Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I submit the following newspaper articles commemorating the 60th anniversary of Aleutian Campaign of the Second World War and the veterans who served there. This campaign was the only action actually fought on American soil during the war. The men who served there endured not only the horrors of combat, but also one of the harshest environments on Earth. Fighting and, in many cases, dying, to prove that Americans are dedicated, at all cost, to the principle that no corner of our country, no matter how remote, will ever be ceded to our enemies. For those who wish to learn more about the Aleutian Campaign, I recommend ``The Thousand Mile War'' by Brian Garfield. It illustrates the strategic importance of the battles of Dutch Harbor, Attu, and Kiska. Garfield has vivid descriptions of the long, hard campaign to push the Japanese off American soil. I ask to print the aforementioned articles in the Record. The material follows: [From the Anchorage Daily News, June 3, 2002] Memories of War: Sixty Years Ago, Bombs Fell on Dutch Harbor and Turned Alaska Into a Battleground (By Gabriel Spitzer) To Japan during World War II, the Aleutian Islands looked into North America. It was on the Aleutians that the enemy set foot on American soil for the first time since the War of 1812. Sixty years ago, on the morning of June 3, 1942, 16 Japanese fighters and bombers streaked eastward toward Dutch Harbor, off Unalaska Island. Bombs rained down for about 20 minutes on the Navy facilities there. The next day the Japanese forces returned in greater numbers. By the end of the second day, 35 American men were killed and 28 more were wounded. Johnnie Jenkins, a 25-year-old Navy mess cook, was in his barracks the morning of June 3 when the explosions woke him. He said he jumped from bed and threw on his clothes, one shoe on and the other in his hand. ``I stood in the doorway, and I saw a Japanese plane coming in with a rising sun on it,'' said Jenkins, now living in Anchorage. ``Lord, my heart started pumping and I was so scared. I thought, this is it. I just froze right there.'' Jenkins, who is African-American, looked around for cover. ``I saw a white fellow in a foxhole, and he stood up. I ran over there. He said, `You can't come in here, I'm from Alabama.' I said, `I don't give a damn where you're from. You move on over!' And he did.'' One of the many civilians at Dutch Harbor was 22-year-old shipwright Bob Ingram, now living in Fairbanks. Ingram was getting ready for an ordinary day of work when the bombs began to fall. ``Somebody yelled `air raid'. We saw airplanes, quite a few in the sky,'' he said. ``Somebody said, there's been a number of men killed, and they're going to need caskets. Now, if there's one thing you don't need during an air raid it's caskets. But we wanted to help. So we started to make caskets out of plywood, 2 feet square and 6 feet long.'' As inviting as the Aleutians may have seemed on the map, the Japanese quickly found them an inhospitable invasion route. Often bathed in fog and pounded by frequent storms, the islands proved difficult to scout and navigate. This, coupled with American intelligence reports, led to victories for the United States but not before Japan had occupied two Alaska islands and drawn American forces into one of the costliest battles of the Pacific theater. Japan had little intention of actually invading the U.S. mainland from the Aleutians. Instead, it hoped to occupy a few islands in the North Pacific to solidify its naval perimeter and protect itself from American incursions by sea and air. It also hoped to pull America's might away from its main objective, the South Pacific, Hawaii and perhaps Australia. The Dutch Harbor raid was a diversionary tactic, meant to draw attention from Japan's assault on Midway Island, planned to occur at the same time that American forces were distracted by the attack on Alaska. But unknown to the Japanese, U.S. code breakers had cracked the enemy's top secret ``purple code'' and were able to prepare for the attacks. U.S. soldiers at bases throughout the Pacific were put on alert. One of them was Marine Corps Pvt. Howard Lucas, stationed on Kodiak Island. ``We were ready for somebody to come up over the hill and get us,'' said Lucas, 79, who lives in Palmer. Lucas spent two weeks on alert 24 hours a day, manning an antiquated World War I-era water-cooled machine gun. ``It was scary,'' he said. ``But they never showed up. Nobody knew what they were going to do, the Japanese included, I guess.'' By the morning of June 3, the fog of war, both literal and figurative, had wreaked havoc on both sides. That day, planes on the Japanese carrier Junyo never reached Dutch Harbor, grounded by weather. At the same time, a radio message warning American forces of the impending attack failed to reach its destination. In the two days of bombing and the days immediately before, the weather made a mockery of both sides' battle plans. Historians estimate that both sides sustained more casualties related to the weather than from actual combat. American forces lost four times as many planes to weather- related accidents as they did in battle. Although U.S. casualties greatly outnumbered Japanese losses at Dutch Harbor, by the end of the assault Japan was on its heels. Its attack on Midway proved a major defeat, and American intelligence had foiled Japan's naval ruse. Rather than abandon the Aleutian campaign, Japanese forces occupied the western islands of Attu and Kiska. On Attu, 1,200 Japanese troops surrounded and captured 39 Aleut villagers. On Kiska, the invaders found only a weather station guarding the island. Still, scores of Aleuts and about a dozen white Americans were captured in the attacks and spent the rest of the war as prisoners in Japan. Drafin Delkettie, one of the few living members of the celebrated Combat Intelligence Platoon, Alaska Scouts, was stationed on the island of Amchitka, about 40 miles east of Japanese-occupied Kiska. During that time, Delkettie, who lives in Anchorage, experienced what the soldiers at Dutch Harbor felt. ``They bombed and strafed us every morning at 10 a.m. and every evening at 6 p.m. They never missed it by a minute. Sometimes we played pinochle or something, waiting for them to come,'' he said. Which didn't make it a game. ``No matter where the bombs are falling,'' he reflected, ``It's scary.''

