Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk legislation to designate the U.S. Post Office located at 4141 Postmark Drive in Anchorage, Alaska after Robert J. Opinsky. Bob Opinsky started his career with the Postal Service in 1956 as a $1.50-an-hour temporary clerk. Through hard work and dedication, he was able to work up the ranks of the Postal Service and become the District Manager of the Postal Service in Alaska. During his 41 years with the Postal Service, Bob has proven his commitment to the Postal Service. In 1964 when the great earthquake hit Alaska, the local roads were torn apart and homes and buildings were destroyed. In addition, the earthquake created a large hole in the Anchorage post office building. However, despite the conditions of the Anchorage post office and roads, Bob Opinsky went to work on the Monday morning following the Friday quake. Bob Opinsky introduced innovative methods to run the Postal Service. Under Bob's leadership in 1996, the Postal Service was awarded the Green Star Award; an award given in honor of environmental responsibility. The Postal Service in Alaska recycled more than 725,000 pounds of mixed paper and 100,000 pounds of cardboard. Not only was the Anchorage recycling program environmentally friendly, the Postal Service's efforts reduced their annual disposal cost by about $34,000. After 41 years of employment with the Postal Service, Bob Opinsky retired from his District Manager position in 1996. Bob has poured his heart and soul into the Postal Service. It is only fitting we honor his commitment to the Postal Service by dedicating a post office in Anchorage, Alaska after him.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk legislation to designate the U.S. Post Office located at 4141 Postmark Drive in Anchorage, Alaska after Robert J. Opinsky. Bob Opinsky started his career with the Postal Service in 1956 as a $1.50-an-hour temporary clerk. Through hard work and dedication, he was able to work up the ranks of the Postal Service and become the District Manager of the Postal Service in Alaska. During his 41 years with the Postal Service, Bob has proven his commitment to the Postal Service. In 1964 when the great earthquake hit Alaska, the local roads were torn apart and homes and buildings were destroyed. In addition, the earthquake created a large hole in the Anchorage post office building. However, despite the conditions of the Anchorage post office and roads, Bob Opinsky went to work on the Monday morning following the Friday quake. Bob Opinsky introduced innovative methods to run the Postal Service. Under Bob's leadership in 1996, the Postal Service was awarded the Green Star Award; an award given in honor of environmental responsibility. The Postal Service in Alaska recycled more than 725,000 pounds of mixed paper and 100,000 pounds of cardboard. Not only was the Anchorage recycling program environmentally friendly, the Postal Service's efforts reduced their annual disposal cost by about $34,000. After 41 years of employment with the Postal Service, Bob Opinsky retired from his District Manager position in 1996. Bob has poured his heart and soul into the Postal Service. It is only fitting we honor his commitment to the Postal Service by dedicating a post office in Anchorage, Alaska after him.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to permit me the honor of introducing to the Senate Members of National Congresses of the Americas who are here in Washington for a conference on the freedom of the press. I have representatives of the National Congresses of the Americas from Argentina, Senator Guillermo Jenefes, Senate, and Representative Carlos Federico Ruckauf, Congressman, House of Representatives; Bolivia, Senator Alfonso Cabrera, Senate, and Representative Oscar Sandoval Moron, House of Representatives; Brazil, Senator Helio Costa, Senate, and Representative Celso Russomanno, House of Representatives; Chile, Senator Andres Zaldivar Larrain, Ex- President of the Senate, Senator Alberto Espina Otero, Senate, and Representative Pablo Lorenzini, President of the House of Representatives; Colombia, Representative Alonso Rafael Acosta Osio, President of the House of Representatives; Costa Rica, Representative Mario Redondo Poveda, Ex-President of the National Congress; the Dominican Republic, George Andres Lopez Hilario, Senate Meetings Coordinator; Ecuador, Representative Jaime Estrada Bonilla, National Congress, and Representative Pedro J. Valverde Rubira, National Congress; El Salvador, Representative Ciro Cruz Zepeda Pena, President, National Congress, Representative Ileana Rogel, National Congress, and Representative Francisco Merino Lopez, National Congress; Guatemala, Representative Ruben Dario Morales, First Vice President, National Congress; Honduras, Representative Samuel Bogran Prieto, Vice President, National Congress, and Representative Gilberto Goldstein, National Congress; Jamaica, Deika Morrison, Senator and Minister of State, and Michael Anthony Peart, Speaker of the House of Representatives; Mexico, Representative Francisco Arroyo Vierya, Vice Presidente, House of Representatives; Nicaragua, Representative Carlos Noguera Pastora, President, National Congress; Paraguay, Senator Modesto Luis Guggiari, Senate, and Representative Rafael Filizzola, House of Representatives; Peru, Representative Carlos Almeri Veramendi, National Congress, and Representative Enith Chuquival Saavedra, National Congress; United States, Senator Ted Stevens, Senate Pro-Tempore, U.S. Senate; Uruguay, Senator Luis Hierro Lopez, Senate President and Vice President of Uruguay, and Representative Jose Amorin Batlle, President, House of Representatives; and Venezuela, Ricardo Antonio Gutierrez Briceno, First Vice President, National Congress.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for not to exceed 5 minutes so Members might greet my friends from the Congresses of the Americas.