Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment of the Senator from Hawaii to add to that list. The amendment deals with obtaining a plan for refurbishing of the AWACS plane loaned to the United States after 9/11.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. We accept the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment of the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, and I ask it be reported.

Mr. STEVENS. I believe this amendment has been accepted on both sides. I ask it be agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. I, too, would be glad to join with my colleagues to review this matter.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for bringing this matter to the Senate's attention and for his continuing support of America's armed forces.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate the McCain amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Congress has passed legislation, and the President has signed it, that authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to lease, for up to 10 years, these aircraft. It was a decided policy of the Congress based on our advice. The capital costs of acquiring such equipment now would be such that it would move out of the budget other items that have to be acquired in the moneys needed for homeland defense. So we authorized the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into agreements not to exceed 10 years for these aircraft. They are readily available for lease. We limit the time they may lease them. But it is a very successful practice in the business world and I think would be a successful practice for the Department of Defense to lease this equipment when necessary and not to have standing around equipment that is not needed. We believe a leasing policy is the best policy for this type of aircraft. There are a series of competing aircraft available, but it is up to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force to decide which ones they want. My advice to my friend from Hawaii, and I think he will join me, is that we oppose this legislation. It would in effect modify the legislation, the law that was passed in the last Congress that authorized the procedure for which we are making available funds in this bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank Senator Dorgan for his courtesy.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I, along with General Joe Ralston, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, commend the past success and continued contributions of those men and women of our Armed Services who comprise the United States European Command. This Thursday, August 1, the U.S. European Command will celebrate its 50th anniversary. Over the last 50 years the European Command has played a critical part in the successful preservation of peace and stability in and around Europe, and they continue to do so today. For more than 35 years during the cold war, the primary mission of the European Command Headquarters, established in Frankfurt, Germany in 1952, was to fulfill United States treaty obligations to NATO by providing combat ready forces to counter the Soviet threat and ensure peace in Europe, Africa and portions of the Middle East. With the collapse of the Soviet empire, the responsibilities of the European Command changed dramatically. Since that time, it has engaged in a wide spectrum of security cooperation activities that have helped ensure stability and promote Democratic and market-oriented governments in countries emerging from Communism and other authoritarian regimes. Simultaneously, it has conducted numerous operations to end regional wars, reduce ethnic conflict and limit the suffering caused by man-made and natural disasters. Our European Command continues to make valuable contributions today. To conduct security cooperation activities and respond to regional threats to our national interests, The Command typically has approximately 117,000 service members, or about eight percent of the U.S. active duty military. This is a small investment by any measure for such a vast range of responsibilities across Europe, the Middle East and two-thirds of Africa. As I speak, the European Command is involved in five on-going combat operations. Its forces are patrolling the skies over the northern no- fly zone to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolutions against Iraq as part of Operation Northern Watch. In Bosnia and Kosovo, the European Command contributes with our NATO allies in Operations Joint Forge and Joint Guardian respectively, to ensure security, promote stability and allow those fragmented societies to rebuild their civil institutions and restore the rule of law. In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, it is providing on-call support to the international community's monitors working there as part of Operation Amber Fox. And, U.S. European Command is making substantial contributions to Operation Enduring Freedom and to the global war on terrorism in general. Most recently, it deployed a small force to the Republic of Georgia to train and equip their forces to more effectively protect their own territorial integrity. The invaluable contributions of our military men and women working at the Headquarters--today located in Stuttgart, Germany--have continued without interruption. The legacy of their service, dedication and accomplishments is to be highly commended, and the importance of their continued contributions to future regional peace and to the preservation of our national interests cannot be overstated. On the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the U.S. European Command, it is fitting that we honor the millions of dedicated American men and women who have served, and continue to serve our Nation overseas. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, a provision I have worked on with my Alaska colleagues, Congressman Don Young and Senator Frank Murkowski, is included in this bill as section 3002. In conversations with air carriers in Alaska and the Postal Service, we have found that there are serious problems with mail delivery to rural Alaska under the current bypass mail system. This provision, titled the Rural Service Improvement Act of 2002, is derived from S. 1713 in the Senate and H.R. 3444 in the House. It contains several technical changes that will resolve these problems. The bypass mail system is unique to my State: It was created by section 5402 of title 39 of the U.S. Code, and attempts to ensure reliable and affordable passenger service and the delivery of food, goods, and basic consumer necessities to rural Alaska communities. I have stated on numerous occasions during Postal Service hearings before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that the establishment and maintenance of post offices and post roads applies to my State as it does the rest of the Union. As a member of the committee with oversight over Postal operations, I take the responsibilities of the Postal Service very seriously. As an Alaskan, I am even more concerned. Almost every item found on the shelf of a rural Alaska general store arrives via the bypass mail system. This system was created through legislation originated by the Senate in 1970 and today it is the lifeline of rural Alaska. In addition to ensuring delivery of food and goods, the bypass mail system assured that passenger seats would be available to rural Alaskans. The revenues paid to air carriers to transport the bypass mail helps underwrite the cost of this passenger service. The Federal Government's vast ownership of lands in Alaska and the limited access to those lands means that air transportation is the only way to reach most rural communities in Alaska. We are prohibited by the Federal Government from building roads to connect most of our communities and this system assures access by air. In recent years there has been an explosion in the number of carriers eligible to carry bypass mail in Alaska because the threshold requirements for eligibility have been very low. However, few of these new carriers operate in ways that reflect the intent behind the bypass mail program. Instead of providing air transportation to passengers, these carriers use the system to underwrite a portion of their total business plan. Other mail-only carriers use it as the basis of their entire operation. They provide little to no passenger service to Alaska's rural communities. The bypass mail system is divided into two categories: mainline routes and bush routes. Mainline routes are flown by carriers operating larger aircraft capable of carrying many pallets of food and goods. These pallets usually weigh a minimum of 1,000 pounds. To be qualified as a mainline carrier under the current regulations, carriers must operate aircraft certified to carry at least 7,500 pounds of payload capacity. These mainline carriers take bypass mail from one of two acceptance points, Anchorage or Fairbanks, and carry it to ``hubs'' such as Bethel, Barrow, and Nome. From these hubs the mail is distributed to bush communities by smaller bush aircraft. To operate properly and efficiently the system needs healthy mainline and bush carriers. The Rural Service Improvement Act of 2002 resolves many of the problems with mainline operations. It clarifies who is eligible to be a mainline carrier, stabilizes mainline markets, and supports increased passenger service. It limits the entry of new all-cargo carriers to mainline markets where current cargo service is deficient. This bill also gives existing carriers 30 days to correct problems with mail delivery, schedule adherence, or repeated mail damage that the Postal Service deems unacceptable. If no improvements are made new mainline carriers would be eligible to offer service on these routes. In addition, the bill allows new carriers to enter otherwise closed mainline routes if they provide substantial passenger service. This determination will be made on a route-by-route basis. To qualify, a new carrier must regularly make available to the public at least 75 percent of the number of passenger seats on the largest carrier on a give route for 6 consecutive months. After a new carrier is certified as a mainline carrier it must carry 20 percent of the actual passengers on the route to remain qualified. Carriers will design their business plans around passenger service, not just bypass mail. This will enable the bypass mail system to fulfill our original intent: to provide mail and air transportation to Alaskans. The bill also addresses a current problem on routes that receive subsidies from the Department of Transportation's Essential Air Service, EAS, program. Currently DOT establishes a subsidy rate based on a combination of factors, including the size of the community, the desired level of service an show much revenue the EAS carrier can expect to earn from other sources. However, DOT has no role in determining how much mail is carried by EAS carriers. This act addresses this flaw by requiring all nonpriority mail and nonpriority bypass mail be tendered to the contracted EAS carrier on each route, as long as the needs of the Postal Service are being met. This will reduce the cost of the EAS program in Alaska and ensure mail is delivered in a timely fashion. First class and priority mail will still be carried by the Postal Service's preferred provides based on premium delivery standards on these routes. This bill also ensures adequate passenger service for under served communities. Under this act, a new passenger carrier may immediately be tendered bypass mail on a mainline route if all passenger carriers operating under Federal Aviation Rules part 121 leave the market or no part 121 passenger service is available. These provisions mean that under such conditions a new 121 carrier will not have to wait 6 months to provide services. It will get bypass mail immediately in mainline markets with no passenger service. This change will provide mainline communities with quality passenger service as mail revenues underwrite passenger transportation. In addition, this bill addresses a serious problem for rural Alaska. Currently, some rural markets are classified as mainline by the Postal service but have no mainline passenger or bypass mail service. This