Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in the early part of the Eisenhower years, I joined that administration and later came to Washington and then met a whole series of World War II veterans. We talked and dreamed then of a memorial to a war in which we had just been. Fourteen years ago, the World War II memorial was conceived and the process started, to have it built here in Washington, DC. Eight years ago, the Congress authorized this memorial; 6 years ago the first of 22 public hearings on the site and design of the memorial commenced. Construction was scheduled to start last month, but the memorial is now bogged down in legal and procedural issues. Of the 16 million men and women who served in World War II, only 5 million are alive today. We are now losing veterans of the greatest generation at the rate of 1,100 veterans a day. I questioned that, but we checked it; 1,100 veterans of World War II are passing away each day. By the year 2004, there will be less than 4 million of us. In my home State of Alaska, in the last 10 years, we lost one-third of the veterans whom I had known and worked with so long. The site design of our memorial has been endorsed by the Historic Preservation Officer of the District of Columbia, it has received four endorsements of the District of Columbia's Preservation Review Board, and five approvals each from the Committee on Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission. The memorial is governed by the Commemorative Works Act of 1986. That act gave the final site and design approval to the Commission on Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission and the Secretary of the Interior. Eight sites were considered for the memorial. In 1998, the design was approved by the Commission on Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission and the site selection was reaffirmed. In 1998, the National Park Service, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, completed an environmental assessment and issued a finding of no significant impact. In the year 2000, the final design was approved by the Commission on Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission, and on November 11 of last year, the year 2000, a ceremonial groundbreaking took place for this memorial. More than 500,000 Americans have sent donations to the fundraising campaign, 48 State legislatures have done the same thing, 1,100 schools and more than 450 veterans groups, who represent 11 million veterans. Even though all the procedural steps have been taken, the memorial has now been delayed because of a procedural issue involving the National Capital Planning Commission. The National Capital Planning Commission decision of 2 years ago of including a World War II memorial has been placed in question because the former National Capital Planning Commission chairman continued to serve after the expiration of his term. The legislation that would originally establish this commission permitted members to serve until replaced, but when that law was amended, inadvertently the language allowing continuous service fell out with no explanation. That created a technicality that has forced a review now, again, by the National Capital Planning Commission. This memorial has been through 22 public hearings, it has complied with every applicable law, and this technicality regarding the National Capital Planning Commission Board should not penalize the millions of veterans who served our country honorably when asked to do so. They want to see this memorial. I congratulate the House of Representatives, particularly Congressman Stump, for sending this legislation to the Senate. I thank all who have been very considerate in trying to work out the problems relating to it. I believe I am joined by all the veterans of World War II who serve in this body in urging that the House bill be enacted and sent to the President for his signature immediately. For many of us, this year marks the 55th year since we left the military service. We were in World War II and returned home. We want to see this memorial finished while a significant number of our comrades are still alive. We want to be there when this memorial is opened. Memorial Day for 2001 is just 1 week from next Monday. The veterans of this Nation intended to celebrate the initiation of this memorial on that day. They will not be able to do so unless the bill gets to the President in time to sign it. This is more than a dream of our veterans; it is a demand on our country. I urge no Senator stand in the way of the prompt enactment of this bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I congratulate the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee for developing a bill that has secured enormous bipartisan support in this Congress. This is an important program for many states. I have considered cosponsoring the measure. However I withhold sponsorship at this time because there is a problem relative to which native entities in Alaska are eligible for such funding. Alaska native corporations have no government powers but manage, as private landowners, twelve percent of our state. The federal government has recognized 229 tribes in Alaska most of which do not have governmental power over land. The bill is ambiguous as to whether Alaska native corporations, are eligible entities as ``Indian Tribes.'' I have not raised this with the committee, but do request assurance that the conference will address this matter.