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President. I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss my very good friend, John Negroponte, in support of his nomination to be the United States Ambassador to Iraq. John and I have known each other since 1977 with his appointment as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Fisheries Affairs with the rank of Ambassador. Because he handled several fisheries negotiations of vital interest to my state, John was a frequent visitor to Alaska. In 1978, John negotiated a breakthrough agreement with the Government of Japan which provided crucial protection for Alaskan salmon stocks from Japanese high seas fishing fleets. This agreement provided countless benefits to the Alaskan fishing community which endure to this day. I have also had the pleasure of working with John in his subsequent assignments: as Ambassador to Honduras; as Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, as Ambassador to the Philippines and more recently as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In each situation, I was able to witness first hand his ability to manage large and complex diplomatic missions and to observe his effectiveness and sensitivity in dealing with his foreign counterparts. Educated at Yale, he speaks five languages fluently--something that I consider a true asset for this position. I believe President Bush, on the recommendation of Secretary of State Powell, has chosen extremely wisely and well in his selection of John to be our Nation's representative in Iraq. I also believe that at this point in time in our Nation's history, it is vital to have John at the helm in Iraq--we will need his expertise to help guide us through the next few months. I can tell you without any question, this man is one of the most distinguished public servants that I have had the honor of knowing and serving with. I know his family and I know this man. With the unfortunate development we have recently had in terms of the conduct of some of the people involved in the prisons in Iraq, I am confident that John Negroponte is the man necessary to be there, in Iraq, to represent our Government. He will represent us well, and we will be very well served by his confirmation. I urge the Senate to quickly confirm John Negroponte as our Ambassador to Iraq. I thank the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Fine.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as President pro tempore and presiding over the Senate, I have found the overheated rhetoric on Iraq over the last few days at best disappointing and at worst misleading, harshly partisan, and motivated by election year politics. I have simply had enough of this. I have come to the floor to ask my Senate colleagues to restore the level of debate that this institution demands. I urge the Senate to not play politics with Iraq. Do not seek to gain some slim, fleeting advantage at the ballot box by making our country appear divided, and by making reckless accusations. Our troops in Iraq deserve better than this. They deserve much better. If there is debate, let it be reasoned and measured, and focused on the way forward in this war on terrorism. When our forces are deployed and in the field, they deserve nothing less than our absolute, unwavering commitment to their success. Nothing less. I take strong issue with three particular themes: First, the analogy that Iraq is somehow like Vietnam. This analogy is wrong, and simply inflammatory; second, that the President was wrong when he made his speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln a year ago on May 1; and third, that somehow our action to remove the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein was in any regard ``unprovoked.'' That is simply and plainly not true. Iraq is not Vietnam. It is wildly irresponsible--even reckless--to compare the situation in Iraq to the war in Vietnam. Those who make that false claim are engaging in dangerous rhetoric, and are ill informed about history and facts of the two conflicts. Comparing Iraq to Vietnam does not advance the debate, it simply inflames the issue, obscures the facts and, unfortunately, misleads the American people. My colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, started this Iraq is Vietnam spin in a speech a few weeks ago. Of all people, he knows better than to make that bogus comparison. I encourage my colleagues to turn down the rhetoric on Vietnam, and get the facts right. Here are some of those facts: In Vietnam, President Kennedy sent ``advisers'' to Vietnam in 1961, but they were not authorized to use force until 1964, 3 years later. Then, in 1971, Congress repealed that authority. In Iraq, this very Congress approved a resolution that authorized the use of force in October, 2002, well in advance of any forces being deployed. That resolution still stands today. In Vietnam, eight nations joined with the United States. In Iraq, over 30 nations are in our coalition, including 16 of 26 NATO allies. In Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh violated zero U.N. Security Council resolutions--none. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein violated seventeen--seventeen--U.N. Security Council resolutions, beginning immediately after the 1991 Gulf war cease fire agreement. In Vietnam, how many draftees were sent to that country? About two million draftees, all young men. In Iraq, how many draftees are there? Zero, none. We have an all- volunteer force. They know the risks, they know their duty, and they volunteer to step forward and serve our country. I have yet to meet one at the hospitals here who hasn't asked me the question: How can I go back to my unit? How can I go back to Iraq? They ask that despite the many serious wounds they have. In Vietnam, against how many Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians did Ho Chi Minh use chemical and biological weapons? Were there chemical and biological weapons used by North Vietnam? No, none. In Iraq, against how many Iraqis, Iranians, and Kurds did Saddam Hussein use chemical and biological weapons? Thousands and thousands of people--the Kurds, the Iraqis, and Iranians--were the subject of chemical and biological weapons used by Saddam Hussein. I have an article here from last Sunday's Providence Journal- Bulletin, and the headline of that article is this: ``Historians, Soldiers Hesitant to Call Iraq another Vietnam: the purposes, strategy, terrain and players in the Vietnam war were far different than those in Iraq, many experts say.'' Far different than those in Iraq, indeed. That is a true statement by the Providence Journal-Bulletin. In this article, Anthony Cordesman, a military expert and former diplomat, says ``I