Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

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

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

Mr. STEVENS. So far as I understand the position of this side, we have no objection to Senator Kennedy setting aside the Reid amendment and proceeding with his amendment, but I do object to the sequencing of any amendment after that.

Mr. STEVENS. I object to Senator Feingold's request to add the Gregg amendment in sequence until we can see that. May I ask Senator Kennedy to repeat his request?

Mr. STEVENS. What is the request, Mr. President?

Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. STEVENS

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

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am in support of the amendment offered by Senator Byrd for himself and for me. I ask that it be adopted. I understand the Senator from Arizona would like a rollcall vote. I have no objection to that. We join him in that request. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor this morning to join our distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee in recommending the committee substitute to H.R. 4775. This bill reflects the priorities requested by the President which were to fight the war on terrorism, protect our Nation from future attack, and support the recovery of New York. The bill provides slightly more money than requested by the House bill, as our committee utilized the time available to conduct a series of hearings that addressed many challenges in our homeland defense efforts, and that is one of the reasons for the differences between the Senate bill and the House bill. In addition, hearings that begin today by the Intelligence Committees may generate additional requirements for moneys in this bill to ensure the effective cooperation by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies in our homeland defense. Most importantly, the bill provides funds vital to sustain military operations in the war against terrorism. Our bill meets the commitment made by the President and the Congress to the victims of the September 11 attacks. This bill enables the Transportation Safety Agency and the Coast Guard to perform and expand their mission to ensure the safety of American travelers and trade. I endorse the increases provided in this bill for the Transportation Security Agency, the Coast Guard, FBI, INS, FEMA, and several other categories. While these amounts exceed the level requested by the President, we believe the funds are needed by those who undertake these difficult and dangerous jobs. These are people who deserve our support. In addition, the bill responds to the serious needs overseas as we try to support the President's efforts in the war on terrorism and to work for peace in the Middle East. The $250 million for the Middle East peace effort matches the House- reported level and sends a very important signal to our ally, Israel. The $100 million included in this bill for the fight against AIDS in Africa is very deserving. We are informed that some Members may advocate an even higher level for this item. Finally, I personally appreciate that the full $16 million sought by the President for Indonesia is included in this bill. Senator Inouye and I have recently returned from a trip to Indonesia, and we know firsthand the needs of that country. For all of these reasons, as I have stated, I recommend the Senate advance this bill to a conference with the House as rapidly as possible. There are several issues I hope the Senate, in the conference with the House, will see fit to modify in the bill. We have in the bill section 2002 that mandates that all nondefense emergencies must be so designated by the President at the same time. I don't believe that provision is necessary, but I am not going to oppose it. Section 1102 of the bill makes the Director of the Office of Homeland Security subject to Senate confirmation. I have joined Senator Byrd in seeking Governor Ridge's testimony before our committee. I further believe that position would be strengthened by a structure and a director with authorities defined in the law, as this amendment would provide. Hopefully, an acceptable agreement can be reached over time between the Congress and the President on the issue of that office. In the defense chapter, I regret that the authorities sought by the Secretary to respond to unforeseen requirements in working with our allies were not included, but the provision in the House bill, section 312, will be in conference and will be debated there quite heavily, I am sure. The bill doesn't include the $100 million sought by the Army and included in the House bill for a new initiative to destroy our stockpile of chemical weapons. This is another matter that we will have to address in conference. It is just a matter of how we can find the money to do all of these things at the same time. I welcome the Senate proceeding to act on this bill today. It is my hope that we will reach an agreement on all first-degree amendments being filed today. There