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am grateful to my great friend from West Virginia. I am chairing a hearing at the present time of the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations. But I am saddened to come to the Chamber for this occasion to recognize and comment upon the retirement of Jim English from the staff of our Appropriations Committee. I say to Jim, very frankly, all of the members of our staff, minority, majority, Members and staff, extend to him our heartfelt congratulations and thanks for all he has done and our desire that he and his wife Phyllis and their daughters and grandchildren will have a grand time. I can't fathom a young man such as that deciding to retire, but I hope there are some fishing holes along the line that he will explore, and other activities to do. My first father-in-law told me that English is the only language in which ``retire'' means other than go to bed. I hope it is a misuse of the term ``retire'' in terms of referring to Jim English because he has much yet to contribute to our country and to his family. Senator Byrd and I have worked together with Jim English since 1973. Although he left the committee and worked for Amtrak, as my colleague mentioned, and he worked under the leadership of the Senator from West Virginia on his staff and with the leadership staff, he has been back again with our committee since 1989, according to our figures, and has served as Senator Byrd's majority staff director and now as the Democratic staff director in this equalness we are now celebrating. In the time I have been chairman, Jim English has not just been an adviser to Senator Byrd, he has been our adviser, the committee's adviser, and he has worked with us in a way that has been deserving of the trust we have imposed and conferred upon him. He is a man who believes in close bipartisan relationships. On a committee such as ours, he has fostered that by his actions and by his work. Much of the credit for the close bipartisan relationship we have now comes from the work he did before when Senator Byrd was chairman of the committee. That period has extended through the time I have been chairman. We have a different relationship on our committee. It is a committee that recognizes the work has to be done. There is only one committee that actually has to pass 13 bills every year. No matter what happens, those bills have to pass the Congress. They have to be approved by our committee. As my colleague mentioned, there are many issues that arise, many specific battles where animosities develop within our ranks. I have never seen Jim English take part in that. He has been a man of calm temper--unlike me, I might add--and he is one who has worked to ensure that the processes we follow are fair and honorable. I can say without any question that my staff and I have trusted Jim completely. If he tells us anything, it is accepted on its face. There is no reason to go behind Jim English's word. He is a man who has played a central role in the appropriations process for many years. I come to the Chamber to say I will miss him. I really don't like the idea of seeing a young man such as him leave. It raises a question in my mind: Who is the smarter of the two? Anyone who recognizes the caliber of Jim English and his professionalism will understand how much we are going to miss him. I am sure you will find someone to replace him, and it is my hope that we will have the same relationship with whomever that is. But it is a difficult time to have a person such as Jim decide to leave, and I want to say to Jim English that the doors of my offices will always be open to you, no matter the issue and I will continue to rely upon your advice, no matter where you go. I think you have earned the reputation to be accepted in this body as a man of integrity and honor and one who has always kept his word. There is nothing better you can say about a man, in my opinion. I wish I had the capability the Senator from West Virginia has to remember quotes from distinguished authors. I have never tried to develop that capability. But I do want Jim to know we have benefited greatly from his service, whether Republican or Democrat. The country is better off for you having spent time with us. We hope you will enjoy your life from now on and come back to see us from time to time. Whatever your new endeavors may be, you have our best wishes, and you have my assurance that I would be ready to help you in any regard.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this morning as I read the Wall Street Journal, I came across Mark Helprin's article called ``The Fire Next Time.'' The thesis of Mr. Helprin is this: The consensus that doing much to protect America is preferable to doing too little has been destroyed. If the President does not rebuild it, we will suffer the consequences. I commend this article to the Senate. I do not think it is totally the President's responsibility. It certainly falls on many of us to help the President and the Secretary of Defense and those in the National Security Agency and the Vice President, all of them working on what should be our defense policy, to find ways to rehabilitate our national defense. Very clearly, we do not have the defense we need for the future. At one point in this article, Mr. Helprin says this: God save the American soldier from those who believe that his life can be protected and his mission accomplished on the cheap. For what they perceive as an extravagance is always less costly in lives and treasure than the long drawn-out wars it deters altogether or shortens with quick victories. I do hope all of us will think about how we can restore our national prestige in terms of being the superpower of the world and having the power to defend that position. I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to raise a concern with the Chairman of the Budget Committee regarding advance