really worry about the analogy between Vietnam and Iraq, where we're not really fighting a foreign enemy.'' Mr. Cordesman, who is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, goes on to say: There is as yet no massive insurgency [confronting coalition forces]. We're not dealing with massive external powers supporting the insurgents. We do not have a situation where we have lost a majority of the population as we did in Vietnam when we lost the Buddhists. We are not attempting to get around the reality of a need to create a legitimate government, which we did after the fall of the South Vietnam's Diem regime. I hope that cooler heads and cooler rhetoric will prevail here in the Senate. My colleague from Delaware, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, has found the Vietnam analogy, ``misleading'' because, as he says, ``The vast majority of Iraqis share our vision for a participatory, representative democracy.'' President Bush is absolutely right when he says that the Vietnam-Iraq analogy is false. And he is right that brandishing that false analogy as a rhetorical weapon, ``sends the wrong message to our troops and sends the wrong message to the enemy.'' With regard to President Bush's speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, some have chosen to make a great issue about it. They have endlessly taunted the Commander in Chief for words on a banner, and have twisted his words to suit their purposes. What the President said is this: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. The President was dead-on right. He spoke clearly and plainly, yet some refuse to listen to what he said. He went on to say that ``major combat operations in Iraq have ended.'' The President was and is absolutely correct today in making that statement. Saddam's regime of oppression and torture was gone. The Hussein Baath Party regime was disbanded, and no longer in power. Baghdad had fallen, and was under the control of the coalition of which we were the leader. Active, organized military resistance had collapsed. Saddam's military forces were not resisting; their will to fight had been destroyed; they had no ability to command and control the few forces they had left. The mission was to remove a threatening, brutal dictator from power, to bring to an end the ruthless oppression of the Iraqi people--and that mission was accomplished. President Bush made it abundantly clear that he recognized the challenges that would face America and confront our troops. He said, ``And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.'' He said: We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth the effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. That could not be clearer or more truthful. There are those in this body who should listen to these words and hear them accurately. Let me state that again. He said: We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth the effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. The clear and compelling meaning of the President's words on May 1, 2003 was that Saddam Hussein had been removed from power, Iraq's military defeated, and the work of stabilizing and reconstructing Iraq had begun--and that such work would be both difficult and costly. The President was right when he spoke on the carrier a year ago, and he is still right today. What has happened in recent weeks and months is an emerging insurgency, and the appearance of foreign fighters in Iraq who will do anything--anything--to see the coalition fail, and see Iraq revert back to a brutal dictatorship, and become a breeding ground for radical Islamic terrorists. These terrorists have joined with former regime elements, and have chosen to make Iraq a full-blown battlefield in the war on terrorism. This is not a war against Saddam Hussein. This is a war on terrorism. What these terrorists and their sympathizers fear most is Iraq becoming a stable, functioning democracy that benefits the Iraqi people, joins the world community, and serves as a source of democratic influence on the people of the region. They have no regard for the will of the Iraqi people, for their safety, for their security or for their future. They are simply using Iraqi soil, and taking innocent Iraqi lives, in their ruthless Jihad, in their desire to spread chaos and foment hate across the Islamic world, and in their hatred of freedom, moderation and democracy. I urge those who are twisting the President's words of now almost a year ago to listen carefully to what he said, to end the personal attack, to stop the spin. Stop parsing words and stop mocking plastic banners. We can and we must do better than that in the Senate. And unprovoked? I heard the word ``unprovoked.'' My third point is, I say to those who claim the war to liberate Iraq was somehow ``unprovoked,'' that is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. Could that statement be more preposterous? Could anything be more disconnected from the truth in Iraq? Can anyone say with a straight face Saddam Hussein did nothing to provoke the international community? Here is a sampling of some of the ways that Saddam Hussein provoked this conflict, how he provoked the United States, and how he provoked the world. In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran and used chemical weapons against the Iranian people. In 1988, Saddam's forces killed 5,000 innocent civilians in a chemical weapons attack against the Kurdish villages of Halabja. In 1990, Saddam's forces invaded another neighbor, this time Kuwait. We all know in the Gulf War thousands of innocent Kuwaiti civilians were raped, tortured, and murdered during the occupation. In 1991, Iraq was poised to march on other nations but was stopped by a U.S.-led coalition of forces. We call that the Gulf War. Iraq has launched ballistic missiles at four of its neighbors. Remember that, ``unprovoked''? It launched ballistic missiles at four of its neighbors: Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. I might say, I was in Israel when one of those was launched. Saddam's Iraq was, at a minimum, engaged in clandestine research and development activities to develop, refine, and employ chemical and biological weapons. From 1991 to 2003, Saddam's Iraq fired more than 1,000 missiles at our aircraft as they patroled Iraq's U.N.