Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from California 2 minutes and apologize. She did recognize me for a four- line comment. I yield myself what time I use to make this statement: The issue has been raised about large aircraft. That is a different issue. We have gone back and checked what this issue is. This is support aircraft. The Air Force told us today they will have to add $900 million to the budget to maintain and upgrade the existing support aircraft for the next 10 years. Leasing these smaller aircraft to replace them will cost $525 million over the next 10 years. If our pilot program works, these aircraft in what we call the CINC Support Pilot Program will save $275 million. I think that is a good idea. It makes sense to try it for the UC-35s, and I hope the Senate will support that. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. STEVENS. I do and will be interested in personally reviewing the reports in advance of the fiscal year 2002 appropriations cycle. I thank my colleague for her dedication and commitment to the armed forces.

Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Maine addressing the utility of a multi-function short take-off and landing fixed wing aircraft for the Army National Guard and the Special Forces Groups.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Maine for her work to establish and hold the necessary shipbuilding rate for the nation's defense. I also recognize that the sustained investment of $10 to $12 billion in the shipbuilding account is necessary to maintain a minimum shipbuilding rate of 8.7 ships per year. Specifically, in regard to the LPD-17 program, the committee recognizes that the Navy has never employed such a rigorous new approach for a new class of ships--wherein the goal is to have 95 percent of the design work completed before construction begins, rather than much lower levels in previous designs. This is an important fact, because it means the design work will lead to efficient construction of these ships, and set the standard for the next generation ship designs.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank my colleague for her dedication to this issue. During our trip to the shipyard in her state to examine new facilities and to meet with company officials first hand, I was impressed with the level of leadership, innovation, workmanship and coordination. I am also encouraged by information that has been forthcoming from the Navy and industry regarding their progress in resolving possible LPD-17 program management issues. It is my intent that should additional funding become available, it will be applied to the uninterrupted construction of these necessary ships.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I appreciate being made aware of the importance of the CMIS project, and that this program's goal will ultimately lead to great savings to the services by decreasing life cycle costs of a variety of weapon systems.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, CMIS needs support to be fully realized. The Department of the Navy should ensure that the funds within the President's budget are applied to this priority. I am hopeful that additional funds can be made available to fully implement CMIS.

Mr. STEVENS. Let me state at the outset, unequivocally, that I fully and strongly support the LPD 17 program, a program for which the distinguished junior Senator from Maine has been an effective advocate. As I stated in my opening remarks to this bill, I am committed to seeing the program progress and delivery to the Navy of no fewer than the required twelve ships. The recommendation the committee has made and the language in bill is intended to stabilize the design of the program fiscal year 2001. It does not reflect a lessening of our commitment to the program itself, in its entirety. I agree with my dear friend and colleague that the LPD 17 is a critical program for the Navy and Marine Corps service members and that it continues to provide our marines essential transport to troubled areas around the world.

Mr. STEVENS. My friend has raised excellent points. I have been briefed on these technical and programmatic concerns and have discussed them with both the Department of Defense (Navy) and the industry teams. They have both presented their projected impacts of the appropriations provision and mark on the program. However, the recommendation of the committee is to get the program back on a stable track with a stable design. This bill provides some $200 million in order to ensure that there will be no interruption in work at the affected shipyards.

Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the comments of the senior Senator from North Carolina. He has been diligent in reminding us of the plight facing the flood victims of North Carolina, and I appreciate his strong interest in making sure that additional aid is forthcoming as quickly as possible.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I believe that we completed action on this bill in almost record time. I want to personally thank Steven Cortese, majority staff director, and Charles Houy, minority staff director, for their very intense work, and their respective staffs. Since last Friday we have been working to try to eliminate some problems in this bill. Without question, they are responsible for the speed and dispatch with which we have been able to handle this bill. There are many amendments we are now taking to conference that may be subject to later modification. We will do our very best to defend the Senate position as represented by the vote that has just been taken in the Senate. I thank my distinguished friend and colleague from Hawaii for his usual cooperation. Without it, passage of this bill would have been impossible. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the operational support airlift fleet has decreased from 520 in 1995 to 364 today. We are reducing the number of these aircraft. Now we are starting a pilot project of leasing them to see if we can save even more money. But we must go through the concept of replacing these aging aircraft. By the way, one last comment as a pilot: People say: Well, they can land and take off, and they can land and take off, and they can land and take off. I am also a pilot. Every time you let down and land and take off again, you use more fuel than if you fly straight through. These planes are designed to save us money by having ``the legs,'' as we call it, to go the distance and not have to stop and burn more fuel as they land and take off. Does the Senator wish any more time? Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. I serve notice that I intend to move to table the amendment of the Senator from California.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I need to find out whether it is proper for us to go ahead and have this vote now. We had intended to complete the Wellstone amendment. Does it meet with the approval of both sides to proceed with this amendment now? I want to make a statement before we have the rollcall.

Mr. STEVENS. I agree with the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, following this vote, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes equally divided on the Wellstone amendment so the Senator can explain his amendment and we can respond.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. That appears to be a likely outcome.

Mr. STEVENS. On your time. If you want to spend your time, I am happy to use it. Mr. President, on her time I yield to her.

Mr. STEVENS. No, you didn't.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regret to say I have a 5-page list and I didn't have 2 pages in front of me. The Senator is right. We are working on those now, to notify Members on our side that we will oppose the amendments as listed on the basis we do not feel we can accept them because of the provisions of the existing bill and because of the availability of funds. We will proceed to do just as the Senator has indicated. If Members, however, will accept our modifications--the Senator is aware of the modifications list? We again repeat, if they accept our modifications, although we oppose the amendments in the present form, we will include them in the managers' package. We hope to get a reply back from Members. Of course, Members have the right to offer their amendments and request a vote of the Senate. We are indicating, regarding those that we have not put on the acceptable list, we will oppose those amendments.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3363 (Purpose: To protect the privacy of an individual's medical records)

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is one of the amendments we have indicated, under the authority we received yesterday, Senator Inouye and I have modified, and, as modified, we are prepared to agree with the Senator and ask for him to proceed on that basis.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, pursuant to the previous order, I ask that we stand in recess.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for 10 minutes each.