Floor Statements

Mr. President, on March 1, 1961, President Kennedy signed an Executive order that established the Peace Corps whose mission would be to promote peace, mutual understanding, and friendship between Americans and the people of the world. Back then, the world was viewed as engaged in a cold war with the United States and its allies pitted against the Communist bloc. President Kennedy envisioned the Peace Corps as an agency that would create opportunities for Americans to reach out to the rest of the world, and make positive contributions to community development and nation-building overseas.

As we celebrate the Peace Corps's 45th anniversary, all Americans can be proud of what the agency has accomplished and continues to do. Through its hardworking and committed volunteers who now number nearly 8,000, the Peace Corps provides assistance today in 138 host countries in such fields as education, healthcare, environmental preservation, and business development.

Last year, the Peace Corps's Crisis Corps Volunteers helped with rebuilding efforts in tsunami-ravaged areas of Sri Lanka and Thailand. And, for the first time in its history, volunteers were deployed at home as approximately 270 volunteers assisted with recovery efforts along the U.S. gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

I am also proud to report that the Peace Corps continues to attract Volunteers from Hawaii. At this moment, 12 volunteers from Hawaii are serving in 12 different host countries that include Bulgaria, China, Morocco, Nicaragua, Swaziland, and Tanzania.

It is a pleasure to join all Americans in congratulating the Peace Corps and its volunteers past and present for their outstanding work, and for their invaluable and effective civic contributions to communities throughout the world.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act. I am introducing this bill today in commemoration of February 19, 1942, the day that President Roosevelt signed a document that authorized the internment of about 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry. Each year, on the anniversary of this date, the internment is remembered both for the pain it caused, and the civics lessons that can be learned. I am certain that these lessons will propel this great Nation forward toward more equal justice for all.

The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes in the west coast and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact- finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to the U.S., and interned in American camps.

This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm across international borders, into a populous that did not pose an immediate threat to our nation, in order to use them, devoid of passports or any other proof of citizenship, for hostage exchange with Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our government, with the help of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of Japanese descent from streets, homes, and workplaces, and brought approximately 2,300 undocumented persons to camp sites in the U.S., where they were held under armed watch, then used for prisoner exchange. Those used in an exchange were sent to Japan, a foreign country that many had never set foot on since their ancestors' immigration to Latin America.

Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, many Japanese Latin Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin

America, but some remained in the U.S., where their Latin American country of origin refused their re-entry because they were unable to present a passport.

When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin Americans, it seemed unfathomable, but indeed, it happened. It is a part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps in our country.

The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in 1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans. Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. government to relocate, intern, and deport Japanese persons living in Latin America. Because this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was unable to fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to include in its published study, urging a deeper investigation.

I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980 Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin Americans subject to the program of relocation, internment, and deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would give finality to, and complete the account of federal actions to detain and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act. I am introducing this bill today in commemoration of February 19, 1942, the day that President Roosevelt signed a document that authorized the internment of about 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry. Each year, on the anniversary of this date, the internment is remembered both for the pain it caused, and the civics lessons that can be learned. I am certain that these lessons will propel this great Nation forward toward more equal justice for all.

The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes in the west coast and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact- finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to the U.S., and interned in American camps.

This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm across international borders, into a populous that did not pose an immediate threat to our nation, in order to use them, devoid of passports or any other proof of citizenship, for hostage exchange with Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our government, with the help of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of Japanese descent from streets, homes, and workplaces, and brought approximately 2,300 undocumented persons to camp sites in the U.S., where they were held under armed watch, then used for prisoner exchange. Those used in an exchange were sent to Japan, a foreign country that many had never set foot on since their ancestors' immigration to Latin America.

Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, many Japanese Latin Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin

America, but some remained in the U.S., where their Latin American country of origin refused their re-entry because they were unable to present a passport.

When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin Americans, it seemed unfathomable, but indeed, it happened. It is a part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps in our country.

The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in 1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans. Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. government to relocate, intern, and deport Japanese persons living in Latin America. Because this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was unable to fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to include in its published study, urging a deeper investigation.