appropriations. Specifically, I am concerned about the funding for public broadcasting. Consistent with the President's budget request, the Resolution provides that any advance appropriation would be scored in the year in which it is appropriated instead of the year in which it is obligated, the past policy. This provision was included because of past problems with the practice. Last year, for example, the Administration threatened to veto appropriations bills unless increases in funding were provided using the mechanism of advance appropriations. The provision is intended to close that loophole. Despite its strong support for this provision, the Office of Management and Budget has indicated its willingness to examine specific programs, on a case by case basis, to determine whether an advance appropriation is merited for programmatic reasons. For example, I was informed today the Office may consider advance funding for certain defense construction or procurement items which by definition often involve multi-year obligations. My office has talked to OMB officials as recently as this morning on this issue. They are willing to work with the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee over the recess to determine whether CPB should be granted an exception to the rule. If an agreement could be worked out acceptable to all the parties, I believe the Budget Committee should have the flexibility to consider it in conference if it so chooses.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, speaking for the leader, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of the two pending amendments to the budget resolution. Following 10 minutes for debate, there will be two consecutive votes beginning at approximately 9:30 a.m. Those votes are in relation to the Stabenow and Collins amendments regarding home health. Additional votes will occur during the day. Again, a late night is expected as the Senate nears completion of this budget resolution.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, 10 years ago today Pennsylvania lost a great U.S. Senator, America lost a future President, and I lost a very dear friend. On April 4, 1991, Senator John Heinz was tragically killed in an airplane crash. He was not only a close personal friend. I was chairman of the campaign committee when he was elected. We sat by each other on the floor for years. We traveled together. We fished for blues together off Nantucket. And we worked on many issues together in the Senate. Tonight I make these few comments in remembrance of my colleague. John Heinz was an extraordinary man. A person of great personal wealth, he was a Senator who cared dearly and deeply about average men and women, a Senator that fought to tear down antiquated age discrimination laws which failed to recognize and value the importance of older workers, a Senator who championed trade relief and adjustment for working men and women, as well as business, who fought any administration to ensure that workers hurt by our trade laws would not be victims of poverty or despair, a Senator who clearly recognized that our Nation's Medicare program was in desperate need of overhaul. But he knew his colleagues on each side of the aisle were not then, and are still not today, prepared to fix Medicare. He was a Senator who believed we could address the myriad of environmental concerns of our Nation while still maintaining a balanced recognition of America's needs for resources and business development, and a Senator who cared deeply and loved his family. John Heinz left three sons and a marvelous wife, Teresa. Tonight, I believe John Heinz looks down upon his family and, with that big smile he had which so many of us remember, he must be very, very proud. His family has continued his commitment to his values. John Heinz IV has started a school to help children who are on the verge of being discarded by the public school system realize their value and importance and that people really do care about them. Andre Heinz is pursuing his environmental interests advocacy by helping businesses across the globe understand how they and the environment can coexist and in many instances make larger returns for investors and working men and women. Christopher Heinz is finishing his MBA degree at the same school from which his father graduated. Christopher is likely to follow a business path, as his father did when Jack left Harvard. But his greatest untold story, the untold story of the family, concerns Jack Heinz's wife, partner, spirit, and true love. Teresa Heinz is a personal friend of mine and my wife Catherine, someone we have known for many years. ``Extraordinary'' is the word I use to describe Teresa. Following John's death, she assumed the helm of the many Heinz family philanthropies and has nurtured them since then. They were among the most innovative and pioneering foundations in this Nation. Teresa made sure that none of us forgets John or the visionary work he was pursuing by ensuring the Heinz family philanthropies and the Howard Heinz Foundation and endowment continue the pioneering work started by my friend, Jack Heinz. To honor Jack, Teresa created the Heinz Awards in 1993, a program to remember Jack, as Teresa said then, ``in a way that would inspire not just me, but the rest of us.'' When she announced the program, Teresa explained: I view the Heinz Awards in a sense as the awards of the 21st century because they recognize the very qualities we must embrace if we are to create the sort of future we would want to live in. . . . The Heinz Awards will measure achievements but also intentions. I gave the first of those Heinz Awards to Andy Grove to show just how important they have