Floor Statements

Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield?

Mr. President, as the Senator from Iowa knows, I am a longtime supporter of the Special Olympics, and a longtime friend and admirer of Eunice Kennedy Shriver and her work. This remarkable American is a fine example of President Reagan's observation that you don't have to be on the public payroll in order to be an outstanding public servant.

Anchorage, AK, was proud to host the 2001 Special Olympics Winter Games, which was the largest sporting event ever held in Alaska. In conjunction with that Special Olympics event, I chaired a Committee on Appropriations field hearing on promoting the health of individuals with intellectual disabilities. This was the first hearing of its kind devoted exclusively to the needs of people with intellectual disabilities.

Mr. President, I have the honor of presenting the Speaker of the Canadian Senate, Noel Kinsella, and Canadian Senator Colin Kenny and Senator Donald Oliver who are visiting us today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a moment of recess so we may be able to introduce the Senators and the Speaker to our distinguished leaders.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to endorse passage of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006. However, I would like to clarify several points with regard to section 414 of the conference report. This section deals with construction of offshore wind energy facilities in the area off the coast of Massachusetts known as Nantucket Sound, and it will require the Secretary of the Interior to incorporate any ``reasonable terms and conditions the Commandant of the Coast Guard determines to be necessary to provide for navigational safety.'' Interpretation of this clause will be critical to ensuring that navigation, aviation, and communications are not adversely impacted by construction of such a facility.

A company known as Cape Wind, LLC has proposed the permanent installation of 130 wind turbines, each reaching 417 feet in height, on 24 square miles of Nantucket Sound in an area surrounded by three commercial airports, two busy ferry routes, and a major shipping channel. The area is heavily utilized by commercial fishermen and recreational boaters as well. Perhaps most importantly, the project would be situated less than 15 miles from the only PAVE/PAWS missile defense radar station on the entire eastern seaboard. Studies conducted in and around offshore wind farms in Britain have shown that these installations can have adverse impacts on radar for boats, aircraft, and air traffic controllers, and they may pose a hazard to navigation.

It must be left up to the Commandant of the Coast Guard to decide what is necessary to prevent negative impact to navigation, aviation, and communications caused by the proposed wind farm. We trust the Commandant to act responsibly and only

prescribe reasonable terms and conditions. If someone wants to challenge his decision as unreasonable, they will have to raise the matter in court. It will be up to the courts, not the Secretary of the Interior, to decide if the Commandant's terms and conditions are unreasonable.

Further, we must remain open to the possibility that the Commandant may find that no amount of mitigation could be sufficient to eliminate the potential detrimental effects of the specific siting of this development. If the final determination of the Commandant is that the proposed siting is unacceptable, the Secretary must abide by that decision as well, and therefore fail to issue a permit, lease, easement, or right-of-way that would allow the facility to be constructed on the proposed site.

The arrangement dictated by section 414 of this bill has precedence in the procedure for granting hydroelectric licenses under the Federal Power Act. This process requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to include in the terms and conditions of its licenses for hydroelectric licenses any conditions deemed necessary to protect the interests of other agencies. The United States Supreme Court determined that such conditions had to be ``reasonable'' and the reasonability of the conditions was a matter to be determined by the courts, not the Commission.

I support development of renewable sources of energy, but not at the expense of public safety or national security. The provisions included in section 414 of this bill ensure that the impacts of Cape Wind's potential development on the citizens of Massachusetts and the rest of the country will be evaluated fairly and appropriately by those who have the expertise to make a final determination on how best to mitigate any adverse effects. I urge my colleagues to act swiftly to pass the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006.

That is correct. Section 416 provides more specific authorities and direction concerning the operations and fishing allocations to and among CDQ groups, in accordance with the recommendations of a Blue Ribbon panel established by the Governor of Alaska.

Yes, that is correct. Are you concerned about those provisions?

Yes, we wanted to create the same approach for these groundfish fisheries that we created legislatively for pollock. However, these allocations would become effective only upon the establishment of a quota program, fishing cooperative, sector allocation or rationalization program in the fishery, and the intent is to ensure that management measures apply equally to both CDQ and non- CDQ groups. With respect to application of this section to the Pacific cod fishery, however, the new CDQ allocations under section 416 are not intended to take effect until full rationalization of that fishery, or January 1, 2009, whichever date is earlier.