I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980 Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin Americans subject to the program of relocation, internment, and deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would give finality to, and complete the account of federal actions to detain and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, at this moment in our history, our country faces a spectrum of challenges broader than any we have ever faced before, both at home and abroad. However great the storm we face today, I am confident that our Nation, founded on the architecture of our Constitution, will prevail. The checks and balances established among the Congress, the President, and the courts are the true arsenal of freedom. In the end, these checks and balances in the hands of the American people will prove greater than any assault on the precious freedoms and liberties our forefathers fought to establish.

For the officials of our Federal Government, the protection of the institutions of our American democracy is a duty that both transcends and supersedes all others, especially for members of the Supreme Court who must interpret the Constitution of our Nation as a living foundation for the freedom and liberty of our people.

From confiding the power of the Federal Government in three co-equal but separate branches of government, to guaranteeing the civil liberties that bless our Nation, the Constitution enshrines principles that are as relevant today as they were when it was first penned centuries ago.

These cherished principles are the backbone of our Nation, and they comprise the final yardstick for taking the mettle of any man or woman who would aspire to our Nation's highest Court. I have studied the full record of President Bush's nominee, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and carefully measured it against the sworn duties of the Supreme Court. Regretfully, I conclude that Judge Alito falls short.

From his writings on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to his public speeches, I discern a man who would fundamentally rewrite the interpretation of our Constitution and leave in doubt the legacy of freedom it was meant to preserve.

For many, this will mean his record on civil rights, reproductive choice, or the death penalty. Let there be no mistake, I share these concerns, and I have spent my life fighting for these rights.

For me, however, the greatest area of doubt lies in Judge Alito's consistent preference for expanding the power of the President by relaxing the checks and balances the Constitution places on the executive branch of Government.

In 1989 and 2000, Judge Alito gave speeches to the Federalist Society in which he embraced an obscure legal doctrine called the ``unitary executive theory.'' This so-called ``unitary executive theory'' places the President almost above the law.

Under this theory, independent counsel appointed to investigate Presidential misdeeds would be unconstitutional. Similarly, the theory holds that enforcement agencies independent of the President, such as the Securities Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the National Labor Relations Board, would also be unconstitutional because they are not under the President's control.

The theory also justifies a President who would overstep Acts of Congress and the Constitution when acting as Commander in Chief.

How Judge Alito might actually apply this ``unitary executive theory'' on the Supreme Court is, of course, an open question.

Separated by a span of 11 years, however, his own speeches in 1989 and 2000

suggest that Judge Alito's views on the powers of the President are long-held and strong.

A memo he generated early in his career with the Reagan administration amplifies this impression. In that memo, Judge Alito wrote on a President's authority to modify an act of Congress by making a ``signing statement''--a written document issued by a President on signing an act of Congress into law.

In the memo, Judge Alito wrote, that ``the President's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress.'' This statement suggests that Judge Alito believes the President has a role in the legislative process not contemplated under the Constitution's exclusive grant of legislative power to the Congress.

Judge Alito's writings and speeches show how he personally believes that the Congress should have less power to check and balance the President.

His judicial opinions, issued in his official capacity as a judge on the Third Circuit, demonstrate a parallel conviction that the Congress should have less authority in general.

In United States v. Rybar, Judge Alito wrote a minority opinion asserting that the Congress had no authority to pass laws to regulate machine guns. The majority opinion criticized Judge Alito's narrow and restrictive view of Congressional authority.

In Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, Judge Alito ruled that the Congress had no authority to allow State employees to sue for damages under the Family Medical Leave Act. Judge Alito's restrictive view on Congress's authority was later invalidated by the Supreme Court when it considered the same issue in a later case.

Our Supreme Court shoulders the solemn task of discovering how the Constitution applies to the unique problems of the day. Through dialog, study, and diligent inquiry, the Justices bring to bear the collected experiences of the Nation, and forge justice from the Constitution by tempering its words with human compassion, wisdom, and integrity.

