Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am constrained to say to the Senator from New Mexico, I thought I had problems on the supplemental bill. To hear about this number of amendments is staggering.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today is the 10th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. I want to use this opportunity to reflect on the impact that disaster had on the land and people of my State. I still remember traveling to Alaska to view the damage caused by the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound. Believe me, Mr. President, it is a sight I never want to see again. At that time, I referred to the huge oil slick battering against the shoreline as ``the black blanket of the Exxon Valdez.'' And while that spill caused serious damage to our wildlife, our environment and our people, that black blanket has had somewhat of a silver lining. I refer to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990--OPA '90. Congress and the Department of Defense are currently looking at implementing a ``national missile defense system'' to protect the United States from incoming ballistic missiles. I consider OPA '90 to be the ``National Oil Spill Defense System'' that protects the United States from future oil spills. OPA '90, as many Senators will recall, was signed into law on August 18, 1990. It is important to note that OPA '90 has not been significantly revised since 1990--and at present, there has not been any push for comprehensive revisions. It is a testament to the act itself that it has not needed major revisions. Some of the provisions of OPA '90 were under consideration prior to 1989, but unfortunately, it took the Exxon Valdez spill to bring about a comprehensive approach to our national system of oil spill prevention and response. Congress enacted OPA '90 only 17 months after the spill--a very short period of time given the scope of the legislation. That landmark piece of legislation created a new national framework that focuses on both the prevention of spills and the response to spills. It was written to reduce the chances we will ever have another spill of the magnitude of the Valdez--anywhere. That act, and the actions it mandates, has already vastly improved the response system for lesser spills. On a national level, OPA '90-- (1) Required the phase-in of double-hull oil tankers--which has begun and will be completed by the year 2015; (2) Required improvements to vessel traffic systems and to vessel communications and warning equipment; (3) Brought about stringent background checks and manning standards for tank vessels; (4) Required the United States to seek better international oil spill prevention and response measures; (5) Clearly defined the liability of tank vessel owners and operators; (6) Required the creation of a national contingency plan and response system, as well as area contingency and response plans. These prevention measures are vitally important if we are to ensure the safe transportation of oil in our waters. As a result of OPA '90 spill response equipment must be pre- positioned in strategic locations all over the country. By doing this, we greatly increase the response time for a future oil spill, God forbid it ever happens again. The national and area contingency plans required by OPA '90 are the primary reason the response to oil spills has become so quick. Unlike when the Valdez disaster occurred, if a spill occurs today, it should be literally a matter of minutes before a response plan is executed. By requiring contingency plans, OPA '90 forces planning for potential spills in a comprehensive manner. A large part of the credit for the implementation of the new plans should go to the Coast Guard and I have commended it for the tremendous work it has done in the past 10 years in developing the national and area plans. In addition to the national measures put in place by OPA '90, it contained a number of measures specific to Alaska and Prince William Sound. The act required the installation of a marker and light on Bligh Reef. It required tankers in Prince William Sound to be escorted by at least two tugs and to have two local pilots on their bridge. It required the creation of a vessel traffic system for Prince William Sound--including an alarm system to warn if vessels deviate from the designated navigation routes. It prevents the Exxon Valdez tanker from ever entering Alaska water again--no matter what name it sails under or how many structural improvements it undergoes. While this provision is largely symbolic, it goes to the heart of how Alaskans feel about the disaster and our state. We take pride in keeping our environment and wildlife clean and safe, and we expect visitors to our state to do the same. In addition to the regulatory requirements set forth in OPA '90, the act created two regional citizens' advisory councils. These councils give Alaskans a voice in the development of oil spill prevention and contingency measures. Over the past 10 years these councils provided dialogue allowing Alaskans and the oil industry to work beyond differences in a positive manner. The main goal of all parties involved is the prevention of further disasters. That is the only true way to ensure that we never have to clean oil off Alaska beaches again. I have thanked the many Alaskans who have served on the regional citizens' advisory councils for the improvements they have helped bring into being. They could have turned their backs on the oil industry, but they deserve a great deal of credit for choosing to work with the industry rather than trying to make a bad situation worse. OPA '90 also required the creation of the oil spill recovery institute in Cordova. The institute's mission is to evaluate the long term effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on the environment and the people and animals of Prince William Sound--and to refine the world's knowledge about arctic and subarctic oil spills. Incidently Mr. President, I have been to that institute in Cordova, and I must say that they are doing great things, and I encourage them to keep up the good work. It took a number of years to secure the funding for the institute, but in 1996 we managed to create a dedicated fund. For a 10 year period that began in 1996, the Oil Spill Recovery Institute will receive the annual interest from $22.5 million that is currently on deposit in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was a centerpiece of OPA `90. The law made ``responsible parties'' liable for the costs of cleaning up oil spills. As you know, Mr. President, it is not always possible to obtain clean-up funds from responsible parties in time to adequately respond to spills. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was created to ensure that funds are available to respond to oil spills in the United States. This is another area where the Coast Guard deserves credit for its superb efforts in recovering costs from responsible parties. You will be glad to know that many of the species negatively affected by the oil spill are making a strong comeback. Mother nature is responding. I am pleased with the environmental efforts and the progress made in putting new prevention measures in place. It is my hope that one day my grandchildren will be able to ask me ``Grandpa, what's an oil spill?'' I think OPA '90, and the efforts of everyone involved in the oil industry, will help to bring about that wish. Mr. President, I do not normally come before the Senate to talk about a terrible day, but I come today to talk in the spirit of remembrance. As I said, this is the 10th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oilspill in my State. I want to use this opportunity to reflect on the impact that disaster had upon the people of my State and on Prince William Sound. I remember that was just the beginning of the Easter recess and I had left for vacation with my family when I got that call that told me of this disaster, and I had to fight to get reservations to get back, but I did get back to my State. I flew to Prince William Sound to view the damage that was there. I had talked to my good friend, former Senator Henry Bellmon, Governor of Oklahoma, about that, and asked him if he had any advice. He said find some way to burn it. I went down to the Valdez to see if there was something I might do to encourage that, following that advice. At the time I flew down by helicopter with the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Yost. We flew over a sickening black blanket on the Nation's largest inland sound. Prince William Sound is a place where I have spent a lot of time, fishing and traveling with friends. It is a beautiful place. Yet that day, that black blanket oozing out of the Exxon Valdez left a memory I shall never forget. That spill caused serious damage to our wildlife, to our environment, and to our people. It is hard, today, to remember anything except that great tragedy. The wind kept spreading that oil. As a matter of fact, I flew up to Alaska with our friend, the oceanographer from the University of Alaska, Mr. Royer, who told me what was going to happen. He predicted correctly that that oil would go out of the Prince William Sound and start down the Aleutian chain. If it went through the pass in the chain, it was going to cause enormous damage to the breeding grounds for Alaska's fisheries. It was a sad day, and I come today with a feeling of sadness. In view of all the publicity that has been given to this terrible tragedy, I also want to talk about what I call the silver lining that came as a result of that spill. That silver lining was the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. We call it OPA '90. Congress and the Department of Defense are currently looking at implementing a national missile defense system to protect the United States from incoming ballistic missiles. I consider OPA '90 to be the national oilspill defense system that protects our Nation from future oilspills. It was as a result of the terrible tragedy in our State that Congress enacted these provisions. As many Senators here will recall, that law was signed on August 18, 1990. It has not been revised since that time. I do not know of any push for any revisions. That is a testament to that act in itself, that it has not needed major revisions in this period. Some of the provisions of OPA '90 were under consideration prior to that act, but unfortunately, they had no impetus. It took the Exxon Valdez disaster to bring about a comprehensive approach to our national system of oilspill prevention and response. We enacted that bill just 17 months after the spill, really a very short time, given the scope of the legislation. This landmark piece of legislation created a new national framework that focuses on both prevention of spills and response to spills. It was written to reduce the chances that we will ever have another spill of the magnitude of the Valdez anywhere under the American flag. That act, and the actions it mandates, has already vastly improved the response to lesser spills. I want to point out some of the things it has done. We have greatly increased the response time--that is, decreased the time it takes--we have increased the ability to respond in time to spills that may take place in our waters. As a result of that act, we have spill response equipment pre-positioned in strategic locations all over the Nation. The national and area contingency plans required by OPA '90 are the primary reasons the response to oilspills has become so quick. Unlike when the Valdez disaster occurred, if a spill occurs today, it should literally be a matter of minutes before a plan is put into effect and executed. By requiring contingency plans in advance, OPA '90 forces planning for potential spills