Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today, we believe the President will sign the first of the 13 appropriations bills we must pass, the military construction bill. I can report to the Senate that we are in conference now on Defense, and we expect to report that bill this evening from conference, or no later than Monday. That could be easily taken up next week sometime. The legislative appropriations bill is waiting for third reading now. It is held up by one amendment, and we are trying to work out an arrangement where we might be able to have that voted on. We are waiting for the House to appoint conferees on the foreign operations bill; the Labor, Health and Human Services Committee; and the Transportation Committee. Those are all the subject of negotiations with the various Departments and the President's advisers, to see if we might find a way to accommodate the desires of the administration regarding those matters. The Interior bill is still on the floor and has a great many amendments. I believe, however, that can be finished easily next week. We have reported to the floor the Agriculture bill, which is a very important bill for us to consider, I believe, before we have the August recess. We have scheduled meetings now with the Appropriations Committee here in the Senate on Tuesday, July 18, for the Commerce- State-Justice bill and the energy and water bill. We believe those bills will be reported to the floor on that day, Tuesday, and could be scheduled sometime before the August recess. We believe we will be able to make the same statement regarding the Treasury and general government bill sometime next week. Hopefully, we will be able to get to that by at least Thursday. What we are saying is that these bills can be acted upon if the Senate decides and commits to getting these bills to conference and, if possible, to the President, before the August recess. I have been speaking out now about the PNTR. I am a firm supporter of the goal there. Maybe there are some amendments that should be considered. But I believe we should get these bills done so that when we come back in September, we can take them from conference and pass them. I call to the attention of the Senate the fact that we will finish our work for September on September 28. September 29 is a holiday, and September 30 comes on the weekend. We have a very short time when we come back to deal with appropriations bills and get them all to the President before the end of the fiscal year. It is my hope that, in the last year of this Presidency, we will avoid the kind of conflicts we have had in the past and try to work together with the President to finish up this term in the spirit of comity, particularly on appropriations bills. That is possible if we can get them up in August. It is not going to be possible if we have to wait until September and try to jam them all in for 2\1/2\ weeks in September. I am taking the floor now with great respect for our leader and for our minority leader. I hope they will help us find the time on the floor between now and the August recess to consider these bills and ask for the commitment of the Senators to help us work to get this job done. I think there is a way that we can wind up this period of 8 years of the Clinton administration without the rancor that we have had in the past, but it can only be done if we make up our minds now that we are going to work--and work some long nights, in fact--to get these bills considered and properly reported. I believe we are making progress. It is my hope that at least the Defense bill and the Labor-Health and Human Services bill will be sent to the President for signature prior to the August recess. I am happy to yield to my good friend from West Virginia. Our committee works on a totally bipartisan basis. I have not done anything without consulting my good friend from West Virginia, the former chairman. I want the Senate to know he has given me good advice all along.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent my amendment No. 3774 be withdrawn.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, regarding the Fort Wainwright central heat and powerplant, on March 5, 1999, the EPA Region 10 issued a notice of violation against the U.S. Army Alaska claiming they had violated the Clean Air Act with their central heat and powerplant. After several meetings between regulators and Army officials, the EPA sent them a settlement offer proposing that the Army pay a $16 million penalty to resolve the alleged clean air violations. In the offer, the EPA advised the Army that it would file a formal complaint if the Army failed to make a good-faith counteroffer within one month. The EPA also indicated that the size of fine sought will likely increase if a complaint was filed. This $16 million penalty is the largest single fine ever sought from the Department of the Army or against any installation within the Department of Defense. It also exceeds the combined total of all other fines previously sought from the Army. While U.S. Army Alaska had been aware for some time that the 50-year old central heat and powerplant required numerous upgrades, significant progress had been made toward bringing the plant into compliance. The Army also had been working closely with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation--which had been delegated Clean Air Act enforcement authority from the EPA--regarding the timetable for compliance. That same year, in fiscal year 1999, the Army sought and received authorization and appropriations from the Congress to build a $16 million baghouse to control emissions from the plant. In addition, an additional $22 million had been budgeted for