Judge Alito's record suggests that he holds his personal beliefs on expanding the President's power so strongly that they might come before the call of justice. Accordingly, I have concluded that I must oppose his nomination.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Asian American Justice Center, dated January 10, 2006, and a letter from the Japanese American Citizens League, dated January 8, 2006. Both letters refer to the nomination of Judge Alito.

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

Mr. President, on February 3, 2006, Mr. Ray H. Jyo, Deputy District Engineer for Programs and Project Management/ Chief, Programs and Project Management Division, Honolulu Engineer District, HED, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will retire from the Government following nearly 40 years of exemplary service to Hawaii, the Pacific Region, the military and the Nation.

Born and raised in Hawaii, Mr. Jyo is a registered professional engineer and a member of the American Society of Military Engineers, who served in numerous engineering and executive management positions in the U.S. Army. He holds a bachelor's of science degree in civil engineering from the University of Minnesota. He has attended the Senior Officials in National Security Program, the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and the Emerging Issues in Public Management Training at the Brookings Institute.

Over the course of his 40-year career, Mr. Jyo has served with pride and distinction. I have witnessed his steadfast dedication and hard work to improve

and safeguard the lives of our citizens and servicemembers.

Mr. Jyo has demonstrated the highest values and ideals in his many accomplishments throughout his distinguished Federal service. Upon retirement, he will have served the Federal Government for 39 years, 11 months and 13 days. He has succeeded at every job position in his career, which covers every facet of the design/construction/management continuum of the construction industry. He has used his considerable leadership and management skills on behalf of the Army Corps and the Nation to achieve much success.

As the chief of the Far East Surveillance Branch from 1982 to 1986, Mr. Jyo pioneered the regionalization concept at the Pacific Ocean Division, POD. His program managers monitored engineering, design and construction efforts at the Japan and Far East Districts with the focus of providing valued-added service to the districts and our regional partners with the Army and Air Force. Mr. Jyo's branch became the ``strike'' arm of POD's rapid deployment force which led and provided hands-on project management and technical assistance to the districts. His teams would deploy to the districts to support them during times of peak workload or during crisis situations making them invaluable to District operations. He also had the responsibility of keeping U.S. Army, Pacific and Pacific Air Forces informed and involved in our large construction program overseas. Many of the principles and policies he pioneered are still being followed at POD today. During this timeframe, Mr. Jyo led by example when he deployed to Ft. Drum for 2 months to lead the planning and programming efforts to provide quality facilities for the 10th Mountain Division.

During his tenure as the chief, Technical Engineering Division, 1986 to 1987, Mr. Jyo provided quality technical services to all the districts in POD. In addition, he instituted the concept of life-cycle technical services by sending his technical reviewers to the field to assist the construction offices in coming up with viable solutions to sticky construction problems. This formed the basis of the latter consolidation of the technical review and quality assurance staffs at POD. Responsive to the customer, Mr. Jyo has consistently strived to provide high-quality technical services and products in a responsive manner.

As the chief of Military Division, Mr. Jyo led the planning, engineering, and construction of the military program POD-wide. Through his leadership and experience, POD has become the proven leader in project execution and accomplishment.

As the acting director of Engineering and Construction Directorate, Mr. Jyo forged a solid link between engineering, design, and construction quality. He brought all of POD's technical assets together to work toward common goals to provide responsive service and engineering and construction excellence to POD. The Engineering and Construction Directorate was the largest directorate at POD and included the operational elements of design, construction, engineering services, environmental, cost engineering as well as design and construction quality assurance. Mr. Jyo maintained technical excellence by pioneering innovative design and procurement tools, such as the construction indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity contracting for Tripler Army Medical Center, later to be applied across the division programs, and such technical tools as the Computer Aided Drafting and Design, CADD, and Geographical Information Systems (GIS). By combining the technical elements of design, engineering and construction quality assurance into one division, he unified the quality function and created ``life cycle'' accountability for a design/construction continuum. Mr. Jyo truly was an innovator and made POD a better organization.

