Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. No. Section 415 treats public employees differently from workers in multiemployer plans. If she had been a public employee covered by a public plan, her pension would not be cut. This is because public pensions plans are not restricted by the compensation-based limit language of section 415. This robs employees in multiemployer plans of the money they have earned simply because they were not public employees.

Mr. STEVENS. That is a good question. It is a difficult issue that points to the complexity of the current Tax Code. Section 415 negatively impacts employees who have had various employers. Currently, the pension level is set at the employee's highest consecutive 3-year average salary. With fluctuations in industry, often times employees have up and down years rather than steady increases in their wages. This is especially true for those in the construction industries and other sectors that fluctuate with the local economic conditions. Fluctuations in work and income from year-to-year can skew the 3-year salary average for the employee, resulting in a lower pension when the worker retires.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I want to discuss a measure that will deal with a problem with the pension limits in section 415 of the Tax Code as they relate to multiemployer pension plans. This is a problem I have been trying to fix for years. Section 415, as it currently stands, deprives working people of the pensions they deserve. In 1996, Congress addressed part of the problem by relieving public employees from the limits of section 415. It is only proper that Congress does the same for private workers covered by multiemployer plans.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we will hear from the managers of the bill, I am certain. There are two sets of managers, as a matter of fact. This is a bill that combines the District of Columbia appropriations bill and the Labor-Health and Human Services bill. I am here today as chairman to urge Members of the Senate to vote favorably for this bill and to send it to the President. The big bill in this conference report before us, the Labor-Health and Human Services bill, is the 13th appropriations bill. With the adoption of this conference report, we will have sent all 13 bills to the President. If one considers the timeframe of this Congress, with the time we spent on the impeachment process and then the delays that came our way because of the various emergencies that have taken our attention, particularly in the appropriations process this year-- Kosovo, the devastating hurricanes, and the disaster in the farm area-- one will understand why we are this late in the day considering the 13th bill. This bill has had some problems because of our overall budget control mechanisms. We have been limited in terms of the money available. We have stayed within those limits. We have forward funded some of the items so they will be charged against future years. But those are items that primarily would be spent in those years. We have had a real commitment on a bipartisan basis not to invade the Social Security surplus. As we look into the future with the retirement of an enormous generation, the baby boom generation, there is no question that Social Security surplus must be sound, and we are doing our best to make sure that is the case. We have had a series of issues before us. We have had some disagreements with the President. In this bill, we try to work out those differences. We have provided moneys for our children, for the Boys and Girls Clubs; we have provided for law enforcement officers to have safe, bulletproof vests. With so many things going on in terms of children and education, we tried to meet the President more than halfway on his requests for education. The bill would probably be signed but for the differences between the administration and the Congress over how to handle the funding. We have included, as a matter of fact, against my best wishes, an across-the- board cut. That is primarily because only the administration can identify some of the areas we can reduce safely without harming the programs, and I am confident when we come to what we call the final period to devise a bill, we will work out with the administration some offsets that will take care of the bill. I am hopeful we will have no across-the-board cut, but if it comes, it will not be as large as the one in this bill right now. I am urging Members of the Senate to vote for this bill. I do believe we can be assured, and I was assured yesterday, that the bill will be vetoed. There is no question about that. But also, we had probably the most productive and positive meeting with the administration yesterday. I expect to be starting those discussions in our office in the Capitol with representatives of the President within just a few moments, and we are very hopeful we can come together and bring to the Senate and to the Congress a solution to the differences between us and get this final series of bills completed. There are five bills that have not been signed: State-Justice- Commerce was vetoed, and that is being reviewed by the group I just mentioned, along with the foreign assistance bill; the Interior bill is in conference and should be ready to send to the President today, I hope; the D.C. bill is here, and it should be available to us. The impact of what I am saying is, I think it is possible, if the Congress has the will to come together now and to work with the President's people who have indicated their desire to finish this appropriations process, that we can finish our business and complete our work by a week from tomorrow. That will take a substantial amount of understanding on the part of everyone. I am hopeful from what we are hearing now that some of the rhetoric will subside and we will have positive thinking about how to complete our work. But I do urge approval of this conference report.

