Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, first, I thank the President pro tempore for his kindness in his comments about me in this Chamber today. As I sat in the chair, I was thinking about the fact that 37 years ago, approximately, at about 5:30 in the evening, I got on a plane to fly to Fairbanks, AK, along with my great friend, Lowell Thomas, Jr. Eight minutes after we took off, the largest earthquake to hit the North American continent in recorded times occurred. Somewhere around midnight, Lowell Thomas and I had chartered a plane and rounded up some physicians and nurses, and we flew back into Anchorage, landing at Elmendorf Field near our hometown of Anchorage. And I had to walk from that airfield over to my home in South Addition. Flying in, we saw the Anchorage International Airport, and it looked as if it had been bombed. I walked home through fissures that were still moving, some of them 20 and 30 feet deep. That was the largest natural disaster we have had in the United States. We have just witnessed the largest national disaster we have ever had. All of us have had varied feelings this past week, but mine have been really concentrating on what we could do to help--those of us on the committee that the distinguished President pro tempore chairs, and I used to chair--along with our colleagues in the House. I am delighted we have reacted in a way that shows we are prepared to finance the recovery from these disastrous attacks. As I figure it, what we have appropriated, or at least earmarked for appropriations today--some $40 billion--is about $160 for every man, woman, and child in the country. It is just the beginning. It is just the beginning. I appreciate what my friend from Oklahoma just said because we have really not addressed the need for the changes in our national defense and national security apparatus. We will do that in time. I believe we may have heard for the last time our people ask us, as we are talking about spending money to restore our national defense capability, ``What is the threat?'' In past years, I have constantly been asked what the threat is. I have tried to articulate that we didn't have one single threat coming at us from a monolithic empire, the Soviet Union, but that we had asymmetrical threats that were hard to conceive. We witnessed one of those as our massive new aircraft were turned into bombs by those who are terrorists. And, obviously, as the distinguished President pro tempore said, we witnessed probably the most destructive singular command and control operation by a terrorist organization the world has ever seen. I don't think it is over, Mr. President. That is why today I am proud I have been able to work with the President pro tempore and our colleagues in the House, Congressmen Young and Obey, on this supplemental appropriations bill so that it starts the process of recovery and the process of being prepared--or trying to be prepared-- for future attacks against this country. But more than that, the resolution we have now adopted gives the President all the necessary and appropriate authority to use force against the persons or organizations that he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided in the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11. Some people say that is a broad change in authorization to the Commander in Chief of this country. It is not. It is a very limited concept of giving him the authority to pursue those who have brought this terrible destruction to our country and to pursue those who have harbored them or assisted them and conspired with them in any way. I am delighted that the resolution says that ``he determines,'' that the Commander in Chief is in control, in charge, to find a way to react against these people who have brought this destruction to our shores. Mr. President, I commend you and those whom I am honored to work with on Appropriations for having the courage to proceed. I have to say, we were talking about $20 billion. The President met with the Representatives of New York and New Jersey and Virginia and decided that wasn't enough. He sent word to us that he wanted $40 billion. That, in the past, might have made all of us stumble a little bit. But I am delighted to see that all of us unanimously have said, yes, if he says he needs that much money, he should know he has that much money. We are going to review his plans and the requests of individual agencies, but we have committed $40 billion. Mr. President, I have to say that nations have defining moments. We had at least two in the 20th century--at the time when we entered World War I and Pearl Harbor. This is really the first true defining moment of this country in this millennium, and I am proud of the Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the agreement reached in this body provides $40 billion to respond to the attacks in New York and Washington, and the plane crash in Pennsylvania, as follows: $10 billion available immediately for the President to utilize; $10 billion available 15 days after the President submits a plan; $20 billion available for allocation in subsequent acts. This compromise provides the initial $20 billion sought by the President with virtually no restriction, and provides a second $20 billion pursuant to the President's commitment to the Governor of New York and the New York delegation that $20 billion would be available for the domestic response and recovery effort. The President can use any of the funds for national security purposes--but of the total of $40 billion, not less than $20 billion is only available for the domestic recovery effort. As context, Congress initially provided $15 billion for the gulf war effort; nearly $10 billion for the California earthquakes. All of the funds are available until expended, to ensure there is no rush to obligate prematurely. The arrangement fulfills the President's commitment to New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania for the families of those on board the hijacked aircraft, and ensure adequate funds are available for any initial military or intelligence requirements, without a competition for funds between those two needs.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. satellite home viewer improvement act

