Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, that is my understanding also.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I concur with the Senator that the Committee should begin receiving these reports without delay so that we can monitor the Coast Guard's progress in complying with not only the Appropriations Committee's directives but with the requirements articulated under Section 888 of the Homeland Security Act.

Mr. STEVENS. I do agree. Section 888 is a clear statement that Congress will play a major role in deciding whether there would be any significant changes to the Coast Guard in these areas. The language also preserves the Service's non-homeland security missions while permitting it to perform important homeland security missions.

Mr. STEVENS. I share my colleague's understandings on these matters.

Mr. STEVENS. I strongly agree with this imperative and with my colleague's interpretation of Section 888. Indeed, Section 888 mandates this protection.

Mr. STEVENS. I firmly agree with my colleague from Washington about both the Coast Guard's role in securing our nation and the importance of its non-homeland security missions and capabilities.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, since 1994, Senator Thompson has represented the people of Tennessee in this body. During that time, I have been fortunate to call him both a colleague and a friend. In the last 8 years, Senator Thompson has fought hard for issues that are vital to Tennessee. He has made sure that his State has the infrastructure it needs and the resources it deserves. He has protected Tennessee's farmers and its workers. Three years ago Senator Thompson founded the Smoky Mountains National Park Congressional Caucus. My own State of Alaska has many national parks so I understand the challenges that Senator Thompson faced. His commitment to eliminating the National Parks Service backlog has been admirable. Senator Thompson has also served the best interests of our Nation. Our work on the governmental affairs committee reflects his dedication. As chairman of that committee he has worked to make the government smaller, more efficient, and more accountable. It has been a pleasure to work with him as we worked to create the department of homeland security. The Senate and the people of Tennessee will miss Senator Thompson's commitment and dedication. I am grateful for his service and wish him future success. phil gramm Mr. President, for 24 years the people of Texas have had an impassioned advocate and dedicated public servant in Phil Gramm. Over the course of his career, Senator Gramm has established an impressive legislative legacy. He played a role in the fight to cut federal taxes, institute international free-trade incentives, reform the welfare system, set mandatory federal prison sentences for drug crimes, and support our armed forces. The Gramm-Leach Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act and the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act were ground-breaking legislative achievements. Through these and other efforts, Senator Gramm has helped lay the foundation for a new era of national prosperity. Senator Gramm has been called a man of ``frank opinions and unwavering convictions.'' Since he came to the Senate in 1984 I have been honored to call him my friend and colleague. We will miss his leadership and his voice in the Senate. I am grateful for his years of service and I wish him success in his future endeavors. Tim Hutchinson Mr. President, Senator Hutchinson has been a committed advocate for the people of Arkansas and an important voice in the Senate. His strong leadership led me to personnally support his candidacy and I will greatly miss his presence here in Washington. I believe Senator Hutchinson leaves behind an important legacy. As a veteran of World War II, I am particularly grateful for Senator Hutchinson's work on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on hospitals and Health Care, Senator Hutchinson really watched over the VA's 173 medical centers. Our Nations's Veterans gave so much to ensure our liberty and freedom. I thank Senator Hutchinson for making sure that we fulfill our promises to them and reward their service. It has been said that: ``The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind in other people the convictions and the will to carry on.'' We are thankful for Senator Hutchinson's service and convictions. I wish him much success.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank you. I thank the distinguished chairman of our committee. The pendulum of politics is swinging. When we return in January, I will become, once again, the chairman of our committee, and I look forward to working with my great friend from West Virginia in the manner I have tried to work with him as he has been chairman. During the recent days, I have had the privilege of meeting with the President of the United States and the Office of Management and Budget Director, and with Congressman Bill Young. We discussed the process by which we might try to finish with the appropriations for fiscal year 2003 so that we might be ready to handle the 2004 requests when they come following the State of the Union message that the President will deliver to us on January 20. I look forward to working with Senator Byrd in that regard. This continuing resolution is absolutely necessary to give us the opportunity to move forward, and sometime in the first week that we are back in January we can decide how quickly we want to finish this appropriations process. For myself, I am sure Senator Byrd and I will do our best to work in the Senate's best interest and to see to it that we finish these bills so that we can turn to the new task of dealing with the new budget requests which this time will include a new Department of Homeland Security. It will be a most interesting transition. And it is going to be a difficult problem for us in reorganizing the appropriations process to handle this new Department--whether or not we will create a new subcommittee or divide the work of the existing subcommittees to handle the new Homeland Security Department, that will have to be determined in the future. I will certainly consult with Senator Byrd on all of those details. For now, I urge Members to approve this continuing resolution and to understand the process. This is something the Senate is compelled to do in order to take us into a new Congress so that we can finish the work on the fiscal year appropriations for 2003. I hope everyone will understand the process and will give us their understanding even further when they return in January. If the Senator is willing to yield back his time, I will be glad to yield back. We have no request for time on this side.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, that is my understanding also.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I concur with the Senator that the Committee should begin receiving these reports without delay so that we can monitor the Coast Guard's progress in complying with not only the Appropriations Committee's directives but with the requirements articulated under Section 888 of the Homeland Security Act.