-sanctioned no-fly zones. We went over to Kuwait. We met the pilots who were flying day after day--what we call the CAP, the constant air patrol--at the request of the U.N. in compliance with the U.N. resolution. They told us how they were fired at again and again and again. Saddam Hussein was firing at U.S. planes daily. Provocation? I can't think of another provocation. As a matter of fact, we should have gone to war when President Clinton said he was about ready to go to war in 1998. For more than a decade, Saddam's Iraq steadfastly ignored the will of the United Nations and the civilized world and ignored no fewer than 17 U.N. resolutions. I could continue with the list, but the point is the same: To say that Saddam Hussein is not responsible for his fate and Iraq's current status and did nothing to provoke that change is ludicrous. It is plainly untrue. Let me conclude by saying this: The tone of the debate on Iraq must change. With our troops under daily attack, we cannot make Iraq a political football in an election year or any year. Representative Jim Marshall, a freshman Democrat from Georgia, wrote a compelling column in the Washington Post last October. The title of his column was ``Don't Play Politics on Iraq.'' A decorated Army Ranger who served in Vietnam, Congressman Marshall was right then and he is right today. His observations were wise then and even wiser today: Don't play politics on Iraq. Let me quote from that article Congressman Marshall wrote: Many in Washington view the contest for the presidency and the control of Congress as a zero-sum game without external costs or benefits. Politicians and activists in each party reflexively celebrate, spread and embellish the news bad for the opposition. But to do that now with regard to Iraq harms our troops and our effort. Concerning Iraq, this normal political tripe can impose a heavy external cost. I continue with the article written by Congressman Marshall: For now, responsible Democrats should carefully avoid using the language of failure. It is false. It endangers our troops and our effort. It can be unforgivably self-fulfilling. That Congressman gets it. He really gets it. You do not play politics on Iraq. You do not play politics with national security. You do not play politics with the defense of this country. You do not play politics with troops deployed. You do not let seeking partisan advantage drive a wedge between Americans when troops are in harm's way. I urge our colleagues to end this divisive practice of using the floor of this Senate and this issue on Iraq to bash the administration to try to score political points. We can do better than that. For those who persist on this practice, reflect on Congressman Marshall's words: It endangers our troops and our effort. It is simply wrong, election year or not. Those who irresponsibly endanger or use Iraq for partisan advantage should be warmed: You must understand and take responsibility for the message you send to the enemies of freedom, democracy, and liberty through the world. This country should be united when we have troops abroad. We should be united when we have people trying to assist Iraqis to find freedom and defeat the terrorists who persist to bring the war on terrorism to Iraq after we won the war against Saddam Hussein. I urge my colleagues to follow Congressman Marshall's injunction: Do not play politics anymore on Iraq. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the Senator is very kind, and I thank the Senator from Tennessee. Madam President, I come to the floor today to inform the Senate of the outstanding commitment, courage, and professionalism of our military medical community. This morning, the Senator from Hawaii and I cochaired a hearing with the Surgeons General and the chiefs of the Nursing Corps from each branch of the Armed Forces. We were joined by Army Surgeon General James Peake, Navy Surgeon General Michael Cowan, and Air Force Surgeon General George Taylor. From the Service Nursing Corps, we heard from Army COL Deborah Gustke, Navy ADM Nancy Lescavage, and Air Force GEN Barbara Brannon. I want the Senate to note and personally thank each of our witnesses today for the outstanding leadership they provided to our military medical community. Their individual accomplishments are numerous. I offer a special recognition to Surgeons General Peake and Cowan, who will be retiring from Active Duty this year. We greatly appreciate their service in military medicine, to our Nation, and especially their assistance to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. The insight they provided to the subcommittee is invaluable. I congratulate each one of them on a successful and distinguished career. During today's hearing, the members of the committee and I were told of outstanding accomplishments by our military medical leaders. I have come to the Senate to share some of what we learned today with my colleagues. Over the last year, our thoughts have never been far from the battlefields, or from the soldiers and families who have sacrificed so much for our Nation. I salute our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines for their efforts in the war on terrorism. I join the families of our lost sons and daughters in mourning and remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of freedom. I have seen many headlines about the casualties of the war, but the accomplishments of our military doctors, nurses, and corpsmen are seldom mentioned. These health care professionals were among the first to rush to the battlefield, and they are still on the front lines providing care in some of the most dangerous and difficult conditions. Today our combat medics regularly perform miracles. They use transformational technology to successfully expand the ``golden hour'' of trauma care, the critical hour of opportunity from when a trauma is sustained and the lives can be most often saved. One telling statistic is the lowest ``died of wounds rate'' in recorded history of warfare. A number of factors have contributed to this accomplishment, but the mobile surgical teams have been crucial. They bring resuscitative surgical care onto the battlefield. Without the care they get within the ``golden hour'' after being wounded, the 15 to 20 percent of wounded soldiers they target would probably die while being