Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment entitled ``1998 Disaster'' for Senator Bond be deleted from the list and that an amendment listed for Senator Ashcroft entitled ``Emergency Assistance to USDA'' be deleted.

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

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment for Senator DeWine and others to provide authority and funds for the Department of State's counterdrug program. This amendment includes an appropriate offset for the additional spending that is authorized.

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

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. Mr. President, I am here today to join two of my closest friends, Senators Cochran and Inouye, to support this bill that is before the Senate. I believe that Senator Cochran and Senator Inouye have championed this measure for some time now in the face of very strong opposition. I am pleased to see that opposition is now fading away. I cannot fathom anyone being opposed to deploying the defenses that are necessary to protect this Nation. Recent events clearly warn that our Nation must prepare for the worst possible scenario. We have watched reports that India and Pakistan have detonated nuclear devices. Each of these countries have very solid, demonstrated capabilities in building ballistic missiles. Our U.S. intelligence community admitted surprise after those demonstrations. Unrest in Indonesia and turmoil in other Pacific nation economies demand the attention of the United States and the world. Those nations increasingly look to develop or acquire a range of ballistic missiles. The threat that troubles me the most is North Korea. North Korea's missiles can already reach parts of Alaska and Hawaii, and perhaps beyond. When I visited North Korea 2 years ago, I was struck by the contrast there. Their people live a life of sacrifice, but many of their limited resources are diverted to military investments. The United States should not underestimate the determination of the North Koreans nor the risks the threats pose to the United States and our Pacific allies. Now, new reports indicate that North Korea may launch another rocket, possibly a satellite or possibly a longer-range ballistic missile. The world's ability to monitor North Korea now is limited. We all know that. Certainly almost no one in the intelligence community anticipated the recent launch of the multistage booster that we saw. Just as in World War II, the first to be threatened in the Pacific will be the States of Hawaii and Alaska. My constituents, the residents of Alaska, ask me, Why should it not be the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense system as soon as it is technically feasible? I can state categorically that after my recent trip home I know Alaskans want these defenses now. Indeed, the Alaska Legislature has already passed a joint resolution calling on the President of the United States to deploy a national missile defense system. I know, as more Americans recognize that this threat is here today--and I believe the whole country will wonder what is wrong with us; I believe they are going to even wonder why we have to have this debate this long on this issue. I am confident that Members of the Senate should be familiar with the congressionally established commission of evaluating the ballistic missile threat to the United States, known as the Rumsfeld Commission, which completed a thorough review of the missile technologies existing in other countries. More importantly, that Commission recognizes the fact that missile technologies are increasingly available to any nation with money and determination to use them. Protecting our Nation requires building a national missile defense system that will protect every square inch of every State, including Alaska and Hawaii, and the 48 contiguous States. When this issue first came before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the administration projected a system that would defend almost all of the 48 States but did not include Alaska and Hawaii and the tips of Maine and Florida. At that time, I expressed concern about that. I am pleased to see we all are now considering a truly national missile defense system. In recent weeks, I was fully briefed on the Defense Department's efforts to develop a national missile defense, a defense which would provide our Nation's only capability against these missiles. I have been reassured of the commitment to protect all 50 States by Lieutenant General Lyles, the Director of the Ballistic Missile Organization. I can also tell the Senate that some of the best engineers in this Nation are working on the current national missile defense program under the direction of Brigadier General Nance, a very capable officer and knowledgeable program manager. I believe this team, and any of the ballistic missile defense organization program managers, would tell the Senate that building this defense system is technically feasible today. That is good news. We have it within our reach and our means to build a missile defense system to protect our entire Nation from ballistic missiles. Last year, we added $1 billion as emergency funds for the development of the missile defenses to protect the United States as well as its deployed forces. This Cochran-Inouye bill makes clear that these funds are available only for enhanced testing, accelerated development, construction, integration, and infrastructure efforts in support of ballistic missile defense systems. The taxpayers' money being made available on an emergency basis was put up for the purpose of encouraging the availability of