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the gentleman from Hawaii. He and my colleagues from Vermont and New Hampshire have correctly recited the legislative history and I agree that the FCC did not fully satisfy either the SHVIA directive or the CJS clarifying directive. That said, I do want to commend the FCC for advancing the ball forward, so to speak, by establishing a Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS), after having concluded that it is technologically feasible for the terrestrial license applicants to share spectrum with satellite providers. I would also remind my colleagues that last year's appropriations bill for the FCC also required applicants who applied to share spectrum with DBS operators to show, through independent testing, that their terrestrial systems can safely share spectrum with satellites. It is my understanding that only one applicant, Northpoint Technology, submitted its transmission equipment to the MITRE corporation for the required independent test. The MITRE report confirmed the FCC's earlier determination that terrestrial-satellite spectrum sharing is feasible. The FCC's comment period for the independent test was statutorily limited to 30 days. The opponents of this new service could contest the findings forever, if we let them. We must insist that the FCC respect that deadline by promptly making a final determination on the Northpoint applications. It is time for the FCC to make good on the original statutory directive and, better late than never, finally issue the licenses. It has how been over 2\1/2\ years since Northpoint filed its license applications, and we need the FCC to complete action on these applications now so that this new service can enter the marketplace in a matter of months, not years. Hydro Plants

Mr. STEVENS. The fiscal year 2002 State, Justice, Commerce bill fully funds the President's request for the National Institute of Justice. I commend the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for providing full funding. Among other things, NIJ provides support for a series of National Centers for Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology which test and evaluate new law enforcement technology and equipment for various purposes. Last year Congress provided $1.2 million to establish a new center in Alaska to provide cold weather testing capability. I have received reports that all the centers in the lower 48 States would be funded in the President's request, but the new Alaska Center would be zeroed out. That certainly is not understanding of the committee's intention, and I note that the committee report was silent on this point. Could the distinguished Senator from South Carolina and the chairman of the subcommittee help me clarify this point?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, perhaps because I represent the State that has the youngest age population in the country, I approach this subject from a different point of view. Many have said that this terrible, cowardly attack against our country by terrorists is similar to the experience we had at Pearl Harbor. I think perhaps Senator Inouye and Senator Akaka might have had similar experiences. But those of us who were alive and part of the younger generation then did not have the experiences that our young people had yesterday as they watched and were just mesmerized by the live coverage as two great buildings collapsed, of people jumping from those buildings, of the knowledge of how many people were killed and injured, of seeing our Pentagon struck. This vividness has affected the young people of our country much more than Pearl Harbor affected us. We had been acculturated to the fact that we were going to war. We had watched in the newsreels in 1939, in 1940, and 1941 the Germans marching across Europe and the Japanese raping Nanking. Such things came at us in a small bite, as we might call it today, with a little exposure here and there. If our generation truly is the greatest generation, it is because of our parents and our guardians and our teachers. They prepared us for what we knew would be our duty to fight a war to restore freedom in the world. Our young people yesterday saw just this total exposure to death and the effects of terrorism. I think we have to be aware of that. They have not been prepared as young people in this period of time, when they have all of these freedoms to the exposure through so many means of communication and acquisition and knowledge. I believe our young people are in a state of shock. It is time we thought about that and what it means to America to have this sudden awareness by so many people, particularly young children and the younger generation, becoming exposed to the visible impact of terrorist activity. We don't live in a country like Israel where they have been attacked on the streets and they have seen bombing every day. We have really been living the life of luxury in terms of not being exposed to this type of activity. But it is here now. We were exposed to it yesterday. I don't think it is over. I call on the Senate and the Congress and the President. I hope we think about the young people. I hope we take the time to explain to them why we are