Mr. STEVENS. Is there a set time to vote, Mr. President?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the time situation with regard to the conference report?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Col. Bernt Balchen, A Norwegian- born pilot, became one of America's great Arctic experts of the 20th Century. A patriotic American, he was also a great friend of the State of Alaska. Born in Norway on October 23, 1899. Colonel Balchen served in the French Foreign Legion, and both the Finnish and Norwegian Armies in World War I; and became a pilot in the Norwegian Naval Air Corps in 1921. Throughout the 1920's and 1930's Colonel Balchen participated in numerous trans-Atlantic and Arctic expeditions. During 1928-1930, Balchen was chief pilot on Admiral Byrd's Atlantic expedition and on November 29, 1929, he piloted the first airplane, a Ford trimotor ``Floyd Bennett'' across the South Pole. Congress conferred United States citizenship of Colonel Balchen in 1931. When World War II started in 1939, Colonel Balchen began ferrying airplanes to England and Singapore for the British. In 1941, he joined the United States Army Air Corps at the request of General ``Hap'' Arnold, and was assigned to Greenland to Supervise the Construction of, and later command, our famous airbase known as ``Bluie West 8''. His command is credited with numerous rescue missions saving many pilots whose planes had gone down on the icecap. In 1943, Balchen became chief of allied transportation command for Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and the Soviet Union, operating out of a secret base in Scotland. During that period, his command regularly flew across enemy-occupied territory to rescue downed allied airmen and insert commandos and intelligence agents behind enemy lines. He also led highly secret missions into Norway to resupply underground resistance forces for their operations against the German army of occupation. After the war, Balchen was recalled to active duty with the United States Air Force in 1948 and assigned to command the 10th rescue squadron at Elemendorf Air Force Base, Alaska. The techniques of Arctic Rescue that Colonel Balchen developed during this assignment continue to save the lives of civilian and military personnel to this day. In May 1949, he flew a Douglas C-54 from Fairbanks, Alaska over the North Pole to Oslo, Sweden, becoming the first pilot to fly over both Poles. Colonel Balchen was transferred to headquarters, United States Air Force in 1951 to participate in developing the Ballistic missile early warning system (BMEWS). Also, he was instrumental in the establishment of Thule Air Force base in Greenland and blazed airborne trails to assist both commercial and military aviation in the Arctic region. After retiring from the Air Force in 1956, Balchen continued to serve on special assignment and as a consultant to the military. Col. Bernt Balchen died on October 23, 1973, and is buried in Arlington National Cemetery. His lifetime achievements influenced the course of Aviation, arctic, and military history. His legacy to this country and to my State of Alaska is a strong northern defense, an established transpolar aviation system, a better understanding of the world's polar regions, and, of course, the lives of those rescued by Colonel Balchen and the men and women who continue his work with the United States Air Force Rescue Service.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, it is with great sadness that I come to the floor today to speak about John Chafee. I first met Senator Chafee standing in line to register for Harvard Law School in 1947. We had both returned from World War II and completed college and were freshmen in law school that year. When you met John Chafee in those days, you knew you were meeting a man. He was really an extraordinary man, very capable physically and mentally. I remember kidding him a little bit that he was going to have a tough time in one of our first classes because his uncle was the professor. His uncle, Zechariah Chafee, was one of the great professors of Harvard Law School in those days. But John Chafee finished law school, and then he went back to war. He went to Korea. He really never gave up his commitment as a patriot to this country because he then became the Secretary of the Navy under President Nixon. I think he served with great distinction here as one who had knowledge of what it means to have been in a war and was trying to assure peace. He served with great distinction, as others have mentioned here today, on various committees of the Senate. It was not my privilege ever to serve with John on one of the committees in the Senate; our paths were different. As a matter of fact, at times we disagreed. But I was chairman of the Senate Republican Campaign Committee the year he got elected. He had a very distinguished record as Governor of Rhode Island, and he came to us with a unique approach, really, of a very straight thinking man. He was not bound by partisan politics. He had a Republican philosophy, but he had a commitment to this country that was very deep and one from which I never saw him waiver. I never saw him waiver from something in which he believed. He really didn't care if he was the only person voting the way he