Mr. STEVENS. I do agree. Section 888 is a clear statement that Congress will play a major role in deciding whether there would be any significant changes to the Coast Guard in these areas. The language also preserves the Service's non-homeland security missions while permitting it to perform important homeland security missions.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Aviation Security Act of 2001 came in the immediate wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks and we may soon send to the President for his signature the bill creating the Department of Homeland Security. The Maritime and Transportation Security Act of 2002 is another important piece of national security legislation that will provide the organizational structure, coordination and planning needed to safeguard our Nation's ports. I thank Senator Hollings, Senator McCain and Congressman Don Young for their tireless efforts to move this legislation through Congress. Under the Act, initial vulnerability assessments will be made to determine vessels and ports that pose a high risk of being involved in a marine transportation security incident. Attention will be given to deterring and responding to such incidents, and an overall evaluation will be provided on the potential threat level of maritime terrorist attacks. This port security assessment is imperative for our State of Alaska, which has roughly one-half the coastline in the United States. Alaska's economy and quality of life are directly related to the functionality of it's numerous ports. The majority of our Alaskan communities, including Juneau our State Capital, are not on the road system and depend almost exclusively on marine trade for the delivery of basic goods. A terrorist attack at a port in Alaska, or anywhere on the West Coast, would cause significant interruptions in maritime service to our State, greatly affecting our way of life. In addition, there are several other ports in Alaska vital to Alaska and the rest of the Nation. This is especially true of the Port of Valdez, which is the southern terminus of the 800 mile long Trans- Alaska oil pipeline. Valdez is an important off-loading terminal for our Nation's domestic energy supply. A terrorist incident here would impact U.S. oil production, without any question, and have a devastating effect on Alaska's fisheries. Dutch Harbor is consistently the top commercial fishing port in America, processing and shipping product to the rest of the world. Kodiak has the largest Coast Guard presence in the Nation and the Island of Kodiak has launch facilities that make it an important staging area for future military and NASA operations that are vital to our Nation's national missile defense system. The Maritime and Transportation Security Act of 2002 also includes Coast Guard authorization for fiscal year 2003. This is extremely important for the continued success of the Coast Guard in its ever evolving and expanding role in securing our Nation's coastal boundaries. I commend the chairman and the future chairman of the Commerce Committee for bringing this bill to the floor, and I support its immediate passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield----

Mr. STEVENS. I give the Senator my assurance we will continue to work together to assure we maintain our constitutional role in the activities of this new Department. But I also feel it is absolutely necessary that this bill be passed this year because if it is not, regardless of the size of the bill, it will literally die at the end of December and we will have to start all over again. With the tensions facing the world and challenges our Government faces to maintain homeland security, it is absolutely essential we start forward. We have a slight disagreement on that. But I do believe this bill gives us a framework to work with this subject. I think the ongoing responsibility to assure the new Department will continue to be effective will primarily rest with the appropriations process. This will be an enormous demand, a new demand on our Treasury, to fund a wholly new type of homeland security. We are consolidating a whole series of agencies, hopefully bringing about some new efficiencies. But it will require increased money. Senator Byrd and I have, will continue to have, the role of seeing to it the Senate's operations with regard to the appropriations process are fully understood by the new homeland security department and its personnel, and that we will work effectively to see to it we fulfill our constitutional responsibility with regard to control of the people's money.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have two short statements that I would like to make concerning this legislation. The first deals with the use of appropriated funds. As my colleagues know, one of the major issues confronting Congress with respect to establishing the Department of Homeland Security was the extent to which the Homeland Secretary would be given the authority to transfer funds between appropriations accounts or among the organizations and programs within the new Department. Underlying this issue are two critical questions--how best to give the Homeland Secretary the flexibility he or she needs to organize and operate the new Department, and how best to preserve the Congress's constitutional authority to appropriate funds and to oversee their use. Previous versions of the Homeland Security Department legislation included extensive language governing how the Department would allocate and use appropriated funds and funds generated through property disposal or gifts from outside the Federal Government. The compromise embodied in the final version of the Homeland Security Department legislation now before us takes a somewhat different approach, but the net effect is the same: Congress's appropriations authorities are maintained. Transferred funds must be used for the purposes for which they were appropriated, and Congress must approve, in advance, the reallocation of transferred funds away from their originally intended purposes. Language added to the final bill reinforces the requirement that personnel, assets, and obligations transferred to the new Department shall be allocated in accordance with section 1531(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code. That section of permanent law requires that funds transferred within or between Executive branch agencies to finance transferred functions or activities must be used for a purpose for which the appropriation was originally available. During the final negotiations on this bill, any language dealing directly with use of the general authority to transfer funds was dropped, since it is an authorization act. That