Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding the previous order, that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 389 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I renew the request of the distinguished assistant leader.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, sorry to interrupt. I call attention to the Senate that Special Operations is hosting a reception for Members of the Senate and staff tonight from 5:30 to 7:30 in room 106 of the Dirksen Building. General Holland would be honored if Members could stop by. My Defense Subcommittee visited General Holland and saw many of the things that are going to be on display in 106 Dirksen. There will be members of the armed services who worked with the unified commands, Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force. Individual members of the service who actually participated in Afghanistan and Iraq are there to explain to Members of the Senate and staff some of the engagements they were involved in. I think every Member and members of the staff would find it very interesting. I hope they will stop by. Amendment No. 916

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my amendment codifies the existing requirement that U.S. air carriers be effectively controlled by U.S. citizens. It will ensure reciprocity with countries in the European Union which codified a comparable requirement. The United States has enforced an effective control standard for decades. DOT's Inspector General recently identified seven factors that DOT has relied on to determine whether an airline is effectively controlled by foreign entities. The I.G. identified ``significant contracts'' as one of the key factors in this process. A DOT administrative law judge is currently considering whether this should be applied to a situation where 7 year guaranteed cost-plus contracts that provide virtually all of a carrier's business are significant contracts leading to foreign control. Ironically, in this same proceeding one carrier has argued that the effective control test should not apply at all because it has not been codified. My amendment will codify the existing standard. It leaves the interpretation of effective control up to DOT, but the department can draw from its decades of precedents to reach these conclusions. It is critical that DOT closely examine the effective control of this transaction. If the present arrangement is allowed to stand, DOT will set a precedent which allows foreign governments to compete with U.S. companies for business which, by statute, is reserved to U.S. carriers.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment deals with protecting existing jobs and creating new jobs on the ground in Alaska in connection with the airport I am honored to have named after me. Mr. President, as I say, this amendment is about jobs--protecting existing jobs and creating new jobs on the ground in Alaska. Anchorage is the top-ranked cargo airport in North America: 600 wide body cargo carriers per week; 19 airlines providing all-cargo main deck freighter service through Anchorage; 9 hours by air from 95 percent of the industrialized world; 3000 miles from Tokyo; 3000 miles from New York city; 4000 miles from London; 4000 miles from Frankfurt; 4400 miles from Hong Kong. Foreign airlines provide much of this international cargo lift to and from the U.S. through Anchorage. Federal law allows these planes to land in Alaska, creating an enormous number of jobs on the ground. But Federal law, as currently interpreted, does not allow U.S. carriers to use excess capacity on their foreign partners to move international cargo from Anchorage to the lower 48. The foreign carrier must make the full trip by itself. It is prohibited from transferring cargo to or from a U.S. carrier flying the international leg of the journey. Anchorage is under attack from foreign cargo hubs seeking to exploit this weakness. Cities such as Tashkent, Kharbarovsk, and Anadyr in Asia and Calgary and Vancouver in Canada are aggressively pursuing the cargo carriers that Anchorage now serves. We are losing U.S. jobs to foreign countries because of it. This amendment will reverse that decline. American carriers, both cargo carriers and passenger carriers, which accept cargo will make use of this amendment in various ways: relocation of sort and transfer operations from Asia back to the United States; enhanced service to U.S., Asian, and European cities; increased opportunities for integrated logistics products sold by U.S. companies; more opportunities to strengthen U.S. carriers through international partnering. This requires a narrow modification of title 49. My amendment does not create more flights by foreign carriers. It does not reduce the number of flights flown by U.S. carriers. All cargo moving under this authority must be shipped on a U.S. codeshare or similar arrangement, such as a U.S. waybill. It preserves and creates American jobs in the increasingly important global air cargo sector.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murkowski, I rise to introduce the Rural Teacher Housing Act of 2003.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murkowski, I rise to introduce the Rural Teacher Housing Act of 2003.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as Memorial Day approaches, our Nation reflects upon the courage and heroism of our Armed Forces. During this time of reflection, I hope the Congress and the Nation remember those who defended Alaska during World War II. The Aleutian Islands were a key part of our victory in World War II. The battle fought at Dutch Harbor contributed indirectly to our success at Midway, and the fight to reclaim Attu and Kiska deprived the Japanese of a base from which to raid Alaska and limit North Pacific operations. The geography, weather, and location of the islands made these missions particularly dangerous and difficult, and the members of the military who served there deserve special recognition. The Voice of Anchorage Times recently reported that these veterans will be traveling back to Alaska this month. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Brownback and Dodd to introduce legislation authorizing the establishment of the National Museum of African American History and Culture within the Smithsonian Institution. The effort to construct a museum dedicated to African American history and culture began in the early 1900's by an association working to commemorate the valor and deed of Negro soldiers and sailors who fought in American wars and contributions of African Americans in science, art, literature, business and other endeavors. I have conferred with African American constituents in Alaska regarding the significance of this bill--the late JP Jones, Bill Sykes, and James Hayes to name a few. Today, we are taking an important step toward bringing this overdue effort closer to a reality. The provisions of the bill direct the Smithsonian Institution Board of Regents to consult with the Commission on Fine Arts, the National Capitol Planning Commission, and three members of President Bush's Commission on the National Museum of African American History and Culture when selecting the museum site. The legislation directs the Board of Regents to complete this work within 18 months. The legislation authorizes $17 million in federal funds for the museum in fiscal year 2004. The funding for the museum will be fifty percent federal funding and the remaining fifty percent will come from non-federal sources. I look forward to working with my colleagues as this bill moves through the legislative process.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I just received, as President pro tempore, from the Prime Minister of Turkey be printed in the Record. The Prime Minister discusses the importance of the Turkish-U.S. partnership and shares his views regarding the recent developments in Iraq. He calls upon ``the distinguished members of the U.S. Congress to work hand-in-hand with their Turkish colleagues to further strengthen the cooperation and solidarity between our two countries . . .''.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I received today from President George W. Bush be printed in the Record. The letter was sent to me, as President pro tempore of the Senate, in compliance with the war powers resolution, Public Law 93-148.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Murkowski, recently wrote an article entitled ``Developing Alaska Oil Is Good for the Global Environment,'' which was published on May 4, 2003 in the Anchorage Daily News. Senator Murkowski made extremely astute observations and concisely detailed the hard truths of the United States' current energy condition. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Senator Murkowski's article.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the other morning, as I read the clips from the Anchorage Daily News, I was taken by a report of an event that took place when President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier off of San Diego. I ask unanimous consent that this Anchorage Daily News article be printed in the Record following my remarks on this subject.

Mr. STEVENS. This article referred to Petty Officer 3rd Class Francis Cushingham IV, who met and shook hands with the President three times while he was on the aircraft carrier. It describes how this 21-year-old Alaskan from Eagle River and his 5,000 shipmates played host to President Bush and what they did. President Bush was on board all day getting to shake hands with almost every member of the crew. As the article says: Trust an Alaskan to make the most of opportunity. Despite an uncertain start, Cushingham managed to shake Bush's hand three separate times, get his picture taken with the President, and appear in a background shot on the Today show. The article goes on to say that Cushingham considers it to be proof of his few moments of glory and has a quote from him: It's something I'm going to keep to show to my children and my grandchildren. I can say, ``Hey, I met the President.'' There are people who criticized the President for having landed on that aircraft carrier. As a pilot, I envy the opportunity he had to land on that aircraft carrier and I certainly do not criticize the President for his visit. Our battle carrier groups are tremendous examples of the ability of the United States to project force to all corners of the globe. What better way to show the world that force than to have the President of the United States land on this aircraft carrier as it returned to its home base? In fact, before the President landed on that carrier, the basic air combat groups on board the carrier had left. They fly ahead of the vessel as it goes into home port so they can go have their reunions with their families at the air bases, which reflect their duties. The sailors' families meet them as they come in to port. In this instance, it was San Diego. I have witnessed some of those real amazing events when a major ship comes back into port. This visit of the Commander-in-Chief was accomplished within normal allocation of training flight hours to the pilots who flew him there. He was a passenger. He, as well as I, would like to experience landing a plane on an aircraft carrier but we know we cannot do that. Very clearly, the President was carrying out the tradition of every President since John Tyler in 1844. President Eisenhower visited aircraft carriers after World War II. In 1980, Jimmy Carter visited the Nimitz, and in 1994, President Bill Clinton, on the George Washington, went from England to France for the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Normandy. I do not remember any criticism of that. In fact, to the contrary. I think Americans are proud of the fact their President goes out to greet the troops as they are coming back and spends time with them. As this article points out, this Alaskan greeted the President as he came out of the gym. He had gone to work out with some of the guys and gals on board. I cannot think of a better way for a Commander-in-Chief to demonstrate the great confidence we have in the young men and women who performed their duty in Iraq. I ask unanimous consent