Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if we could, for the orderly presentation of the balance of the argument on this bill, I inquire, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS. That is 1 hour 6 minutes beyond that. I serve notice to the Senate, as manager, I cannot be here between the hour of 3:30 p.m. and 4:15 p.m. We will go ahead and have the vote when Senator Gramm's time expires, but then I will ask the leader to give us consent to do something in that period of time so we can keep our meeting as scheduled. The Senator has another 7\1/2\ minutes now, as I understand.

Mr. STEVENS. There are 30 minutes on his motion to waive.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask that the Senator yield me 2 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I have great problems now. I understand the Senator wants to vote on this point of order, and there are 30 minutes on that. We then have time left for the debate on the bill itself. This vote then, I take it, will occur sometime around 25 after 2, the way I look at it. I put the Senate on notice that I am going to ask that the Senate stand in recess or stand off this bill from the hour of 3:30 p.m. until 4:15 p.m. I have not done it yet, but I want everyone to know we have to go off this bill. Our committee cannot be on the floor during that period of time because of a very important meeting the committee has that we cannot cancel.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I first want to start off by commending the chairman of the House committee, Congressman Bill Young, for his leadership in the conference on this bill. He was the chairman of this conference, and through his efforts we have achieved passage not only by the House but we achieved the result of getting a bill out of committee. Chairman Young and I have worked very closely in the past. He chaired the defense subcommittee before becoming chairman of the full committee. I look forward to continuing that partnership during his tenure as chairman of the House committee. We face a difficult task in reconciling the funds needed to respond to hurricane damage in Central America, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and agriculture disasters--those FEMA disasters are national disasters declared by the President--and continued military operations in Kosovo, in Bosnia, in Iraq, and in the high state of alert in South Korea. This is not an easy period to be chairman of this committee. We have what amounts to four major crises going on at one time. We are trying to maintain our defense capabilities to preserve our interests worldwide. This is very difficult, apparently, for some Members to understand. It is a difficult process, at best, to handle a supplemental and an emergency bill together, but it does take consideration of the Members of the Senate to understand which versions in these bills are emergency and which are just a normal supplemental. They have been joined together. The President has sent us two bills and the House has passed two bills. They address the needs and the formal requests of the President. The Senate passed one bill, the Central American agriculture bill, in late March, prior to the Easter recess. At that time, before the recess, I urged that we have a chance to come to the floor and pass that supplemental. We knew there was going to be a second supplemental, but we could not get the time on the floor and the Senate did not act on the separate Kosovo package. Due to the emergency nature of the funding for military operations and the availability of the first bill, it was our intention to merge the two bills into a second single bill in conference, which we have done. That is consistent with rules of the Senate and the House. These were matters which were emergency in nature, and we have added them as emergencies. Now, as I think Senators are aware, there are many ideas in how we can address other needs in this bill. Supplemental bills have routinely been amended by both the House and the Senate. Questions have been raised about some of the matters in these bills--assuming that we have no right to add any amendments to emergency bills. Now, this is both a supplemental and an emergency appropriations bill before the Senate. I hope Senators will keep that in mind. As most of the Senators are aware, these matters are brought up by individual Members of the Senate or the House and are considered and adopted by majority vote. I am not that happy about some of the provisions of this bill but, again, I have the duty to carry to the Senate floor those amendments that were included by action of the conferees. I hope Senators will keep that in mind as we proceed. The conferees decided that some of these matters that are before the Senate and were presented to us should be reserved in the fiscal year 2000 bill, which the Appropriations Committees will start marking up next week. We cannot get to the regular appropriations bills until we conclude the action of the Congress on the supplemental and emergency matters in the bill before the Senate now. Again, I know there are objections to this bill; there are objections to the process we are following. Many of those objections are brought forward because we do not have a point of order against legislation on appropriations bills. That is not my doing. I have sought to restore that point of order and I continue to support the concept of that point of order. But we have several matters included in the Senate-passed version of the bill that were deleted by the conference. One of them was a matter that was very close to my heart, and that is the Glacier Bay provision which was offered by my colleague, Senator Murkowski. What I am saying is there are matters before the Senate some people object to. There are matters not in the bill that people object to, and one of them is that Alaska provision of my colleague. Obviously, a conference report