evacuated to the combat support hospital. These surgical teams are specially equipped to deal with excessive hemorrhaging, which has been the major cause of death in previous conflicts. One of the transformational technologies employed by these surgical units is a hand-held ultrasound machine used to identify internal bleeding, a truly lifesaving piece of equipment. Other technologies the medics have employed include haemostatic dressings and the chitosen bandage. These are two new lifesaving wound dressings that are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Approximately 1,200 haemostatic dressings have been deployed under an investigational new drug battlefield protocol. In one account we learned of today, the dressing was successfully applied to a thigh wound to completely control arterial bleeding when a pressure dressing and tourniquet proved unsuccessful. There are two similar reports of special forces medics using chitosen bandages to treat severe bleeding caused by gunshot wounds to the extremities. Approximately 5,800 of these chitosen bandages have been deployed to the theater of operations. These are just a few of the examples of military medics using revolutionary medical technologies to lead the way in trauma treatment, lead the way in saving lives. Military researchers continue to investigate numerous other cutting-edge technologies, and those efforts are the foundation for the future of medical health care while in the service. Many of these same technologies will likely be used someday in civilian trauma centers across our country. Aeromedical and ground evacuation crews, operating from Blackhawk helicopters, a variety of fixed-wing aircraft, and ground evacuation vehicles, such as the Stryker, have also performed exceptionally during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The crews have demonstrated an ability to swoop into a hostile environment and pull wounded service members from the battlefield. They provide critical in-flight trauma care until more substantial care can be provided at fleet and field hospitals. Military health professionals also ensure the health and safety of our soldiers in a number of other ways. When forces deploy around the globe, environmental health professionals are on the ground surveying the environment for biological and environmental threats. Among these military health professionals are nationally recognized experts in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. Their expertise ranges from medical surveillance and epidemiology to casualty management. Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear training has been incorporated into the soldiers' common skills training, advanced individual training, and leadership courses. Our health professionals also consider the mental health of our troops to be a top priority. In July 2003, a team of mental health experts from treatment facilities around the Nation left for Iraq. Their mission was to assess mental health issues and address concerns about a spike in the number of suicides occurring in the theater of operation. These professionals evaluated the mental health patient flow from theaters and assessed the stress-related issues soldiers experienced in combat operations. The survey team remained in the theater for 6 weeks and traveled to several base camps. I am told this is the first time a mental health assessment team has ever conducted a mental health survey with soldiers in an active combat environment. While many of the medical providers are deployed in the support of contingency operations, the military health system continues to provide outstanding care to service members, their families, and our retirees here at home. These professionals never waiver in their commitment to the highest quality of health care for our beneficiaries. The caregivers here at home also provide rehabilitative care to our troops after returning from combat. Perhaps the best example is the amputee center at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital, which provides state-of-the-art care to service members who have lost limbs in battle. The center aims to return each amputee to the highest level of performance and quality of life. I have personally visited with wounded soldiers at the center, and I can tell you they are achieving their goal. I have come to the Chamber to commend our military health care professionals who have served with distinction throughout the global war on terrorism. Their dedication and commitment to their fellow service members is unmistakable, and their service is responsible for saving countless lives, both of our American service members and injured Iraqis. We are truly grateful for their service. I ask the whole Senate to join me in commending the military service of these medical professionals who have done so much for us. I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Washington Post of April 27, entitled ``The Lasting Wounds of War,'' by Karl Vick, be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce today the National Ocean Exploration Program Act to expand exploration and knowledge of our Nation's oceans. This bill is cosponsored by Senators Hollings and Inouye. The National Ocean Exploration Program Act will create better coordination of ocean exploration and research between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, and other appropriate Federal agencies. The purposes of the program are to expand ocean exploration to discover new marine substances that potentially have therapeutic benefits; to study unique marine ecosystems, organisms, and the geology of the world's oceans; and to maximize ocean research effectiveness by integrating multiple scientific disciplines in the ocean science community. There will be a focus on remote ocean research and exploration, in particular, deep marine regions, specifically, hydrothermal vents communities and seamounts. More research on these areas, where organisms exist in highly toxic environments, may bring significant scientific and medical breakthroughs. Decades ago I helped Oscar Dyson, a great Alaska fisherman, secure a small grant to explore the North Pacific. With that grant, he discovered a significant number of species of marine life we now consider to be central to the North Pacific. It is my hope the National Ocean Exploration Program Act will provide this type of exploration and discovery to our Nation's oceans.