bolton, on several issues. Each time I have worked with him, he has proven to be helpful and driven to obtain the results that will best serve the interests of the United States. He is a straight shooter, a no-nonsense type of guy who knows how to get results. As most of my colleagues know, I take a special interest in issues regarding Asia. Alaska's past, present, and future have always looked westward to Russia, China, Japan, and the Korean Peninsula. It is for that reason that I have decided to support John Bolton. North Korea has had nuclear aspirations many years and has taken aggressive steps to acquire nuclear weapons years before the Bush administration came into office. John Bolton's straight-forward talk on North Korea should be applauded. He was telling the truth. The United States made the good-faith effort with the 1994 Agreed Framework by providing food and support for building of the reactor. But this agreement was destined to fail because of North Korea's treacherous actions in the region. This is not a country we can trust. We now know that North Korea began cheating on it almost as the ink was drying by embarking on a covert uranium enrichment program. The Bush administration has accomplished the core prerequisite for a lasting solution. It has galvanized the international community to work together on a lasting, multinational solution to the problem. The White House has stated that the next venue for this discussion will be the United Nations. John Bolton will be that voice, a compelling one, to ensure we are able to have an agreement that will stick. John Bolton is the strong voice that is required to ensure that America's vision on a nuclear weapon free North Korea is heard at the United Nations. John Bolton believes in frank and honest diplomacy. John Bolton has not shied away from naming rogue states that violate international commitments such as the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He has had an effective working relationship with foreign governments, international institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector for over three decades. There is no question that John Bolton is qualified for the position of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., and here are just a few reasons why: As the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton led the efforts to implement the President's strong nonproliferation agenda, including reform of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He has actively promoted effective multilateral solutions to real- world problems such as the proposal to create a Special Committee of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board to focus on safeguards and verification of nuclear programs. John Bolton helped to bring about new leadership to improve the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. He was the President's point person in designing the Proliferation Security Initiative. Over 60 nations are now working together to share intelligence and are taking action to stop the transfer of dangerous weapons. The Proliferation Security Initiative was instrumental in getting Libya to make the strategic decision to abandon its WMD programs. The U.N. is in need of reform. John Bolton supports reform at the United Nations so it is accountable, transparent, and effective. While serving as the Assistant Secretary for International Organizations, he detailed his concept of a ``Unitary U.N.'' that sought to ensure management and budget reforms across the U.N. system. John Bolton will work with member states and the Congress to reform the U.N. Allegations that Bolton manipulated intelligence are unfounded. As a policymaker, he asserted his view on intelligence. That was his job. Policymakers should question information extensively before accepting it as fact. These were internal policy debates, which occur in all Departments and agencies. He may have disagreed with intelligence findings at times, but John Bolton always accepted the final judgments of the intelligence community.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached statement from the President of the United States be entered into the Record today pursuant to the War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) and P.L. 107-40.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend, Senator Inouye, Co-Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and several of our colleagues, today in introducing the ``Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005.'' The Commerce Committee is committed to fulfilling its oversight responsibilities with respect to the security of all major modes of transportation. It has been four years since Congress enacted landmark aviation and maritime transportation security laws after the September 11 attacks. We must remain diligent in carrying out our responsibility to secure the Nation's domestic transportation system so as to ensure consumer trust and the uninterrupted flow of commerce. Recent reorganizations and budgetary decisions affecting the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have effectively marginalized maritime and surface transportation security, suggested re-privatization of aviation security, and offered inadequate funding for the security of all modes. The bill that we introduce today recognizes transportation security as a national security function and an economic necessity. The legislation would address security vulnerabilities that exist within our aviation, maritime, rail, and surface transportation systems. More specifically, the bill would, among other