decided was the best to vote for his constituents and his country. I sat here last week and talked to him. He was, as we all know, then in a wheelchair. I was very surprised to see John in a wheelchair, for just 2 weeks ago today we had gathered together here, after the Senate recessed, a group of some 60 of our Harvard classmates, to be with John after he had made his decision not to run for reelection next year. It was sort of a preretirement party, you might say, with the people he had known and still knew very well from throughout the country. It was a great tribute to John, again as a man, because our colleagues came from the west coast, Florida, all over the country, to be with him and Ginny at his first retirement party. Sadly, it was his last because by Friday, when I saw him on the subway, he was again in his wheelchair and was quite despondent about his health at the time. It was sad to see him in that condition, knowing what a vigorous man he was and a great friend. The Senate has been much better off for having John Chafee for so many years because he brought us such an extremely broad scope of opinion from his own experience in life. He was a graduate of Yale, and then he went to Harvard Law School. That didn't happen much in those days, but he decided he would pursue education where his family had a presence. I think his work in the Senate has been extremely significant because of his background in law and his background as a marine. I know those who served with him when he was Secretary of the Navy swore by him as one of the best. It is sad to see the passing of another one from my generation. When I came here, I think 70 percent of the Senate had served in World War II. I don't know if I am counting right, but I think we are down to about 7 now--about 7 percent. We see in his passing, really, the beginning of the end of an era, of the generation that fought the last great world war. One of these days, I am going to have to write that book of the story that was written by our generation. I have not done that. But if there was any person who ever served in this body who was a great, shining example of that generation, it was John Chafee.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the authors of this legislation for working to bring this bill to the floor. I had the privilege of working under President Eisenhower as Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior and Solicitor of the Interior Department. I am proud to have served under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In 1947 President Eisenhower said of our democracy: The American system rests upon the rights and dignity of the individual. The success of that system depends upon the assumption by each one of personal, individual responsibility for the safety and welfare of the whole. No government official, no soldier, be he brass hat or Pfc., no other person can assume your responsibilities--else democracy will cease to exist. This sentiment is still true today. It speaks to the timelessness of President Eisenhower's thoughts and efforts and it offers us a glimpse of how he approached his duties and his life in general. Ike was a good soldier who got most of his insight into government from his experience at West Point. His focus was on duty, honor and country. To him, the role he was given by the American people is outlined in the Constitution and he followed the language of the Constitution to the best of his ability. Also known as an ``internationalist'', he believed in friendship and peace. Ike ran for President because of concern that too many people were afraid of other countries and believed that if we were to have peace in the world then we need friendships with other countries. Eisenhower as our leader made many decisions that we live by today. Unlike many who currently seek and obtain political offices, he was concerned with making the right decisions and not with what his legacy would be. Today's leaders should and do build on the leadership of the past--leadership that he provided and taught us to emulate. The period of Ike's Presidency was an interesting and important period in the history of our country--particularly for my State and the State of my good friend from Hawaii, Senator Inouye. President Eisenhower originally opposed statehood for Alaska in his first term. In 1950 you needed a passport or birth certificate to return to the ``south 48'' from Alaska. Today we remember the phrase ``Taxation without representation''. It was true back then, especially for those of us who fought and returned from WWII. It was demeaning and unfair. As everyone knows, we won the statehood fight and it turned out to be good for the people of Alaska and the country as a whole. In working for Alaska statehood under President Eisenhower I found the ability to work freely, but with his full support. Bill Ewald, a good friend of mine, is quoted in the book ``Eisenhower the President'': . . . in the end . . . the greatest glory must go to Eisenhower. He chose his lieutenants, gave them the freedom to think and to innovate, backed them to the hilt despite his qualms, and thus produced an outcome that, in retrospect, remains a triumph of his administration. Only 40 years later Alaska provides 25 percent of all U.S. oil