Since 1997, Mr. Jyo has been the deputy district engineer for programs and project management for the Honolulu District. He has continued to utilize his leadership skills to accomplish considerable successes on their behalf. He has executed programs and projects in a team-oriented matrixed organization. He has led the effort to incorporate a quality management system into the district along with International Organization for Standardization 9001 certification. He has instituted a learning organization with a system of After Action Reviews and Lessons-Learned. He is successfully leading the district through its biggest construction program with highly visible programs such as the Stryker Brigade Combat Team and C-17 implementation in Hawaii. Under his leadership, the Honolulu District has achieved the highest customer satisfaction rating in its history.

Mr. Jyo is a recognized representative of the Corps in the Pacific Region. He has established lasting relationships with the Hawaii Congressional Delegation as well as the Governors of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. Mr. Jyo's efforts have made lasting impacts on the abilities of our service men and women to fight the global war on terror, bolster the region's economy while ardently protecting the environment.

Mr. Jyo played an instrumental role in expanding the civil works and capital improvement programs to Guam, American Samoa, Kwajalein, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. In addition, Mr. Jyo oversaw the construction of the Alenaio Stream Flood Control project in Hilo, HI, which was completed in 1997 at a cost of $16 million. During the storm of November 2000, the improvements prevented approximately $13 million in damages and remains fully functional today.

Prominent projects on the island of Oahu include the construction and renovation of military housing and improving facilities at Hickam AFB, Wheeler, Schofield, Aliamanu, and Fort Shafter. In 1989, HED began the design of the $110 million Hale Koa--Phase 2 recreational hotel at Fort DeRussy in Waikiki. Upon its completion in 1994, the Fort DeRussy area was transformed into a visually pleasing enhancement of Waikiki for the benefit of the military and civilian communities.

His lifelong contributions and achievements to the Army are considerable. His recognized leadership and ability to forge lasting relationships and his clear vision describes an outstanding individual who has dedicated his life to public service. Ray Jyo's distinguished career may be coming to an end, but his loyalty to the goals of the Army and the Nation will carry on. On behalf of a grateful Nation, thank you for your service and for a job well done.

Mr. President, I rise to seek clarification from our esteemed majority leader, Senator Frist, on the scheduling of S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, for consideration of the full Senate.

As you may recall, in December of last year, the majority and minority leaders joined us in reaching agreement on a schedule for the Senate's action on the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act bill with Senators Domenici and Kyl. Specifically, in an exchange of correspondence that was made part of the Congressional Record for the 108th session of the Congress, the leaders agreed that S. 147 would be brought before the Senate on or before August 7, 2005.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Hutchison, Nelson, and Stevens, for their leadership in bringing together the different bills from the Senate and the House. The final product is the result of hard work and compromise. It provides the National Aeronantics and Space Administration, NASA, and the country clear congressional direction on how to proceed with human space exploration, and it emphasizes NASA's invaluable work in science and education.

Human space exploration is a key component of this bill. I am confident that space discovery will continue to excite young minds and, hopefully, inspire them to pursue an education in math and science. The skills and talents they develop will not only help them reach the stars, they will propel American innovation and define our country's future.

At the same time, we must not overlook safety. I applaud Senator Nelson and the other conferees for keeping safety a top priority in this legislation.

In addition, I want to express my appreciation for the conferees' willingness to accommodate my efforts to promote the design and development of new science facilities, such as telescopes through the National Science Foundation, as well as NASA.

NASA plays a strong role in astronomy from the Hubble Telescope to the Keck Outrigger Project in Hawaii. I am

pleased to see that the bill affirms NASA's commitment to astronomy by ensuring that the Hubble will be serviced. It is my hope that Section 616 will also help NASA work with institutions, such as the Mauna Kea Astronomy Education Center, to make the work of world-class scientists accessible to their neighbors and children.

Finally, I would like to thank Jeff Bingham, Tom Cremins, Jean Toal Eisen and Chan Lieu of the Commerce Committee staff, and Mike Dodson, a fellow in Senator Bill Nelson's office, for their hard work on this important measure. I understand Mr. Dodson will be leaving at the end of the year. We will miss his counsel and expertise.