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. That is right.

Mr. STEVENS. I am ready for the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS. What is the amendment number?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am prepared to offer a request that all of those amendments be withdrawn as they would be knocked down if called up. I recall those amendments.

Mr. STEVENS. No. 3627, unfortunately, was objected to by two Senators who wish to be heard on it.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the Senator from West Virginia, our chairman, is correct. I was chairman of the committee at the time we imposed the same requirement on the past President. I have further memories of some of the bills we have passed in which we said the President could not spend specific monies until he had obligated others. We have had ways through our career in appropriations of making certain that the congressional priorities were met as the President executed his powers under the Constitution. I have another reason for supporting the provisions in the bill. I do say parenthetically I know the House of Representatives has the same feelings as expressed by the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Texas. We are probably going to have to work out some sort of a compromise before the bill is through. I want a bill that will be signed by the President, but my problem is this: After the disasters of September 11, the President requested funds from the Congress, and he requested $10 billion--no hearings, no strings attached, just $10 billion, no accounting whatsoever to the Congress. We granted that. He then also wanted another $10 billion, and this time we said we would like to know how he was going to spend it, so we agreed that we would get an accounting for those monies after they were spent, which is entirely contrary to existing law and our procedures. Following that, he asked for more money. As the Senator from West Virginia said, we added $4 billion to the monies he requested, and that money was in accordance with the normal procedures. Every dime the President asked for was appropriated. When we look at what we have done this year, we have labored hard over the debate on homeland security. I am delighted to hear the President's proposal tonight about the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security. I think most of us have wanted that from the very beginning. In any event, we have also had some priorities that have come to us from our various States and from people who have been involved in security in the United States for a long time, and they have pointed out a great many things. One, for instance, is the incompatibility of our communications systems. Our communications systems are not national. As a matter of fact, if we think about it, every function of government--Federal, State and local--in the United States awards the contracts to the lowest bidder. There is no requirement that when they buy radios or any kind of communications equipment, they be able to communicate with the people in the next county, let alone the next State or let alone nationally. We found that out in New York when so many of the fire trucks and ambulances that came into New York could not be used because they could not answer the dispatcher. No one could tell them where to go or what to do. In hearings, we have discovered from FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the horrendous burden we have now of trying to make first responders capable of interacting with anybody who comes to help them. That is something that has not been done so far. We have some money in the bill to start that process. My point is this: We are entitled to have some say in what is spent now to prevent further emergencies and to deal with those as they come up, God forbid, when they do come up. I believe we are entitled to say to the President, we have worked with you, we have tried to work with you, but we have some priorities we ask you to recognize and to concur in. If it were not for the fact that we have the necessity of going to an emergency because the existing budget does not allow us any further funds--by that I mean we had a budget for this year, we have fulfilled that budget--any amounts in addition to that now must be by virtue of an emergency. The President himself requested these monies on the basis of an emergency or they were offset partially. What we are saying in this bill is, after these