Yes, I agree. We did not intend to eliminate any management authorities regarding incidental catch that are currently available to the Council.

Yes, I would agree to that clarification to subparagraph (B). However, that change must also guarantee that any management measures will apply equally to both CDQ and non-CDQ portions of the fisheries affected by subparagraph (B). Do you agree?

Yes. Do you give your consent for final passage of S. 2012 today?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his kind words and I would be happy to respond to his questions.

The Senator from Mississippi is correct. Regional Fishery Management Councils are tasked with analyzing a large amount of data in order to develop fisheries management plans and amendments. The committee intended that the economic and social impact analysis described in section 303(a) of the act, as amended by this bill, be limited to direct participants in the fishery that engage in fishing or fish processing, and not include persons such as consumers of fish or suppliers of fishing sectors.

Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi is correct on this matter as well. The committee intended that any restriction or closure

under this authority will be of the minimum size, and include the minimum restrictions on fishing that are necessary to achieve the intended conservation and management benefits.

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

Mr. President, the Senate just passed critical legislation to ensure the productivity and sustainability of our Nation's fishery resources. S. 2012, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2005, is the product of over a year and a half of discussions, hearings, drafts, revisions, and compromise.

My good friend and cochairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Inouye, worked closely with me on drafting this bill to manage and regulate the fisheries in the United States

Exclusive Economic Zone. The bill is cosponsored by Senators Lott, Hutchison, Snowe, Smith, Vitter, Kerry, Boxer, Lautenberg, Bill Nelson, Cantwell, and Pryor.

In a speech last week, President Bush urged the Congress to pass legislation to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Senate has now acted and I will work closely with the House to get our bills resolved in conference and get this important legislation to the President for his signature.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 2005 implements many of the recommendations from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the first such Congressionally authorized commission to review our Nation's ocean policies and laws in over 35 years. The recommendations of the commission were important to the development of this Act. The intent of this legislation is to authorize these recommendations and to build on some of the sound fishery management principals we passed in the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996, the last time we reauthorized the Act.

Specifically, our bill will preserve and strengthen the Regional Fishery Management Councils. The eight regional councils located around the United States and Caribbean Islands are a model of Federal oversight benefiting from local innovation and management approaches. This reauthorization legislation establishes a council training program designed to prepare members on the numerous legal, scientific, economic, and conflict of interests requirements that apply to the fishery management process. In addition, to address concerns over the transparency of the regional council process, the bill provides for additional financial disclosure requirements for council members and clarifies the Act's conflict of interest and recusal requirements.

The bill mandates the use of annual catch limits that shall not be exceeded to prevent overfishing and preserve the sustainable harvest of fishery resources in all 8 regional council jurisdictions. The President mentioned in his speech last week that overfishing must end. The bill the Senate passed today will achieve this goal by requiring every fishery management plan contain an annual catch limit be set at or below optimum yield--this will provide accountability in our fisheries and ensure that harvests do not exceed a level that provides for the continued productivity of the fishery resource.

An important recommendation from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy was to establish national standards for quota programs. Our legislation establishes national guidelines for Limited Access Privileges Programs for the harvesting of fish. Limited access privilege programs, called LAPPs for short, include individual fishing quota, and are expanded to allow for allocation of harvesting privileges under these programs to fishing communities or regional fishery associations, which can take into account impacts on shoreside interests in a rationalized fishery. In addition, there is a 5-year administrative review to ensure future quota programs are meeting the goals of the program and the conservation and management requirements of the act.

An important objective of the bill the Senate passed today is to provide a more uniform and consistent process for fishery management.

The bill requires a revision and updating of agency procedures for fishery management compliance with the national Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA. This would allow for the development of one content process for councils to consider the substantive requirements of NEPA under the timelines provided in the Magnuson-Stevens Act when developing fishery management plans, plan amendments, and regulations. The regional councils, the administration, and to a lesser extent the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, all recommended the need for addressing the inconsistencies between the two acts and resolving timelines or process issues such that councils are not spending all their time and funding on developing litigation proof Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments under NEPA.

