Ted Stevens

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.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I reserve the right to object.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank my colleague for his inquiry and would respond that we have provided billions of dollars to the Army, with knowledge that there are uncertainties remaining in our action in Iraq. Certainly I would encourage the Army to place purchase of these bandages among their highest priorities, given the indications I have seen of the lives to be saved.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I rise today to bring to the Senate's attention the dedicated service of one of my employees and great friends, Ruth Burnett. Ruth runs my Fairbanks office and has been a fixture with her husband, Wally, in the Fairbanks community for almost 50 years. All of her children have worked in my Washington office at one time or another, but currently Ruth is the only Burnett on my staff. April 19 is Ruth's birthday and one which commemorates a year that she will be happy to have behind her--as Queen Elizabeth once remarked, ``an annum horribulous.'' Last fall, Ruth was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, underwent surgery, and immediately began an aggressive treatment of chemotherapy. By her birthday next week she will have completed her chemotherapy protocol and will begin rebuilding her strength. Her son Shane and daughters Pam and Suzy will join Wally and Ruth in Fairbanks to celebrate her birthday. I could go on about Ruth's courage, her ever-optimistic outlook on life, her faith, and her boundless energy, but I think an article written by her 10-year-old granddaughter Emily Combs captures Ruth quite well. Catherine and I and my entire staff who work with Ruth on a daily basis send her our warmest wishes for a happy birthday and the beginning of a great new year. I know the Senate joins me in wishing Ruth and her family well on the occasion of her birthday and in wishing her a speedy recovery. I ask unanimous consent to print a short story by Emily Combs.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. What is the time situation?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment would provide an additional $375 million for VA medical care to address the medical needs of returning veterans from the war in Iraq. This funding would be used to meet the funding requirements of the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998 which entitles, for 2 years following participation in combat, that any active duty service member is immediately eligible to receive VA health care upon release or separation from service. These funds will be needed at some point in the future but this amendment does not meet the requirements of this supplemental as funding that is needed immediately to address concerns related to homeland security or the war in Iraq. And while I agree with my colleagues that VA medical care is not meeting the medical needs of veterans in a timely manner and there is much to be improved, the problem is as much systemic as it is funding. However, this funding is not needed now on the heels of the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill in which we appropriated some $23.9 billion for VA medical care. This funding level was an increase of some $2.6 billion over the fiscal year 2003 level and $1.15 billion over the fiscal year 2003 Budget Request. The VA medical system has all the funds that it can absorb this year and will be able to meet the medical needs of any returning veterans from the war in Iraq. We will need additional funding for VA medical care in the future but that is the job of the fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 appropriations bills. I also do not want to leave my colleagues with the false impression that VA medical care is broken. Yes, there are problems with patient backlog, but I can assure you that Secretary Principi has made a commitment to fix VA medical care and has made significant strides in addressing veteran concerns, reducing patient backlog and improving VA medical care.

Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator is prepared to renew his request, I am prepared to agree.

Mr. STEVENS. I do not think there will be a problem.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I agree to the time, but I have not seen the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for fiscal year 2004, this provides $3.7 billion for biodefense, and $940 million is included for grants to States and local health departments. Those departments already have funds to implement a vaccination strategy. There is no need to add more money here for State and local health departments. I am willing to discuss the amounts necessary for the vaccine. Again, I reserve my right to reserve sufficient time that I might make a motion on or in relation to the amendment, if necessary, when the voting starts at 1:50. I yield back the remainder of whatever time I have. I believe the Senator from Florida is here to offer the next amendment, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS. All right. I yield myself such time as I may use. I don't think I have a request from anybody else on this side. I compliment the Senator from Indiana on this amendment. The House has $94 million in a smallpox vaccine fund. I have a little conflict of interest here because I am one of the few Members of the Senate who has taken the smallpox vaccination again. I have had it many times in my life. Going back, as a 19-year-old, I first got it when I was admitted to the Army. There are some 4 million responders who could be vaccinated under this amendment, as I understand it. The figure that has been used by Senator Bayh is $85 per person. The current costs range somewhere from $20 to $284 a person, depending on who does the estimates. The administration's current estimate is that it would cost $13 per person to deal with 4 million responders. There are already funds allocated to health departments, and I believe we should take this up in the regular bill when we go to the 2004 bill. I remind the Senate that this bill is for the period from now until September 30. We are not going to appropriate moneys beyond September 30 unless, on a bipartisan basis, we find it is necessary. So far, it has not been necessary. There are other health needs, such as TB, West Nile virus, and HIV. Now we have this terrible situation coming out of China. There is no question that many people are interested in this subject, and I can state without any question that our leader, Dr. Frist-- Senator Frist--is very interested in that subject. So I merely state that I wish to discuss the amount of this amendment with the Senator from Indiana. I do not believe we should put up more money than is necessary for this fiscal year. We should process the moneys for beyond this fiscal year in the normal bill. I will be very pleased to discuss that with him. I have no request for Senators to speak on this side. I hope we will have a portion, at least, of Senator Bayh's amendment in this bill for fiscal year 2003, and I reserve a sufficient time to make a motion on or in relation to this amendment, if that is necessary. I hope it will not be necessary. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time and listen to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I can yield to the Senator from Massachusetts or proceed now, at his request.

Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection. The Senator has been waiting to speak. I am pleased to amend my request that there be 30 minutes under the control of the proponents and 10 minutes under my control.