this system and to reward success in the efforts. I believe we have to have the ability to defeat the threat that is posed by ballistic missiles as soon as possible. Many Senators will recall the criticisms made last year of our ballistic missile defense programs--too little testing, schedules that didn't ask for the dollars available, and many other concerns expressed. I am pleased to report to the Senate that the $1 billion emergency increase has become a catalyst for the national missile defense program--allowing this program to add testing, fully fund development, and to rebut the critics who say it is not possible for such a system to be deployed. The administration has stated that it will match these funds and budget the necessary additional funds to develop and deploy a national missile defense system. I am still concerned that the funds budgeted by the administration, however, will allow a missile defense system to be deployed about 2005. On March 14, 1995, Defense Secretary Perry testified before our Defense Appropriations Subcommittee that: On the national missile defense system, that system would be ready for deployment in 3 years on the basis of this program projection, and then 3 years later than that it would be operational. He said it would be operational in 3 years. So we are about 6 years away from deployment of national missile defense systems. That was 1995. In responding to my question during a hearing in June of 1995, Lt. Gen. Malcolm O'Neill noted Secretary Perry's promise and went on to add: I think the timeframe (Secretary Perry) talked about was 3 years of development and then 3 years to deploy. So that would mean a 2001 scenario, and that would get a system in position before the Taepo Dong 2. Mr. President, that is the Korean missile that we are all so worried about now. The Taepo Dong 2 is ready now but we are still developing a system. The national missile defense system that should be in place by 2001 will not be there in 2001, and we were promised an operational national missile defense system as early as 2001. As one who has watched this system now develop over a period of years, I have been frustrated that it has slipped now, apparently, to 2005. The track record is one of continual delays and slips as far as the deployment date is concerned. I believe that this Nation must get ahead of the threats. The risks are too great. Again, I basically come here to commend these two Senators for their very hard work on this bill. Senator Cochran and Senator Inouye deserve the entire support of the Senate. I am pleased that these matters which had previously looked like they might delay this bill might be resolved. I congratulate the managers of this bill and its author for their wisdom and determination. I hope the Senate will proceed rapidly to approve it.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk to the title of the bill and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate will consider a supplemental appropriations bill that includes both emergency and nonemergency spending for the fiscal year. Over the past 3 months, the Office of Management and Budget has transmitted to Congress several supplemental budget requests, totaling $2 billion. These requests seek funding for agricultural relief, implementation of the Wye River Accords and recovery in Central America from the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch. Each of the subcommittees has examined the requests under their jurisdiction, and closely reviewed other emergent agency needs. In addition, the administration proposed deep cuts in defense funds to offset additional foreign assistance sought for Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This proposed offset re-opened issues settled in the omnibus bill in October, and violated the spirit of the firewalls that govern discretionary spending for fiscal year 1999. In total, the bill reported by the committee provides $1.538 billion in emergency appropriations and $332 million in non-emergency appropriations. These new appropriations are matched by $1.87 billion in rescissions and program deferrals. The recommendations made by the committee nearly double the administration's request for agricultural relief, providing a total of $285 million. That bill proposes $100 million in funding this year for Jordan, to provide additional support for a vital ally during a period of transition and tension in the region. The deferral of the remaining $800 million in funding to implement the Wye agreements does not reflect opposition to that request. After consultation with the administration, it was determined that those amounts can await consideration later this year. This committee has a long record of support for the Middle East Peace Process--our friends in the region know they can count on us. The amounts requested for Hurricane Mitch relief respond to the truly desperate conditions facing our neighbors in Central America. The Department of Defense, and the U.S. Southern Command, led by Gen. Charles Wilhelm, deserve great credit for their efforts to respond to the immediate crisis late last year. We must backfill the amounts spent by the Department to ensure our ability to respond to future crises is not diminished--especially in respect to drawdown authorities and overseas humanitarian assistance. In addition, we must address the needs of our friends in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic to rebuild from this disaster. These funds provide a good first step in that effort. Recognizing the considerable amount of emergency spending provided in the omnibus bill in October, I recommended that all new appropriations