Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I must express my reservation until we reach an understanding about how this will impact the agreement we made with the Office of Management and Budget and with the House on this bill. It does add outyear expenditures, as I understand it. The Senator has indicated it does not impact 2002. I reserve judgment on this amendment. I am a cosponsor of it. I think the bill itself is a worthy bill, and it basically is an entitlement program. It is not an appropriation, as I understand it.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to confer with the distinguished chairman of our committee, but we reached a firm agreement we would not exceed 686 for this year, and I do not know how that impacts taking on a bill that will start impacting 2003. What would be the impact in 2003?

Mr. STEVENS. What would be its impact on fiscal year 2002?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. I am pleased to join with the distinguished chairman of our committee in offering this amendment to the Domenici amendment. Senator Byrd and I have made a firm agreement to hold the line on the understanding we reached with the House of Representatives and the President of the United States to hold the total spending to $686 billion this year. This amendment does not breach that agreement. I am talking about the Domenici amendment does not breach this agreement. Further, the amendment to the Domenici amendment will assure in future years, if there are caps continued under the Budget Control Act, that this amendment will not result in monies being assessed to our committee, as Senator Byrd has stated. They should properly be asserted to the committee of jurisdiction. I am of the firm opinion this is a good bill. I was a cosponsor of the bill. I did not expect it to be offered to an appropriations bill, but under the parliamentary situation I do not express objection to that. I do, however, think the Senate should be reminded once again we have a firm understanding with regard to the appropriations process this year, and if we hold to that understanding I think we will finish our bills in time to enjoy the holidays with our relatives. If we breach that agreement, we will be here for a long time. I am proud to serve with Senator Byrd, who is chairman, because we are two people who I believe keep our word. We have in this instance convinced the Senate to follow us in that regard. So I thank the Senator very much and am pleased to cosponsor the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I support the Senator's request. I supported his amendment before, and I will support it again, but I do think we have to take a look to see what the consequences of some of these requirements are and be prepared to meet the changes that come in terms of the airline travel. Mr. President, I want to talk about the Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill. I know it will be up after lunch. I welcome the statement of the distinguished majority whip that we will seek a listing of these amendments today. I also am delighted I was able to be with Senator Specter who spoke about a matter that he and I have discussed at other times, and that is the creation of some type of category that will allow us to distinguish between normal visa applicants, or holders who are privileged to be in this country, and those who should properly be on a list of known terrorists. I, for one, do agree with him. We should find some way to treat those people as we would agents of foreign nations and treat them as prisoners of war. We ought to start getting tougher, as the Senator from Pennsylvania says. What worries me most, as one of the few survivors of the World War II era, is I do not think we understand how tough we have to get to deal with some of these issues that are coming before our country. I hear people saying once again there is a global threat warning out and we are sort of crying wolf. Well, it is not crying wolf. I really believe the Attorney General and the head of our new homeland defense agency are right to warn the people of the United States, and I think it is high time we decide how tough we are going to be in facing the challenges that have now beset us because of our global war against terrorism. As I said, I came to talk about the Labor-Health and Human Services bill. It is the largest bill that comes before the Appropriations Committee. It is the largest because its breadth of coverage, as well as its size, means it does more to help everyday Americans than any other bill we consider in this Congress. It addresses American's health needs from community clinics to bioterrorism to immunizations. It provides services for Americans who need a helping hand from electric bills to job training. It helps narrow the education gap, providing Pell grants to lower income university students, to assistance to Alaska native colleges. I am pleased the committee has agreed to fund the Denali Commission. It was a commission I urged Congress to create to adopt a novel approach to providing assistance to remote areas in my State. The overhead of this commission in handling Federal funds is held to 5 percent or less. It is probably the lowest rate in the entire Federal Government. We have found by handling money through a commission that has on it members of the State government, of the Federal Government, of business and labor, of the environmental community, as well as the native community, we can make decisions on how to spend and where to spend Federal money without the enormous overhead of the rest of the Federal executive branch. It has already helped build health clinics in remote villages where there are no doctors or nurses. We have pioneered in telemedicine and tele-education in my State. I am most pleased that the Appropriations Committee has agreed to continue to support this approach. Sadly, my State leads the Nation in domestic violence, child abuse, and alcoholism. I am deeply grateful to the chairman and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education for including an initiative to develop a statewide plan to combat domestic violence and child abuse in Alaska. Likewise, I am very pleased funds have been provided to implement the physical education for progress legislation Congress adopted last year at my request. It is my hope we will move forward on this legislation quickly. I urge our colleagues to come to the floor as soon as possible to clear any amendments with the managers of the bill. We have other bills to which we should move. I know the chairman of the committee, Senator Byrd, will be speaking on this matter. I join him in requesting we consider how we can move the remaining legislation that comes from our Appropriations Committee and still finish our business in time to get home for Thanksgiving. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, while the Senator from North Dakota, who made the comment concerning the advanced lists, is present, I want to make a comment on another subject. But I say Alaska has suffered recently because of the loss of cargo lines that came through Anchorage and went on to other parts of the United States or Mexico or Canada. They landed primarily for fuel. The Customs regulations were changed and because of those changes, one of which was the request for the advanced lists, a series of those cargo lines have now decided to land in Canada and not land in the United States. So their first landing is in Canada. I do not think the Senator is going to propose we get an advanced list of passengers on Canadian airlines. I am not sure it is possible under NAFTA. So I urge him to consider some way to deal with this problem of requiring lists that might lead to these planes deviating and going into Canada and actually we would have less information than we have today. I do not want to debate it now, but I will talk to him about it and tell him what happened in Alaska. I hope he understands.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am very concerned over the National Organic Standards Board's recent recommendation to USDA that wild seafood not be eligible for organic labeling. This decision ignored the plain evidence on the record that most wild seafood, and wild Alaska salmon in particular, are the most organic, natural fish available on the market today.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on August 1, the Senate passed it's version of H.R. 2299, the fiscal year 2002 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act. The Senate has not yet appointed conferees on this bill, which provides vitally needed funding for aviation, the Coast Guard, highways and rail programs. A key issue of contention in that bill has been the standards and practices governing highway truck movement between our Nation and Mexico, under the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Recently, discussion with the White House have produced a framework for compromise which I believe responds to the concerns for safety and equity voiced by many in the Senate and the other body, and I intend to support this compromise in the conference. It is my hope that the conferees on the bill will proceed along the lines of this proposal to strike a final agreement which will secure support in the Senate, and the signature of the President.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Senator McConnell you are exactly right. The efforts by the foundation will not only utilize the vast resources of the private sector--but combine that with the experience and knowledge of the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development. State and USAID each have personnel around the globe who are aware of the need for these chairs--from Central America to the nations of Africa to the Balkans to South East Asia. We are confident that these U.S. personnel can utilize their contacts in each of these communities to bring relief to those in need--and in five years--to reach one million people.