been to our economy. In 1996 Teresa tested in Pittsburgh her idea on how best to ensure early childhood education development was not just talked about but actually pursued. With a coalition of business leaders, the Heinz endowments launched Teresa's early childhood initiative, called ECI, to begin to tackle the issues of early childhood education and make sure that no family was left behind. In 1998 Teresa founded the Women's Institute to secure retirement, called WISER, to ensure that women, whether they work in or out of the home, would understand pension and retirement issues. Through a partnership with Good Housekeeping magazine, a magazine and supplement entitled ``What Every Woman Needs to Know About Money and Retirement,'' women are better able to be informed and educated on how to prepare for their financial future. That supplement has reached more than 25 million readers and is available in English, Chinese, Portuguese, and Spanish today. Perhaps the most notable is the work that Theresa has done to help explain to legislators at the State and Federal levels, Jack Heinz's vision which he articulated, by the way, more than 14 years ago, that we need to make available a prescription drug benefit to all people 65 and over. Through her work at Heinz family philanthropies, Terry has spearheaded an effort to help legislators understand this complex issue and how States can design solutions to solve this problem--now reaching a crisis state in our country. Dubbed HOPE, the Heinz plan to meet prescription expenses is used by many States such as Massachusetts, Maine, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania, which work with the foundation on strategies to provide prescription drugs for the elderly. That is perhaps the best example of what I believe is the spirit of John Heinz, designing a blueprint to help States determine whether and how they can and whether they will address such a crisis. Because of Theresa Heinz, the Heinz Family Foundation pursues efforts to keep Jack's spirit and vision alive. That is why I am here. And for that, each of us should be grateful. I personally thank her for all she has done. Mr. President, John Heinz, as I said, was my friend. In my own way, I celebrate his spirit each day when I walk on the Senate floor. He is no longer with us in person, but his spirit, his vision, and his unrelenting belief in hope lives with all of us. I am proud to have known this man, John Heinz, and I am proud he was my friend. To Theresa, I send this message: Jack's spirit is right here on the Senate floor. Be assured we will never, ever forget who he was, what he stood for, or his dream for America.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:15 a.m. on Thursday, April 5. I further ask consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume the concurrent budget resolution.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for those reading this, this is the Campbell-Kohl-Hatch Mad Cow and Related Diseases Prevention Act of 2001.

Mr. STEVENS. I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand S. 700 is at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I ask my remarks be charged similarly to those of the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent there be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, and I just attended a press conference concerning exploration in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In attendance were: James P. Hoffa, International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Michael Sacco, Maritime Trade Department, AFL-CIO; Terry O'Sullivan, Building Trades Department; Martin J. Maddaloni, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry; Joseph Hunt, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers; Frank Hanley, International Union of Operating Engineers; Larry O'Toole, Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association; James Henry, Transportation Institute; and Michael McKay, American Maritime Officers Service. I ask unanimous consent that the statement made by Michael Sacco of the Maritime Trades Department of the AFL-CIO be printed in the Record for my colleagues to read. It offers great insight into the reasons why working men and women throughout the country support oil and gas exploration in the coastal plain.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I rise to agree with the Senator from Oklahoma. This amendment in my State is going to be catastrophic. We have many small stations that survive on mass marketing throughout the year at low rates. This will mean they will have to provide those of us who are candidates with the same rates. It makes no sense to me at all. I think it is an invasion of the rights of the people who operate these small independent stations. I agree with what the Senator from Oklahoma said. It is a benefit to candidates. If people are meaning to kill this bill, this is one way to do it.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the time circumstance?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank each of the Senators for their comments. The other night someone asked me how big Alaska really is. We got out the statistics book and examined it. I will bet no one present realizes that my State is larger than Spain, plus France, plus Germany, plus Italy. I would be willing to bet that we send more money to those areas than we spend in Alaska to meet the needs of the Americans who live there.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to yield.

Mr. STEVENS. That is correct.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, under the provisions of rule XXII, I yield the remainder of my hour to the bill's manager.