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce today the National Ocean Exploration Program Act to expand exploration and knowledge of our Nation's oceans. This bill is cosponsored by Senators Hollings and Inouye. The National Ocean Exploration Program Act will create better coordination of ocean exploration and research between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, and other appropriate Federal agencies. The purposes of the program are to expand ocean exploration to discover new marine substances that potentially have therapeutic benefits; to study unique marine ecosystems, organisms, and the geology of the world's oceans; and to maximize ocean research effectiveness by integrating multiple scientific disciplines in the ocean science community. There will be a focus on remote ocean research and exploration, in particular, deep marine regions, specifically, hydrothermal vents communities and seamounts. More research on these areas, where organisms exist in highly toxic environments, may bring significant scientific and medical breakthroughs. Decades ago I helped Oscar Dyson, a great Alaska fisherman, secure a small grant to explore the North Pacific. With that grant, he discovered a significant number of species of marine life we now consider to be central to the North Pacific. It is my hope the National Ocean Exploration Program Act will provide this type of exploration and discovery to our Nation's oceans.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia honors us all with that last statement he made. Over the years I have been here, it has been my privilege to travel with the Senator from West Virginia to many events. I want to recall one for the Senate that I am sure the Senator will remember. We were in West Virginia with the British American Parliamentary Conference. One of our guests from Britain made the mistake of saying it was too bad that their American cousins did not know anything about British history. My colleague was the host that evening. And making a closing statement for that dinner, Senator Byrd decided to show our British cousins his wealth of knowledge about the history of Britain and proceeded to name every monarch, every spouse, every person who had a personal relationship with every monarch, and a complete history of the monarchy of Great Britain. Needless to say, when he finished, which was quite a few minutes later, the British stood and applauded politely, and we have never heard such a comment again from our British cousins. There have been many other occasions we have had together. I wanted to say that one of the great joys of serving in the Senate is my being able to get to know my friend from West Virginia. We have had our disagreements, but that is natural because this aisle separates us once in a while. But nothing has separated Robert Byrd from each Senator in the Senate. He has been the most agreeable Senator, on a personal basis, that I have known in the Senate. I think every Senator will say the same thing. He always has a smile. He always increases that smile if we remember to ask about Erma. Mr. President, I join in the applause, but I think the Senate itself has been honored today to witness this historic mark in his career.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Is the time equally divided between now and 11 o'clock?

Mr. STEVENS. The minority used no time?

Mr. STEVENS. Very well.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the status of time now under morning business?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the floor management check with the leader, to see if there is any objection to restoring the concept there be 1 hour equally divided.

Mr. STEVENS. I support that and ask unanimous consent that be the case.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding the first half of this 1-hour period is under the control of the majority; is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Energy Committee has introduced a revised energy bill. Swift passage of this bill is vital. We should not underestimate the widespread and important consequences that this comprehensive energy legislation will have for the future of our Nation. American citizens and businesses rely on our ability to stabilize energy prices and provide them with the energy resources they need. Now, in the post-9/11 world, our energy development and production has taken on an additional level of importance. Our national security is dependent upon our ability to decrease our reliance on foreign energy sources, particularly from unstable or unfriendly regimes. The comprehensive energy policy embodied by this new bill is also critical for ensuring our economic growth. High energy prices impact our economy in many ways, and our ability to stabilize energy prices will have far-reaching consequences for our overall economic health and growth. The United States is recovering from a recession, but this recovery is threatened by sustained high energy prices which will increase real interest rates, the rate of inflation, and reduce gross domestic product growth. This first chart shows that situation. I call it to the attention of the Senate. As crude oil prices go up, there are changes in our gross domestic product. We have seen these effects firsthand already. High energy prices, which rose 4.7 percent in January and another 1.7 percent in February, greatly contributed to an increase in consumer prices. The Department of Labor recently announced that those prices jumped .3 percent in February and another .5 percent in March. Consumers are paying more for food, goods, and energy bills. High energy prices are essentially acting as a consumer tax, leaving Americans with less disposable income for travel, home buying, restaurants, retail establishments, and daily living. Record high gasoline prices only intensify this problem. Gasoline prices rose 8.1 percent in January and an additional 2.5 percent in March. Last week the average price at the gas pump reached $1.72 per gallon, with California leading at an average of $2.10 at the pump. These prices are an additional constraint on the consumer spending power. For every 1 cent increase at the pump, we see $1 billion lost in consumer spending