is no reason the Senate should not complete its work on this bill as rapidly as possible and be able to go to conference this week. As soon as we complete this measure, we can turn to the fiscal year 2003 bills, and I remind colleagues that we have 13 separate bills to enact before the end of September. I hope Senators will assist us as members of this committee and reserve amendments that are more appropriately addressed in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bills and not raise them on this supplemental. As of today, we have only 117 days remaining in this fiscal year. There are very few days to take the initiatives that would be required to complete the 13 bills, and there are very few initiatives that can be realistically accomplished in that time, other than proceeding with our 13 bills. Mr. President, I commend the chairman for bringing this bill to the floor. I thank him for his cooperation and kindness to me and to our staff in the consideration of this measure. It is a bipartisan measure. I am pleased to be in the Chamber with Senator Byrd to urge the Senate to complete action on it as rapidly as possible. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. I would like to answer that. Mr. President, the request for Senator Byrd and myself is because of absent Members who have an interest in this legislation. We had asked for an amendment to protect those absent Members, particularly with regard to the budget. From my point of view, I would be happy to have an agreement that all amendments must be filed by 5 p.m. without regard to anything else, and we would proceed. We would be happy with that. As far as the managers' amendment is concerned, those primarily are technical amendments that are brought to us as the day goes along. Sometimes people disagree with them and laugh about them, but it is very important that people bring them forward, and I remind the Senate they are adopted by unanimous consent. Any one Senator could have objected in the past or now to such a process. I am happy to leave that out. We can get the votes on the managers' amendment any time we want. We don't need unanimous consent to get a managers' package adopted. I would be happy to have an agreement that everything has to be filed by 5 o'clock. I ask the majority whip to change the request so that all amendments must be filed by 5 o'clock.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the President asked for this money as an emergency. The committee has made it a contingent emergency. And in terms of the accounting process, that turns up in one column or the other, but it is $10 billion in each column. Now, it is true we do allocate some of that money in ways the President did not seek to allocate it. And there is a difference in whether we want money to go to one Department or the other for homeland defense, but it is all still there as in terms of the budget. I understand the comments of the Senator from Texas about vetoes. If every time we had a veto threat, since I have been in the Senate, we just stood still for 2 days, we would never pass any bills. The appropriations process always faces veto threats--until we come out of conference. And guess what. With very few exceptions, in the 30 years I have been on the committee, we have not had vetoes of the appropriations bills. It is just a tactic of the administration that tells us: If you don't do this and that, we are going to veto the bill. We will work this out, and eventually we will get the President's agreement to a bill. We have to deal with the House, too. The House bill itself was finally deemed acceptable after it passed, but it faced a veto threat before it passed. As far as I am concerned, the difficulty is we have to sit around for 2 days to wait for people to read a bill that has been here since May 22. I would like to find some way to get people to come here and offer amendments to a bill that was here before we left for the recess. Now, it is high time that people start thinking about what they are saying. They want 2 days to study this bill? I think maybe tomorrow we will make a motion to proceed to third reading and see where the votes are. Let's see where the votes are. If the Senate wants to get this bill to the President, what they need to do is let us go to conference. And I will guarantee you, the bill that comes out of conference will be a bill the President will accept because we do not want a supplemental emergency bill to be vetoed. But we have to get to conference to work the matter out with the House and not sit around here to wait for people, in 2 days, to tell us what they object to in this bill that is going to the House for conference in any event. So I want to serve notice, tomorrow afternoon, unless the chairman disagrees, I think we ought to have a test vote and see who wants to delay the supplemental appropriations bill. We ought to go to third reading tomorrow and take this bill to conference on Thursday. And if we did, we would have it back here next Tuesday so the matter would be settled as far as the President is concerned.

Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield, that statement is really just not correct. We just didn't fund it in the way he requested it, but we funded what he requested.

Mr. STEVENS. Including the managers' amendment

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank my colleague and I agree with him about he seriousness of this matter. Senator Inouye and I became aware of this problem on a recent trip to Asia during which we met with officials in Beijing, Singapore, Jakarta, and Manila. All of our meetings had one common element--terrorism. Since that trip, Senator Inouye and I have been working to find a solution to this national security problem. As many of my colleagues may know, radical elements in Indonesia are currently trying to dominate the political and business communities in that country. In Singapore, we were made aware of terrorist attempts to attack the American Embassy with a plot involving 100 tons of explosives. The federal building in Oklahoma City was destroyed with only 3 tons of explosives. The major area of concern, however, is the Philippines, and in particular the province of Mindanao where the notorious Abu Sayyaf Group is kidnapping innocent people and wreaking havoc through bombings and murders. The general populace does not support this element, and have therefore been victimized. Currently at the invitation of the Philippine Government, American troops are in Mindanao advising and training Philippine troops to more effectively combat this terrorist threat. The Philippines is clearly on the frontline in the war against terror. Now, the major employee in Mindanao is the canned tuna industry. The bill before us will do significant harm to this industry. If the major employer in Mindanao is not able to maintain economic stability, the chaos in Mindanao will be exacerbated. Damaging the economy of Mindanao, as this bill will do, undermines the ongoing U.S.-Philippine counter-terrorism operation. To harm an ally in the war on terror in this manner clearly is not in the national security interest of the United States. I strongly urge that a solution to this problem be found before the conference report is presented to this body.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today because, on Sunday, I will travel to the Island of Unalaska and attend the first in a series of meetings that will take place to commemorate and to honor those who died in the attack by the Japanese in June of 1942 against what was then known as Dutch Harbor. Dutch Harbor is a harbor within the Bay of Alaska. It is an area not quite 2,000 miles out from Anchorage. It is a very interesting place. It is a wonderful place to be. The people of Dutch Harbor will start a weeklong series of events to honor the people who served in our military during the time of the Japanese attack against Dutch Harbor. I am indebted to the University of North Carolina online library for its Aleutians Campaign Web site which we researched today to make certain I would properly report this attack to the Senate today. On June 3, 1942, the Japanese, having come into Alaska at Attu and Kiska, where they invaded our islands and occupied them, moved on up the Aleutian chain and attacked Dutch Harbor. There was located near Dutch Harbor an Army fort known as Fort Mears. This attack, by the way, to give it some historical reference, was about the same time as the attack on Midway Island. It was about 6 a.m. when four bombers approached Dutch Harbor and released 16 bombs on the fort and into the area of Fort Mears. Fourteen actually fell into the congested area of Fort Mears occupied by Army personnel. Two barracks and three Quonset huts were destroyed, and several buildings were damaged by the hits and resulting fire. About 25 men were killed and about the same number wounded that day. About 15 fighters and 13 horizontal bombers participated in the raid. There were fighters from Fort Glenn that tried to intercept the bombers, but to no avail. At 6 p.m. on the next day, June 4, fire was opened again as 10 fighters attacked the naval air station at Dutch Harbor. Then 11 bombers delivered a dive-bombing attack through a series of openings in the overcast, which is almost a normal situation in the Aleutians. The chief damage was to four new 6,666-barrel fuel tanks to supply our military in the Aleutian chain. An old station ship, the Northwestern, was set afire and partly destroyed. The Japanese also scored hits on a warehouse and an empty aircraft hangar. The final attack on Dutch Harbor came about 25 minutes later when five planes dropped 10 bombs near a magazine area that was on the south slope of Mount Ballyhoo. The air raids on Dutch Harbor killed 33 U.S. servicemen, 10 civilians, and wounded 50. Japanese troops, arriving with a task force of 2 aircraft carriers, 12 destroyers, 5 cruisers, 6 submarines, 4 troop transports, and other vessels, subsequently occupied these Islands of Kiska and Attu for over a year. If anyone wishes to pursue the history of this war in the Aleutians, I recommend the ``1000 Mile War'' written by Brian Garfield. It is a very interesting book. His thesis is that by splitting their military, particularly their navy, the Japanese lost the war because they lost the Battle of the Coral Sea due to the fact their vessels were in the Aleutian Islands and split off from the regular navy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after my remarks an article from the Unalaska/Dutch Harbor Historical Timeline be printed in the Record. It is entitled ``Where does the Name ``Unalaska'' Come From?''