going to retaliate. I hope we take the time to explain to them why we are going to change some of the security procedures of our country in terms of getting on and off interstate and even local transportation. I hope we explain to them why there are no people in the gallery here today--which I object to, by the way. But I think it is incumbent on those of us who are mature to try to guide these people toward the goal we hope they will pursue with us; that is, the goal of pursuing the perpetrators of these vicious terrorist attacks against the United States, and to support us in what we have to do. We should take time to understand their feelings. We should take the time to try to explain to them why we may not react the same way they would. I had calls from all over the country yesterday. I don't know if everyone else did. I assume so. I certainly had an enormous number of calls from home. They were asking if I was safe and if my family and my staff were safe. And the totality of the experience they had, people around the country, in viewing what went on--I have to say myself, I was totally shocked when I saw that first tower come down. And then when the second one came down, I just felt a lump in my stomach. The point is, I hope we act in terms of understanding that we have a job to lead the country, to have people understand what we are going to do in the future. If I have anything to do with it, we will finish our work here very quickly. I think we should bury our differences, find a way to move the appropriations bills, deal with the subjects we have to deal with, and go back to our homes to try to assist people in understanding why we are going to act as we must act; that is, we must deliver the most fierce retaliation against these people that the world has ever seen, because if we do not--if we do not--we are going to have some copycats around the world who think they, too, can take a crack at this country. That is something I would not like to see. But I hope we all keep in mind and think of the young people, think of the children, and try to explain to them what they saw and why we are going to do what we must do. Mr. President, II Corinthians, 4:8-9, states: We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; Perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not abandoned; Struck down, but not destroyed. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate passed the Appropriations bill funding the Environmental Protection Agency and other departments. I have grave concerns about a provision in that bill, the amendment adopted by the Senate that directs the EPA Administrator to establish a new national primary drinking water regulation for arsenic. This is a slight modification from the House version of this bill, which requires the Administrator to establish this standard at the level set by the previous administration--10 parts per billion. While the Senate language is not that specific, I still have grave concerns over the direction Congress is heading on this issue. I understand that 59 public water systems in Alaska, most of which are in rural villages, have naturally occurring, background levels of arsenic in their water supplies that substantially exceed the 10 parts per billion standard. If Congress imposes this standard or a similar one on these villages, they will need nearly twenty million dollars to purchase modern, high-tech water treatment facilities. This is money that will otherwise be spent on their more immediate water and sewer needs, including safe wastewater systems. We are moving many rural villages off of honey buckets, but many people on the haul system still have to cart their own untreated wastewater from their homes to local collection bins, where it lies until the city takes it to a sewage lagoon on the outskirts of town. I know of one village in rural Alaska where a young girl was playing near one of these wastewater collection bins when she scratched at a mosquito bite. She developed a bacterial infection and later died. We are making good progress towards getting her village on to a safe, centralized water and wastewater system. Congress should allow areas without reliable sanitary water supplies to address those needs before turning to the relative luxury of removing a few parts per billion of naturally-occurring arsenic. I invite any Senator who disagrees with me to join me on a trip to rural Alaska where they can see these challenges first hand. I can foresee another unanticipated consequence of a national arsenic standard applied in rural Alaska. There are no toxic waste facilities available to process the arsenic after it is taken out of the water. We can not drive it away because these villages are not on the road system. The arsenic will end up in the local landfill on the edge of town, next to the sewage lagoon. Like a lot of other things that end up in the landfill, the wind will blow it around town, where it will end up in homes and schools. This arsenic may do far more harm to people in rural Alaska than if we were to just leave it alone. I intend to seek a modification in conference that will recognize the practical problems of forcing a national standard on the most remote, rural areas of the country. We should not turn away from the most pressing sanitation needs in order to impose an unfunded mandate on rural areas, especially one that may result in a greater health risk than the one we are trying to address.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield my 1 hour to the manager of the bill on this side, Senator Shelby.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Not during the lunch hour, no.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Turn that over. We have just changed seats.