authority will be included in the continuing resolution that I hope we will pass to keep the Federal Government functioning after we adjourn or recess this year. Since virtually every annual appropriations act includes general transfer authority language, the negotiators agreed that it was more consistent and effective to include the new Department's transfer authority in an appropriations act. The continuing resolution is our first appropriations opportunity to accomplish this objective. I intend to see to it that it will be in the resolution if at all possible, and I believe it is already agreed to. The negotiators did retain in the authorization bill the language regarding property disposal and gifts. The language also requires that the new Department submit a detailed budget request annually beginning with fiscal year 2004. That will be the request we receive next year. The continuing resolution language provides general transfer authority of $500 million for fiscal year 2003 and the same amount in fiscal year 2004. It stipulates that this authority may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on unforeseen homeland security requirements, than those for which originally appropriated and in no case where the item for which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress. The language provides an additional $140 million in transfer authority for fiscal year 2003 for the salaries and expenses associated with the initiation of the Department. The appropriations language further requires that the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations receive 15 days' advance notice before any funding transfer is made, and it establishes that the new Department will submit formal reprogramming requests to these committees for any proposed funding transfer. The language further stipulates that, of the total amount of transfer authority provided, and except as otherwise specifically authorized by law, not to exceed two percent of any appropriations available to the Home Secretary may be transferred between appropriations. I am satisfied those meet our general requirements, although they are not in the original request I made in the Governmental Affairs Committee on which I serve. In many respects, these provisions mirror language that is included annually in every Department of Defense Appropriations Act. In addition, use of transfer authority would be subject to approval or disapproval in writing by the Committees on Appropriations, which would review reprogramming requests submitted and considered under established procedures based on the reprogramming procedures used by the Defense Department and Congress for defense transfer authority actions. We intend to mirror the procedure that has been used so successfully with regard to defense matters when we are reviewing national security matters. Finally, the authorization bill includes a provision intended to help Congress to assess the long-term funding requirements for the new Department. That provision requires annual submission of a Future Years Homeland Security Program that projects spending requirements for at least five fiscal years. This detailed, multi-year document is due beginning with the fiscal year 2005 budget request. The final authorization language, and the language in the continuing resolution, preserve the statutory and administrative requirements needed to ensure that any funds made available to the new Department are used effectively and efficiently and according to the will of the people as reflected through their elected Senators and Representatives. This language, and the annual appropriations process, ensure that the Homeland Security has the appropriate authorities to organize and operate the new Department, and that Congress will remain directly engaged in deciding how appropriated funds are used, or reallocated, by the Executive branch. In so doing, I believe, and it has been my intent working with the distinguished chairman, that this language preserves Congress's Constitutional and rightful role in our government--a role that the Founding Fathers intended and that our constituents demand. Our constitutional oath requires Members to assure that our constituents' demand for our oversight will be fulfilled. I have a second short statement. I have been very interested in preserving the Coast Guard's non-homeland security mission performance under this bill. I will discuss for the Senate today a vitally important section of the homeland security legislation that we consider here. This section--Section 888--is entitled ``Preserving Coast Guard Mission Importance,'' and its implementation is essential to maintaining without significant reduction the Coast Guard's non- homeland security capabilities and missions. We all recognize the critical homeland security missions the Coast Guard performs. However, it is just as critical to the United States that the Coast guard effectively and successfully accomplish its non- homeland security missions. The criticality of these non-homeland security missions extends far beyond the 30 coastal and Great Lake states. These non-homeland security missions affect the maritime safety, law enforcement, environmental conditions, and economic security of our entire nation. The Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions are marine safety, search and rescue, aids to navigation, living marine resources-- including fisheries law enforcement, marine environmental protection, and ice operations. All these missions are critical to the well-being of Alaskans, and we rely on the Coast Guard virtually every day for protection and assistance in these mission areas. I am confident that my colleagues who also will speak on this section of the bill will attest further to the importance to their states and to the rest of the nation of preserving the Coast Guard's vital non-homeland security capabilities and missions. Preserving these missions and capabilities is the fundamental intent and purpose of Section 888. The Coast Guard cannot accomplish its non-homeland security missions effectively and successfully unless its current capabilities in these areas are preserved intact and without significant reduction. Section 888 mandates the preservation of these capabilities, and of the Coast Guard's authorities and functions in these areas, unless Congress specifies otherwise in subsequent acts. I would add at this point that, since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has assumed greatly expanded homeland security responsibilities without seeing a reduction in its non-homeland security requirements. This is a strong justification for allocating even more total resources to the Coast Guard on an annual and