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I shall enjoy being at Dutch Harbor on Sunday, and I commend to the Senate the memory of the fact that there is another harbor that was attacked. Pearl Harbor was attacked, as we know, in December of 1941. Dutch Harbor in our State was attacked 6 months later in June. I thank the Chair. Exhibit 1 Where Does the Name ``Unalaska'' Come From? (By Ray Hudson) The name ``Unalaska'' does not reflect a thwarted attempt to secede from the 49th State, nor does it imply that the residents of Unalaska view their community as one that runs counter to the majority of the State, although some might. Either of those explanations would be more interesting over the last two hundred years. Between 1890 and 1899 the United States Board on Geographic Names standardized the spelling of this town and the Aleutian island on which it is located by selecting ``Unalaska'' from several names that had been in use up to that time. Variations included ``Ounalashka,'' ``Ounalaska,'' ``Oonalaska,'' and ``Oonalashka.'' These spellings all derived from the Russian spelling of a word which was itself a shortened version of an original aleut word: ``Agunalaksh.'' Unalaska island may have derived its name from its proximity to the Alaska Peninsula. The Aleuts called the Alaska Peninsula ``Alaxsxa'' or ``Alaxsxix''--the ``mainland.'' The Russians adopted this as ``Alyaska'' from which ``Alaska'' is derived. ``Popular belief has it, incorrectly, that the name means `The Great Land', with almost sacred connotations.'' Thus ``Unalaska'' does not mean not-Alaska, nor not-the- Great-Land. If anything, the name defines its geographical location in terms of the Alaska Peninsula. In fact, to compound confusion, this town has three names. First, there is ``Unalaska.'' Before ``Unalaska,'' however, this community was known as ``Iliuliuk'' in Russian or in Aleut as ``Iluulux'' or ``Illuulax.'' This early word referred to the curved approach one took in a skin boat when approaching the village. The word may also have had connotations of ``Harmony.'' (In 1806 after almost 30 years of sporadic fighting with the local Aleuts, Nikolai Rezanov of the Russian-American Company named the community ``Dobroye Soglasiis''--the Harbor of Good Accord. [Ignoring the Russian presence, the Spanish laid a surreptitious claim to Unalaska on August 5, 1788, and called it ``Puerto de Dona Maria Luisa Teresa de Parma, Princesa de Asturies''.] The third name which is frequently applied to this community is ``Dutch Harbor.'' This specific harbor is one of many within the greater Unalaska Bay and is said to have been given its name because a Dutch vessel was the first to anchor there. The name dates from the late 18th Century. In the 1880's a dock was built at Dutch Harbor and people sailing to Unalaska booked passage for Dutch Harbor. During WWII the military constructed a runway at Dutch Harbor, not far from the dock. After the war private airplanes took over the airstrip, and so people flying into Unalaska were ticketed for Dutch Harbor. Consequently, new-comers often refer to this city as ``Dutch Harbor'' while more permanent residents use ``Unalaska'' and really old-time Aleut speakers say ``Ounalashka.''