bill allows bush carriers currently serving those routes to continue carrying bypass mail even if a mainline carrier begins service there. The bush carriers will be paid the lower mainline rate which will reduce costs for the Postal Service while preserving existing passenger service on the those routes. To preserves bush passenger and non-mail freight service on rural routes, if a mainline carrier beings providing service on a traditional bush route, existing bush passenger and on- mail freight carriers may continue to receive bypass mail if they agree to be paid the lower mainline rate. This act allows for equalization on those mainline routes with no current mainline service and on traditional bush routes where a mainline carrier enters. It specifically prohibits bush carriers from entering or operating on mainline routes with existing mainline service, except under specialized circumstances, to ensure that larger aircraft capable of carrying many pallets fly full to the hubs. The act allows the Postal Service to tender bypass mail to bush carriers on mainline routes with existing mainline service if three conditions are met. First, the bush carrier must meet the minimum technical requirements of the operating statute. Second, no similar service is available on the route by the existing mainline carriers. Third, the Postal Service determines that the tender of mail to a bush carrier on the mainline route will not decrease the efficiency of the hub or increase costs for the Postal Service. This test will be applied by the Postal Service on a case-by-case basis. Another feature of the bill is the explicit authorization of ``composite equalization,'' to protect and enhance passenger service. Currently almost all bypass mail flows from an acceptance point to a hub and then on to a bush point. This act allows bush carriers to receive mail at the acceptance point for a direct flight to bush villages without first stopping in the hub. Bush carriers are paid based on what they would have flown to the hub point at the lower mainline rate and then based on what they would have flown from the hub point to the bush village at the lowest bush rate. The provision also recognizes routes where composite equalization or direct flights bypassing the hub exist today. The intent is to promote additional savings for the Postal Service and to preserve existing direct flights for rural Alaskan residents. The act also allows for the creation of future routes at composite rates if carriers meet a four-part test. First, a carriers seeking tender at composite rates must meet the minimum passenger service requirements of the bill. Second, the carriers must qualify to be tendered mail in the hub point being bypassed by the proposed direct route. Third, the carrier must prove that carrying bypass mail on direct routes will not reduce the efficiency of the entire hub operations. Lastly, the Postal Service must determine that allowing the direct flight will save money for that portion of the system. The Postal Service will take into account the cost of flying the mail directly to the bush village from the acceptance point along with the cost of not flying the mail through the hub in terms of payments to other carriers, especially the mainline carriers. The act restricts entry of new cargo-only capacity in mainline markets. All new mainline carriers must also meet the passenger requirements of the bill to be tendered mainline bypass mail. A carrier otherwise qualified to be tendered non-priority bypass mail on January 1, 2001, but not engaged in the regular carriage of mainline bypass mail on that date, is not qualified as an existing carrier. A carrier not qualified as a mainline carrier on January 1, 2001, which has since become qualified does not fulfill the definition of an existing carrier for the purposes of carrying mainline bypass mail. Likewise, a carrier that was tendered mainline bypass mail on January 1, 2001 in improperly sized aircraft does not qualify as an existing carrier. The Rural Service Improvement Act of 2002 also resolves problems with bush community operations. Currently any carrier meeting very minimum qualifications may be tendered bush bypass mail. In a community with 10 qualified carriers each carrier receives approximately 10 percent of the bypass mail on that route. Not all of those carriers also provide passenger or non-mail freight service. This act intends to change this situation by establishing rural mail pools on a route-by-route basis. First, 70 percent of the mail will be tendered to those carriers which provided at least 20 percent of the passenger service on a given route. Twenty percent of the mail will go to non-mail freight carriers which provide at least 25 percent of the non-mail freight service on a given market. The remaining 10 percent of the bypass mail will go to the remaining carriers on the route. After 3 years this 10 percent mail pool will terminate and its mail will be divided among the remaining two pools. The amount of mail in the passenger pool should increase to 75 percent; the remaining 25 percent of bypass mail will go to non-mail freight carriers. The creation of these pool for passenger and non-mail freight carriers should ensure competition in each market without having the mail revenue split between an infinite number of carriers. Based on advice from the department of Transportation, this act includes provisions to increase safety standards. It permits markets to convert from operations under part 135 of the Federal Aviation Rules to part 121 if a part 121 carrier becomes qualified to receive bypass mail in a given market. If this happens, all 135 carriers in the market have 5 years to convert to operations under part 121 in order to continue receiving bypass mail. The bill defines part 121 operations as aircraft carrying passengers and non-priority bush bypass mail on aircraft type certificated to carry at least 19 passengers, which according to the Department of Transportation, are the most efficient aircraft on an air-ton-mile basis that are still reasonably sized for use in rural Alaska. For the purposes of part 121 operators, the bill