production, and 50 percent of fish consumed in the United States is caught off Alaska's shores. Eisenhower believed that a modern network of roads is ``As necessary to defense as it is to our national economy and personal safety''. Under his leadership, the Federal Aid-Highway Act of 1956 authorized 41,000 miles of highways (later adjusted to 42,500) by 1975. By 1980, 40,000 miles were completed. Today there are more than 42,700 miles in the system. Citizens of no nation on Earth can equal the mobility that is available to the majority of Americans via our National Highway System. A study in 1994 found that the fatality rate for interstate highways is 60 percent lower than the rest of the transportation system and the injury rate is 70 percent lower. The U.S. Army cited the Interstate Highway System as being critical to the success of the Desert Shield-Desert Storm Operation because it allowed for the rapid deployment of troops and equipment to U.S. ports for deployment overseas. In the area of defense, Ike's efforts could not be eclipsed. His leadership in pushing for adequate funding of our defense system led to the successes we enjoy today. With the strongest military power on Earth, and with new and effective weapon systems in our arsenal, we should look to the past and give Ike credit for his vision on our national defense. In his 1961 farewell address, President Eisenhower said: America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world . . . America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment. It was President Eisenhower's hope as we all pursue our careers, regardless of the path we take, that we would remember his words and would do our best to be a ``foot soldier'' in his battle to ``wage peace.'' I still consider myself one of Eisenhower's ``foot soldiers''. Naming the Old Executive Office Building after President Eisenhower is a fitting tribute to the man who save the world and I am proud to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation to clarify a provision in the fiscal year 2000 transportation appropriations conference report. The conference report refers to the ``Anchorage Ship Creek intermodal facility.'' The Ship Creek area of Anchorage is undergoing an important redevelopment that will include intermodal access across Knik Arm to the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. This grant will help improve the Port McKenzie facility, a multi-use facility which will support transit between Anchorage and the Mat-Su area. The Matanuska-Sustina Borough is the sponsor of this project and the logical applicant for this funding. Do I understand correctly that is the intent of the committee?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I can tell the senior Senator from Maine that no provisions of the FY 2000 Defense Appropriations Conference Report conflict with the DDG-51 multiyear procurement contracts extension or the $190 million DDG-51 FY 2000 advance procurement provisions of Section 122 of the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand Senator Warner's concerns and appreciate his support for the conference report. As the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee indicated, this was a very difficult conference. In order to assure the Senate's position on the most important national security issues, we agreed to other provisions that the Senate conferees would normally oppose. I assure my colleague that I respect the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee in these matters. I agreed to authorize the military construction projects only because it was necessary to reach a final agreement. In my view, these actions do not set any precedent for future actions on appropriations bills. It is my hope and intention that this will not happen again in the future.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I know of nothing in this bill that deals with the food stamp issue. I don't understand the remarks of the Senator from Arizona. There is a 4.8 percent pay raise in this bill. We did exceed the President's request for the purpose of trying to make certain that all members of the armed services have sufficient funds with which to live. I know of no issue in this bill that deals with food stamps for service people. There are people in the service who are eligible for food stamps because of their own economic circumstances. That is very unfortunate. We are trying to work out a system whereby that will not happen. One of the ways to do that is to continue to increase the pay so they are comparable with people in the private sector and the jobs that they perform. Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, yesterday the House passed the conference report which is before the Senate which accompanies H.R. 2561, which is the fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. It passed by a vote of 372-55. All 17 Senate conferees signed this conference report which Senator Inouye and I present to the Senate today. This conference report reflects nearly 4 weeks of discussions and negotiations with the House committee. The conference report before the Senate is consistent with the bill passed by the Senate in June and the armed services conference report passed recently and signed by the President. In most areas, we established a compromise figure between the House and Senate levels. The excellent work undertaken by the Armed Services Committee provided an essential roadmap and guide for the work of our conference on most major programs. The first priority of our conference was to ensure adequate funding for military personnel, including the 4.8-percent pay raise for the fiscal year 2000. Funding was also provided to implement the restoration of full retirement benefits for military personnel and new retention and enlistment bonuses to attract and retain military personnel. The conferees worked to increase needed spending for military readiness and quality of life priorities. More than $1 billion has been added to the President's request for operation and maintenance in the Department of Defense to make certain the Armed Forces are prepared to meet any challenge to our Nation's security. The conferees faced wide gaps between modernization programs advocated by the House and Senate. This is the first year of many years we have had such major disagreements. The Senate sustained the Department's request for several multiyear procurement initiatives which included the Apache, the Javelin, the F- 18, C-17, and the M-1 tank. I am pleased to report each of these are included in the conference report before the Senate today. Those multiyear contracts, in our opinion, do give us better procurement at a lower cost. The Senate included funds to meet the Marine Corps commandant's foremost priority, the LHD-8 amphibious assault ship. There is $375 million provided for that vessel at the authorized level. Considerable media attention was focused on the action by the House to delete all procurement funding for the F-22. Consistent with the decision in the defense authorization bill, Senate conferees insisted that adequate funding be appropriated for the F-22. Also, legislative authority was provided to execute the existing fixed-price contract for the first eight preproduction aircraft. The conference outcome provides funds to sustain the F-22 program at the proposed production rates, with full advanced procurement for the 10 aircraft planned for the fiscal year 2001. Legislative restrictions on those funds do mandate that during the fiscal year 2000, the Department meet its planned review thresholds. We are confident that will take place. Language concerning the fiscal year 2001 contract awards by necessity will have to be reconsidered as part of the fiscal year 2001 bill, as this act does not govern appropriations after September 30 of next year. The most important research and development program supported in this act is the national missile defense effort. The successful intercept test last week validates the work since 1983 to build and deploy an effective national missile defense system. This conference report before the Senate allocates an additional $117 million from the 1999 omnibus bill to keep this program on track and to accelerate deployment as soon as practical. The bill also provides funding for the Third Arrow Battery to assist our ally, Israel, in meeting its security needs. When the committee reported the defense bill to the Senate in May, Congress had just passed an $11 billion supplemental bill to meet the costs of the conflict in Kosovo. As a result of the exceptional performance of our air and naval forces during that campaign, hostilities ended months earlier than projected in the supplemental bill. That effort afforded the Senate the option to apply those funds from the supplemental bill appropriated for Kosovo to meet the fiscal year 2000 defense needs. This bill utilized $3.1 billion in Kosovo carryover funds as it left the Senate. Based on extensive consultation with the Department of Defense, the conferees agreed to apply $1.6 billion of that sum to meet vital readiness and munitions needs for the fiscal year 2000. Finally, the bill includes two new general provisions that place new maximum averages on defense contract payments. These provisions do not reduce in any way the amount the Department will pay to meet its obligations but does change the maximum number of days by which such payments must be made. The Department must remain fully compliant with the Prompt Payment Act, and nothing was done in this act to extend payments beyond current legal limits. As I have observed over the past 5 years, the work of presenting this bill and the conference report now before the Senate reflects a total partnership between myself and my great friend, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii. His wisdom, perseverance, and steadfast determination to work for the welfare of the men and women of our Armed Forces and the military preparedness of our Nation assured the nonpartisan result of this conference. This bill also contains a provision to commence the formation of a commission to find a suitable national memorial to our former President, the distinguished general of the Army, President Eisenhower. I urge all Members become familiar with that process. It very much follows the commission that was established for a similar memorial to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Following the statement of my good friend from Hawaii, to whom I now yield, I shall urge adoption of the conference report.