hearings, after the long debates we have had, both last year and now on this subject, we have some priorities. We want the President to recognize those, and we will allocate the monies we believe should be allocated before we agree to this additional money that he wants. I know the OMB does not like that. They do not like it any more than I like it every time when we make a change in an appropriations bill, that is called a congressional add-on. That request is something made by an elected representative to the Congress and not made by request from some unknown bureaucratic and the millions of people who work for the Departments. Anything they want comes through, and no one challenges it. No one challenges it at all. The appropriations process affects about 3 percent of the total budget. Our budget now is about $700 billion for this year. We change less than 3 percent. In terms of the total budget of the United States, total expenditures, $1.7 billion, if one looks at it, we do not even control half of that in terms of the appropriations process anymore. The entitlement created by the Finance Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, spent $1.1 billion this year. We will spend about $700 billion through the total process of the appropriations, but we are going to change less than 3 percent. On this bill, we have changed a little less than $4 billion. Last year, we changed $4 billion in the bills that were signed. Now, what is all the hullabaloo about? Are we entitled to have any role in setting the priorities for spending for homeland defense? Are we allowed to have any priorities in terms of spending of the balance of the monies that are available to us through offsets in this year? I would like to work it out with the bureau of the budget, and I would like to have some accommodation of views. One of the accommodations I want is that if we make a recommendation pursuant to our constitutional powers to spend specific money in a specific way, it is not going to be put aside because it is a congressional add-on but everything that has been requested by some agency of the Federal Government is going to be spent without any further review. Of all the monies that come through this Congress, the monies in the supplemental appropriations bill get more attention than anything else. We pass 13 bills, and we pass them usually very quickly. They are pretty well debated among us. But in terms of the items in them, they do not get the attention that the supplemental bills do. The supplemental bills, of necessity, are additions to the current year. We have authorized expenditures and appropriated expenditures for this year. This adds to that amount. I think the Senator from West Virginia deserves a lot of credit for having stood for the proposition that we should not enlarge this bill beyond the scope that the President will approve. We have had to vote against things that each one of us agrees with. Twice today we voted against things on a point of order that we would like to see approved, but because of our roles we must hold the line and try to get a bill the President will approve. When we get to conference, we will try to get a bill the President will approve. I know he wants this bill. I know the Nation needs this bill. I regret that it does not have the debt ceiling change in it. I regret that we do not have a provision that establishes some mechanism for handling the 13 bills we have yet to handle in this Congress. We do not have a budget yet. Before we start the process for appropriations, I hope we have it. I hope the Senate will let us take this to conference. I have said to my friend from West Virginia, the chairman of our committee, I know we want to get the President to sign it and currently his people say he is objecting to this very much. But in the final analysis, maybe we can select out of this whole bill some of the things that will be available and go back to the old provision we used to use. In other words, he cannot get the money he wants until we obligate the money we want. I did that as chairman several times with a President of a different party. What is wrong with doing it now when the roles are changed? My friend, as chairman today, has accorded himself with great distinction as chairman of the Appropriations Committee in facing up to the problems we have had today. I intend to stay with him and make a motion to table this amendment. First, I want to give time to anyone who wants a chance for a rebuttal.