focuses on the aircraft which actually carry the mail. All carriers in Alaska are put on notice of the requirements of conversion from part 135 to part 121. After a 6-year period if a 121 carrier becomes eligible for bypass mail on any route, 135 carriers on that route have one year to convert to part 121 to continue receiving mail. Saving the Postal Service money by requiring the use of more efficient and larger aircraft, because of conversion to part 121 is an important goal of this bill. This also improves passenger service and safety. In a market which can physically support 121 operations, all passenger carriers in that market should be encouraged to provided increased safety and efficiency. Some markets in Alaska may not receive 121 passenger service due to a lack of ground infrastructure or the population base to support 19-seat passenger aircraft. In these communities smaller airplanes operated under part 135 are an integral part of the Alaska transportation system. Also, if a 121 carrier begins service in a market and withdraws, 135 carriers in that market need not convert 121 in order to carry bypass mail in the market. The bill encourages passenger competition in bush markets. Where there is only one qualified passenger carrier under the bill, meaning it carries at least 80.01 percent of the passengers on a given route, then no other carrier could qualify as a passenger carrier in that market. As an incentive for other passenger carriers to enter the market to become the second largest carrier, thus increasing competition, the act requires the Postal Service to tender 20 percent of the 70 percent mail pool to the next largest passenger carrier during the first three years of the act, 14 percent of the overall bypass mail volume for the market. After the first 3 years the Postal Service may provide 20 percent of the 75 percent pool to the next largest passenger carrier, or 15 percent of the bypass mail for the market. As previously stated, carriers operating under part 121 must use aircraft type-certificated to carry at least 19 passengers. Carriers operating under part 135 must use aircraft type-certificated to carry at least five passengers. Finally, recognizing the special needs of markets with water-only airports the bill requires water-landing aircraft to be type-certificated to carry at least three passengers. These requirements do not require these seats to be installed at all times. Rather, carriers must use minimum sized aircraft to increase efficiencies for the Postal Service and, passenger seats must be installed and insured when needed on such aircraft. A carrier may fly an extra section with only cargo or mail as long as the plane meets the minimum size requirements and the carrier otherwise qualifies to carry mail as a qualified passenger or non-mail freight carrier under the Act. Under provisions in the bill, to avoid over-concentration in the markets, no carrier which qualifies both as a passenger carrier and a non-mail freight carrier may get mail under both the 70 percent--75 percent pool in 3 years--and the 20 percent pool--25 percent in 3 years--at the same time unless no other carrier qualifies in the market. A substantial amount of the savings for the Postal Service comes from the creation of new bush rates for the carriage of mail. After collecting all of the carriers' cost data the Department of Transportation should first calculate the costs for all bush part 121 passenger carriers, then for 135 carriers, and finally for 135 carriers where only water landings are available to create a new rate for each class of carrier. In markets with qualified 121 carriers, all passenger carriers will be paid the 121 rate, including all 135 passenger carriers operating in those markets. For markets with only 135 carriers and water landing markets the new 135 rate will be applied evenly. The act provides significant penalties for carriers which substantially misstate data just to qualify for bypass mail. However, it also gives DOT and the Postal Service the flexibility they need. Under this bill, both DOT and the Postal Service may grant waivers for otherwise unqualified passenger carriers if the carriers are operating in good faith, meaning they are making great efforts to provide passenger or non-mail freight service and are not using the bypass mail revenues as the primary means of their business. In addition, if the Postal Service or DOT determines a carrier meets all of the technical qualifications to operate in the system, but is not providing another substantial service, i.e. passenger or non-mail freight service, then it may be removed from the system. When making this determination DOT and the Postal Service should look at the quantity and quality of existing service in the community, including passenger carriage, and the proposed quality and quantity of service for the carrier seeking a waiver, to allow a 121 passenger carrier to become qualified if it reduces costs for the Postal Service and improves passenger service in a market, even if it has not provided a full 12 months of service in the market at the required levels under the Act. To allow the Postal Service and DOT to collect 12 months of T-100 data from the carriers before establishing the new tender policy and setting new rates, most of the bush provisions will not take effect for 15 months from the date of enactment. Also, the bill requires the DOT to review the need for a bush rate case at least every 2 years. To maximize the savings for the Postal Service initial rate reviews by DOT should be performed expeditiously. All carriers in the State are allowed at least 1 year to begin providing additional services to the communities before reductions in mail tender go into effect. Stating 6 months after the enactment date, the act permits the Postal Service and DOT to remove a carrier from the bypass mail program if the carrier was not attempting to qualify as a passenger or non-mail freight carrier. The bill intends to promote safety by empowering the Secretary of Transportation to shut down any operation where substantial evidence exists that the carrier is flying in an unsafe manner to