is always a compromise. That is why we go to conference. We have disagreements with what the House has done, the House has disagreements with what we have done, and we meet in conference and try to resolve the problems. This bill, for instance, contains more money for defense needs than were proposed by the Senate. After we went to conference with the House, we concluded they were right in seeking additional moneys for our defense readiness. There is no question it also contains more funding for refugees and for agricultural relief than was proposed by the House. The House has come towards the position of the Senate on both refugees and agriculture relief. Again, I think that is the process of compromise that should take place in a conference. This conference report needs to be passed today. The men and women of the Armed Forces must understand we support them, regardless of our points of view on the war that is going on in Kosovo. Refugees ousted from their homes and their country by Serbian atrocities need our help also. I was honored to be able to go with other Members of the Senate to visit Albania. We saw the camps in Macedonia. We visited with the President of Macedonia and the Prime Minister of Albania. We went to see our forces in Aviano--that is our air base in Italy--and we visited with the NATO people in Bosnia. Many Senators here have also visited the region since that trip I took with my colleagues and Members of the House. There were 21 of us on the first trip. All the Senators who went there know what needs to be done; there is no question in our minds. It is unfortunate we cannot take more people over there to let them see it, because I think uniformly the people who saw the troubles over there are supportive of this bill. We have provided additional funds in this bill for the Kosovo operation and for the victims of the war there in Kosovo. They are sort of an insurance policy. We have faced this in the past. We went into Bosnia. We were supposed to be there 9 months and be out by Christmas. That is 5 years ago this Christmas. We have had to add money every year, take money from various portions of our appropriations process and pay for the cost of Bosnia. We also have increased the level of our activity in the Iraq area. Even during the period of the Kosovo operation, there continue to be retaliatory strikes on Iraq because of the their failure to abide by the cease-fire agreement. In South Korea, the North Koreans are continuing to rattle the cage, as far as we are concerned, and we are on a high level of alert in that area. What I am telling the Senate again is this bill reflects those pressures on our defense forces. We want those people who are defending this country to know we support them when they are out there in the field representing our interests. The funds provided in excess of the President's request are contingency emergency appropriations for agriculture, for defense, for FEMA and for the refugees. The amounts added by the House and the Senate can only be submitted if the President declares an emergency requirement exists. We are going to get into that question of the emergency requirement here when the Senator from Texas raises his point of order. But we worked in conference very hard to assure adequate resources will be available through the remainder of this fiscal year to meet the needs in the areas we visited, in the Kosovo area, and to meet the needs of the military worldwide. Some of our systems are being taken from the areas I have described before--from South Korea, even from Bosnia and from Iraq--to move them into the area of the conduct of the hostilities in and around Kosovo and Serbia. Those funds that are needed on a global basis are in this bill. Some of them, as we know, the President did not request. We believe we have taken action. Hopefully we will not have to see another emergency supplemental with regard to the conduct of the Kosovo operation during the period of time we will be working on the regular appropriations bills for the year 2000. In effect, we have reached across and gone in--probably this bill should be able to carry us, at the very least to the end of this current calendar year. The initial requests of the President took us to the end of the fiscal year on September 30. I am happy to inform the Senate I am told today the President will sign this bill as soon as it reaches his desk. He has specifically asked us to complete our work and pass the bill today. I understand he has a trip planned and it would be to everyone's advantage if we get this bill down to him today and have it signed. Therefore, I am pleased we do have the unanimous consent which does allow us to vote on this bill. I take it that will be sometime around 3:20 we will vote on the bill. I do earnestly urge every Member of the Senate to vote for this conference report. To not vote for this conference report because of some difference, because of the process, would send the wrong message to the young men and women who represent this country in uniform. One of the things that impressed me when I was on the trips, both to Bosnia and into the Kosovo area, was if you go into the tents where these young people are living when they are deployed, do you know what you find? You find computers. They are on the Internet. Right now, some of them out there will be picking up just the words I am saying. We are not back in the period, like when I served in World War II in China, when we did not hear from home but maybe once or twice a month at the most. We had to really just search to find news of what was going on at home and we were starved for news from home. These people are force fed news from home and many times what they see are rumors that come across the Internet. We don't need any more rumors going out to the men and women serving in the Armed Forces overseas. In this bill is the pay raise. We are committed that the money is there for the