things: make notable changes to aviation security policy, including prohibiting the Administration from increasing passenger fees without the approval of Congress; eliminate the existing cap of 45,000 full time equivalent aviation security screening employees; enhance maritime cargo security by improving the examination of shipments before they reach U.S. shores; require TSA to conduct a railroad sector threat assessment and submit prioritized recommended solutions for improving rail security; make improvements to bus and motor carrier security by subjecting foreign commercial drivers transporting hazardous materials into the U.S. to submit to security background checks; and encourage the deployment of rail car tracking equipment for high-hazard materials rail shipments. This is an important first step toward bolstering our nation's security with respect to transportation and I look forward to working with Senator Inouye, as well as the Department of Homeland Security, DOT, and private industry, on this legislation in committee and on the Senate floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend, Senator Inouye, Co-Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and several of our colleagues, today in introducing the ``Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005.'' The Commerce Committee is committed to fulfilling its oversight responsibilities with respect to the security of all major modes of transportation. It has been four years since Congress enacted landmark aviation and maritime transportation security laws after the September 11 attacks. We must remain diligent in carrying out our responsibility to secure the Nation's domestic transportation system so as to ensure consumer trust and the uninterrupted flow of commerce. Recent reorganizations and budgetary decisions affecting the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have effectively marginalized maritime and surface transportation security, suggested re-privatization of aviation security, and offered inadequate funding for the security of all modes. The bill that we introduce today recognizes transportation security as a national security function and an economic necessity. The legislation would address security vulnerabilities that exist within our aviation, maritime, rail, and surface transportation systems. More specifically, the bill would, among other things: make notable changes to aviation security policy, including prohibiting the Administration from increasing passenger fees without the approval of Congress; eliminate the existing cap of 45,000 full time equivalent aviation security screening employees; enhance maritime cargo security by improving the examination of shipments before they reach U.S. shores; require TSA to conduct a railroad sector threat assessment and submit prioritized recommended solutions for improving rail security; make improvements to bus and motor carrier security by subjecting foreign commercial drivers transporting hazardous materials into the U.S. to submit to security background checks; and encourage the deployment of rail car tracking equipment for high-hazard materials rail shipments. This is an important first step toward bolstering our nation's security with respect to transportation and I look forward to working with Senator Inouye, as well as the Department of Homeland Security, DOT, and private industry, on this legislation in committee and on the Senate floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Yes. Amendment No. 611

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for this question. Yes, I believe that funding for the AFRN could be an eligible activity within the funding we are providing in the Iraq Security Forces Fund. I cannot guarantee the Senator any particular level of funding will be provided, but I do agree with him that continued work on the AFRN is important.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this past Sunday, the 8th of May, marked the 60th anniversary of the Allied victory in Europe during World War II. I have come to the floor today to honor those who served in that war and to mention our colleagues who answered the call of duty then. When I first came to the Senate, I think more than half of the Senate had served in World War II. There are few of us left who served during that war, and in the Senate only five: Senator Akaka, Senator Inouye, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Warner, and myself. That war was an enormous effort that involved our Nation's total manpower. Sixteen million Americans answered the call to serve, and more than 400,000 of them gave what Lincoln once called ``the last full measure of devotion.'' Here at home, Americans of all walks of life supported the war effort. Children collected rubber, tin, and steel. Families rationed food and gasoline. And women, in unprecedented numbers, took their place in industry and produced the tools that enabled us to win the war. They joined fields which had once been closed to them, and they never looked back. When I went into the service, as most of my generation did, I was fortunate to do what I wanted to do, which was to fly. Sixty years ago, for those of us who served, every day was a milestone. Every day marked another step toward victory. Today, we only recognize a handful of those days: Pearl Harbor Day, D-day, V-J Day, and V-E Day--which is what I speak of today. There were so many who stepped forward when our country needed us, who sacrificed on the battlefield and here at home so we could win that war. It was a time defined by heroism, and it is hard to