Mr. STEVENS. While the Senator from Florida is here, I want to point out that we did use the spectrum concept in this bill. It was the administration that recommended that approach to the Congress, and we decided to use it in this bill. Regarding the comments made both by the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Arizona about the payment schedule set forth in this bill, Congress had previously required the Department of Defense to pay sooner than required by the Prompt Payment Act. We have not reduced the amount of payments to be made to defense contractors; we have not changed, in any way, the contracts between those contractors and the United States. All we have said is the Department of Defense does not have to pay earlier than required by the Prompt Payment Act. It was the mandate to pay earlier that was causing a scoring problem, as far as the Department of Defense activities are concerned. As a practical matter, what this does is deal with the average number of days within which payments are required under defense contracts. There is no reduction in the amount of money that would be spent, and there is no acceleration or deceleration of the rate at which it is to be spent; there is just no mandate that they have to pay sooner than is required by the Prompt Payment Act. Under the circumstances, we have not varied the amount of money that would be spent for these contracts within fiscal year 2000; we have just not mandated that they be spent sooner than would otherwise be required by normal, sound business practices. Having done so, we are dealing with the scoring mechanisms that apply to this bill, not how the payments are made to contractors. I do believe that the comments that have been made concerning the scoring mechanisms under this bill do not recognize the fact that it is extremely necessary for us to pursue ways in which we can assure the moneys are available to the Department of Defense, notwithstanding the extraordinary burdens we faced in this subcommittee on defense coming from the increased activities in South Korea, increased activities in the Persian Gulf, permanent personnel stationed in both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, from the activities in Bosnia--and we still have forces in Bosnia, and now in Kosovo; we have permanent forces now in Kosovo. All of those forces and activities have required enormous funding. We still have forces in Haiti. Under the circumstances, all of these extraordinary burdens on the Department of Defense require us to find ways in which we can assure money is there for modernization, maintenance, for increased pay to our people, and for assuring that we will continue with the research and development necessary to assure that this Nation will have a viable Department of Defense in the next century. I do not deny that there are things in here with which people could disagree. I only wish they had tried to understand them. I would be perfectly willing to have any of them visit with us any time if they can show us that we have underfunded the Department of Defense. We have adequately funded the Department of Defense, and that was our intention. It was our intention to use every possible legal mechanism available to us to assure that there is more money available for the Department of Defense in the coming year in view of the strains that we have on the whole system because of these contingencies that we have financed in the past 3 to 4 years. This has been an extraordinary period for the Department of Defense. I can think of only one instance where we received a request from the administration to budget for those extraordinary expenses. We have had to find the money, we found the money, and we have kept the Department of Defense funded. I, for one, want to thank my good friend from Hawaii for his extraordinary friendship and capability in helping on that job. I say without any fear of being challenged on this, I would challenge any other two Members of the Senate to find ways to do this better than the two of us have done it. I, without any question, recommend this bill to the Senate. Those who wish to vote against it, of course, have the right to do so. But a vote against this bill is a vote to not fund the Department of Defense properly in the coming year. If you want to nitpick this bill, you can. The process of putting it together was the most extraordinary process I have gone through in 31 years. I don't want to go through a conference like that again. And I assure the Senate that we will not. commercial satellite imagery and ground stations to the u.s. military

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to join my good friend from Hawaii in thanking our staff. Again, I can't remember in the time that I have served on the Appropriations Committee a more difficult period in terms of getting this bill to where it is in order to send it to the President. We fully expect it to be signed. Without Steven Cortese and Charlie Houy and the people who work with them, both Republican and Democratic staffs on our committee, this would not have been possible. They have worked weekends. They have worked into the night. They have been on call at the oddest hours I think we have ever had in terms of dealing with this bill. I sincerely want to thank them all and tell the Senate that this staff is primarily responsible for this bill being before the Senate today because of their hard work and their determination to make it come out right. I thank them all. I am now told that it has been confirmed there are no requests for time; therefore, I ask unanimous consent that there be no further time on this bill until the matter is called up for a vote by the leader according to the previous order.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, to my knowledge, there is no further Senator seeking time on the bill. I ask that we have a quorum call for a slight period to confirm the report that there are no other Senators wishing to speak. But if there are none within the next 5 or 6 minutes, I will ask the Senate to defer this matter according to the previous order. I will do that at 10:30, unless someone seeks time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Since the Secretary and Surgeons General are charged with setting up a peer reviewed process, it is up to them to determine the specifics of the selection process. However, the Senator is correct that many health benefits are a result from technology development. I expect adjustments in the peer review process could be made, as appropriate, to delineate between basic research or technology development programs to account for differences as long as projects are in keeping with the ``clear scientific merit and relevance to military health'' requirement set forth in the report.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am very pleased this conference report provides the President permanent, comprehensive authority to waive, with respect to India and Pakistan, the application of any sanction contained in section 101 or 102 of the arms Export Control Act, section 2(b)(4) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, or Section 620E(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. This authority provides needed tools for the United States to be in a position to waive sanctions as developments may warrant in the coming months and years. digital mammography