Mr. STEVENS. Thank you both for your support and, again, for the support of the Secretary. I look forward to working with you all to ensure that this project is a success.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I rise today to express my appreciation to the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, for his assistance in the coming fiscal year to an exceptional organization--the Wheelchair Foundation. Since its launch in June 2000, the Wheelchair Foundation has delivered over 26,000 wheelchairs to individuals in 74 countries and throughout the United States. The World Health Organization estimates that some 25 million people around the world are unable to walk due to one cause or another. Various country officials and non- government officials in different countries around the world put the number at over 100 million. To date, the foundation has been financed by private donations from the Kenneth E. Behring Foundation, private individuals, corporations, athletic teams and various non-profit organizations. Additionally, partnerships exist with the International Red Cross, Project Hope, Goodwill Global, Rotary International, Ronald McDonald House Charities, and Operations USA, among others. However, the Wheelchair Foundation has decided to intensify its efforts by launching a goal of delivering 1,000,000 wheelchairs to those in need in the next five years. In order to take its efforts to this next level, the foundation is seeking a public/private partnership with the Federal Government. My staff has been working with the Secretary's office to try and create a workable partnership. One of the Federal programs we believe the Wheelchair Foundation can work with is the Denton Program. The Denton Program allows the Department of Defense, through a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Agency for International Development to provide space available transportation of humanitarian cargo at little or no cost to the donor. The donor must ensure that (1) there is a legitimate need for the supplies by the people for whom they are intended; (2) that the supplies will in fact be used for humanitarian purposes; and (3) that the beneficiaries are capable of using the donated commodities safely. I think I can safely say that each of these requirements can be easily met by the Wheelchair Foundation. We have had notification from Secretary Powell's office that he agrees with these sentiments. We have also been notified, that, assuming that we provide the adequate resources in the foreign operations bill, the Secretary will support providing funding to assist the program. The Wheelchair Foundation estimates that it will cost $150,000,000 to provide the 1,000,000 chairs. This approximately $150 per chair. Combined with the Denton Program support, any additional financial assistance that the Department of State provides would be greatly appreciated.