This legislation will strengthen the role of science in council decision making, another important recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, through a number of provisions. It specifies that the role of the Scientific and Statistical Committees SSCs is to provide their councils with ongoing scientific advice needed for management decisions, which may include recommendations on acceptable biological catch or optimum yield, annual catch limits, or other mortality limits. The SSCs are expected to advise the councils on a variety of other issues, including stock status and health, bycatch, habitat status, and socio-economic impacts.

Improvements for data collection and better management are important enhancements to the overall effectiveness of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The bill the Senate passed today authorizes a national cooperative research and management program, which would be implemented on a regional basis and conducted through partnerships between Federal and state managers, commercial and recreational fishing industry participants, and scientists. It provides a mechanism for improving data relating to recreational fisheries by establishing a new national program for the registration of marine recreational fishermen who fish in Federal waters. And it directs the Secretary, in cooperation with the councils, to create a regionally based Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program to develop technological devices and engineering techniques for minimizing bycatch, bycatch mortality, and post-release mortality.

Finally, it is important to note the Magnuson-Stevens Act has worked well and provided for the effective conservation and management of U.S. fishery resources. For instance, the fisheries managed by the North Pacific Council, which both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission lauded as the example for proper fisheries management, does not have an overfished stock or endangered species of fish. It consistently sets an optimum yield far below the acceptable biological catch and as a result the fisheries in its jurisdiction have remained sustainable and productive. Our goal here is to improve the act and allow for continued sustainability of the resource for generations to come.

Unfortunately, management internationally and especially on the high- seas is lacking. Illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, IUU, as well as expanding industrial foreign fishing fleets and high bycatch levels, are threats to sustainable fisheries worldwide. Ultimately, these types of unsustainable and destructive fishing practices on the high seas threaten the good management that does take place in U.S. waters.

The bill the Senate has passed today strengthens U.S. leadership in international conservation and management by requiring the Secretary of Commerce to establish an international compliance and monitoring program, provide reports to Congress on progress in reducing IUU fishing, promote international cooperation, and strengthen the ability of regional fishery management organizations to combat IUU and other harmful fishing practices. In addition, the legislation allows for the use of measures authorized under the High Seas Driftnet Act to force compliance in cases where regional or international fishery management organizations are unable to stop IUU fishing.

I have enjoyed very much the bipartisan spirit that has defined this legislation and in particular working closely with my Commerce Committee co-chairman Senator Inouye to produce such important legislation to ensure the conservation and management of our Nation's fishery resources.

I end by congratulating all for the bipartisan spirit which defines this legislation, and in particular my close working relationship with Senator Inouye to produce this important legislation and for the action of Senator Murray. She and I entered into an agreement for comments. I congratulate her for her work with me on this important legislation to ensure the conservation and management of our fisheries resources, and I thank the managers of the bill.

Mr. President, I don't have a dog in this fight, you might say, but I have been listening to this debate, and I wonder about history. I wonder about the amendment of the Senator from Florida. I remember reading so clearly that after the War Between the States, the North lined up those from the South and took their guns and let some of them take them home. I remember so well that after World War II, we went through a process of trying to urge the governments involved in the access to obtain a pledge from the former members of the military that they would support the new democracy. That was amnesty.

In Japan, we certainly had a period under General MacArthur which was probably the greatest period of amnesty that has ever been known. We helped that country immediately to form a democracy and we never prosecuted the people who killed Americans.

I wonder seriously about what the Senator from Florida is doing by telling this new fledgling democracy that they cannot go through the process of cleansing, go through the process of trying to get people who were misguided, who were part of coalitions that they now are willing to recant, if they are, to come forward and support this new democracy. What are we doing anyway on the floor of the Senate trying to tell the new democracy what they can and can't do? I didn't like that story when I read it in the paper this morning, but I was happy to see the new statement from the security people that clarified what they intend to do.

But the time will come, if that democracy is going to succeed, when they are going to have to fold into their population those who are willing now to give up terrorism, those who are willing to put aside the activities of the past which led them to attack Americans as well as any other--there are 34 other nations over there. Are we saying just those who did kill Americans, they can't get amnesty, but the rest of them can?