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I wish to announce that today the Senate will debate the Defense appropriations conference report for 1 hour. By previous consent, that vote will be postponed to occur at 4 p.m. this afternoon. For the remainder of the day, the Senate will debate the campaign finance reform bill with amendments expected to be offered. Senators who intend to offer amendments are encouraged to work with the bill managers to schedule a time for debate on their amendments. Further, Senators can expect votes throughout the day. The Senate may also consider any other conference reports available for action. The distinguished majority leader thanks all Senators for their cooperation on this day. It will be a difficult day.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. Before making opening remarks, I yield to Senator Brownback for such remarks he wishes to make.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the conference report for the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill addresses one of the most beleaguered fisheries in the United States. The Norton Sound region of Alaska has suffered chronically poor salmon returns in recent years. Norton Sound is an arm of the Bering Sea off the west coast of Alaska. It lies to the north of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, which has also seen very poor salmon returns in recent years. Both of these regions are extremely rural and heavily dependent on commercial and subsistence salmon fishing for survival. The provision in the conference report addresses the Norton Sound problem in several ways. First, it will make the Norton Sound region eligible for the Federal disaster assistance made available to the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta region last year. Second, it changes the income eligibility standard from the Federal poverty level to that for the temporary assistance to needy families program. The standard of living in many of these fish-dependent communities is well below the poverty line. This was one of the chief complaints voiced to my staff and several Commerce Department officials when they visited western Alaska last summer. This provision will allow more needy families to qualify for 1999 disaster assistance, much of which has gone unallocated. Additionally, this bill will provide $10 million in grants through the Economic Development Administration for infrastructure improvements in the Norton Sound region. The conference report included is $5 million in disaster assistance under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to determine the cause of the decline and to identify ways to improve the area's fisheries in the future. These funds will be available in 2001. The main reason these communities are unable to ride out cyclical fishery failures is the lack of commercial infrastructure in rural fisheries. The EDA grants will help provide ice machines and other equipment to help these communities modernize their processing capabilities and extract more value from the resources they harvest. I was also pleased to work with my colleagues from New England on their request for fishery disaster assistance. New England will receive $15 million in 2001 for cooperative research and management activities in the New England fisheries. These funds will provide New England fishermen with an important role in working to solve the problems of their own fisheries. Within this conference report, I have also asked that the Agricultural Marketing Service--the AMS--convene two national meetings to begin development of organic standards with respect to seafoods. One of these meetings will be held in Alaska and the other meeting will be held on the Gulf of Mexico coastal area. The AMS will use the information gathered at these meetings to develop draft regulations establishing national organic standards for seafood to be published in fiscal year 2000. It is estimated that the sales of organic foods will reach $6.6 billion by the year 2000. The organic industry has been growing at a rate of 20 to 24 percent for the last 9 consecutive years. Ocean-harvested seafood should be at the same level with other qualifying protein commodities, such as beef, pork, and chicken. I hope that these protein sources will be included in the proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture rules to be finalized by June 2000. Ocean- harvested seafood should not be excluded as an organically-produced product when USDA issues its final rule. This issue is very important to Alaska, as the harvesting of seafood is an industry that employs more Alaskans than any other industry. In particular, I am concerned about the inclusion of wild salmon within USDA's final rule for the National Organic Program. Wild salmon is an organic product. This past summer, two private certifying firms for organic food products visited two Alaska seafood processors to determine whether the wild, ocean-harvested salmon processed at these facilities could be certified as organic. One of the certifiers, farm verified organic, inspected capilliano seafoods. Their report is very positive. In fact, their approval allowed capalliano's salmon to be admitted to natural products east, which is a large organic food show in Boston, Massachusetts. In order to be admitted to this trade show, a product must be verified as organic. I, frankly do not know what the dispute is about. Natural fish, wild fish should certainly be verified as organic. I am confident that the AMS will find Alaskan wild salmon a very heart-healthy protein source, to be of high quality and organic, for the purposes of USDA's national organic program. I thank my friend from Mississippi and yield the floor.