Mr. STEVENS. That is above my pay grade.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: If we go to third reading, are we not still under cloture? Could Members not make statements up to their eligible time before the bill is called up for actually a final vote?

Mr. STEVENS. As modified.

Mr. STEVENS. Is the Senator asking consent?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I had a parliamentary inquiry. Was that matter subject to appeal?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is there any way to appeal that?

Mr. STEVENS. At the end of the last supplemental, by a clerical error, one of the amendments that was offered by the Senator from New Mexico was clerically left off. We did not discover that until the next morning. We told the Senator that we would accept that amendment and be sure it was on the next supplemental. Now, we have done that and it has now been ruled not germane. It is amendment No. 3718, and it was arguably not germane. There is an indication now that it is not germane. I ask the Senate to allow us to keep our commitment to Senator Domenici. It would have become law in the last supplemental but for a clerical error. I ask unanimous consent that we take up amendment No. 3718 and that it be before the Senate for consideration.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk the list. There is a list of amendments that were proposed by Senators and that were examined by the majority and minority of the Appropriations Committee and which they agreed to accept. Those that sought to review the list had no objection to the amendments on this list. I ask that these amendments be called up and considered en bloc and adopted en bloc. I am pleased to read the list, in case anyone has any question of what is on it: amendment No. 3559 by Senator Hutchison; amendment No. 3568 by Senator Nelson of Florida; amendment No. 3591 by Senator Biden; amendment No. 3593 by Senator McConnell; amendment No. 3598 by Senator Clinton; amendment No. 3602 by Senator Torricelli; amendment No. 3607 by Senator Bunning; amendment No. 3614 by Senator Wyden; amendment No. 3615 by Senator Daschle; amendment No. 3616 by Senator Byrd; amendment No. 3624 by Senator Wellstone; amendment No. 3631 by Senator Kyl; amendment No. 3632 by Senator Kyl; amendment No. 3653 by Senator Sessions; amendment No. 3656 by Senator McConnell; amendment No. 3657 by Senator Kohl; amendment No. 3658 by Senator Harkin; amendment No. 3665, my own amendment, amendment No. 3666; my amendment, No. 3667; my amendment, amendment No. 3669 by Senator Kerry; amendment No. 3682 by Senator Kohl; amendment No. 3702, another amendment that I offered; amendment No. 3716 by Senator Leahy; amendment No. 3754 by Senator Hutchinson; and amendment No. 3766 by Senator Craig. Those are the amendments that have been agreed to. No objection has been raised to date by any Senator. I ask that this list of amendments, together with modifications that have been filed with the list, and the statements made on each of the amendments by Senators involved be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be called up en bloc and agreed to en bloc.

Mr. STEVENS. There are other amendments that are in sort of an uncertain category.

Mr. STEVENS. What is the number?

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, that is germane. It has the approval of the managers in the subcommittees. There are two Senators who wish to object. That would be subject to debate. It is in that undecided package.

Mr. STEVENS. It is on another list. It is supported by both managers. And it is germane.

Mr. STEVENS. There is another list right behind this one. But this is the agreed-to list that we submitted to those who wished to review the managers' package. The managers' package was composed of amendments that had been referred to the subcommittees involved, checked, on a bipartisan basis, by the subcommittees, reviewed by Senator Byrd's staff, my staff, and by the two of us personally, submitted to those who wished to review it, and this is the agreed-to package with no objection to be raised to date to any one of them.

Mr. STEVENS. But there is an objection to be heard.

Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding that the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Arizona object to that. Is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry: Is Senator Landrieu's amendment, No. 3581, the $2.5 million requested to eliminate the need to recover funds from States under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act? Is that the right amendment?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, am I next in line?

Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, I request that my time precede Senator Byrd's.