What are we doing on the floor of the Senate trying to debate an issue as to how this country is going to come back together again? I am sort of appalled at it, really. I don't know if anyone else is. But it seems to me that we ought to do everything we can to encourage them to bring their people together, to forget the sins of the past, to forget the terrorists of the past, and to pledge themselves to a new future of democracy and have people come forward and say: I am willing to support this new democracy. And if they do, and demonstrate that they do after a period of time, shouldn't they be recognized as being loyal citizens of the new democracy?

This is a debate that disturbs me. It disturbs me to think we are willing to just seize the moment and make a political point--seize the moment and make a point--and not think. It is time we started thinking about how we can assure and take steps to help this country survive as a democracy. If it becomes a democracy in that part of the world, it will be a marvelous success, and I think it will lead to greater consideration by other countries of liberalization of their concepts and giving the people more power.

I believe we ought to try to find some way to encourage that country, to demonstrate to those people who have been opposed to what we are trying to do, that it is worthwhile for them and their children to come forward and support this democracy. And if that is amnesty, I am for it, I would be for it. And if those people who come forward and want to obtain a better life for their families in the future are willing to support that democracy--if they bear arms against our people, what is the difference between those people who bore arms against the Union in the War Between the States? What is the difference between the Germans and the Japanese and all the people we have forgiven?

When I left the war and came home, I had a deep hatred for the Japanese. Today, Mr. President, I have a granddaughter who is Japanese. I have a daughter-in-law who is Japanese. And her parents were involved in World War II. Now, are we to understand that time can heal, heal the pain of the past?

I really wish the Senator from Florida would have the courage to withdraw the amendment, just withdraw it and say it was a political effort. This is nothing but politics. I will vote to table it or vote against it in good conscience.

Yes.

That is absolutely true. I would say to the Senator, I was there and participated in the conversation with some of our military people who were trying to find ways to help the Iraqis take into the regular armed services some of those people who served in the Red Guard under Saddam Hussein. But they are willing to come forward now and see that there is a country they would like to support. And if they asked my opinion about that, I would say I would encourage it. I would encourage it. I think if there is anything that can bring about stability in that country and have them support this new democracy, we should encourage it.

I will, Mr. President.

Absolutely. Mr. President, I would say it falls under the concept of the Christian ethic. We are people who believe that you can be converted. You can be a nonbeliever and then become a believer. What is the difference between that and amnesty, between those people who may have been on the wrong side and then will come forward and belong to this new government? And if they pledge and demonstrate to do it, I think it is up to the Iraqis to determine when and how they become full-fledged citizens of the new democracy.

But this amendment would have us say if they indicate they are going to grant amnesty to them, that is wrong. Amnesty ought to be a reward for a pledge of cooperation and support. In this context, the military context, I think you can go through history and find time after time after time where it was successful. But this amendment is a political amendment, and I am tired of these political things coming on the floor. The minute something comes in the paper, before it can even be corrected by the country, we have an amendment saying, oh, here, let's force the majority to vote against this amendment. Baloney. I am proud to vote against it.

Mr. President, today the Chief Justice and associate Justices of the Supreme Court held a memorial observance honoring Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. It was a really grand event. I am sorry I could not be there the whole time.

At 2 p.m., resolutions in tribute to the Chief Justice were presented for consideration by members of the Supreme Court bar. There were presentations made by the Solicitor General and by the Attorney General of the United States during a special sitting of the Court, which commenced at 3:15 p.m. this afternoon. Following that, the Supreme Court held a reception for friends of the former Chief Justice.

I think one of the great joys of my life was to be able to say that I was a long-time friend of our former Chief Justice. He and I met here as young lawyers the year we got out of law school. We were very friendly. As a matter of fact, we double-dated during those days. And as the years went on, as I went to Alaska and came back as U.S. Attorney and had various other functions, we kept in touch. We were divided by a continent, but we remained friends.

Years later, when I came to the Senate, he was with the Department of Justice. I can say it was one of the longest friendships I have had, and I was sad when he passed away. I am here really to ask that the Senate review some of the comments made about my friend and former Chief Justice of the United States.