Mr. STEVENS. No--one must only show a need--from innocent victims of landmines to those with muscular dystrophy--the Wheelchair Foundation has a single mission of bringing mobility and independence to those who cannot walk.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I voted ``present'' because, as a partner of my good friend from West Virginia in Appropriations, we do not have time for any further delay. The Agriculture bill would be acceptable, as far as I am concerned. I have not checked with our leader, but I do think the Senate should move forward on another bill as soon as possible. We are very constrained because of the loss of our physical facilities in Dirksen. There are some bills that could move forward in the interim. I have said before that in my judgment we have to get these bills to the President by November 6 if we are going to be able to leave by November 16 for Thanksgiving because the President must have his 10 days to review the bill. Hopefully, there will not be any vetoes, but it is possible. I join the Senator from West Virginia in urging the joint leadership to find a way to allow us to take up another bill. I do believe the Agriculture bill is ready, and it is possible we could move on it very rapidly. I am hopeful we will find a spirit of comity and find a way to limit amendments on these bills and let us catch up. The problem with the conferences is the House facilities are still tied up by the investigations concerning anthrax, but I hope we can find some way to handle that, too. I do not believe these are crime scene investigations that are necessary to determine whether anthrax is present and might threaten our people, which is one thing, but to deter us from going about our business because someone might call our facilities crime scenes, I think is wrong. I thank the President of the Senate for yielding to me.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in time of war to have the administration be tied to a CR, to have interpretations by lawyers throughout the Government as to what they can and cannot do, I think is putting the country in a straitjacket. I happened to have been chief counsel of a department in the Eisenhower days, and it is impossible for administrators to proceed during a period of emergency under what we call a continuing resolution. We must have individual bills and we must have them cleared, particularly in the areas where there is great concern in the country. I think agriculture is one, defense is another, but clearly we should not be operating under a CR, in my judgment. It is impossible to proceed under the concept of having to have every single dollar checked against a question of whether it was involved in the last year. A CR is really continuing the problems of the past fiscal year into the next fiscal year. At a time of war we should not have that happen. So I urge we move separately on the bills and get them done as quickly as possible, I say to the Senator. I think we should get our caucuses today at noon to make a pledge to the leader that we are ready to proceed as rapidly as we can to get these bills done.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the members of the Judiciary Committee, especially Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch for their hard work on this important legislation. This bill will give the administration an increased ability to fight terrorism on many fronts. One section of the bill that is extremely important to my state addresses Northern Border Security. This bill will triple the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service, and INS inspectors along America's northern borders. It also authorizes $100 million to improve INS and Customs technology and for additional equipment for monitoring the northern borders. Alaska and Alaskans are in a unique position. One section of our northern boarder stretches from Maine through, my good friend's home state of, Vermont all the way to Washington State. A second section is that of my home State. As you know we are the largest State in the Nation with an enormous border with Canada that runs over 1,538 miles. We have one of the busiest international cargo airports in the world, which has lost a number of carriers since the September 11 attacks due to grossly inadequate staffing at our secure, sterile customs facility. We also have several major international ports scattered throughout Alaska including the Port of Anchorage, which handles the most container traffic in Alaska; Dutch Harbor, which is America's busiest commercial fishing port; and Valdez, where millions of barrels of North Slope crude oil are sent by pipeline to the ``South 48.'' The sections of the bill that address the Northern Border Security do not mention Alaska specifically. I intended to offer an amendment to insure that we are part of the definition. But as my good friend the Senator from Vermont pointed out to me, other northern border States are not mentioned specifically either. I understand that it is the intent of this legislation that Alaska and all other states that border Canada are ``Northern Border'' States and that INS, Border Patrol, U.S. Customs service and others should look at all of these states when addressing security issues. I would ask the manager of this bill if my understanding is correct?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont. With this clear statement of of the legislation I will not offer an amendment to specifically name Alaska as a Northern Border State. alien terrorist removal court