long-term basis. Section 888 further reinforces and protects the Coast Guard's non- homeland security missions and capabilities by preventing the diversion of any mission, function, or asset--including ships, aircraft, and helicopters--to the principal and continuing use of any other organization, unit, or entity of the Homeland Security Department. This restriction is intended to minimize, if not eliminate, any prospect of the diversion from the Coast Guard of the personnel, equipment or other resources needed to perform its non-homeland security missions. Personnel details or assignments that do not reduce the Coast Guard's capability to perform these missions are permitted. Section 888 further prohibits the Homeland Secretary from reducing the Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions and capabilities substantially or significantly unless Congress specifies otherwise in subsequent Acts. The Homeland Security Secretary may waive this restriction for no more than 90 days, but he or she must first declare and certify to Congress that a clear, compelling, and immediate need exists for such a waiver. If he or she exercises the waiver authority, the Homeland Secretary must submit to Congress a detailed justification. Thus, the elected Senators and Representatives of the American people will have an opportunity to determine whether they agree or disagree with the waiver. We will have the opportunity to assess the impact of such a waiver on the Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions and to make our views known should there be any cause for concerns. The language in Section 888 does provide more flexibility than the Coast Guard-related language in the earlier versions of the Homeland Security Department bills that we have been debating since July. However, this latest language still will protect the Coast Guard from any major changes to its non-homeland security missions and capabilities because it clearly does not provide the authority to make wholesale and sweeping changes in these areas. This final language also includes other important provisions that will contribute to the Coast Guard's overall well-being and effectiveness as part of the new Homeland Security Department, as well as help preserve its non-homeland security missions and capabilities. These provisions have been carried over from at least one of the previous versions of the legislation, or they have been crafted to further enhance the Coast Guard's position in the new Department. These provisions include language transferring the Coast Guard to the new Department as a freestanding and distinct entity that is not under the jurisdiction of any of the Department's new directorates, and language ensuring that the Service's Commandant shall report directly to the Homeland Secretary without being required to report through any other departmental official. Take separately and together, these subsections strengthen the institutional position of the Coast Guard and the Commandant within the Department, thus enhancing the Service's ability to compete for resources and to influence policy in both the non-homeland security and homeland security areas. They are an unambiguous statement by the Congress about the importance of the Coast Guard and all its missions within the Department. Another subsection requires the new Department's Inspector General to report annually to Congress on the mission performance of the Coast Guard, with a particular emphasis on the non-homeland security missions. This information should help Congress identify whether additional actions are needed to preserve these non-homeland security missions and capabilities. The Homeland Secretary also is required by another subsection to report to Congress not later than 90 days after enactment of the Act on whether the procurement rate in the Service's top-priority modernization program--the integrated deepwater system--can be accelerated by 10 years. Timely implementation of the Deepwater program is essential to maintaining and improving the Coast Guard's capabilities to accomplish all its missions. Congress should consider whether accelerating the program is an affordable and cost-effective way to accomplish these objectives, especially in the non-homeland security area. A final subsection ensures that the conditions and restrictions in Section 888 shall not apply when the Coast Guard operates as a service in the Navy under section 3 of title 14, United States code. It would be inappropriate to apply these conditions and restrictions under such circumstances. Under section 3 of title 14, the Coast Guard becomes part of the Navy in Wartime or as directed by the President. In summary, Section 888 resulted from productive negotiations with the White House and our House colleagues during which all sides strived to make reasonable compromises that would enable Congress to pass a final version of the Homeland Security Department legislation during this post-election session. Refinements suggested by the Coast Guard also are included in the language. The language maintains the structural and operational integrity of the Coast Guard, the authority of the Commandant, the non-homeland security missions of the Coast Guard, and the Service's capabilities to carry out these missions even as it is transferred to the new Department. The language is clearly intended to assure that the important homeland security priorities of the new Department will not eclipse the Coast Guard's crucial non-homeland security missions and capabilities. Section 888 strikes the right balance at this time between maintaining the Coast Guard's vital non-homeland security missions and capabilities and permitting it to carry out important homeland security responsibilities. Just as importantly, this language and the annual appropriations process, ensure that Congress will remain directly engaged in deciding the extent to which any significant changes occur in the future to the Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions and capabilities. Congress's continued and direct engagement in such matters is essential given the importance to the American people of these missions and capabilities. And again, these missions and capabilities are vital to my State of Alaska. I thank my distinguished friend for allowing me to make these two statements. I am late to a meeting. I wanted to make sure we explained to the Senate what we have done in modifying this bill. I know it does not meet totally the requirements and approval of my friend from West Virginia. But I do think, under the circumstances, that we will have this continued role of supervision and we will retain the same type of control over reprogrammings of the new Homeland Security Department that we have over the Department of Defense. We should be able to continue in the future the same kind of Congressional connection to the changes in the use of funds--and there will be changes, based on changing priorities, changing circumstances--and we are part of that process. It will not be done without the prior approval of Congress. I think I can assure my friend, in my judgment, we have preserved to the maximum extent possible our constitutional role in this process as it goes forward. There is no question every appropriations bill annually will address this issue and we will address it as we have in connection with defense matters in the past. I thank my friend from West Virginia.