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of our Appropriations Committee for his kind remarks and join him in recommending the bill to the Senate that we will debate when we return.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I merely want to say I endorse the statements made by the Senator from Virginia. I want to explain my rationale for not supporting H.R. 3167, the NATO Expansion Act. In 1998, I voted to support the last round of NATO enlargement which culminated in the assession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Over the past 2 years, at least two of these countries have not made much progress in restructuring and modernizing their military forces and infrastructure. I am concerned that this bill provides an open invitation to the 10 candidate countries, irrespective of their readiness or qualifications. We should strongly support countries into the alliance that are ready for NATO membership and that can significantly contribute to the European security mission. We first need to determine what is the long-term mission of NATO, then assess how countries can contribute to that mission, and evaluate each candidate based on that overall criteria. We need candidate states that can help support the alliance in maintaining peace and stability throughout the region. For example, the United States flew over 60 percent of the combat missions in the Kosovo conflict. We need to look for capabilities that enhance the alliance and its members, not detract from it nor add substantial costs. There is also a significant price tag for bringing nations into NATO that are not ready for membership. The alliance, to which the United States already contributes about 25 percent of the costs, will have to provide financial assistance to help these countries modernize their Armed Forces and infrastructure. We do not know the overall cost to do this, but it is my hope that we should carefully proceed with NATO expansion and weigh each nation's readiness to become a full partner in NATO. I urge the member nations of NATO to proceed cautiously and address the issue of expansion with great care.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the farm security and rural development act of 2002 contains two important provisions for the protection and revitalization of Alaska's wild salmon industry. One is country of origin labeling and whether the fish is farm raised or wild caught and the other, a report on efforts to promote and use pouched and canned salmon within the food and nutrition programs of the Agriculture Department. Last year, Chilean pen-raised, farm salmon was purposefully delivered the same time as Alaskan fishermen brought their salmon to market. It was and is the intent of Chile to devastate and erase the Alaskan wild- salmon market. Canada, Norway and China are increasing their farmed salmon capabilities and are flooding the U.S. market with pen-raised, pellet-fed, and chemically-enhanced salmon. In fact, dye is injected into the flesh of pen-raised salmon in order to obtain the orange and reddish salmon color that occurs naturally in wild salmon, which are born in fresh water streams, then travel out to the deep ocean and back again to the same stream to spawn. The conference committee report includes a provision that will require any retail seafood product in the United States to be labeled at the time of sale with its country of origin and whether the fish is wild-caught or farm-raised. This will help consumers make informed decisions about the seafood they put on their dinner tables. Alaskans know that wild fish from our waters are healthier and better tasting then farmed fish from overseas. This provision will allow the rest of America to make a more informed choice between pen-raised and wild salmon and learn about all the benefits of Alaskan seafood. The conference committee also retained an amendment which calls on the Secretary of Agriculture to report to Congress on efforts to expand the promotion, marketing, and purchase of U.S. pouched and canned salmon within the food and nutrition programs of the Agriculture Department. It is imperative to the short term success of Alaska's salmon industry to move existing inventories of pouched and canned salmon. The farm bill does a great deal to insure the commodities markets for southern and midwestern farmers, and these provisions will begin to provide some assistance and much needed protections for America's fishermen, the farmers of the sea. An amendment that did not remain in the conference committee report, but is absolutely necessary considering how pen-raised salmon are altered and chemically developed, is the eligibility of wild seafood for an organic product promotion effort. This amendment by my good friend and colleague Frank Murkowski, would have directed the Secretary of Agriculture to incorporate wild seafood into the organic labeling program. Wild salmon that go out into the oceans and feed in their natural habitat are by definition organic and completely natural, void of hormones or other chemicals and are undeniably deserving of the ``organic'' label.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, several years ago, after a period had gone by wherein spectrum available to the FCC to relicense had been involved in a lottery process, I suggested that we auction spectrum. And after some time passed, Congress did see fit to follow that suggestion, and we have been having spectrum auctions by the FCC. There is currently pending the auction of spectrum in the 747 to 762 megahertz and 777 to 792 megahertz bands. That has been postponed several times now, and I think that is wrong. I do believe spectrum should be made available, in a competitive process, to those people who want to use it, and to improve our economy, to put into effect new technologies. But it should not be used just for speculation. And it should not be auctioned just because of market demands for spectrum, per se, in order to get the Government the highest level of return for the spectrum. The highest level of return to the taxpayers, in the long run, comes from developing the spectrum, from enhancing the economy, and providing a long period of development for new technologies and new income streams, which will provide a new tax base for the Treasury. I believe we should reiterate to the FCC that it has the authority to proceed. I will send to the desk a bill which would create the Auction Completion Timing Act, and it really is saying: Act now. The Commission has its authority, and it should act within its own discretion. In order that this situation may not develop again, my bill also suggests future spectrum auction deadlines will be determined by the Commission alone, unless Congress specifically passes a law that the President signs that would interfere with that authority. I believe the Federal Communications Act of 1934 should be amended to make clear that notwithstanding any other provisions we put in any bills to the contrary in the past, the Commission may determine the date of any auction conducted pursuant to section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, several years ago, after a period had gone by wherein spectrum available to the FCC to relicense had been involved in a lottery process, I suggested that we auction spectrum. And after some time passed, Congress did see fit to follow that suggestion, and we have been having spectrum auctions by the FCC. There is currently pending the auction of spectrum in the 747 to 762 megahertz and 777 to 792 megahertz bands. That has been postponed several times now, and I think that is wrong. I do believe spectrum should be made available, in a competitive process, to those people who want to use it, and to improve our economy, to put into effect new technologies. But it should not be used just for speculation. And it should not be auctioned just because of market demands for spectrum, per se, in order to get the Government the highest level of return for the spectrum. The highest level of return to the taxpayers, in the long run, comes from developing the spectrum, from enhancing the economy, and providing a long period of development for new technologies and new income streams, which will provide a new tax base for the Treasury. I believe we should reiterate to the FCC that it has the authority to proceed. I will send to the desk a bill which would create the Auction Completion Timing Act, and it really is saying: Act now. The Commission has its authority, and it should act within its own discretion. In order that this situation may not develop again, my bill also suggests future spectrum auction deadlines will be determined by the Commission alone, unless Congress specifically passes a law that the President signs that would interfere with that authority. I believe the Federal Communications Act of 1934 should be amended to make clear that notwithstanding any other provisions we put in any bills to the contrary in the past, the Commission may determine the date of any auction conducted pursuant to section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.