I ask unanimous consent that the schedule of the Supreme Court for today, Thursday, June 15, 2006, and also the resolution of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States in gratitude and appreciation for the life, work, and service of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist presented to the Supreme Court today be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, yesterday, we honored our colleague, Senator Robert Byrd, for achieving an important milestone in our Senate's history. Today, we come to the floor to pay tribute to another man who stands out as a giant among those who have served in this Chamber. Senator Bob Dole, last Sunday, marked the 10-year anniversary of his retirement from the Senate.

Bob Dole and I came to the Senate at the same time. We have worked together a great deal. When I was Republican whip and he was our party's Vice Presidential nominee, I was asked to help him prepare for his debate when he debated Walter Mondale--the first Vice Presidential debate in history.

Bob helped us pass the Alaskan Native Land Claims Settlement Act, which paved the way for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. And he supported the Alaska Lands Act and the Alaska Railroad Transfer. In short, Bob Dole is a

great personal friend, a friend to me and to Alaska.

Bob was--and still is--a leader in the truest sense of the word. Whenever I think of Bob Dole, I think of the great many men I have known who were tested in World War II. Like my good friend Senator Inouye, Bob Dole is a true war hero. He was tested in war and injured and struggled back through a long recovery. Like all great leaders, Bob takes great challenges of life and uses them to improve the world around him.

Having been injured in World War II, he dedicated much of his time in public service to improving the opportunities for disabled Americans.

Those of us in the Senate who were fortunate enough to call Bob a colleague for 27 years, chose him to serve as our leader six times, when we were in the majority and the minority. He reached out to those who disagreed with him. He listened to advice. You never had to ask him twice to know where he stood; his word was--and is--his bond. As President Reagan said:

His title of leader is not just a job title, it's a

description of the man.

I think Bob's decision to resign his seat rather than stay in the Senate and campaign for the Presidency demonstrates what a devoted public servant he is. I have now been in the Senate over 30 years, and I have seen Members of this body run for President and miss vote after vote because they were on the road campaigning.

Bob Dole loved the people of Kansas too much to leave them without a voice in the Senate, so he resigned. I believe that took great courage. If there is one thing about Bob Dole that there is no shortage of, it is courage. Bob himself said, when he resigned from the Senate:

One of the qualities of American politics that

distinguishes us from other nations is that we judge our

politicians as much by the manner by which they leave office

as by the vigor with which they pursue it. You do not lay

claim to the office you hold, it lays claim to you. Your

obligation is to bring to it the gifts you can of labor and

honesty and then to depart with grace.

By his own standards, Bob Dole stands out as one of the most noble and dignified men who ever graced these Halls.

Senator Dole did not win the 1996 Presidential election, but his commitment to public service has not wavered. He still contributes to the public debate through his writing and speaking, and he has remained active on the campaign trail. We have been fortunate that since his retirement another Dole has joined this Chamber--his wife, Senator Elizabeth Dole, who serves the people of North Carolina and our Nation, also, with great distinction.

When Senator Dole resigned from the Senate 10 years ago to run for President, he and I were the only remaining Members of the class of 1968. We have a bond that was forged on the morning of January 3, 1969, when we each took the oath to serve our country in the Senate. That bond never fades, and I salute his service today.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The Senator from Virginia is correct, Mr. President. Senator Inouye and I were pleased and proud to join him and you in that effort. And we are delighted that the sponsors of that memorial remembered Alaska and Hawaii. They are in the memorial although they were not States during World War II.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to try to bring a sense of urgency to the Senate about getting this conference report finally approved. The House has approved it. The conference report has been duly approved by a majority of the Appropriations Committee. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Thad Cochran, is here now. I, as chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, want to point out that this supplemental was received by the Senate on February 17, and it is now June 13.

The Army has notified us of the need, and we have approved reprogramming of $1.4 billion to carry the Army through June. The difficulty is that we are now informed, despite the circumstances of the reprogramming, the Army, at the end of June, will have only $300 million left in its O&M account. The O&M account is the money to pay bills for any of the departments, and I think as we look at this, Members of the Senate should realize all over the country there are actions being taken now to the detriment of many of our bases, our ports, and various installations even here at home, here in the United States.