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as we have reconvened today, there is a void in this Chamber. The untimely passing of our friend and colleague, Paul Wellstone, brings a sadness to the entire Senate family. We are also touched by the loss of Paul's wife Sheila, his daughter Marcia, members of his campaign staff: Will McLaughlin, Tom Lapic, and Mary McEvoy, and the two pilots: Captains Richard Conry and Michael Guess. When I heard Senator Wellstone's plane had gone down in Minnesota, it was difficult for me to convey my thoughts. I thought of the countless hours I have spent, as a Senator now for 34 years, in small planes, flying around my State on campaigns and on official business. I recalled the day in December of 1978 when the plane carrying my wife Ann and myself and five friends, coming from Juneau to Anchorage, crashed at the Anchorage Airport. The time that followed was a difficult one for my family. The death of a spouse, a colleague, a loved one, or a friend is never easy, but to lose that person in an accident, particularly one you survive, is worse because you will always know you never said goodbye. It was an ironic twist when I discovered Paul Wellstone's plane crashed in the same city, Eveleth, MN, where Alaska Congressman Nick Begich was born. As the Senate knows, Representative Begich and the House majority leader, Hale Boggs, were killed when the airplane in which they were flying was lost over Alaska in 1972. It is safe to say--and I think this is no surprise to anyone--that Paul Wellstone and I did not see eye to eye on much, but I respected Paul for fighting for what he believed and for his personal toughness that never let physical problems slow him down. We spent much time together on the subway going back and forth and became great friends. As a matter of fact, Paul and his wife came over to our home. Catherine and I were pleased to have dinner with him and Sheila on a personal basis. I admired Paul's commitment to his causes, particularly to his dedication to mental and physical health parity. As a young boy, I helped raise a cousin who was challenged by mental retardation, and I know the difficulties faced by those in that community. Senator Wellstone's compassion and determination has made a difference in many families across our Nation, many lives of people such as my cousin. Likewise, Senator Wellstone's wife Sheila was a great advocate. Her work on behalf of domestic abuse victims helped many women and children begin life anew, with the hope and encouragement that came from Sheila's work. Catherine and I cannot put into words the sympathy and sorrow we feel for Paul's family for the loss of their parents, their siblings, and their grandparents. Mr. President, grief is a process that helps heal the heart. We will always miss Paul, but we honor his memory by keeping after our business, as he did--testing our ideas on the campaign trail and here on the Senate floor. My friend, Paul Wellstone, would want it that way. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my intention to make some remarks as a cosponsor of the Ambrose resolution, not to exceed 10 or 12 minutes at the most.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as an original cosponsor of the Landrieu resolution.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator for yielding to me. I commend all of the Ambrose books to anyone who wants to understand the period of World War II. He was an author and a great personal friend. Exhibit 1 I was born in 1936 and grew up in Whitewater, Wisconsin, a small town where my father was the M.D. My high school had only 300 students but was good enough to offer two yeas of Latin, which taught me the centrality of verbs--placement, form, tense. At the University of Wisconsin, I started as a pre-med, but after a course on American history with William B. Hesseltine, I switched my major. He was a great teacher of writing, with firm rules such as abandon chronology at your peril; use the active voice; avoid adverbs whenever possible; be frugal with adjectives, as they are but the salt and pepper for the meat (nouns). On to L.S.U., where I studied for M.A. under T. Harry Williams, another fine historian who stressed the importance of writing well. After getting my M.A. degree in 1958, I returned to Wisconsin to do my Ph.D. work under Hesseltine. Funny thing, Harry Williams was a much better writer than Hesseltine, but Hesseltine was the better teacher of writing. We graduate students once asked him: ``How can you demand so much from us when your own books are not all that well written,'' as we confronted him with a review of one of his books that praised his research and historical understanding but deplored his writing. Hesseltine laughed and replied, ``My dear boys, You have a better teacher than I did.'' From 1960 to 1995 I was a full-time teacher (University of New Orleans, Rutgers, Kansas State, Naval War College, U.C. Berkeley, a number of European schools, among others), something that has been invaluable to my writing. There is nothing like standing before 50 students at 8 a.m. to start talking about an event that occurred 100 years ago, because the look on their faces is a chellenge--``let's see you keep me awake.'' You learn what works and what doesn't in a hurry. Teaching and writing are one to me-- in each case I am telling a story. As I sit at my computer, or sand at the podium, I think of myself as sitting around the campfire after a day on the trail, telling stories that I hope will have the members of the audience, or the readers, leaning forward just a bit, wanting to know what happens next. Some of the rules of writing I've developed on my own include: never try to write about a battle until you have walked the ground; when you write about politicians, keep in mind that somebody has to do it; you are a story-teller, not God, so your job is not to pass judgments but explain, illustrate, inform and entertain. The idea for a book comes in a variety of ways. I