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I support the Bunning amendment to strike the base realignment and closure language from this year's Defense authorization bill. It is my view that this is the wrong time for our country and our military to move forward with BRAC legislation. There are serious questions about the adequacy of the costs and savings estimates upon which the Department bases its claims for savings in the near term. My concern has been that over the past 12 years, we have spent over $22 billion to close and realign bases throughout the United States. These costs are substantial and must be figured into DOD's future budgets. There is still considerable work to be done to clean up previously closed bases. However, the Department of Defense has not put aside funds in the future year Defense plan to pay for BRAC. They have not budgeted for the up-front costs. A reasonable estimate that an additional BRAC round would cost $3 to $4 billion a year--starting as early as 2004. In recent General Accounting Office reports, they state that ``net savings from BRAC were not generated as quickly as initially estimated because the costs of closing bases and environmental cleanup were high and offset the savings.'' The up-front money must be found and it will most likely come from the Department's investment accounts. The diversion of billions of dollars to support an additional BRAC round could have a serious impact on the transformation of the services for the 21st century. There has been a lot of discussion about savings. We found that in the past, most of the savings came from the elimination of civilian and military positions. This was consistent with the downsizing of our Armed Forces through the 1990s--not necessarily related to closing bases. Many of the military personnel were simply realigned to other bases. Further, I know of no comprehensive assessment of the mission impact of the totality of the closure and realignment decisions made to date. Particularly with the considerable uncertainty about the future size of the force and its requirements, it would seem the more prudent approach would delay this legislation until we have a better picture of our future requirements. I urge you to vote to support the Bunning amendment to strike the BRAC language. Mr. President, there will be a lot of discussion about the elimination of these bases and the impact on the economy. This is not the time to do it.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. It is my desire to have those who wish to be an original cosponsor have the opportunity to do so, and I ask the cooperation of the Parliamentarian to see how that can be worked out.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, yesterday Senator Inouye and I went to New York City to visit the disaster area. It was an experience I shall never forget. We had the cooperation of the New York National Guard, which flew us in a helicopter over the area of the World Trade Center, and then met Mayor Giuliani on the ground and visited the disaster scene. Today, I have come to this Chamber to introduce a Senate concurrent resolution. This resolution would express the sense of the Congress that the Public Safety Officers Medal of Valor should be awarded to public safety officers killed in the line of duty in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It is with a sad heart that I introduce this resolution, for once again America has seen some of our finest go into harm's way to help those they are sworn to protect and serve. Many of these firefighters, police officers, and public safety officers gave their lives. They made the ultimate sacrifice for our country in the service of their fellow Americans. Without regard for their own safety, firefighters, police officers, port authority officers, rescue personnel, and others rushed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to help in the rescue of workers in those buildings. Senator Inouye and I visited the Pentagon the day before yesterday to view that site. Many of these people gave their lives in helping those they sought to rescue. The truly heroic response of our public servants to these horrible and evil attacks on America and Americans should not go unnoticed, and we all know the acts will not go unpunished. The Public Service Medal of Valor was created to recognize public safety officers who act with extraordinary valor above and beyond the call of duty and to recognize the protective service that goes often unnoticed in our daily lives. In 1998, in the U.S. Capitol, Senators, Congressmen, tourists, and staff were reminded of the tremendous sacrifices that officers make every day when Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson gave their lives defending the peace and defending our lives here in the Nation's Capitol. Shortly after that tragic event, I introduced the Senate version of the Medal of Valor Act. The law allows for five medals to be awarded a year, but I believe it is important to recognize all those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, in the horrendous attacks in New York City and the Pentagon. They deserve consideration under this law. When President Bush signed the Public Safety Medal of Valor Act into law on May 30 of this year, 28 of our colleagues were cosponsors of the Senate version. It is my hope that they and others in the Senate will join in recognizing the heroic acts of all our public safety officers killed in the line of duty in the aftermath of these terrorist attacks of September 11 of this year by cosponsoring this resolution and helping to get it passed. I ask the concurrent resolution remain at the desk so those who wish to cosponsor can do so through tomorrow. Is that request in order, Mr. President?

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as in morning business for the purpose of introducing a resolution.

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

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. STEVENS pertaining to the submission of S. Con. Res. 66 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')