qualify for the tender of bypass mail. Such evidence includes flying in unsafe conditions or without proper training and equipment, especially with passengers on board. The bill allows for the merger or acquisition of airlines. If two or more airlines merge, the two carriers' data for the previous period of time may be counted together for the purpose of qualifying for bypass mail. The merged carrier must show it is otherwise qualified to carry bypass mail under the provisions of the act. Also, where two or more air carrier certificates merge into one certificate, the carriers cannot later be split up and operated separately. To allow the Postal Service to deliver the mail in the most efficient manner possible, under the provisions of this act, and under its internal statutory and regulatory provisions, the Postal Service may remove a carrier from the bypass mail system if it does not meet the requirements of this act. The act states previous carriage of bypass mail does not create a contract for guaranteeing future tender of bypass mail. Rather, the tender of bypass mail is only a contract for the carriage of each particularly batch of mail. In summary, this bill intends to reduce the Postal Service's losses on the bypass mail program while improving safety and stabilizing passenger service. The full Senate Governmental Affairs Committee agreed, unanimously voting to pass the bill out of Committee on May 22, 2002. While some may argue this is re-regulation of the airline industry in Alaska, it is not. This bill requires carriers seeking eligibility to carry the bypass mail in Alaska to meet basic tests and minimum requirements. This is the time to correct the problems with the Alaska system before it collapses completely. To do otherwise would be to turn our backs on the rural communities of Alaska and the commitments the Federal Government has made to them as a result of broad Federal land ownership in Alaska.

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

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

Mr. STEVENS. I am optimistic that the larger this program becomes, the more humanitarian aid will be delivered to those in need around the world. Gain, I thank my friend for bringing this amendment and look forward to its future success. (At the request of Mr. Stevens, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, may I make an inquiry to my friend from Alabama? Is it correct that the TRANSFORM program recently gained global recognition of its activities at a transportation conference hosted by USAID? I understand that in speaking of its activities, the World Food Programme's representative praised the program and offered it the use of spare space on their ships. This spurred others to offer their vessels--such as American President Line, Maersk and CSX.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the supplemental provides language supporting the shipment of humanitarian supplies to poor nations. My friend from Alabama was the initiator of this language and I was hoping he could provide the Senate with more information on this topic.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am pleased to join the Chairman of our Committee, Senator Byrd, in recommending this conference report to the Senate. The consideration of this conference report today in the Senate, following its overwhelming adoption in the other body yesterday, reflects the true consensus that surrounds this agreement. While not an easy process, the compromises reached on this bill meet the most vital Defense and Homeland Security needs facing our Nation. In addition, this agreement fulfills the commitment of the Congress and the President to meet the needs of the victims of the attacks of September 11 of last year. While passed in very different forms by both Houses of Congress, this conference report adheres to the priorities submitted to Congress by the President. With the funds added by Congress in the form of contingent emergency appropriations, the President will have even greater flexibility to address challenges not fully foreseen when his request was transmitted on March 21, if he approves the emergency designation. Additional funds for the Department of Defense will address the mobilization of National Guard and Reserve personnel from around the Nation. Funds for port security grants and the Coast Guard will protect our Nation's maritime commerce and trade. Funds added in this bill for aids response in Africa will jump start the international effort to address that scourge. The House and Senate Both included additional funds to assist Israel, and those prepared to join Israel in seeking a permanent and lasting peace. The conference report makes an initial down payment to respond to dramatic flood and fire emergencies in several states, particularly in the West. While many activities were reduced during the conference to meet the funding limit sought by the President, and the OMB, one component not touched was support for New York. Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg deserve our continued support for their leadership and determination to recover from the attacks last year. This bill keeps our word to New York and to those officials. Despite suggestions from OMB, the conferees rejected any cut to the funding for reconstruction and renovation of the Pentagon. Restoration of the sector of the Pentagon damaged on September 11 is on track for re-opening on the one year anniversary of the attack-- really our Nation's center of military strategy. We will keep faith with those who died defending our Nation at the Pentagon as well as those in New York. I want to commend our Chairman, Senator Byrd, and the House Chairman, Bill Young, for their exceptional work to bring this conference report before the Congress. Along with House Ranking Member Obey, I have worked to ensure completion of this bill prior to the August recess and in time to make a difference during the remainder of this fiscal year. If the President makes the certification that he has the authority to do within 30 days after passage of this bill, the moneys will be available to use for the contingent emergencies we have specified. The sooner that happens, the better it will be for our Nation. But above all, I urge all Members of the Senate to approve this conference report and send it to the President as quickly as possible so it will be possible to get this money to our people--particularly to the Department of Defense and all our people in uniform--by the beginning of August.