Mr. STEVENS. I was going to mention Senator Inouye because he mentioned to me earlier we ought to do something to try to see if we can get this bill finished today. So we have met Senator Inouye's request. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Stevens.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I certainly commend our chairman, Senator Byrd, for taking the action he has taken and the leadership of the Senate, Senator Daschle in particular. We did have an urgent plea from the military that we act today on this bill rather than wait for Monday. We have responded to that request. It is a supplemental. It is primarily concerned with Defense appropriations, and it is vitally needed. We hope these supplementals will not be long needed, as Senator Byrd has indicated. If we plan our bills properly and they are executed properly by the executive branch of our Government, we would not have requests for supplementals unless because of an act of God or because of an unforeseen event we were called upon to provide additional moneys for the current fiscal year. This is money for this current fiscal year. Because of the practices of the past, moneys have been diverted from the operation and maintenance account. We tried to account for those. It has not really been possible to account for them as much as we would like. Senator Byrd has indicated we want greater specificity of how the money is spent, particularly from the supplemental, so we can determine whether they are needed in the future. This one, I am confident, is needed. If Members of the Senate will remember the long delays in the last part of last year and the basic problem of utilizing some of the moneys from the O&M account, as I indicated for peacekeeping and other matters, we have gotten into the habit by the time we reach the fourth quarter of the fiscal year of the Department of Defense needing more money. We hope we are addressing that situation in the bill for 2002 so that will not happen. I join Senator Byrd in saying we do not look forward to holding the Senate up on Friday afternoons dealing with a supplemental unless it truly is for an emergency or for an unforeseen situation. This is not that bill. This is a supplemental because enough money was not provided for the Department of Defense for the current fiscal year. These moneys are necessary. I do believe this conference report meets the needs as defined by the President in the submission he made in a request for supplemental. It was an urgent defense supplemental but not an emergency bill that we received. As Senator Byrd said, there is no emergency money in this bill. No account required emergency spending. It provides additional resources for critical readiness and for quality of life and medical programs. At the end of the last Congress, we passed two bills, one dealing with health care and another dealing with pay affecting the Department of Defense. In order to fund those, they had to take money out of the first three quarters of this calendar year and use it for the programs, meaning the other programs, particularly the readiness programs which are involved in the steaming hours, the flying hours, the use of tanks in the field, the maneuvers. These cost money. This bill is to fund those. That is why it was urgent we finish this bill today. However, there are other priorities, some of which Senator Byrd has mentioned. He mentioned the radiation compensation. I point out also there is money for the new problems that have come up with regard to the Salt Lake City Olympics, for the defense nuclear programs. I commend Senator Byrd particularly for calling to the attention of the committee the President's request for additional money to respond to the international AIDS crisis. There is money here. That is a legitimate supplemental request. It may even come under the heading of being an emergency one of these days. It is a near world emergency. At least we have jumped the gun and made moneys available now, which the President actually requested for 2002, and the President has indicated an appreciation of that action, and I am sure he will be pleased to sign this bill. We have started off under a new management. A slight revolution went on here and we changed positions, but this bill demonstrates we can work together in a bipartisan fashion. I think the supplemental conference we had with our friends in the House, the chairman of the House committee, Congressman Bill Young, and the ranking member, Congressman Obey, had probably the best--there is no other word for it than ambience, the best feeling I have had in a long time. We all realized we had a lot to do in a short time to do it. We are behind the curve as far as our bills are concerned. This bill came through conference between the House and Senate in record time. It does represent a lot of things. As Senator Byrd mentioned, there are some things for his State, there are a couple things that affect my State. I will point that out. Over the Fourth of July recess, I went home and examined the area and talked to the Forest Service about that area of our State where a controlled fire got out of control, a fire on Forest Service lands that actually had gone into the beetle kill area. We have an enormous amount of our forests in Alaska that have already been