pay raise. We have initiated the concept of reforming the retirement system, which was one of the gripes we heard last year both in Bosnia and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This is a bill the men and women of the armed services are watching. They are going to watch how you vote on this bill. And they should. It is not time for petty differences over process or committee jurisdiction. This is a time to act and give the people in the Armed Forces the money they need so they know they will have the systems and they will have the protections they need when they go in harm's way at the request of the Commander in Chief. I urge we not only vote to pass this bill, but Senators listen carefully to this point of order the Senator from Texas will raise, as it is raised against specific provisions of this bill. Mr. President, there is no question in my mind, as we look at this bill, it is a different bill. When I woke up this morning, I looked in Roll Call and I was interested to see the statistics on supplemental appropriations, 1976 through 1996. We had no supplementals in 1995. We had one supplemental in 1996. I will get that number for 1997. People who are saying we are having too many supplementals--they are just wrong. We have not had too many supplementals. We go through a process of predicting how much money we will need. The departments of the Government start the process of sending their requests to the President through their agencies. They come up in the department, they go to the Office of Management and Budget, the President finally gets them sometime in September of the year before. In January or February, the beginning of the year, the President submits his budget which will be made available the following September, following October, going through the September of the next year. In other words, what I am saying is this is the process. The money we are spending now on a routine basis started through the agencies in the fall of 1997, came into the departments in the spring of 1998, went through the President's process and got to OMB and were presented to us, in terms of a process, to have a bill for the year 2000 presented to us and considered in 1999. This appropriations process is a long process. I hope I have not shortened it. But it is a very long process. In the process of trying to estimate the needs, things are overlooked, concepts are developed and, particularly in the defense field, new involvements of our military erupt. Kosovo is a good example. We had no knowledge we would have that kind of operation, an immense operation now, probably the largest engagement we have had, in terms of this type of crisis, since the Persian Gulf war. Actually, I think before we are over, it may be more expensive than the Persian Gulf war was to the United States. I recognize the comments that are coming, particularly from my side of the aisle, about greater consistency in our appropriations process. I want people to look at the record. We have not had an excess of supplementals. We had an omnibus bill last fall, and most of the comments made on this floor are about the two omnibus bills that ended up the fiscal year--the one my predecessor, Senator Hatfield, was involved with and the one last year with which I was involved. In both instances, if the Senators look carefully, they will find the appropriations process reached a stalemate, and the stalemate had to be resolved on the leadership level with the President. That was not the two committees that added that money. It was a negotiation with the President, in both instances, by the leadership of the House and Senate, and I commend them for it. We had to get out of that impasse or we would have had another impasse like we had previously when there was an attempt to shut down the Government. When this Government is at war, it is not going to be shut down on my watch. I want everyone to know that. We are not going to shut down the Government when there is a war going on. We are not even going to suggest it. Anybody who does suggest it better understand he or she will not be here for long. The American people will not stand for that. Their sons and daughters are out fighting, and we ought to fight to get them the support they need. I am going to fight--I am going to fight as hard as I can --to get bills such as this through and keep funding the Department of Defense at the level it should be funded to assure their safety--not just normal safety--but every single system we can adopt that will save the lives of the men and women in the armed services ought to be approved. This is what this does. It gives them the money they need to carry through the remainder of this year. This year is going to be a very tough year. Any one of those other crises which are going on in Iraq, in Bosnia, in South Korea, or other places could erupt. I was told yesterday that we have people in the uniform of the United States in 93 different places throughout the globe now--93 different places--and any one of those places could erupt again while this Kosovo conflict is ongoing. I do not want to hear anyone tell me that we have provided too much money. We have not provided too much money. If the money is not needed, I can guarantee you that this Secretary of Defense and this Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not going to spend it. We have given them under this bill an enormous amount of discretion to spend the money. We have not earmarked this money. We have suggested things in the report that we hope they will consider, but this is the money to meet the needs of protecting our men and women in the armed services abroad, and it has to be viewed on that basis. I urge every Member of the Senate to vote for it and to forget petty differences. I am delighted to yield now to my good friend from West Virginia, a partner in this process of trying to get this supplemental and emergency bill to the President.