fiscal year 2000 for plant upgrades. The Army and the Department of Defense were surprised by the basis for the proposed penalty. In EPA's settlement letter, EPA stated that it was seeking to recover the ``economic benefit'' the Army received by not constructing the baghouse sooner. Over $15.8 million of the proposed fine, roughly 98 percent, is directly tied to the ``saved'' cost that U.S. Army Alaska purportedly enjoyed. This is also the first time the EPA proposed a fine whose economic benefit components dwarf the assessed penalty based on the seriousness of the alleged violations. Regarding the EPA visit to Shemya Air Force Base, the Air Force had a 50-year problem of waste and drum accumulation at Shemya Island-- complicated by the large quantity generator status at Shemya AFB. This status required processing of accumulated hazardous wastes from the island within 90 days of generation. To meet the 90-day requirement, airlift had to be used as the primary method of disposal of the accumulated hazardous wastes. Also, the airlift crews had to have special qualifications to handle and process hazardous wastes. From 1989 through 1991, 13,781 gallons of hazardous waste were shipped off Shemya Island. Following the 1991 Gulf War, airlift outside of the Middle East was impossible to get. Complicating matters, Elmendorf AFB in Alaska could not handle the amounts of hazardous waste being returned from remote Alaskan defense sites. Movement of hazardous waste from remote sites came to a standstill due to strained airlift requirements and limited hazardous waste storage and processing capabilities. In January of 1993, the Air Force started airlifting and removing 100 waste drums every week vice 100 per month. Two months later, in March, the EPA gave the Air Force a 10-day notice of inspection. During the inspection, the Air Force had 660 barrels on the Shemya airfield processed awaiting air transportation. During the out-briefing with senior Air Force personnel, the inspectors commented that the Air Force was making good progress in reducing the backlog of waste drums. A long period of time ensued between the inspection and the publicly announced result and proposed fine by EPA. EPA assessed the Air Force a fine of $483,000--this was the largest environmental noncompliance fine levied against the Air Force at that point in time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. STEVENS. I urge the adoption of the amendment. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy and the Senator from Massachusetts. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I have at the desk be accepted in lieu of the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts had an amendment pending concerning section 342 of this bill. We have discussed this. That was an amendment that would change the existing text that came from an amendment I suggested. I will offer an amendment to strike the existing section 342 and insert language we agreed upon. I do believe the Senator from Massachusetts wants to be heard on this. I want a word after his comments.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is very gracious. I have become increasingly concerned about the fines that EPA has been assessing against military reservations or elements of the Department of Defense, and had requested this provision in the bill to curtail that activity. In fact, it would have originally applied to similar fines from State and local agencies also. We have now agreed on a version of this section 342 that will limit the fines that can be assessed against military entities by the EPA to $1.5 million unless the amount in excess of that is approved by Congress. It will be a provision, if accepted, which will be in effect for 3 years. My feeling is that there are many things that go into the operation of the Department of Defense that are subject to review by EPA, and it is my opinion that they have been excessive in terms of applying fines against the military departments. I do believe it results in an alteration of the lands we have for particular installations and it reduces the amount of money available to operate those installations when they face these fines. This amendment does not prohibit the fines. It only says they cannot assess any and have them paid to the EPA in excess of $1.5 million unless that fine is approved by an act of Congress. I thank the Senator for working this out.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from New Mexico is not only speaking about the forests, but people forget that the forests contaminate the private lands nearby. We warned the Forest Service about the beetle infestation in Alaska and urged that the areas be sprayed and be thinned to prevent that from spreading. I regret to tell the Senate just yesterday I had to have people come and cut down two of our beautiful spruce trees on the little lot I own because I and my neighbors, who are adjacent to the national forest, are totally infested--the trees are totally invested by beetles. The beetles are killing the trees. All of this could have been prevented. This is the same as wildfires. In fact, beetle kill is worse than wildfires because it totally consumes the future, and it is very difficult to remove these trees. I commend the Senator. I hope he will reinitiate his proposal. He is correct. Because of the basic problem, all the editorial backlash that was built up against his legislation, we were unable to include that in this bill. But I look forward to working with him this year on this subject to try to force this administration to recognize their responsibility in protecting these national forests and, in doing so, to protect the private property owners nearby.