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I yield any time on our side. The Senator from West Virginia authorizes me to yield back all time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, a recent article from the New York Times describes the infestation of spruce bark beetles on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska. This is another aspect of global climate change that has deadly implications in my state. On the Kenai Peninsula, the spruce bark beetle has infested nearly 95 percent of the spruce trees, which represents about four million acres of dead or dying forest. Some scientists believe that a succession of warm years in Alaska has allowed spruce bark beetles to reproduce at twice their normal rate. This warming trend in Alaska has coincided with a huge outbreak of these beetles and the death of a forest nearly twice the size of Yellowstone National Park. This terrible situation, in one of my state's most beautiful tourist destinations, has created a dangerous environment for a large scale fire in this region. Over half of the people of Alaska live in the path of this fire. The Forest Service, under the previous Administration, in my State would not permit the selective cutting of infested trees, which would have mitigated, if not stopped, the outbreak of the deadly beetle. When timber sales were offered in this area extreme environmental lawsuits stopped any removal of the ever growing fuel load. My state is now in a very dangerous situation--eight years of beetle kill stands in the forests on the Kenai Peninsula and the insect continues to spread. This article demonstrates that. I call it to the attention of the Senate because of the emphasis placed on fires already started in the West and that are ongoing. This is the most deadly situation I have ever encountered in terms of potential fire and the hazard in this enormous area--4 million acres of dead or dying trees caused by this beetle. I think it ought to be dealt with by all concerned. I hope we have some money in the regular bill for this matter. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record. I call it to the attention of the Senate.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I am sorry to do this, Mr. President, but my distinguished friend, our chairman, I think is implying that this was done at the request of the White House. That is not my information. It was a decision of the Speaker because the Office of Management and Budget has not delivered to us the information we need to close this bill. The Speaker asked, notwithstanding the White House request that we get the bill done today, that we wait until we get the information from the Office of Management and Budget. If the Senator will let me have one other comment, then I will yield back. I apologize for interrupting the distinguished President pro tempore, chairman of our committee, but the difficulty is this: We have faced such an enormous demand from the Office of Management and Budget to adhere to a line, a top line barrier that the Office of Management and Budget is willing to accept, $1.6 billion from the airline bill, airline supplemental bill, stabilization bill, that expired. We have such a blind mindset down there about top lines that we are unwilling to look at reality. The reality is, the Senate and the House have worked, and we are almost closed, and now we are waiting for some more Enron-type offsets, offsets that are meaningless in order to justify this top line mentality with which we are dealing. From my point of view, I think we should go see the President. I am going to ask to see the President. I have been here 34 years, not nearly as long as my friend from West Virginia, but I, too, have never gone through a period as I have gone through on this supplemental. This is not worthy of the constitutional process at all, and it is time we had an understanding of what the role of the Congress is with regard to appropriations. Right now we face this demand, and because we wanted to get the bill out, we did meet with the Office of Management and Budget Director last night. Our staffs worked late into the night, and we came to an agreement about what we would do. But the Office of Management and Budget was to submit rescissions to us or at least changes in their budget by 8 a.m. this morning. They are not here. But the Senator from West Virginia is absolutely right, part of it is a reduction in defense. We fought to increase defense. Some of these offsets may make a little sense in this sense; that the supplemental was submitted to us in March and there certainly has been a series of months pass by that people were not paid to carry out the work that was covered by the supplemental. That would be a legitimate offset, if it were identified properly. We were told last night that there was such a list. When we asked to see it, it didn't appear. When we asked for it to appear here by 8, it was agreed to, to be here by 8. It didn't appear this morning either, hardly worthy of people who are working for the President. The only thing on which I cannot agree with my friend from West Virginia is that this is the President. The President is ill served by what is going on, in my opinion. I hope people understand: This is blind adherence to a line that was established--a crazy line, in my opinion--without regard to the needs of the country at all, and we are asked now to get down on our knees and really thank God for this list when it comes. But I have to tell you, my good friend, I am up to here with this process. People know I have a short fuse anyway. I hope to calm down before I see the President, but I do thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding to me.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?