But the main thing is that the Chief of Staff of the Army, GEN Peter Schoomaker, has asked Chairman Cochran, on May 17, to do his best to accelerate the approval of this bill because almost half of the money that is in this supplemental appropriations bill is for the Army. I don't think there are many Senators who realize that every time there is a reprogramming it involves a real change in the overall structure of the Army. They must take money from various accounts and reprogram it into the operation and maintenance account in order to meet current bills--not only current bills here at home but in the war zone.

Very clearly, the impact of this is being felt, as I said, all over the country. For instance, I received notice from Fort Greely, in Alaska--that is the national missile defense base--that there have been a series of layoffs now at that small fort due to the program that the Army has had to undertake. I have before me the instructions that were given by GEN Dick Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff. He gave it to all general officers on May 26; that is, he has given instructions--really a command to the Army--to reduce spending while ensuring that life, health, and safety issues are covered. The priority is to continue critical support to ongoing operations and readiness activities for units and personnel identified--and that meant with regard to rotation concepts. But with the exception of those concepts, General Cody has commanded that the bases--and this was beginning May 26--not order noncritical spare parts or supplies.

He advised the Army Materiel Command to reduce the purchases and to postpone and cancel all nonessential travel and training conferences and to stop the shipments of goods unless necessary to support deployed forces and units with identified deployment dates.

What I am trying to tell the Senate is that right now, beginning on June 15, here are the orders starting 2 days from now: Release all temporary civilian employees funded with O&M accounts or performing O&M fund work. That includes depot operations. Freeze all contract awards and new task orders on existing contracts. Process solicitation of new contracts only up to the point of award. Suspend the use of all Government purchase cards. And if this bill is not approved by June 26, beginning June 26 release service-contracted employees to include recruiters, if doing so will not carry penalties and termination costs.

General Cody has advised there may be other painful actions necessary if they don't get these funds.

I think this is a critical situation right now. The impact of not getting these funds now really causes duplicate actions. They not only have to seek reprogramming for transfer of the funds from other accounts to O&M, but then when they get these funds they will have to have authority to reprogram the funds from this account back into the accounts from which they are taken. This really causes enormous manpower problems in the Department of the Army handling situations like this.

I have come to plead with the Senate, let's settle the disputes on this bill. The bill is final now, in terms of the conference report. It is not subject to amendment. I can tell every Member of the Senate, the longer this bill is delayed the more people are going to be laid off in every State of the Union. It doesn't make any sense at all to delay getting this bill to the President. It is ready, it is overdue, and it is time we realized there are substantial costs to the military, when we know they have a crisis that requires supplemental appropriations, not to get the bill approved and to the President as soon as possible.

I plead with the leadership, I plead with both sides, let's approve this conference report and get it to the President tomorrow. In doing so, it will prevent that list of items I just mentioned that will occur starting June 15 because I am assured the President will sign the bill as quickly as possible after Congress has approved it and the Senate will take final action on this bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join those who honor my great friend, our great friend, the Senator from West Virginia. This has been a tradition. Each time a Senator has reached the position where he has served longer than anyone else before, we have had tributes such as this. It is my honor to be here with my good friend today.

Having known Carl Hayden and Strom Thurmond, both of whom have the distinction that Senator Byrd has had in my lifetime and my service in the Senate, I believe he joins a small but distinguished group of dedicated public servants, people who have devoted their lives to serving our country.

I had the honor of being the whip for 8 years, 4 years in the minority and 4 years in the majority. I remember so well what I called the Byrd history lessons. Maybe Senator Byrd didn't call them that, but each evening in those days Senator Byrd would come to the floor and give another statement about the history of the Senate. I believe those became the framework for the volumes he has written on the history of the Senate. I didn't need to read them; I listened to them. As a matter of fact, I think I listened to every one the Senator made because the then majority leader, Howard Baker, would say to me: Teddy, it is your turn. I would be in the chair listening to Senator Byrd.

Winston Churchill once said:

We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what

we give.

I don't know anyone in my lifetime that I would say has given so much as Senator Byrd.

Others have talked about what he did before he came into public life. I know he attended college while he was in the West Virginia House of Delegates and State Senate and finished law school as a working Member of the Senate.