I urge the swift adoption of the conference report.

Mr. President I ask that the following editorial which was written by my good friend, former Senator Fritz Hollings, and published in the Charleston Post and Courier on October 27, 2005, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to submit a Senate Concurrent Resolution

requesting the President to issue a proclamation annually calling upon the people of the United States to observe Global Family Day, One Day of Peace and Sharing, on the first of each January. This measure is co- sponsored by Mr. Coleman and Mr. Kennedy.

The observance is dedicated to eradicating violence, hunger, poverty and suffering, and to establish greater trust and fellowship among nations and families everywhere. Global Family Day encourages families to reach out to each other on the first of January of each year. It is a day for sharing the idea and condition of peace, and the observance can take a concrete form such as sharing a meal or helping the needy.

The idea of Global Family Day originates from young supporters. In 1999, ninety nine children from Hine Middle School in the District of Columbia visited Capitol Hill, asking Congress to dedicate one day each year to a day of peace and sharing. In the following year, the footsteps of these intrepid young thinkers were followed by children from Brent Elementary School, also from the District of Columbia. Children from Stuart-Hobson Middle School also visited members of Congress on Capitol Hill.

The 106th Congress agreed with them, and in the year 2000, adopted a resolution similar to the one I am submitting today. However, with the onrush of events after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, a proclamation was not issued. Thus, there was little public knowledge that we have this important tool for peace, despite the international support from the United Nations General Assembly. We can remedy that today by showing our support for Global Family Day.

Many Americans are troubled by our deteriorating image in the world, by the dangers of terrorism and by the suffering of others, both at home and abroad. Yet they feel helpless to do anything about it. Global Family Day offers a potential solution. The observance of Global Family Day can lead to greater understanding among faith groups, people of different races and economic classes. Global Family Day provides a way in which every man, woman and child in the United States can help reduce suffering at home, repair our damaged image abroad, and help us remember that in the end, all peoples belong to the same family.

Mr. President, I am very disappointed with the U.S. Department of Defense and Office of Personnel Management's final regulations for the National Security Personnel System, NSPS, that will affect more than 350,000 defense civil service employees throughout our Nation. What makes the new system dangerous is that upon a cursory glance, it would almost appear ``acceptable'' in the name of national security. Scratch the surface, however, and it becomes very alarming.

The rhetoric does not match reality. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in public testimony stated that these new regulations ``would not end collective bargaining,'' but, rather, would ``bring collective bargaining to the national level'' to avoid duplication and inefficiency. This has not occurred, nor do I believe there is a sincere interest in the Pentagon to pursue national collective bargaining. In fact, I would suspect that the Pentagon's plan is just the opposite--to substantially remove from the table the number of subjects for good faith collective bargaining.

For this reason, I am pleased that the employee unions have gone to Federal court to challenge the regulations, in the same fashion that they challenged the Department of Homeland Security regulations. I hope they will prevail in their call for injunctive relief, as they did in the Homeland Security case, as well as to prevail in the final disposition of both cases.

While I would be the first to say that the Federal civil service system is not perfect, it is a system that has withstood the test of time as fair and impartial. To overhaul it in favor of vesting the subjective power to hire, fire, discipline and promote in the hands of a few political appointees is very dangerous. At this point, the ``seemingly acceptable'' national security rationale for the wholesale stripping of employees' rights fast begins to lose its luster. It is no longer reasonable. There seems to me to be an inherent conflict. In the name of national security, this administration is willing to deny its own workers a small modicum of security--employment and family security--especially when I do not believe it is necessary to achieve our goal of national security. I call into question the motivations behind their actions.

My position on the Pentagon's issuance of the NSPS regulations is what I believe any decent fellow would say: Now is the time for our Nation to come together in support of our armed services abroad. To do so, we must stand behind our civilian defense workforce from whom we are demanding great productivity in support of our troops.