killed by beetles. This fire left the Federal lands and swooped into an area that already had been planned for scheduled harvest of timber from State lands. We had provided for that. It is not emergency money, but it is money to assist the Forest Service to deal with the Kenai Spruce Bark Beetle Task Force, allowing them to respond to the wildfires that are taking place now in Alaska due to this problem, the enormous fire in the kill area where the beetles have killed so many of our trees. It also has a provision to allow funds that we previously appropriated for the State of Alaska to construct a seed laboratory in Palmer, our agricultural area. The law had to be changed so that those funds could be used. The money was made available, but there was a defect in the previous law. It makes permanent a provision that Congress has included in previous bills recognizing those tribes in our State of Alaska that are entitled to tribal priority allocations, and also makes some corrections regarding legislation previously funded, when there were banned inadvertently 11 of our crab vessels from participating in our fishing operations. When we handled these, we were able to make technical changes in the law, enabling previously appropriated funds to be used as we intended them to be used. There are several of those technical corrections in this bill that affect my State. Again, I express my appreciation to Senator Byrd and other members of the committee for being willing to address those and to allow making these small changes that are necessary so these funds already appropriated for this year can be used this year. That is why the provisions are in this bill. Mr. President, the Supplemental Appropriations conference report contains two provisions that are very important to the North Pacific fishing industry. The first provision makes changes to the American Fisheries Act to ensure that U.S. lenders may continue to offer financing to fishermen and fishing companies after October 1, 2001. The second provision makes changes to a fishing vessel capacity reduction program to ensure that all vessels which meet the standards set by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council may participate in the Bering Sea crab fisheries. The American Fisheries Act, AFA, helped ``Americanize'' the domestic fisheries by requiring that U.S. fishing vessels be 75 percent owned and controlled by U.S. citizens at all tiers of ownership and in the aggregate. The AFA also limits the class of lenders that may hold a preferred mortgage on a fishing vessel to ``fisheries citizens'' who meet the 75 percent standard, state- or federally-chartered financial institutions which meet the controlling interest (51 percent) requirement in section 2(b) of the Shipping Act of 1916, or lenders using a mortgage trustee which qualifies as a fisheries citizen. These standards apply to the more than 36,000 U.S. fishing vessels in our domestic fleets. The Maritime Administration's implementing regulations give special scrutiny to vessels 100 feet in length or greater. Since these regulations were promulgated, Congress has been told that most large lenders cannot prove that they are U.S. citizens under Marad's rules. Proof can only be made through an examination of shareholder records, which is a practical impossibility for widely-held companies. Shares in these lending institutions are traded thousands of times a day, and are often held by mutual funds on behalf of the real equity owners. The same proof problems have discouraged financial institutions from acting as mortgage trustees. Section 2202(a) moves the provisions defining a mortgage trustee from Chapter 121 of title 46, which deals with vessel documentation, to chapter 313, which deals with vessel mortgages. This will prevent the loss of a fishery endorsement by a vessel if that vessel's mortgage trustee falls out of compliance with the statute. Section 2202(b) expands the class of lenders eligible to hold a preferred mortgage to include state- or federally-chartered financial institutions insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, farm credit lenders, specific banks created under state law, and eligible commercial lenders. This provision more accurately reflects the types of lenders currently making loans to the fishing industry. Section 2202(c) expands the class of eligible mortgage trustees to include any entity eligible to hold a preferred mortgage directly, provided that it also meets other requirements. Marad will specifically analyze the trust arrangements of beneficiaries which are not commercial lenders, or are not eligible to hold preferred mortgages directly. Section 2202(d) delays the effective date of these changes until 2003 to give Marad time to develop new regulations. I strongly encourage Marad to promulgate draft regulations by March 1, 2002, and final regulations not less than 180 days later, so that Congress may review the new rules before they take effect. Additionally, Congress's significant concern over foreign control of fishing vessels that led to the AFA has not lessened since it was enacted in 1998. In promulgating new rules that take into account the specific legislative changes made by this provision, Marad should also take every step necessary to ensure that foreign capital is neither