capability. The rise in fuel prices also greatly impacts our aviation and trucking industry. Our airline industry has lost over $25 billion in the last 3 years. Sustained high jet fuel costs of $1 per gallon, which is double that of 1998-1999, continues to hamper the health of our critical transportation industry. High energy prices also prevent job creation for the transportation sector. The Air Transport Association estimates for every $1 increase in the price of fuel, they could fund 5,300 airline jobs. The increase in these prices is staggering. Every homeowner in America feels the pressure of high energy prices. Home heating costs for the 2002-2003 season were up 12 percent for natural gas, 7 percent for propane, and 2 percent for electricity. This winter alone, natural gas prices were 60 percent higher than last year--60 percent higher than last year. Estimates show that consumers may pay more than $200 billion this year in energy costs. This is an enormous and unnecessary burden on our economy. Overall, it is estimated that since 2000 consumers paid $111 billion more than they did in the previous 3 years for natural gas alone. This increase cost industrial consumers $57 billion, commercial customers $21 billion, and residential consumers $33 billion. This second chart shows that situation. We have had job losses throughout the country because of this change in energy prices. Look at that: In California alone, 250,000 jobs. It has had an amazing impact. High energy prices have had a devastating impact on American jobs. Since 2000, when the energy crisis began, we have lost 2.9 million jobs related to the cost of energy. Sustained high energy prices have the potential to lower our gross domestic product, which could cost the U.S. an additional 770,000 to 2.7 million jobs. The jobs issue is an energy issue. If we want to deal with the jobs issue, we must pass the energy bill. The industrial energy consumers of America have stated that high energy prices, most in natural gas, contributed to the loss of almost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs. Chart No. 3 deals with this problem. Since 1982, jobs in the oil and gas industry have declined by one-half, from over 700,000 jobs to roughly 330,000 jobs. As chart No. 4 shows, the chemical industry lost jobs. As gas prices go up, the number of chemical industry jobs goes down. The price of energy is directly related to the loss of jobs in this country. Since 2000, our chemical industry has lost 85,000 jobs. This industry employs more than 1 million Americans, and 5 million Americans have jobs that depend upon the chemical industry. More of these jobs are threatened as major chemical companies across the United States are closing their factories and moving to countries which provide cheaper natural gas. This jeopardizes millions of well-paying American jobs that will not be replaced unless we have energy. Moving these industries offshore not only contributes to job losses but it increases our burgeoning trade deficit. Our chemical industry once was a major exporter, generating a $16 to $18 billion trade surplus. Last year the chemical industry generated a trade deficit of $9.6 billion, contributing to an overall U.S. trade deficit of over $530 billion. That deficit, too, is related to energy availability and the cost of energy. High energy prices are threatening our fertilizer industry. Up to 90 percent of the cost of producing fertilizer is directly linked to the cost of natural gas. Between 2001 and 2003, eight U.S. nitrogen fertilizer manufacturers permanently closed. That is one-fifth--20 percent--of all the United States fertilizer production. Additionally, our ammonia factories are operating at 60 to 65 percent capacity. Why? Because of the cost of natural gas. The impact of high energy prices is acutely felt by the agriculture community. The energy costs account for 6 percent of farm production costs. Farmers spent between $1 and $2 billion more this year to plant crops. In 2003, farmers paid $350 per ton for fertilizers, more than twice what they paid just 1 year previously. That is a 100-percent or more increase in the cost of fertilizer in 1 year. The good news is a worsening crisis is avoidable. The United States has the natural resources to increase our energy supply. But inconsistent Government policies discourage exploration, development, and the use of our own natural resources--our own energy resources. Over 95 percent of undiscovered oil and 40 percent of undiscovered natural gas is located on Federal land. These public resources can secure our energy needs. Today the Government encourages use of natural gas but discourages exploration and development of domestic natural gas. As a result, most major energy companies, including some which operate in my own State of Alaska, are abandoning the United States and investing in and developing energy resources in other countries. A recent article shows while the 4 major oil and gas companies realized $21 billion in cashflow from their U.S. oil and gas activities, they only reinvested $9.15 billion back into the United States. Less than half of the money they paid was invested here to increase the supply of gas. This lack of reinvestment makes us dependent on foreign sources of energy from unstable or unfriendly regimes. More and more we are dependent on foreign sources. This industry generates jobs and revenues in other countries at our own expense. These new jobs should be American jobs and that energy royalty income should be coming into our Government. The receipts generated by that economic activity would help reduce the deficit, provide new jobs, fund the war on terror, and support many of the domestic programs we cannot fully fund. Despite the obvious benefits of domestic energy exploration and development, today we rely on foreign imports for over 60 percent of our oil supply. Imagine that. It was about 33 percent at the time of the embargo on oil in the 1970s. Now it is over 60 percent. We are 60 percent reliant on foreign oil, and more people oppose the development of the oil resources on the North Slope of my State. Currently, we also rely on 16 percent for foreign sources for our natural gas supply. Energy imports make up the largest portion of our foreign trade deficit. This is chart No. 5. It shows the natural gas consumption