started as a Civil War historian because Hesseltine taught the Civil War. I wrote about Eisenhower because he asked me to become his biographer, on the basis of a book I had done on Henry Halleck, Lincoln's Chief of Staff. I never wanted to write about Nixon but my editor (Alice Mayhew at Simon and Schuster) made me do it by saying. ``Where else can you find a greater challenge?'' I did Crazy Horse and Custer because I took my family camping in the Black Hills of South Dakota and got hooked on the country, and the topic brought me back to the Black Hills many times. I did Meriwether Lewis to have an excuse to keep returning to Montana, thus covering even more of the American West. My World War II books flowed out of the association with Eisenhower, along with my feelings toward the GIs. I was ten years old when the war ended. I thought the returning veterans were giants who had saved the world from barbarism. I still think so. I remain a hero worshiper. Over the decades I've interviewed thousands of veterans. It is a privilege to hear their stories, then write them up. What drives me is curiosity. I want to know how this or that was done--Lewis and Clark getting to the Pacific; the GIs on D-Day; Crazy Horse's Victory over George Custer at the Little Big Horn; the making of an elite company in the 101st Airborne, and so on. And I've found that if I want to know, I've got to do the research and then write it up myself. For me, the act of writing is the act of learning. I'm blessing to have Moira Buckley Ambrose as my wife. She was an English Lit major and school teacher; she is an avid reader; she has a great ear. At the end of each writing day, she sits with me and I read aloud what I've done. After more than three decades of this, I still can't dispense with requiring her first of all to say, ``That's good, that's great, way to go.'' But then we get to work. We make the changes. This reading aloud business is critical to me--I've developed an ear of my own, so I can hear myself read--as it reveals awkward passages better than anything else. If I can't read it smoothly, it needs fixing. Hesseltine used to tell his students that the act of writing is the art of applying the seat of the pants to the seat of a chair. It is a monk's existence, the loneliest job in the world. As Moira and I have five kids (at one time all teens together; the phone in the evening can be imagined) I started going to bed at eight to get up at four and have three quiet hours for writing before the teaching day began. The kids grew up and moved out and I retired in May, 1995, but I keep to the habit. I'm sometimes asked which of my books is my own favorite. My answer is, whatever one I'm working on. Right now (Winter 1999) a book on World War II in the Pacific as well as a book on the 15th Air Force and the B-24 Liberators they flew. I think the greatest achievement of the American Republic in the 18th Century was the army at Valley Forge; in the 19th Century it was the Army of the Potomac; in the 20th Century, it was the U.S. military in WWII. I want to know how we beat the Japanese in the Pacific and how our airforce helped us beat the Germans. To do a book of this scope is daunting but rewarding. I get paid for interviewing the old soldiers and reading their private memoirs. My job is to pick out the best one of every fifty or so stories and pass it along to readers, along with commentary on what it illustrates and teaches. It is a wonderful way to make a living. My experiences with the military have been as an observer. The only time I wore a uniform was in naval ROTC as a freshman at the University of Wisconsin, and in army ROTC as a sophomore. I was in second grade when the United States entered World War II, in sixth grade when the war ended. When I graduated from high school, in 1953, I expected to go into the army, but within a month the Korean War ended and I went to college instead. Upon graduation in 1957, I went straight to graduate school. By the time America was again at war, in 1964, I was twenty-eight years old and the father of five children. So I never served. But I have admired and respected the men who did fight since my childhood. When I was in grade school World War II dominated my life. My father was a navy doctor in the Pacific. My mother worked in a pea cannery beside German POWs (Afrika Korps troops captured in Tunisia in May 1943). Along with my brothers--Harry, two years older, and Bill, two Years younger--I went to the movies three times a week (ten cents six nights a week, twenty-five cents on Saturday night), not to see the films, which were generally Clinkers, but to see the newsreels which were almost exclusively about the fighting in North Africa, Europe, and the Pacific. We played at war constantly. ``Japs'' vs. Marines, GIs vs. ``Krauts''. In high school I got hooked on Napoleon. I read various biographies and studied his campaigns. As a seventeen-year- old freshman in naval ROTC, I took a course on naval history, starting with the Greeks and ending with World War II (in one semester!). My instructor had been a submarine skipper in the Pacific and we all worshipped him. More important, he was a gifted teacher who loved the navy and history. Although I was a premed student with plans to take up my father's practice in Whitewater, Wisconsin, I found the history course to be far more interesting than chemistry of physics. But in the second semester of naval ROTC, the required course was gunnery. Although I was an avid hunter and thoroughly familiar with shotguns and rifles, the workings of the five inch cannon baffled me. So in my sophomore year I switched to army ROTC. Also that year, I took a course entitled ``Representative Americans'' taught by Professor William B. Hesseltine. In his first lecture he announced that in this course we would not be writing term papers that summarized the conclusions of three or four books; instead we would be doing original research on nineteenth-century Wisconsin politicians, professional and business leaders, for the purpose of putting together a dictionary of Wisconsin biography that would be deposited in the state historical society. We would, Hesseltine told us, be contributing to the world's knowledge. The words caught me up. I had never imagined I could do such things as contribute to the world's knowledge. Forty- five years later, the phrase continues to resonate with me. It changed my life. At the conclusion of the lecture--on General Washington--I went up to him and asked how I could do what he did for a living. He laughed and said to stick around, he would show me. I went straight to the registrar's office and changed my major from premed to history. I have been at it ever since.