He has truly given more than he ever received. But, really, I would say of my friend from West Virginia that I know of no man who has done so much to make the Senate a family. When I first came here, that was one of the first things that Senator Mike Mansfield said to me--that you have to realize you are living in a family. This is a family. Senator Byrd has made that his sort of mantra, and to be the person who represents the family, reminding us that we are part of a family.

I remember so well, Senator Byrd, when you made such kind remarks about my wife Ann after she passed away in an aircraft accident. I also recall the days that you congratulated me on getting remarried, and then on the birth of our daughter Lily when, again, Senator Byrd took the floor. I will never forget the time you came to the floor and talked about the fact that my first grandchild had been born. Senator Byrd told me at that time that I had my first taste of immortality. Now that I have become the grandfather of 11 children, I have touched immortality a little bit more than most people perhaps. I stand in awe of the honor of being a grandfather. I will never forget what he said. That means you are going to go one generation beyond the generation you helped bring into the world. You have seen your children produce children, and that really matches your love for the Senate family.

I don't know of anybody here who has had a sorrow or an achievement when Senator Byrd hasn't taken the time to seek us out and either commiserate with us in our sorrow or tell us what a great achievement it was. It is a great achievement to be part of the Senate family and to be nurturing our own families.

Others have spoken about your dear wife Erma. I know how close the two of

you were. I know that because of conversations we have had about Erma. We were all saddened when she passed away earlier this year, but I know she is looking down on you today, Senator Byrd. I know she is proud of your service and, if she were here, she would be right up there in the gallery. But she is up there somewhere looking at all of us.

Actually, many of you may not know this, but I met Senator Byrd during the Eisenhower administration. I remember sitting in the gallery the day you were sworn into the Senate in 1959. You were already in the House. When I got to the Senate, I was talking to the wife of Bob Bartlett, my predecessor, the Senator's good friend. I was told that the one person in the Senate I could trust would be Bob Byrd. Coming from her, that meant a great deal to me personally. We have worked together for 35 years now on the Appropriations Committee. I wish I could count the days when we were chairmen; when Senator Byrd was chairman, I would wander over to his room, and when I was chairman, he would come to my room. I remember one day--and he will not like this-- he came over and said someone had given him some cigars, and he suggested that we ought to smoke a cigar. I had not smoked a cigar in 20 years, but I said it would be a good idea. When Senator Byrd makes a suggestion, it is a good idea. I joined him then. About 6 months later, I had somebody give me a couple of cigars, and I wandered over to Senator Byrd's office and said, ``Let's share a cigar again.'' Senator Byrd said, ``I have quit.''

I was on that trip to London, too, at the British Parliamentary Conference, and in West Virginia when Senator Byrd was the host. I don't know if you know this, Senator.

I have a video of you when we were in London when we sat around, those Members of the American Senate who were there, after meeting with our colleagues from Britain, and we talked and you told us about your own history. I remember that so well. I remember asking you to recite the poem about your dog. We talk about this prodigious memory of Senator Byrd. I have never known anything that I could ask him to recite that he didn't have the ability to recite.

Having been here so long together, I come back to where I started. You have kept alive the spirit of family in this Senate. I think without the spirit of family, we would lose the essence of what it is to be here. I tell people that sometimes I sort of pinch myself to realize that I really am a Member of the Senate. Others can talk about their backgrounds. I don't talk about mine very much, but I certainly never had any reason to believe I would ever be standing here, and I think Senator Byrd could say the same thing.

We are here to honor the son of West Virginia, the patriarch of our Senate family. He is, as Senator McConnell said, a symbol of our history. I am here to thank you, Senator, for being a good friend. I think you have been one of the best friends I have had in the Senate, and you have really sustained me in times of sorrow and encouraged me in times of joy. I am here to honor you for your service; it is a great service. But mostly I am here because I am honored to be able to call you my friend.

Can Senator Akaka yield me some time to comment on the legislation?

I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak using the time of the Senator from Hawaii. They can reserve their time.

I am in support of the legislation, and I will take my time from the other side of the aisle.