in a comprehensive manner. Mr. President, the main goal of all parties involved in that act was the prevention of future disasters. That is the only true way we can ensure that we will keep the beaches in Alaska and throughout our Nation free of oil. I have thanked many Alaskans who have served on the regional citizens advisory councils for the improvements they have helped bring into being. Mr. President, at my request, that act was amended to assure that there would be specific Alaska provisions in it. In addition to the national measures put into place by OPA '90, it contained, at my request, a number of measures specific to Prince William Sound in Alaska. It required the installation of a marker and light on Bligh Reef. It required tankers in Prince William Sound to be escorted by at least two tugs and to have two local pilots on the bridge. It required the creation of a vessel traffic control system for Prince William Sound, including an alarm system to warn if vessels deviated from the routes they had designated at the time they left the pier. It prevents the Exxon Valdez tanker from ever entering Alaskan waters again, no matter what name it sails under or how many structural improvements it undergoes. That provision is largely symbolic, but it goes to the heart of how Alaskans feel about that disaster. The only true way to ensure that we will never have to clean Alaskan oil off Alaska beaches again is to implement the plans and maintain the systems that OPA '90 requires. I hope that the Nation will not lose heart, that it will continue to fund the facilities and the pre-positioned equipment that we require. For a 10-year period that began in 1996, we have created in Alaska an Oilspill Recovery Institute in Cordova. We also have an oilspill lab with a trust fund created to assure that funds are available to respond to oilspills throughout the United States. Let me close by saying that I want to report to the Senate that many of the species that were affected by the oilspill are making a strong comeback. Mother Nature in the sound is responding. The environmental efforts that we have made and the progress we have made with putting into effect the new prevention measures have, in fact, deterred future spills. It is my hope that one day one of my grandchildren will ask me, Grandpa, what is an oilspill? I believe that we have gone a long way to making oilspills of the magnitude that I saw 10 years ago today a memory. I hope it remains a memory. Mr. President, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join Senator Murkowski in introducing this bill to allow greater interest to be earned on funds from the civil settlement between Exxon and the State of Alaska and the Federal Government resulting from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is another silver lining from the spill. Under the civil settlement, Exxon has paid $900 million to the State of Alaska and Federal Government. The settlement established the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council to administer these funds. The Trustee Council is comprised of three Federal and three State representatives. While I disagree with the Council's decisions to spend much of the funds to acquire land in Alaska, I was pleased by their decision on March 1, 1999 to dedicate $115 million for an endowment for marine research, monitoring, and restoration. Our bill would allow the Council to invest these funds outside the court registry, where it would earn greater interest than under the court's authority. The bill is similar to the legislation we pursued during the 105th Congress. We are encouraged that the Trustee Council has directed its Executive Director to work with us on this measure, and we will keep an open mind when those discussions begin. I also intend to explore whether we can merge the EVOS research endowment with the North Pacific Marine Research endowment I created last year with funds received by the Federal Government in the case involving Dinkum Sands oil lease revenue. The EVOS funds can only be used in the spill area, while the Dinkum Sands funds can be used for research relating to any of the marine waters off Alaska. Merging the two would maximize research benefits for Alaska and the Nation, and minimize potential duplication. In 1997, we established the 19-member North Pacific Research Board to prepare the marine research plan for the Dinkum Sands funds. In 1998, however, during the first year of funding, we simplified the approach so that the University of Alaska has the responsibility for preparing the plan, and the plan must then be approved by the State of Alaska, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce. Our goal is to update the North Pacific Research Board so that the University will have the central role, but the other entities on the North Pacific Marine Research Board will also have an advisory role in the long term in setting the research priorities. During our work on this, we will also see whether it is possible to merge the EVOS research endowment with the Dinkum Sands endowment. The bill that Senator Murkowski and I are introducing is the critical piece of the puzzle that will allow greater interest to be earned on the EVOS marine research endowment whether or not we are ultimately able to merge the two.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator has inquired of me, and I am pleased to say by previous order we shall vote at 6:45 on a motion to table the Murkowski amendment. Following that, we hope to get back to the two other amendments. One is the amendment of the Senator from Texas on Kosovo, and the other one is the distinguished majority leader's amendment. I think we will dispose of them rather quickly and vote on the bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these Senators have 30 minutes to continue this discussion and at that time we return to the pending business.