Now is not the time to be divisive and punitive of our Federal workforce. It creates low morale, mistrust, and a decreasing level of respect between worker and management. The consequences stemming from such instability, could be dire. For me, the stakes in terms of human lives are too high to be taking such a gamble. United we stand-- civilian and military together. Divided we could fail.

Mr. President, I rise today to address some lingering concerns about certain report language in the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report and to seek clarification. During my many years as chairman and vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, I became acutely aware of the importance of protecting the treaty fishing rights of tribes in the Northwest and spent much time discussing this issue with many of the Northwest tribal leaders. I know that without independent technical data and analyses on the status of salmon and steelhead runs in the Columbia Basin, it will be difficult for them to act professionally as comanagers of the resource. The final conference report contains language directing the Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, to cease funding an important independent scientific research center based in the Pacific Northwest, known as the Fish Passage Center, FPC. The language directs BPA and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, NPCC, to transfer the functions of the Fish Passage Center in a way that ensures ``seamless continuity of activities'' without giving direction about how this transfer should take place.

The Northwest Power Act called for the NPCC to establish a fish and wildlife program. That program has called for BPA to fund the Fish Passage Center for the past 20 years. The data and analyses the center has provided has been invaluable to the States and tribal fishery managers of the Columbia Basin. Can the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee tell me if this language was in any way intended to supersede the NW Power Act or the specific provisions in the NPCC's present fish and wildlife program calling for a number of key functions to be performed and whether the state and tribal fishery managers will have input into how the center is reconstituted?

Mr. President, I am deeply saddened to inform my colleagues that at 3:30 this morning, my friend and colleague, Henry Giugni, passed away at Shady Grove Adventist Hospital in Rockville, MD. His passing is a great loss for the people of Hawaii, the United States, and the Senate, an institution he loved dearly, and in which he served as its 30th Sergeant at Arms for 4 years, beginning on January 6, 1987.

I had the privilege of knowing Henry for nearly 50 years, beginning in 1956 when he joined my re-election campaign to the Hawaii Territorial House of Representatives. We quickly forged an unbreakable bond.

With his tireless work, dedication, and loyalty, he proved invaluable as the top aide on my staff when I served as a Hawaii legislator, U.S. Representative, and U.S. Senator.

His keen political instincts also made him invaluable on campaigns, and beginning with my first congressional race in 1959, when I successfully ran to be the State of Hawaii's first U.S. Representative, he coordinated my campaign activities on all of Hawaii's islands.

And, I am proud to say, I once anointed Henry as ``the supreme commander of Hawaiian politics'' in recognition of his political acumen and skill as a political strategist. It was an unofficial title that Henry relished.

Henry also enjoyed being called ``Dr. Giugni.'' Circumstances prevented him from receiving his undergraduate degree, but 2 years ago, the University of Hawaii at Hilo conferred upon him an honorary doctorate of humane letters for his exemplary service to the State of Hawaii and the Nation, and for serving as a role model for Native Hawaiians. It was an honor he truly deserved.

From January 6, 1987, to December 31, 1990, Henry served as the Senate's Sergeant at Arms, ably managing a budget of nearly $120 million, overseeing a staff of more than 2,000, and supervising support services, which included law enforcement and telecommunications.

More importantly, as the first person of color and the first person of Polynesian ancestry to serve in this position, he left an indelible mark during his tenure by promoting minorities and women. He appointed the first minority, an African-American man, to lead the Sergeant at Arms' Service Department, and he was the first to assign women to the Capitol Police plainclothes unit.

His special interest in people with disabilities resulted in a major expansion of the Special Services Office, which now conducts tours of the U.S. Capitol for the blind, deaf, and wheelchair-bound, and publishes Senate maps and documents in Braille.

In 1991, Henry joined Cassidy & Associates, one of Washington's leading public policy consulting firms. With his intimate knowledge of Hawaii and Washington, and with a vast network of contacts that spanned the entire country and crossed party lines, Henry was able to continue his support for policies that he believed best served the Nation.