outlook. In the last 10 years, demand for natural gas has increased by 19 percent, and that number is projected to grow by 50 percent in the next 25 years. Absent a new supply of natural gas, we will likely see a gap of 15 billion cubic feet per day or 6 trillion cubic feet per year in the next 10 years. This chart shows the difference between our consumption and the projection into the future. We are growing more reliant on foreign sources for our natural gas. We are already 60 percent reliant for oil. This chart shows that as the years go by we are going to be more reliant on foreign sources for natural gas. It will be expensive natural gas. It has to be gasified, transported in cryogenic tankers, and then regasified when it gets here. Our own natural gas is pumped out of the ground and shipped in a pipeline. The costs associated with foreign reliance are going to be staggering. That means more American jobs lost. The Natural Petroleum Council found that to bridge this gap, $1.2 trillion dollars must be invested in new exploration and production in the United States by 2025. Unless we pass an energy bill to bring certainty to American energy policy, that investment will not take place. I repeat: Unless this bill is passed, there will be no new investment in the production and development of oil and gas resources in the United States. The high impact of energy prices can be seen at all levels of our economy. High energy prices have produced job losses, trade deficits, and constraints on consumer spending and economic growth. But the most disturbing aspect of this problem is the fact that Congress has been debating comprehensive legislation since 2001. I don't think we have passed a real energy bill in 12 years. We are squabbling here in Congress while high energy prices burn our economy and destroy American jobs. In April of 2002, the Senate passed H.R. 4, the Energy Policy Act of 2002, by a vote of 88-11. Then the bill died in conference. In July of 2003, after months of intensive debate, the Senate passed H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. However, in November of that year the Senate rejected cloture by a vote of 57-40, 3 votes short of having an energy bill. We were elected as public officials to improve the lives of American people, to enact laws and to formulate policies designed to ensure the strength and economic viability of our Nation. By failing to enact a comprehensive energy policy for our Nation, we have failed the American people. American businesses and citizens are struggling out of recession and meaningful and sustainable economic recovery. Job creation will only come with stable energy prices, and they will come only if we pass an energy bill and send it to the President. A comprehensive energy policy is necessary to secure domestic energy security and to support American jobs. Given the negative impact of high energy prices on our Nation, we should act quickly to address this situation. As I said, the Energy Committee has introduced a revised energy bill which encompasses a comprehensive and balanced natural energy policy. This bill will increase domestic energy supplies, encourage energy conservation, stabilize energy prices, bring certainty to American energy policy for our businesses and consumers, and ensure our energy security. It contains provisions designed to increase oil and gas exploration and development, while at the same time promoting energy conservation and alternative and renewable energy resources. This bill is a jobs bill. It will create more than 800,000 new jobs. Many of those jobs will be the result of a major component of this energy bill, which is authorization for the building of the Alaska natural gas pipeline. Our gas pipeline will create over 400,000 jobs in and of itself, including 7,000 construction jobs, thousands of manufacturing jobs necessary to create equipment, and thousands of infrastructure jobs. It will meet approximately 10 percent of our country's natural gas needs. Over 4 billion cubic feet per day will come from Alaska to decrease our dependence on foreign gas and imports of liquefied natural gas. It will generate over $40 billion in revenue for the American Government, instead of sending that money overseas. Chart 7 shows the 800,000 energy bill jobs. The renewable fuel standard provision of this new bill will create in and of itself 214,000 new jobs. It is estimated this provision will increase farm revenue by $51 billion over the next 10 years. This reduces the overall farm payments currently expended by the Federal Government by $5.9 billion. In a time when the Federal budget deficit is increasing, it is incredibly important we find some cashflow to offset this spending. I am still convinced unless Congress acts to ensure greater domestic production of our oil resources, our energy security is jeopardized. Given the importance of Congress enacting a comprehensive energy policy this year, I urge the Senate to move swiftly to pass this Energy bill. I can think of not one thing the Senate can do to assist the American people more, that will restore American jobs, than acting quickly on the Energy bill that has just been reintroduced.

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 and P.L. 107-243 and P.L. 102-1, as amended.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in a time of war, and we are at war--we are at war against terrorism; that's the leading war we are still involved in; we have activities in Haiti; we have them in Afghanistan and they are persisting in Iraq--it is my feeling the request of the Commander in Chief should be met in full, and that's what this amendment does. It meets in full the request of the President, submitted in his budget for the activities of the Department of Defense not directly connected with Iraq and Afghanistan. We are going to see that in a supplemental, I assume, sometime after the first of the year. But as a practical matter, this budget is a very thin budget for a military stretched as thin as it is right now around the world. As the Senator from Virginia says, more than half of our men and women in uniform are outside the United States at this time. It is a matter of just simple justice, as far as I am concerned. The Commander in Chief's request should be honored. I hope the Senate will support this request.