Mr. STEVENS. I want to announce that will be the first vote in a sequence that will start at 1:50 p.m. this afternoon. I now ask, if it is appropriate, and I believe it is, unanimous consent with regard to the amendment Senator Bayh will offer, that there be 20 minutes of debate under the control of the proponent, 10 minutes under control of myself, and no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote. I further ask this amendment, when we are finished, and I shall make--I may not make a motion to table this--but a vote in relation to this amendment to be taken, if required, at the hour of 1:50, following the Boxer amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I say to the Senate that as a pilot, almost every pilot I know shudders over the thought of weapons that are heat-seeking missiles. I commend the Senator from Arizona for what he has done already on the commitment of trying to get a study. I do not want to leave the impression here--it is classified, but there are some commercial planes that are outfitted for some defenses against some weapons. But all you have to do is think of ``Blackhawk Down'' to know it is not that simple. The Air Force has been working in research and development on a system. It is being tested on one plane so far. As a matter of fact, it is too large for most of our commercial aircraft. We don't know how soon it will be before we can get technology that can be fielded for civil aviation. There are several systems available that can detect the shoulder-fired weapons. However, they are not effective on all of them, and the problem is, if we are going to say that our civilian airlines are safe, to find a system that is safe. Currently, we have some. As I said, one of these systems is deployed on commercial aircraft to try to see how effective it might be. These systems currently that are being deployed cost about a million dollars a plane. I just do not see many commercial airlines that are ready to put out $1.5 million for each plane to try to defend it with a system that is not deemed to be effective by the Air Force so far. The Boxer amendment earmarks $30 million from within the counterterrorism fund for this project to equip our commercial airlines with a system to defeat heat-seeking missiles. This will reduce the fund; the counterterrorism fund has been assumed to provide additional dollars for agencies within that department. One hundred and twenty million dollars is assumed in this bill to pay for the passenger screeners and other costs incurred at additionally secured airports. We have tried to be very discrete about this fund. This is not a bill to deal with the problems of commercial airliners. This is a bill to deal with funding the war. Again, I want to say we have three wars going on, and this is not part of the war. We already have taken this up in Commerce. We have a study coming because of it. I hope that bill will pass. I share the absolute fear that Senator Boxer reflects in terms of the problem of passenger aircraft having some defense against shoulder- fired missiles. Again, I wish we could all take a look at ``Blackhawk Down.'' There is no question they are out there and they are very much a fear in terms of terrorism. But that is what the Department of Homeland Security is for and that is why the research and development money that is in the defense bill that has already been passed this year, and that research is going on. Madam President, I regret deeply that this is not the way to solve the problem. The problem is going to be solved with a study that we have asked for of what can be done and the funding that would follow that study. I hope it gets here in time to deal with it on the 2004 bill. Again, I do not know anyone else who fears these as much as pilots. Passengers to a great extent understand the problem but you have to be a pilot to understand total consequences of having something that you cannot control from within the cockpit. It is true we have these systems on high-performance airplanes. They are extremely heavy. As I said, they cost more than $1.5 million apiece. Madam President, $1.5 million added to the cost of a high-performance airplane we are buying for war purposes, that is one thing. This does not affect that. Those systems have already been perfected under the Department of Defense, and they are adequate for our needs in defense. I point out in the 12 years we have flown over Iraq on the so-called CAPs Program, we have not lost one plane to a heat-seeking missile to my knowledge. That is military. We are trying to say can we put them into civilian airlines? Can we put them into commuters? What size do we need? It is a research program. I don't know how long it would take. I was told at one time it would take up to 2 years to develop this system. But we should approach this action from the point of view of research and development first and not a mandate, and particularly not take money out of the bill as it is right now. We do have, by the way, some of them that are applicable to the commercial system. It is dealing with a laser system. That system will be available for installation in commercial airlines by fiscal year 2006, under the current system. As I said, we are trying to accelerate research and development and ability to defend small aircraft and helicopters. There just is none available today that can do that, that are affordable. I reluctantly agree with the chairman of our committee. I believe the language in the Cargo Security Act that was the product of Senator Boxer's efforts on the Commerce Committee should be allowed to go forward. We should study this important issue. But we should not be taking money from other homeland security efforts and directing it be spent on pilot projects for systems that have not yet been demonstrated to be effective. We are monitoring this. I say in all sincerity, I think the Commerce Committee has Senators on both sides of the aisle who are committed to following this through, to finding the best way to defend passenger aircraft from shoulder-fired missiles. This is not the way to do it. Reluctantly, I do move to table the amendment. I ask unanimous consent the Boxer amendment, amendment No. 472, be set aside until the hour of 1:50, and at that time the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote. I further ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided immediately prior to that vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Regular order.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Alaska controls time at 5 minutes of 11.

Mr. STEVENS. We do not have a time agreement on Senator Bayh's amendment. He is next in order. The Senator asked to extend the time by 5 minutes, and I asked to extend by 5 minutes. That does extend the time when another amendment would be taken up until 11:15; that is correct.

Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object--I would not object--I consent that Senator Boxer control the time until 5 minutes of 11 a.m., and if we extend that time, we would then control the time until 11:15.

Mr. STEVENS. After conferring with the Senator from California, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California control the time until 10 minutes of 11 and that I control the time thereafter until 5 minutes after 11.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I do thank the Senator from California. It is our hope that we will be able to get all of the amendments that are in line now completed in time to start voting by 11:50, following the Democratic caucus. So I appreciate her courtesy. And whatever is possible to enter into a time agreement, I would like to explore that. I thank her for her courtesy.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from California. My only reason for standing right now is to inquire of the Senator from California if it is possible to have a time limit on her amendment.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. In the conference on the supplemental, following the procedures the Senator from West Virginia and I have used in the past, we will have the full committee.