that another article which I have be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. STEVENS. This is an article from the Copley News Service entitled ``Bush Continues Seagoing Tradition.'' It points out the number of times that Presidents have gone on board aircraft carriers. Long before I came to the Senate, I remember when Adlai Stevenson came to Alaska. He was just a Presidential candidate. We traveled miles and miles to see him, although I was a Republican candidate for office at the time. I think every American wants to see the President and is totally honored to ever be in the presence of the President. That person represents the honor of our country, and I cannot think of a better way for a President to do it than to go out and land on an aircraft carrier and honor those who have served our country so well in Iraq. I do congratulate the President and I hope he keeps it up. I hope he visits every naval vessel he can visit and every military base he can visit. This generation has done a tremendous job for us in Afghanistan and Iraq. My generation was referred to as ``the greatest generation.'' I think these young people far surpass what we did in terms of their ability to follow orders, to achieve the goals that are set for them, and to do it in a very humane and humanitarian way. Again, I think the President did the right thing by thanking the soldiers and sailors and marines on that aircraft carrier in person. I again repeat, I hope he will do it again. Exhibit 1 After Shaky Start, Alaskan Greets Bush Three Times (By Sheila Toomey) Petty Officer 3rd Class Francis Cushingham IV was so nervous about meeting the president that he almost blew his first opportunity. ``I'm all freaking out. I was basically scared to meet him. I mean, he's like basically the most powerful person on the planet,'' Cushingham said by phone Friday from San Diego, where the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln is docked. The 21-year-old from Eagle River and his 5,000 shipmates played host Thursday to President Bush, who declared victory in Iraq in a speech broadcast from the carrier as it approached the California coast. The ship, which lift the United States in July, was returning from duty in the Persian Gulf. Bush was on board all day, and getting to shake his hand became a ship-wide obsession. Trust an Alaskan to make the most of opportunity. Despite an uncertain start, Cushingham managed to shake Bush's hand three separate times, get his picture taken with the president and appear in a background shot on the ``Today'' show. ``I'm basking in it,'' Cushingham said. ``Everybody was honored and excited. There's a lot of people who didn't get the chance to shake his hand, and they're all bummed out.'' The first occasion was outside Cushingham's work station, a room of computers used in navigating the massive ship that's located along a corridor leading to the captain's cabin. When a bunch of Secret Service agents appeared, signaling the president's approach, Cushingham said he got nervous and turned to leave. A colleague stopped him, and the first shake took place. ``I said, `How are you, sir? It's a pleasure to meet you, sir.' He said, `Thank you for your service to your country.' I swore my face was the brightest hue of red you could possibly muster, but my friend said I didn't look nervous.'' An hour later, Bush was returning from the ship gym, wearing workout clothes, needing a shower, friendly and shorter than he looks on television, the 6-foot-3-inch Alaskan said. ``He stood in the doorway, saw all of us with our cameras, and pretty much offered a photo op right there. . . . He said, `Who has a camera? Who am I standing with first?' '' ``I shook his hand about 4:20 in the afternoon,'' Cushingham said. ``Pacific time.'' The third shake was up on deck, after Bush's speech. Now a pro, no longer nervous, Cushingham maneuvered to be among the group Bush was scheduled to shake hands with in the afterglow of the international media event. Pressing presidential flesh was good, Cushingham said, but the photo is best. It's proof of his few moments of glory. ``It's something I'm going to keep to show to my children and my grandchildren. I can say, `Hey, I met the president.' ''

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, turning to another subject, I have been concerned about the newspaper reports and stories about the Smithsonian's exhibit that was moved within the museum by its managers. Many of those newspaper stories and other news stories have indicated that I pressured the Smithsonian Museum to move that exhibit. That is absolutely not true. No member of my office nor I contacted the Smithsonian. I checked with the other two members of the Alaska delegation. None has commented on that exhibit or interfered in any way. When I looked into it, I concluded the Smithsonian was right. It was not just an exhibit of beautiful pictures of Alaska--and I love beautiful pictures of my State. It was an attempt to use the Smithsonian as a place to carry forward the position of the Wilderness Society on the question of whether or not oil and gas development should take place on the Arctic coast. That is a public issue. Suppose I had taken all the photos and all the exhibits I have displayed on the floor and took them to the Smithsonian and said I wanted them positioned so the people coming in can understand why we should go forward in drilling ANWR. I believe the Senate would come apart at the seams. This action that has been taken is contrary to the basic concept of the Smithsonian. It should not be a place for advocacy on a public issue. Clearly, that is what happened. It was an exhibit based on a book with contributors William Meadows of the Wilderness Society; Debbie Miller, of the Alaska Wilderness Society; Fran Mauer, former refuge manager; and former President Jimmy Carter, of the Alaska Wilderness League. Let me describe the cover of the book. The book talks about seasons of life and land and a photographic journey through Alaska. That is wonderful. They are great photographs. What is the purpose of the book? The purpose of the book is to make people think the land depicted in this book is endangered. There is a picture of a red sign with caribou, labeled ``endangered.'' ``Why is this land connected to us all?'' Of the 19 million acres of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, all but 1.5 million is protected. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is already protected. It is not endangered. The other 1.5 million acres is an area set aside by an amendment offered by Senator Tsongas of Massachusetts, a Democrat, and Senator Jackson of Washington, a Democrat. It was passed by the Senate, passed by the House, and the bill was signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980 after the election. President Carter has a foreword in this book. It says: In 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower established the original 8.9 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Range to preserve its unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values. I know that; I helped draft that order. I was at the Interior Department as a solicitor of the Department of the Interior. President Carter continues: Twenty years later, I signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, monumental legislation safeguarded more than 100 million acres of national parks, refuges, and forest lands in Alaska. That is true. This loss specifically created the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, doubled the size of the former range, and restricted development in areas that are clearly incompatible with oil exploration. Since I left office, there have been repeated proposals to open the Arctic Refuge coastal plain to oil drilling. Those attempts have failed because of tremendous opposition by the American people. . . . This is a propaganda book. President Carter signed that law that had the Tsongas-Jackson amendment that authorized us to go forward with oil and gas development as long as an environmental impact statement demonstrated there would be no irreparable harm to the Arctic Plain. President Carter has now developed opposition after signing the law that authorized oil and gas development. And the law would never have passed if it had not permitted it. The basic thing today is what to do about these people both in the Senate and elsewhere who are trying to persecute the Smithsonian officials who saw what they were trying to do. They were trying to use the Smithsonian to further their cause in opposition to the discussions going on in the Congress on ANWR. The House had just passed a bill containing the approval to proceed with oil and gas leasing. They knew that. They wanted to put it up in the Smithsonian and have all the visitors to the beautiful Smithsonian look at this exhibit and come to the conclusion that those who propose proceeding with the authority under the 1980 act that President Carter signed, are somehow wrong. That is advocacy on an issue that is pending before the U.S. Congress, and it is wrong to use the Smithsonian for that purpose. I do not believe we should let it go unnoticed. People are criticizing the management of the Smithsonian for having recognized that. I will defend them. They were right. As a matter of fact, I would defend them if someone from my point of view went to the Smithsonian and demanded space to use the Smithsonian to advocate my point of view. That is not right. They have every right in the world to produce this book, every right in the world to publish it, to distribute it, to sell it, and to advocate a position against what I believe in. The constitutional right of free speech in this country gives them the absolute right to do what they want to do, but they do not have the right to use federally supported facilities like the Smithsonian and demand the right to use it and castigate those who manage the institution, who caught them in the act and said: You cannot do that. I applaud the Smithsonian managers and I tell them unquestionably, I want them to notify me if there is any further attempt to bully them. We are going to get to the bottom of this one because it is absolutely wrong to challenge and castigate people who are doing their job correctly. The Smithsonian did the proper thing, and their opponents should admit it and stop this. Every article I have seen, every radio account that I have seen, anything that has been said about this, indicates I am the one who put pressure on the Smithsonian to move it. It is not true. We did not do that. But I do applaud the people who made the decision that this is wrong. I think the Congress should insist that the Smithsonian and other Federal facilities not be used for advocacy, pro or con, on legislation pending in the U.S. Congress.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I introduce, with Senators Campbell, Domenici, Hatch, Inouye, and Murkowski, the Federal Land Recreational Visitor Protection Act of 2003. Across our State of Alaska, Western States, and areas of the Northeast, local governments and businesses struggle each year to remove potential avalanches or recover form the disastrous effects of avalanches. The West Wide Avalanche Network calculated avalanche damage totals for the Western U.S. between $600 thousand and $800 thousand annually. These costs do not include the economic losses from town cut- off by avalanches. In our state alone, the Safety Center estimates upwards of $18 million in direct damages both to private property and economic losses over the past 5 years. While such damage can bring hardships to many local communities, none can compare with the loss of a friend or family member. The U.S. averages 30 deaths a year from avalanches, a majority of which are results of recreational activities in unmitigated avalanche areas. Some States set aside money for rescues prior to the winter season, knowing that the resources required to clear all avalanche threats are not at hand. This bill brings those resources to the entities that need them the most, enabling us to significantly reduce the effects of avalanches on visitors, recreational users, transportation corridors, and our local communities.