Mr. STEVENS. Think of these things he wrote about: ``Eisenhower and the German POWs: Facts Against Falsehood''; ``Nixon: The Ruin and Recovery of a Politician''; ``Eisenhower: Soldier and President''; ``Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician''; ``Nixon: The Education of a Politician''; ``Pegasus Bridge''; ``Eisenhower: The President''; ``Eisenhower: Soldier, General of the Army, President-Elect''; ``Milton Eisenhower''; ``Ike's Spies: Eisenhower and the Espionage Establishment''; ``Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors''; ``General Ike: Abilene to Berlin''; ``The Military in American Society''; ``The Supreme Commander: The War Years of General Dwight D. Eisenhower''; and ``The Papers of Dwight D. Eisenhower.'' He wrote on Eisenhower in Berlin. Before he even got to the Eisenhower books he wrote ``Duty, Honor, Country: A History of West Point.'' He also had a series of books about Lincoln, ``Halleck, Lincoln's Chief of Staff,'' the one he personally gave me, his own ``Wisconsin Boy in Dixie.'' For those of us who are in the Senate, I hope they have read one of the last books he wrote, and that is ``The Wild Blue,'' which is really the story of George McGovern and the B-24 squadron in World War II. I think that reads better than any of the Ambrose books, particularly because those of us who knew George could understand him even more as a Senator once we realized what he went through as a bomber pilot. I thank Ms. Landrieu for submitting this resolution because I think the country should honor Stephen Ambrose. I know President Clinton honored him in 1999 with the National Humanities Medal, but very clearly this man has left his mark on our country. Americans for centuries to come will know more about the period in which some of us have lived because Steve Ambrose dedicated his life to writing history. I send my thoughts and my best to Moira, his wife, who traveled with him at times to Alaska. I shall miss him. He was scheduled to come up again this year and go fishing with me. I ask unanimous consent that another item from Stephen Ambrose's history be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. STEVENS. It is one of the most interesting biographies a person could read because he personally wrote it. It is sort of a roaming history about a man who enjoyed life. His books about World War II, of course, will live in history. Of all of them, I enjoyed ``Band of Brothers'' more than any others because that was made into the series I hope many in the Senate had an opportunity to see. I have gotten copies of his books and given them to so many friends because they represent to me an understanding of the Eisenhower period. I truly believe those of us who served in World War II worshiped our President then, and he showed that worship when he wrote about Eisenhower. He had the honor to go through all of the Eisenhower papers. He edited and issued five different volumes of the Eisenhower papers. If one wants to know the period of World War II and the time that has followed in terms of people who reviewed the history of World War II, they have to turn to one of Steve Ambrose's books, and think about some of them. I ask unanimous consent that the Associated Press' list of the 39 books that Steve Ambrose wrote in his lifetime appear following my remarks.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy, and I thank Senator Landrieu for submitting this Ambrose resolution. I thought Stephen Ambrose's book ``Undaunted Courage'' was one of the best books I ever read in my life. A few years back, my secretary said Stephen Ambrose wanted to come talk to me. Of course, being sort of a provincial type, I got out my book and had it on my desk ready for him to autograph when he arrived. We talked about his dream. He had a dream of a museum for World War II. He talked with me at length about that. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, he was openly seeking money from the taxpayers of the United States for this museum. It was my privilege to convince the Congress to aid him in that effort. It is in New Orleans, and I say to any American who wants to understand World War II, they should go to New Orleans and see this marvelous museum. It was my privilege to years later go through the museum with him the day before it opened. It is a fantastic living memorial to those others have called our greatest generation. I happen to be one of that generation, one significantly honored by the fact I never suffered a scratch or had a crash or did anything I did not really enjoy in World War II. Being a pilot was my dream, and I was a pilot. We talked at length about that. As a matter of fact, Stephen Ambrose and I talked about a book he was going to write. He did write about the squadron of which former Senator George McGovern was a part. I am here today to try to tell the Senate about a person I learned to love. He was not only a distinguished author, he was a man's man. He came to Alaska probably three or four times in the last 5 or 6 years to go fishing, and we have had time where we sat around and talked. I tried to talk to him about smoking so many cigarettes, and unfortunately I think that is what caught up with him. He really understood America. He told me of how he wrote that book ``Undaunted Courage''; how he took his boys and went down the trail that Lewis and Clark took. They camped out through the summertime several summers in a row. He told me how he had lived the history. I remember him telling me he felt that book. He has now become the person who has been the chronicler of the Eisenhower period of our history. I think he wrote nine different books about Eisenhower's participation. He was called by President Eisenhower to be his official biographer. He told me personally about that and how he had not expected that. He has now completed his life, unfortunately early. He has left a mark for historians to envy because he was a popular historian. I challenge anyone to read one of his books and not want to read the next one written by Steve Ambrose. For instance, he wrote his own biography. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here with my distinguished colleague from Hawaii to offer this bill. It is the largest Defense bill in history. It is a bill that merits the support of every Member of the Senate. I do congratulate Senator Inouye for his leadership and for his hard work and cooperation with the Members of the House, whom he has named, with whom we have worked on this bill. We have had different views on this bill, but we have proceeded without rancor and I think worked out a compromise that is satisfactory to the administration, particularly the Department of Defense and the President. I believe it is a balanced and fair bill. There were nearly $18 billion in differences between the House and Senate bills. All of these have been reconciled within the limits of discretion and with good will. I think these compromises should receive overwhelming support from the Department because they actually make the bill much more functional, more workable. It is the kind of bill that we should have in the times we are in now, where we are close to a very difficult problem as far as Iraq is concerned. This bill fully funds all military requirements for the armed services. It contains a 4.1-percent pay increase and lifetime health care benefits for the military retirees. It further reduces the out-of-pocket costs for some of the military families who do not have the benefit of on-base housing. We really have tried to strike a balance between near-term readiness and the investments we must make for the future, as far as our defense establishment is concerned. This bill mandates full funding for six Stryker brigades to transform our ground combat forces and adds funds for future combat systems. For the Navy, funding the CVN-X and the DD-X and the littoral combat ship and the Virginia class submarine, all accelerate the introduction of a completely new 21st century technology for the Navy. The Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force all await deployment of the Joint Strike Fighter, and so do we. The bill sustains the deployment of that new aircraft and adds funds for two new engine options. The Air Force receives funds to expand the effort for the production of the F-22, the C-17, and hopefully for the replacement of our aging fleet of air refueling tankers. One of the difficult dreams I have is a flight of our fighters coming back to meet a tanker and finding it is not there. We have to work on this and work very hard to make sure we have the tanker capacity because our air power depends entirely upon our tanker capability. These commitments will deliver the capabilities we must have for the fiscal years ahead of us. These systems not only contribute to the war against terrorism today, but they will fund replacement of equipment rapidly deteriorating. They must be functional for us in combat in the global war on terrorism. It is consistent with the President's budget request. This bill in particular funds a missile defense system at the President's request. I hope all Members will realize, ranging from ground- and sea-based missiles to airborne lasers, we are going to have layers of defense that will protect our troops abroad and at sea, and our people here at home. That missile defense system must go forward. Again, I commend my good friend, the chairman of the committee. It is a pleasure to work with him and the chairman of our full committee, Senator Byrd, in their efforts to move this bill forward. We have urged that the Defense bill be first, and the Defense bill is first. It indicates the priority that the whole national Federal Government places upon defense. I believe this conference report, as I said, merits the support of every Senator. I also send my personal appreciation to the chairman of the House subcommittee, Congressman Jerry Lewis, and the ranking member of the House subcommittee, Congressman Jack Murtha. They have been very gracious people to work with under difficult circumstances. I also ask that the Senate commend the staffs of both the majority and minority in the Senate and the majority and the minority in the House. These people have worked behind the scenes, around the clock, sometimes through weekends, to eliminate the difficult problems that have come up in this bill. As I said, $18 billion of difference and there is not an argument between us in terms of this bill. But led by Charlie Houy here on the majority side and Steve Cortese, who is by my side now, our staffs have worked, I think, just without any rancor at all. I do want to say at last, though, Kevin Roper and Greg Dahlberg, as Senator Inouye mentioned, made a tremendous contribution to this work in the House. I urge approval of this conference report.