Even as a high-powered vice chairman of Cassidy & Associates, Henry continued to describe himself as ``just a poor Hawaiian boy.'' Henry's soul was very much Hawaiian, but he was never poor in experience, generosity of the heart, or patriotism.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, he enlisted in the Army at the age of 16, and saw combat at Guadalcanal. He was part of the Hawaii delegation that greeted then-Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson in the islands just before the start of the Cuban missile crisis. As a staunch support of civil rights, he carried the Hawaii flag and marched with Dr. Martin Luther King in Selma, AL.

He volunteered to drive Senator Edward Kennedy following the assassination of his brother, President John F. Kennedy. Henry was also a member of one of the first official delegations that traveled to the People's Republic of China following President Nixon's historic visit.

As Senate Sergeant at Arms, he presided over the inauguration of President George H.W. Bush, and escorted numerous foreign dignitaries, including Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, and Vaclav Havel, when they visited the U.S. Capitol.

Indeed, for a ``poor Hawaiian boy'' who was born in Hawaii in 1925 to Alfred Giugni and Kealoha Hookano, Henry has done much on the national stage since his days when he studied at Hanahauoli School, Iolani School, and the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and when he worked as a Honolulu firefighter, police officer, and liquor inspector.

However, while he was an acquaintance of Presidents and kings, his heart was always with the native people of Hawaii, who are still struggling for their moment in the sun.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all who have known and loved Henry in expressing our heartfelt condolences to his wife, Muriel Roselani; his four daughters, H. Kealoha Giugni, Deborah Roselani McMillan, Heather Haunani Giugni, and Gina Pilialoha Giugni-Halbach; 11 grandchildren; and 12 great-grandchildren.

I look forward to submitting a resolution expressing our condolences to the Giugni family.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Lott-Lautenberg amendment to add S. 1516, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2005, to the Budget Reconciliation package. The Commerce Committee favorably reported this bill in July of this year, but we have been unable to get floor time for its consideration. As I said during our markup, I believe this is the most comprehensive reauthorization of Amtrak ever attempted by this body and I commend Senators Lott and Lautenberg for their hard work in putting it together.

Amtrak and intercity passenger rail are critical elements of our national transportation system, and it is time for Congress to devote the attention to Amtrak and passenger rail that we have given to our airports, highways, and other surface transportation modes. Amtrak's critics and supporters alike agree that it is time to reauthorize the corporation so that Amtrak has Congressional guidance on how to proceed with important reform initiatives needed to improve service, grow revenues, and cut costs. With time running out this year, adding our amendment to this reconciliation package is probably the only opportunity for the Senate to vote on this important proposal. Senate passage of S. 1516 will signal our commitment to strengthen and reform Amtrak to the House and the administration, and hopefully, lead to enactment of a reauthorization this year.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment by Senator Ensign that would reduce the maximum amount authorized for the converter box subsidy program from $3 billion to $1 billion. A similar amendment was considered by the Commerce Committee and was soundly defeated by a vote of 19 to 3.

The consumer converter box subsidy program is an essential part of making sure that those consumers who today rely on over-the-air analog television are able to make a smooth transition to digital television that does not render their existing analog TV sets obsolete.

Without a robust subsidy program, over-the-air households--which are disproportionately minority, elderly and poor--will face a significant burden. Moreover, because the Commerce title transfers any unobligated funds from the converter box subsidy account to the account that will fund interoperable public safety equipment, this amendment would end up hurting first responders in their ability to get new equipment that can use this newly cleared spectrum.

Because of significant uncertainty as to consumer demand and the expected cost of converter boxes, we must leave the fund at $3 billion and err on the side of caution.

For this reason, I must oppose this amendment. I am joined in my opposition to the Ensign amendment by the AARP, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer's Union, U.S. PIRG, National Hispanic Media Coalition, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, League of United Latin American Citizens, and the Puerto Rican Defense & Education Fund, among others.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to two of our most distinguished colleagues, Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Tom Harkin. I wish to recognize both for their many outstanding contributions to our country's disease and injury prevention and emergency preparedness through their work with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Since 1995, when Senator Specter and Senator Harkin became chair and ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, funding for the CDC has tripled, from a little over $2 billion to more than $6 billion. This funding has been used by CDC to achieve its mission of promoting health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability.