Mr. STEVENS. That conference report is not amendable? There are no amendments in disagreement?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is the conference report accompanying H.R. 1141 before the Senate?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. That is correct. Under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, the United States has paid redress to more than 82,000 eligible individuals over the 10 year life of the program. Eligible individuals under this Act had to file a claim for redress by August 10, 1998. There were a number of individuals, however, who did not complete the documentation necessary for the Department of Justice to determine, prior to the termination of the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund and the expiration of the redress program six months later, whether they were eligible for redress under the Act. This provision would allow those individuals, if they filed timely claims, to provide any necessary information to the Department of Justice, and allow the Department to complete its review of their files. If the Department determines that they are eligible, this provision allows the Attorney General to pay the claimants restitution under the Act.

Mr. STEVENS. How much time do I have?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it has been 30 years since the Stratton Commission took a close look at our Nation's coastal policies. The Stratton Commission's recommendations have served as a guide for U.S. oceans policy for three decades, yet as we move towards the next millennium, it is imperative that we once again consider the direction and coherence of our policies towards this immense resource. I applaud Senator Hollings' efforts to explore ways to again examine these policies, and to determine the action necessary to responsibly steward this resource into the next century. I look forward to working with Senator Snowe and others to create bipartisan support for an Oceans Act that will craft policy for a healthy ocean for our children and for their grandchildren.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I join Senator Murkowski in rising in support of S. 933, which would clarify tax treatment of Settlement Trusts established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Our legislation would amend the U.S. tax code by allowing these Settlement Trusts to organize as 501(c)(28) tax exempt organizations. This bill is similar to S. 2065 which I co-sponsored with Senator Murkowski last year. Consistent with last year's proposal, this bill allows for conveyances to a Settlement Trust without including those contributions in the beneficiaries' gross income. This is an important provision because under the current tax code, beneficiaries of a Settlement Trust can be taxed on contributions to the trust, even though they haven't received a payment or disbursement from the Settlement Trust. Our new provision also outlines the process and terms for revoking a trust's tax exempt status as a 501(c)(28) organization. Under this provision, if a Settlement Trust engages in forbidden activities as outlined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, its election as a 501(c)(28) tax exempt organization would be revoked and the trust would pay a tax on the fair market value of the assets held. This ensures that U.S. taxpayers will not underwrite forbidden transactions within the trusts or between the trusts and the beneficiaries. This provision also requires a Settlement Trust to distribute at least 55 percent of its adjusted taxable income for each year. This would insure that Settlement Trusts fulfill a basic obligation to the beneficiaries. In addition, the new provision requires trusts electing to be recognized as 501(c)(28) tax exempt organizations to withhold income tax from payments made to beneficiaries. There is, however, an important exception to this withholding provision. That exception would apply to third party payments made on the behalf of beneficiaries for educational, funeral, or medical benefits. It is my hope that we will clarify the tax treatment of these Settlement Trusts so that beneficiaries are treated in a fair and just manner.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, last week the Air Force General in charge of the Air Combat Command provided some valuable observations for the Senate to consider as we contemplate funding another protracted military operation. General Richard Hawley observed that the current build up in Europe has weakened our ability to meet our other global commitments. General Hawley added that the air operation in Kosovo would require a reconstitution period of up to five months. The General will be retiring in June, and has spoken out on how this war in Kosovo will weaken the readiness of the Air Force. I hope Senators will consider his concerns, and I ask unanimous consent that the General's remarks on military readiness reported in the April 30th Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in the past several months when radio personalities--sometimes known as ``shock jocks''--have gone beyond the bounds of propriety, their employers have been quick to dismiss them. For example, the Charlotte, NC, station just yesterday fired a radio talk show host who made an on-the-air joke about this week's tragedy in Littleton, CO. There was also a Washington, DC, station that immediately fired the ``Greaseman'' for his racist remarks after the tragic dragging death of a Texas man that we all remember. Now in Chicago we learn of another one of these offensive on-the-air personalities who has stepped over the line. He made insulting remarks against Special Olympians. What he said about these brave athletes is indefensible. What he said was--and it bothers me even to repeat it-- Watch them run, watch them fall, watch them try to catch a ball. Olympics, Special Olympics. Watch them laugh, watch them drool, watch them fall into the pool. That's diving at the Special Olympics. And I know full well that I will burn in Hell, but those guys playing wheelchair basketball gotta be about the funniest-- And the expletive is deleted; they took that out-- thing I've ever seen in my life. [And it is all] at the Special Olympics. Mr. President, these young men and women have overcome obstacles that we cannot understand. They deserve our applause and admiration. They should not be the targets of juvenile jokes on the public airwaves. Instead, despite this disgusting display of ill-manners and bad taste, this radio station has refused to fire that shock jock. Mr. President, I urge all of those who listen to this man in Chicago to call for his immediate dismissal. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, tomorrow, April 15, marks the last day of Senate service for Elizabeth K. Bunch. I have known Betty since 1987, when she worked as a professional staff member for me when I was on the Rules Committee and was ranking member. I thank her, on behalf of the entire Senate, for her many years of service. She was born and grew up in Laramie, WY. After raising a family and having a career working as the assistant to the dean of the graduate school at the University of Wyoming, Betty came to Washington in 1977. In her first year here, Betty was the special assistant to then newly elected Senator Malcolm Wallop, a good friend. Although she intended to stay in Washington for only 1 year, Betty spent 10 years working as an office manager and special assistant for our distinguished former colleague. In 1987, Betty moved to the Rules Committee where she worked for me in so many important committee responsibilities, including overseeing information technology initiatives. In 1991, Betty joined the staff of the Sergeant at Arms. There she was first the ``ombudsman'' for the Senate Computer Center, and then the coordinator for the consolidation of Sergeant at Arms offices in the Postal Square Building. Betty became the liaison between Postal Square and the Superintendent's office. She also formed the SAA Safety Office and did the FEMA coordination, the Federal Emergency Management Agency coordination, new Senator transition coordination planning, all maintenance coordination, and the multitude of necessary supporting operations for the Sergeant at Arm's employees. She served for five Sergeants at Arms. The Senate and all its employees who serve our great institution owe Betty Bunch a debt of gratitude. I am very proud to have worked with her. I know my colleagues join me in wishing her a wonderful retirement.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to add to my colleague's comments. The budget gimmicks in the defense budget as submitted by the Administration create a shortfall of at least $8.3 billion in budget authority. Under Senate rules, we cannot pass a defense appropriations bill which buys the programs advertised by the Department of Defense as being budgeted. We would require at least $10 billion in outlays to even fund the Administration's defense request. While the budget resolution adds $8.3 billion in budget authority, it cuts outlays by $8.7 billion relative to the CBO scoring of the defense budget request. Even under OMB scoring, the budget resolution provides only $500 million in outlays to spend with the $8.3 billion in budget authority. This mix of money will not work, and clearly does not even let us erase all of the administration's budget gimmicks. The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has also held hearings to review the readiness requirements of our military forces. If the current outlay problem is not resolved satisfactorily, Congress will be responsible for failure to provide adequate resources for our military's needs as readiness problems become more apparent. With military operations currently being conducted in Kosovo, this would be the wrong signal to be sending at this time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would join my colleague in seeking clarification on what steps the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee is prepared to take to make it possible to pass a defense spending bill that preserves our military's readiness and limit the erosion of modernization.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment modifies section 205 of the resolution, which creates a 60 vote point of order against emergency appropriations. The modification establishes an exception from the 60 vote point of order for national security emergency appropriations. Given the on-going operations in the Balkans, the need for this exception is clear. Much like the vote to authorize the Persian Gulf war, where only 52 members of the Senate voted in support of that action, the current military operations in Kosovo and Serbia gained the support of only 58 Senators. I opposed that resolution. That doesn't change the fact that the men and women of the Armed Forces mut be properly supplied, equipped and supported when they are sent to combat. That is our job, irrespective of whether each of us agrees with the specific policy that led to the deployment of U.S. forces. Earlier this month, the Governmental Affairs Committee reported S. 93, which established new procedures for the consideration of emergency appropriations. That bill creates a point of order that requires 51 votes to waive. That bill has been referred to the Budget Committee, and will probably come before the Senate after the Easter recess. I urge the adoption of the amendment. amendment no. 231 (Purpose: Sense of the Senate on providing tax relief to all Americans by returning the non-Social Security surplus to taxpayers) At the appropriate place, insert:

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am grateful to my friend from New Mexico.

Mr. STEVENS

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