impermissibly invested in nor controlling our fisheries. Finally, Section 2202(e) addresses commerce treaties between the United States and certain foreign countries. After consultation with the State Department, Marad recently determined that these treaties exempt foreign ownership of U.S. fishing vessels from the AFA's 75 percent U.S. ownership standards. Section 213(g) of the AFA as enacted would exempt additional foreign investments made between now and October 1, 2001. This provision closes that window, and freezes the foreign ownership at today's levels. The other provision in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, section 2201, corrects an interpretation of law that inadvertently disqualified several vessels from the crab fisheries. This provision restores the eligibility of those permit holders which used the fishing history from multiple vessels to meet the qualifying periods agreed to by the North Pacific Council. My last comment is that we have expressed a desire from our majority leader that we try to move nine bills before the August recess. That is 2 weeks away. I am committed to try and work with Senator Byrd and other Members to achieve that goal. I think it is important to do it, if possible. The fact this is a fair and balanced agreement and one that has come out of our committees on a bipartisan basis is a harbinger of good things ahead. I hope we can work on the other bills the way we have on this one and demonstrate our commitment to catch up on the appropriations process and deliver on the request of the majority leader: that we report out and get to conference prior to the time we leave for the August recess the nine bills that have been outlined by the chairman. Again, I am grateful and humbled by the comments of my friend from West Virginia, having been my mentor for so many years. To have him make the comments he did concerning me is a humbling matter. It is more than a privilege to serve with Senator Byrd. It is really a great honor. To be able to stand here now as the ranking Republican is something I wasn't sure would ever occur to me, just as I am not sure I would become chairman, but I fervently hope some day I might become chairman again. (Ms. STABENOW assumed the chair.)

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I thank Senator Byrd for his comments in honor of Terry Sauvain who is now staff director of the full committee. This is his first bill in that capacity. This demonstrates his basic approach, and we are blessed by his presence and knowledge, that he also has decided to proceed, as Senator Byrd and I have, on a bipartisan basis. He has been very gracious to all Members on our side. I thank Senator Byrd for commenting about Steve Cortese, a brilliant former staff director, now staff director for the minority. He really is a key man in the Senate as far as I am concerned; and Andy Givens here, working with me along with Lisa Sutherland; and I am pleased Senator Byrd mentioned Senator Thad Cochran, who is here, who was a member of our conference and has really contributed greatly to the outcome of this bill. It is my understanding when I yield the floor the bill will pass; is that correct, Madam President?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as some Members may be aware, I have supported the development of gas cooled reactor systems, both small and large, for the provision of electric power and useful heat for our cities. As currently envisioned, gas cooled reactors will be meltdown proof, create substantially less radioactive waste and will be more efficient than our current generation of reactors. Currently, the Department of Energy is funding a joint U.S.-Russian effort to develop the Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor for the purpose of burning up surplus Russian weapons plutonium. This tremendously successful swords to plowshares project is making great technical progress and employs more than 500 Russian weapons scientists and nuclear engineers. Although the GT-MHR unit built in Russia will be primarily for burning plutonium, that same meltdown proof reactor type can be easily converted into a uranium burning commercial reactor for use around the globe. Indeed, the Appropriations Committee's report notes that ``the United States must take full advantage of the development of this attractive technology for a possible next generation nuclear power reactor for United States and foreign markets''. However, the committee's bill does not explicitly provide any dollars for the commercialization of the GT-MHR design. The senior Senator from New Mexico is a leader in nuclear energy and research. I want to ask my good friend, the Ranking Member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, the following question regarding the commercialization of the GT-MHR: the ``Nuclear Energy Technologies'' account in the bill provides $7 million for Generation IV reactor development and for further research on small, modular nuclear reactors. Given that the federal government is already making a substantial investment on the GT-MHR for non-proliferation purposes, and given the near-term promise of this reactor, doesn't it make sense that at least one-half of the $7 million provided be used by the Department of Energy for GT-MHR commercialization efforts?