In 1999, Senators Specter and Harkin visited the CDC main campus in Atlanta, GA. They were surprised to find world-class scientists and health care professionals working in substandard, 50-year-old buildings. They recognized that beyond the aesthetics, the facilities were hindering the ability of the scientists to respond to disease outbreaks with the full force of modern technology.

They set out to rebuild the infrastructure of the CDC to ensure that it was capable of meeting its mission. In 1999, the budget for CDC buildings and facilities was $17 million, barely enough to make critical repairs, such as patching leaky roofs. However, since 2000, under the leadership of Senators Specter and Harkin, over $1.3 billion has been invested in the infrastructure of the CDC.

These funds have been used to build laboratories capable of handling the most dangerous pathogens, such as ebola, anthrax, and smallpox. The foresight of these two Senators was confirmed by the essential role the new facilities played in responding to the anthrax attack in 2001, the Marburg virus outbreaks, and the potential for an influenza pandemic.

The latest additions to the CDC campus are now complete and include two new buildings dedicated to responding to public health emergencies and disseminating information to health professionals. The CDC Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center will be the new home to the Office of the Director, Coordinating Officer of Terrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response, Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness, and the Emergency Operations Center. It will provide permanent, secure, and consolidated command and control areas for CDC's response to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and outbreak responses. It allows for CDC's executive leadership and other critical headquarters functions to relocate to one building to allow for increased coordination and communication.

The Global Communications Center will support outreach and worldwide collaborative efforts. The center is a multifunctional, comprehensive scientific learning facility encompassing functions key to CDC's mission and goals for public health, such as outreach, research, and programmatic foundations. The Global Communications Center not only provides a physical place to bring the public health community together for training, information exchange, and collaboration, but it is also the technological link for CDC employees around the globe, from Alaska to Zimbabwe.

It is fitting that these flagship buildings be named for the two Senators who have led the Senate in providing funding for public health and research. I am pleased to offer this amendment, cosponsored by my dear friend from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, to designate the two new CDC buildings as the Arlen Specter Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center and the Thomas R. Harkin Global Communications Center.

Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared by both sides.

I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, today, I rise to speak on an innovative and creative proposal submitted by the Republic of the Philippines that would provide debt relief to the 100 most heavily indebted nations. This proposal was presented to the Boards of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank on September 20, 2005, by the Honorable Jose De Venecia, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Congress of the Republic of the Philippines. The proposal has received a positive reception by financial and political authorities in Western Europe and will be considered by the Paris Club at its next meeting.

The proposal, known as the Debt-for-Millennium Development Goals-- MDG--Investments program, would allow creditor countries to convert up to 50 percent of the debt-service payments from debtor countries into equities or other forms of investment capital. Such equities would subsequently be use to finance MDG initiatives, including, but not limited to, reforestation, energy, mass housing, irrigation, food production, and postharvest facilities, ecotourism projects, safe water systems, hospitals, infrastructure, and microfinancing.

The Debt-for-MDG Investments proposal is voluntary and would augment the agreements made by G8 countries to depreciate multilateral debt owed by heavily indebted countries. Creditor countries will have a say in which projects they support in a specific debtor country. For example, under the proposal, a creditor country may decide to help finance housing construction to address the needs of low-income households in a debtor country. In addition, the proposal would provide debtor countries with the opportunity to improve on its infrastructure and make the economic and social investments required for them to achieve a self-sustaining economic stability.

Developing countries with heavy debt burdens face tremendous challenges in meeting the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations and in promoting their own economic development and growth. The Philippine Debt-for-MDG Investments program proposal is one innovative and creative approach in bringing together the G8 countries to help address the debt burdens of the 100 most heavily indebted nations. I encourage my colleagues to review the Republic of the Philippines' proposal in the hopes that it will spark productive discussion and debate on this international problem.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my statement, and the September 20, 2005, statement of Speaker De Venecia before the Boards of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank be printed in the Record.