Mr. President, I am saddened to hear some of the comments I have heard today in the Senate. Most people do not understand the circumstances that existed in both of our offshore States.

I have come to the Senate to support the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act introduced by my good friends from Hawaii. I support this bill not only because of my friendship and respect for Senator Inouye and Senator Akaka but also because it is the right thing to do for the Hawaiian people. I have visited with the Hawaiian people very often on this subject.

Alaska, similar to Hawaii, has a rich history shaped by native cultures and traditions. These customs are a vital part of our heritage. My commitment to protecting and preserving the culture of Alaskan Natives spans now more than four decades. I believe Native Hawaiians deserve this protection as well.

While our Alaskan Native community still faces many challenges, their position has been improved because of legislation which clarified their relationship with our State of Alaska and with the Federal Government.

Soon after I came to the Senate--and that was in 1968--I began working to settle the unresolved claims of our Alaskan Natives. Many of the arguments against the Hawaiian bill now made by the opponents of this legislation were made by those who opposed the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act enacted in 1971. But time has proven them wrong. The Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act did not create States within our State. It did not lead to secession. It did not lead to anyone trying to create a nation within our Nation. Those who argue that the bill before the Senate will lead to secession ignore the history. More than 562 Indian tribes are recognized by our Federal Government.

Not one of those tribes has sought to secede from their State or from the Nation. Federal recognition of these tribes has not prompted any State that they call home to try to secede from our Union. The Akaka bill reaffirms our longstanding commitment to the rights of our indigenous people. It ensures that Native Hawaiians will have the same type of recognition afforded to American Indians and to Alaska natives by the act of 1971.

The U.S. Government has a responsibility to Native Hawaiians, as it does to all indigenous people under our Constitution. The Constitution vests Congress with the authority to promote the welfare of all Native American people and to help foster their success.

Like the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the bill before us, when it is enacted, will create a framework which ensures Native Hawaiian groups can address their unique circumstances. ANCSA was a crucial step in responding to the concerns of Alaska natives. It empowered them to improve their own position. The Akaka bill offers Native Hawaiians the same opportunity.

Our Federal policy of self-determination and self-governance has not been formally extended to Native Hawaiians. This omission unfairly singles them out for disparate treatment from our Federal Government. It deprives them of the processes by which other native groups may negotiate and resolve issues with the Federal and State governments. In my judgment, it is time to right this wrong.

This bill will fulfill our Federal obligation to Hawaii's native people. The Akaka bill authorizes the United States, the State of Hawaii, and the Native Hawaiian Government to conduct negotiations. Their discussions will address the unique issues facing Native Hawaiians. These steps will help ensure the future prosperity of the Native Hawaiian people.

The bill offered by the Hawaiian delegation has garnered widespread support. The legislation reflects the recommendations made by the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior in the reconciliation report they published in 2000. The Governor of Hawaii, the Hawaii State legislature, and a majority of the Hawaiian people support this bill. Both the National Congress of American Indians and the Alaska Federation of Natives have passed resolutions in support of this bill.

Just as I sought to protect the rights of Alaska natives, Senators Akaka and Inouye are fighting for the rights of their native people in Hawaii. They have my full support. They have the support of the Alaska people. I believe they have the support of those who want to see these wrongs righted.

The time has come to fulfill our commitment to these indigenous people and to address the needs of the Native Hawaiians. We can no longer deny our Nation's responsibility to promote their welfare as much as we have promoted the welfare of the Indian people and the Alaska native people.

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act is a step towards meeting our Federal commitment to

Native Hawaiians. It is long overdue. I have come to urge our colleagues to support cloture and vote in favor of this legislation.

I am sorry we are no longer really a debating body. I would love to debate this. I would love to try to ask them to understand what happened in Alaska. The rights of Alaskans aren't the same. There were people who said: You can't do that; that will create a State within a State. There were people who said: You can't do that; they will rebel against the United States.

These people are good Americans. They serve in our military. They just have a different culture, and it has never been recognized by our government as it should. It was done in Alaska in 1971. It is long overdue here.

I ask unanimous consent that the time between 6 and 6:30 be controlled by the majority, and the time between 6:30 and 7 be controlled by the minority.

I move to reconsider the vote.