Mr. STEVENS. He has 10 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. No. No. No.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have been waiting here for an hour. I was supposed to get the floor at 6:10.

Mr. STEVENS. I think the Senator from New Mexico still has the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield to my friend for a comment or question or whatever he wants, but I want to get back to this bill.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am delighted to do that. I hope to get involved in this statement about Kosovo sometime tonight, and I think it will be a late night. Everybody ought to be on notice. I am going to try to finish the supplemental bill tonight. We have the managers' package coming and it is being brought to me. I hope the people are listening right now. I am prepared to outline that. We do have an amendment that is pending, the Murkowski amendment. I understand the Senator from Montana will make a motion to table that and that will require a vote. We also have an amendment that I have been requested by the leader to offer concerning the question of rule XVI. I understand that may be objected to. We will have to see how to handle that when it occurs. I do believe we will have to handle it tonight. I have the managers' package of about 10 amendments that have been cleared on both sides and are being analyzed from the point of view of the budget. It would be my hope we could proceed with that matter now.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. It is already in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are in this situation because sometime last year the administration authorized our representatives of NATO to enter into an agreement that would allow NATO forces to conduct strike operations against the Serbs if they did not sign an agreement that was sought--the ``peace agreement'' so-called. That did not occur. Suddenly, we find that now here we are with one sentence, one sentence approving the concept of sending in airstrikes against that nation. We do not have a prohibition against the use of ground forces, and I told the President this morning I would support this resolution if it did. But beyond that, I am constrained to say that I remember standing here on the floor in 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, when racial cleansing was not only taking place, they were murdering people in public. They had taken over a nation and they were obviously going to go into Saudi Arabia. We were in the minority and we sought to support our President, and we got very little support. I put in the Record already the letter that President Bush sent. He said if the Congress did not agree, he would not dispatch forces. Today, I looked in the eye of a President that had already made up his mind on the air war. I seriously regret that we have not put a parameter around this war so it will prevent the use of our forces on the ground. I believe we are coming close to starting World War III. At least I know we are starting a process that is almost going to be never-ending, unless it never starts.

Mr. STEVENS. Who is handling the opposition?

Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry: How much time is involved?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Therefore, we are finished with the supplemental, correct?

Mr. STEVENS. Is there not an order already entered that holds this bill now for the receipt of the bill from the House on the same subject?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, third reading.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 142 that I submitted on behalf of the leader.

Mr. STEVENS. If the Senate will give us just a few minutes here, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to yield to the Senator from Texas for 3 minutes to discuss her amendment.

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

Mr. STEVENS. We still have pending amendments, Mr. President.