Mr. STEVENS. I thank my good friend from New Mexico for his response. Small modular reactors which are of great potential importance to rural areas and hence of great interest to me. Last year, at my request, Congress provided $1 million for the Department of Energy to study the feasibility of small modular nuclear reactors for deployment in remote locations. That report is now done and in brief, the Department of Energy has concluded that such reactors are not only feasible, but may eventually be a very desirable alternative for many remote communities without access to clean, affordable power sources. Importantly, one of the most desirable remote reactor types the Department examined was a reduced sized version of the GT-MHR called the Remote Site Modular Helium Reactor. Given the outstanding characteristics of this remote reactor as identified in the Department's report and given that the Department is already developing the basic technology via the Russian program, I believe the Department of Energy should focus on further developing the RS-MHR in the upcoming year. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I received late word of this little seance and wanted to make sure that I was present to thank our friend who is retiring. My first father-in-law said that English is the only language in which that word means other than go to bed. I am glad to know that Elizabeth is going on to another career and a beautiful place in the country. And I am here to wish her very well. I can remember the various steps of her employment in the Senate. At each level she has excelled and deserved the promotions she has gotten. But above all, Catherine and I will remember the trips that she and her husband have taken with us as she represented the Senate so well as one of our officers. I have no prepared remarks. I heard the leaders' very kind remarks. I join with both leaders in wishing you well and expressing our sadness that you are leaving because you have been really one of the Senate in terms of your services here. We will miss you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President there is a serious crisis in my home State of Alaska on the Kenai Peninsula, where literally millions of trees have been killed due to insect infestation. This is causing a major fire danger situation. Many homes and communities are at risk. I was very disturbed to learn recently that the Forest Service had initiated a prescribed burn near Seward that got away from them when the wind shifted. While fortunately the fire was contained before it damaged private property, this incident causes me to be concerned about the level of oversight the agency uses when burning in these very high risk areas.

Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the chairman's remarks. I just recently met with Chief Dale Bosworth of the Forest Service and expressed my concern. I asked the chief to promptly provide me with a report that addresses how communities that are at risk can be assured when the agency plans a prescribed burn, that all potential factors are taken into account, and the decision to initiate a prescribed burn has been adequately reviewed. I also asked the chief to insure that local elected officials concerns are accounted for before a burn is ignited and to look at naming a Forest Service official in each region who would be in charge of approving any burn plans. I have also provided an amendment that I understand is in the managers package that addresses the specific situation with the prescribed burn I just noted on the Kenai and other areas of high fire risk across the country. This amendment provides the Forest Service with the authority to use $15,000,000 of Wildland Fire Management funds on adjacent non-federal lands, using all authorities available to the agency under its State and Private Forestry Appropriation. These funds will be available for reducing fire hazard on adjacent non-federal lands and protecting communities when hazard reduction activities planned on adjacent national forest lands. The Forest Service assures me that portions of these funds will be used to protect communities on the Kenai Peninsula. I expect the Forest Service to strongly consider areas of the Kenai as candidates for the stewardship end results contracting, as specified in Section 347 of public law 105-277, and which the committee has amended to provide for up to 28 additional contracts.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I have great respect for the Senator from Missouri. I am constrained to advise him, Senator Byrd and I gave our word to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget that we would not include any emergency funds in this supplemental appropriations bill this year. We did so because we were informed that there was, in fact, a substantial increase request to be presented by the President for the year 2002. We have, as all Members of the Senate know, received that request. It is substantial--over $18 billion. This money that is in the amendment of the Senator from Missouri could not be spent before that would be available anyway. So I hope the Senator might consider relying upon us to work with him in the future and help us honor our commitment to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I see my good friend from Hawaii seeks some time. Would he like to comment also?

Mr. STEVENS. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is the first bill that Senator Byrd has handled now as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I in my new role as ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. I thank Senator Byrd for his courtesy. I have not seen the supplemental handled as fairly and evenly as this has been. We have responded to almost every request made by Senators from either side. I congratulate the Senator for this night and for the fact that the bill presented by the Appropriations Committee has been sustained.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Florida is correct. Clarifying the ability of the Army to retain this property will allow the Secretary of the Army to heat and otherwise maintain the buildings through the Alaska winter so that they are not irreparably damaged. This will allow the buildings to be preserved until a future decision is made.