single out any one person who did heroic things. But I am here to remind the Senate that my friend, Senator Inouye, was a hero. In military history there is a select group of men who have suffered grave injuries on the battlefield, continued their military careers, and gone on to further greatness. Horatio Nelson, Joshua Chamberlain, and John Bell Hood are all men who were tested on and off the battlefield, and their legacies endure. Among these men, Senator Dan Inouye stands out because he overcame so much more just to become a soldier and waited so long to have his heroism officially recognized with the Congressional Medal of Honor. It is hard to sum up my respect and admiration for my great colleague and friend from Hawaii. Our friendship has spanned many decades now, and we call each other truly brothers. We are brothers. I can think of no man I respect more. Last month, Senator Reid came to the floor to honor Senator Inouye's service during World War II, also. Senator Reid said: Dan Inouye is a step above all of us. I agree with Senator Reid. As a World War II veteran, I am here to salute Dan Inouye. His courage and bravery and sense of duty are an inspiration to not only his Senate colleagues, but I feel to all Americans. In a time when men made the extraordinary seem ordinary, Dan Inouye stood out as a hero among men. I would like to read part of the citation for action that resulted in Senator Inouye's Congressional Medal of Honor. Senator Inouye was recognized for valor in combat in the Italian campaign in a battle just 17 days before V-E Day. The citation says: With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun nest. Although wounded by a sniper's bullet, he continued to engage other hostile positions at close range until an exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions. In the attack, 25 enemy soldiers were killed and eight others captured. By his gallant, aggressive tactics and by his indomitable leadership, Second Lieutenant Inouye enabled his platoon to advance through formidable resistance, and was instrumental in the capture of the ridge. Second Lieutenant Inouye's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the United States Army. On the battlefield and in Congress, Dan Inouye has faithfully served our country, his state of Hawaii, and the men and women of the military. It is men such as Dan Inouye who inspired the phrase the ``Greatest Generation.'' I hope we remember all of them today. I thank the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I oppose the Bayh-Kennedy amendment on the uparmored humvees. The validated global war on terror requirement for this is 10,079. I do hope the Senate will listen. This is very serious. We received a letter last week from two senior Army general officers, the Army's G-8 Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs and the Army's G-3 Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, which states the total requirement for these vehicles is 10,079 and that industry will meet that requirement in less than 2 months with funds previously provided. Keep in mind the pre-emergency throughput of these vehicles was 40 a month. We are now producing at the rate of 550 a month, and we will reach the maximum in June because we paid more to speed up this production. We appropriated funds and reprogrammed to meet the total requirement. We have now met it. As a matter of fact, we produced 266 more vehicles than the Army wanted. This amendment is not about taking care of troops. I spent my career, and the Senator from Hawaii with me, to ensure the service men and women have the equipment they need, the support they need. This is about the production unit of a defense contractor, not about the people who are wearing the uniform in Iraq. This manufacturer is currently producing these at the capacity, as I said, of 550 a month. Every month, 550 new humvees are going into Iraq. We will have more there by June than we need. There is no need for this. The sponsors want you to believe the Army wants and needs these, but that is not true. The Army's requirement will be met in June, and we have provided some money for all of them. In Iraq, we are meeting the requirements of the commanders in the field, and they have certified to that. The additional funding of this amendment was not requested by the Department, and the commanders are receiving other vehicles now, for instance, the Striker, which is a different system and is providing more protection for the people in the field. They are going in there now. Some people argue the need for these is going up. That is not true. The need for Strikers is going up, and we are sending Strikers in from Germany, from Hawaii, from Alaska, from Seattle. We are meeting the needs they demanded, and that is for the Strikers. This requirement is not increasing with the continued operations in Iraq. A major difference now is, after February of this year, all vehicles operating outside the protective compound are armored, and we have met that need. This is an emergency appropriations bill. I believe we should focus on the needs of validated requirements of the Department for the total global war, but this is not one of them. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield to my friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, so he might be heard on the matter. I thank the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that is correct. This money comes out of this supplemental for these purposes which is beyond the needs on this vehicle and reduce the amount of money for other items that are needed.