Mr. STEVENS. I object.

Mr. STEVENS. I object.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum in the absence of a leader. He has asked for a quorum until he returns. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, at a later date I will explain in full what that means. But I make the commitment to the Senator from Texas that on the first available vehicle to the Appropriations Committee we will rescind the action that is in this bill adjusting those pay shifts and taking them into account for future use. They were mechanisms to make available funds that would be used in the 2001 bill, and we can and we will have to make adjustments in other ways in the future. But these shifts have been objected to, and they will not be used this year. I can't say they won't be available in another year. They will not be used in connection with fiscal year 2001.

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

Mr. STEVENS. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I make a point of order that I don't think the bill has to be read. The bill is available to all Members of the Senate.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regret deeply that there is a dispute over these items. It is true that there is some money in the bill, and all of the items the Senator from Arizona mentioned, but one, were in the Senate- passed bill. The Sea Life Center is the only new one. It is a provision to pay a rent for a Sea Life Center, which will close in August unless that can be done. It is a Sea Life Center that has Federal money in it that opened it. If somebody doesn't believe that is an emergency, the right thing is to allow us to vote on it. I am perfectly prepared to muster up 60 votes for that Sea Life Center. I am proud of that Sea Life Center. I say this to the Members of the Senate. There is not one amendment in this bill that was not presented by a Member who is here. I assume the Members are prepared to vote for the items they told us were emergencies. The Senator from Arizona is well known to be the watchdog of the Treasury and I admire that. I believe we should get on with this business and let's test the votes. The Senator is right. If there are not 60 votes to establish the emergency designation on this bill, it will be returned to the Senate. But that is going to be the same, whether it is now or 6 hours from now. I remember so well when one of my former colleagues killed a bill, which we worked on for 7 years, in the last few minutes of a Congress by asking that the bill be read. I have always thought that bills don't have to be read if they are available to Members of the Senate. That used to be the understanding, that they would be read if the bill was not physically on the Members' desks. I will be pleased to put it on every Member's desk now. It has been available since last night. But to have us now go into a reading of the bill--the Senator from Texas says his wife is waiting on the corner. My wife is already in Alaska. I am due there tonight. But the sad thing is that the last plane I could take to make it left at 10 o'clock. I am prepared to stay here all week, if it is necessary. I have put before the Members of the Senate--and I will ask unanimous consent to print this in the Record. It is not fake or a manufactured thing. We have been telling the Senate for days and months that this money had been taken from the operation and maintenance account--the President's action employing troops in Kosovo. He has the right to do that under the act. And the money runs out. On July 5, this new order must go into effect that reduces the actions of our people during the period of maximum training in the summertime. It is not fake. I don't know why anyone would question the statements of the Chief of Staff of the Army. The bill may not pass today, but it is going to pass before July 5. That is my commitment. If the Senator wants to make a commitment that it doesn't pass today, I will make a commitment that it passes by July 5. I believe we have the capacity to do that. It is the desire to have this bill passed and to have the people of the armed services know the Senate is behind the people in the armed services. It is still a military construction bill, an emergency bill to replace money spent for the operation and maintenance account. It is a must-pass bill before July 5.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas has asked that we remove from the bill the pay shifts which we assumed were available to our committee in order to increase the amount of budget authority and outlays that would be used by our committee. The Senator can name them and make sure we are naming them correctly.

Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to make a statement at this point and that the Senator from Texas be able to speak prior to taking action.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas has raised a question about the pay shifts that are assumed in this bill.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, late Thursday, the conference concluded on H.R. 4425, the Fiscal Year 2001 Military Construction Appropriations Act. When the appropriations committee in the Senate reported that bill, we included a second division, Division B, that provided a series of emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard, and other national defense related activities. The conferees on this bill, led by the subcommittee chairman, Senator Burns, addressed both the underlying military construction bill, and an expanded range of emergency supplementary needs. Upon completing work on the military construction portion, an amendment was offered by myself, Senator Byrd, the House committee chairman, Bill Young, and the House ranking Member, David Obey. The amendment addressed fiscal year 2000 funding needs for the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard, wildfire fighting, recovery from hurricanes Floyd and Irene, the Cerro Grande fire in New Mexico, Liheap, and Plain Colombia. At several critical points, the personal involvement of the Speaker on the House and the Majority Leader in the Senate were invaluable to breaking through disagreements, and achieving completion of our work. While Senator Burns will address the military construction portion of the bill, I want to highlight the defense emergency needs addressed in this conference report. Once again, the President mortgaged the readiness of our Armed Forces by committing troops abroad, without the prior authorization and funding from Congress. If this bill did not pass this week, the Army faced a genuine calamity, as training, base operations and other critical functions would have ground to a halt. These funds, provided to sustain the Army through the remainder of this fiscal year, will prevent any interruption or degradation of our Armed Forces. In addition, the conferees, under the leadership of Representative Jerry Lewis, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, responded to several vital defense needs. The amendment, offered by the four Members I named, provides a total of $11.23 billion in emergency spending for fiscal year 2000. The amendment also makes several technical changes, pursuant to the budget resolution for fiscal year 2001 adopted earlier this year, concerning changes to pay days, delayed obligations, progress payments, prompt payment, and other matters. In addition, the amendment permits the Senate Appropriations Committee to allocate the full amount provided in the 302(a) allocation for discretionary spending in the budget resolution. This is the same amount now available to the House Committee. The amendment also adjusts the Function 050 outlay firewall included in the budget resolution to reflect the actual outlay levels in the Function 050 related bills reported by the House and Senate committees. I want to especially commend the Chairman of the House Military Construction Subcommittee, Representative Hobson, and the Chairman of the House Committee, Bill Young, for their cooperation and leadership in presenting this conference report to the House and Senate. Critical funding shortfalls for fuel, medical care, contract liabilities for Tricare, depot maintenance and intelligence were addressed in the House passed version of the supplemental, and included in this conference report. Chairman Lewis' initiative ensured that the readiness and quality of life for our military personnel will be truly enhanced by these initiatives, and provide the right starting point for our work on the conference for the FY 2001 Defense Appropriations Bill when we return from the July 4th recess. A second important need met in this conference report is for Western wildfire fighting. As we meet here in Washington, fires are burning in several Western States, especially Washington State and my own State of Alaska. The $350 million provided in this conference report will ensure the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service will be able to respond to any challenges we face during what promises to be a dry and hot summer--a truly dangerous situation. Last month, at the request of the senior Senator from New Mexico, I traveled to the Los Alamos National Laboratories during the terrible fire that afflicted that area. I saw firsthand the devastation to that community, and the federal facilities, caused by that fire. Senator Domenici has included in this bill a comprehensive authorization bill that provides a claims settlement mechanism for the families and businesses who lost so much in that tragedy. In addition, this conference report provides $661 million to initiate the claims settlement process and restoration of the federal facilities. These provisions brought to the conference by Senator Domenici will start the long recovery process, reflecting the Federal Government's liability for this disaster. In this conference report, there are also several matters of great importance to my State. I appreciate the willingness of the conferees to consider these items. Finally, I want to again thank the distinguished Ranking Member of our Committee, Senator Byrd, for his work to complete work on this bill. All the conferees met and worked in a spirit of bipartisan compromise, which is reflected in the conference report before the Senate. I urge the Senate to adopt this conference report today, so that it can go immediately to the President.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Specter and Senator Harkin, on my own behalf, and I am sure I speak for Senator Byrd also. The Senate should know this is the largest health services bill in history. It represents a magnificent contribution and commitment to increasing funding for medical research in particular, and so many other things in general. Both of these Senators have done tremendous work in getting this bill where it is and getting it to the House. I think they really deserve our total congratulations for keeping our commitment to doubling the amount of money available for medical research within 5 years.