in this bill be offset by rescissions of other available funds. These rescissions include defense and non-defense discretionary appropriations, mandatory appropriations, emergency appropriations and funding deferrals. There were very few good choices to consider. I'm sure every Member here might have assembled a different mix of offsets. These rescissions, totaling $1.868 billion, reflect an effort to balance competing needs. Only defense funds were rescinded to offset defense spending, and only non-defense amounts to balance the non-defense spending. Some of these will be controversial, but our intention is to reduce only funds that are not likely to be obligated this year, or are of a low priority. We are at or over the budget caps for 1999. We have no headroom or flexibility to make any non-emergency appropriation unless it is fully offset in both budget authority and outlays. For that reason, any amendment to this bill must be accompanied by offsets. I must insist that even emergency spending amendments be accompanied by budget authority offsets. Finally, many Members have raised various legislative amendments this week. I hope that controversial amendments can again be deferred. Every Member has a right to propose amendments, but this is a supplemental appropriations bill, and deals with some very real emergency needs. In my judgment, we need to complete final action and try to send this bill to the President before the Easter recess which commences a week from tomorrow. I believe we must pass the bill in the Senate this week to meet that schedule. Mr. President, compared to previous emergency supplemental appropriations bills presented to this body, this bill does not respond to the kind of domestic disasters we faced in 1997 or 1998. This is a modest bill, that is fully offset in terms of new budget authority. It extends an important hand of friendship and support to our neighbors in Central America, and a closer partner in the Middle East Peace Process, Jordan. Mr. President, it is our goal to complete this bill by Friday, no later than 11 a.m. I yield for my good friend from West Virginia.

Mr. STEVENS. This section states: (3) The pro rata share to which the United States is equitably entitled, as determined by the Secretary, of the net amount recovered during any quarter by the State or any political subdivision thereof with respect to medical assistance furnished under the State plan shall be considered an overpayment to be adjusted under this subsection. Clearly, that has required other States to make payments to the Federal Government to restore the amounts of money that were paid under the Federal plans and recovered by State litigation. The difficulty with the position that I understand the Senator has just taken, Senator Sessions, is that the States did file their cases, but Section 1902(a)(9)(A) of the Social Security Act says: . . . the State or local agency administering such plan will take all reasonable measures to ascertain the legal liability of third parties (including health insurers, group health plans (as defined in section 607(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. . . . And it sets forth the duty of the State to take that action, and since we have assigned that duty to the State, the Federal Government cannot take that action. As a consequence, while I believe that Senator Hutchison's amendment is correct, that we should not take this money from the States at this time, I do believe that the requirement that the States show that they will spend the money in the way envisioned by the Social Security Act is a fair compromise, and it is my intention to support the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania in order to try to see to it that we have that consideration. Failure to do so will exacerbate the future bills that we will present to the Senate which will have to seek money to make the payments for the programs that the State will not undertake unless that requirement is there. That money, incidentally, is projected in both the President's budget and in past budgets adopted by the Senate. So if this money stays in the hands of the State, and there is no obligation to comply with existing law, we will be in the position where we will have to come up and find more money--in effect, break the caps on the Health and Human Services bill, which is the bill that is now the largest bill that we will prepare for the Congress this year; the largest bill is no longer Defense, it is the Health and Human Services bill. That bill is under severe stress for the future and cannot afford to see this money stay in the State hands and the money be spent in the way envisioned by the recovery; really, a recovery for moneys spent by the States using Federal taxpayer's funds in the past. If the State diverts those funds to other endeavors, we will have to make that up in future appropriations bills, in my judgment. I intend to support the amendment of Senator Specter and Senator Harkin to require the States to show that they will, in fact, make those payments. As I understand it, it will not take a great deal of trouble on behalf of the States to show that they are doing that. I think many States are doing that. I understand my State has taken the position that they don't like Senator Specter's amendment. I sometimes have duties here that are contrary to that of the Governors in terms of trying to see to it that fairness is provided as far as the use of funds from the recovery that comes about because of actions such as the States have taken, and my State was one of them--to pursue those who have brought about the great expenditures for health care that we had to face because of the scourge of excessive smoking. I do believe that this amendment is on the right track. I intend to vote for it. I put my friends on notice that I do not believe that it is inconsistent with the position of supporting the Hutchison amendment in the first place, because I think the States should retain the money and the States should make the plan of how the money should be spent. The power of the Secretary of Health and Human Services is to approve that plan, not to dictate how it is to be spent. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I say to my friend, I was looking around to see who he was talking about when he was talking about that kind, benevolent and calm fellow, but I do thank you for your courtesy and kindness. It is a pleasure to work with you. Mr. President, I studied under Senator Byrd so long I think I imitate his ways. I have tried to anyway. Mr. President, it is now time to have an amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter. It is my hope, and I want to announce to the Senate it is my hope, we will get an agreement tomorrow that will require amendments to this bill to be filed no later than 5 o'clock. We don't have that agreement yet. It has not been cleared. But if we are to finish this bill and get it ready to go immediately to the House after the House passes their bill on Monday, it will be necessary to complete this bill on Friday. I am hopeful we will complete it in time to allow those people who have to catch planes to go West, so they can make their schedules. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania. There is a time agreement for tomorrow on this amendment, is my understanding, but there is no time limit this evening. Is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator withhold that?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have not gone into this argument before. In the committee, in dealing with this supplemental, I did vote for the Hutchison amendment. I voted for it because I do believe that, because of the circumstances of this series of settlements coming after the failure of the Congress to pass the tobacco legislation, we should not force the States to turn the money over to the Federal Government as required by law. The Social Security Act does provide that--I ask unanimous consent that this section 1903(d)(3) be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is the supplemental bill before the Senate?

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank our majority leader. Throughout this ordeal, no one has tried to poll me on any substantive matter or influence my vote. That, to me, means a great deal. I view this process as the most serious task I have faced as a Senator over the past 30 years, and I appreciate the recognition by the leadership of the solemnity of our duties under these circumstances and the fact that we each must reach our own conclusions based on the evidence. As Senators, each of us joined in this oath: I . . . do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge my duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. And now, we took an additional oath: [I] solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, now pending, [I] will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help [me] God. As free citizens of the world's most successful democracy we are inexorably tied to the pledges and commitments we make. These obligations, and the unlimited benefits they bestow on us, depend on our willingness to be truthful with one another. The President took the two most serious oaths any American ever encounters: the oath to faithfully execute our laws, administered by the Chief Justice, our Presiding Officer, on the steps of this building, and the oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to a jury of his peers. I am most concerned that the action we take here to day not denigrate the role of oaths and truth in our society. To be fair to the President, I feel he believed that he admitted to the Grand Jury that he had not testified truthfully under oath in his deposition. In fact he did not, and he did not tell the truth to the grand jury either. Both the House Managers and the President's lawyers have seized on apparent conflicts in the evidence and recorded testimony before this Court of Impeachment. Nonetheless, the evidentiary record and the presentations of both sides, as supplemented by their responses to our questions, leave no doubt in my mind that if I were sitting as a juror in a criminal case I would find that the accused is guilty of perjury as charged in Article I. Following the jury's verdict, it would then fall to the judge to determine appropriate punishment within the bounds of the federal sentencing guidelines provided by Congress. But an impeachment trial is no ordinary proceeding. We sit as judge and jury--rulers on law and triers of fact. The Constitution charges us with a great responsibility. Section 4 of Article II of the Constitution requires that the President be removed from office upon conviction of high crimes and misdemeanors. No President has ever been removed under these circumstances. To me, that history alone should make each of us seriously consider whether the facts presented to us require that the Senate exercise this awesome power. The process by which our Founding Fathers determined that this power should be vested in the Congress is adequately briefed in the record. I found particularly helpful the testimony and scholarly papers from the hearings before the House Judiciary Committee on November 9, 1998. Remember in the House committee deliberations, the minority submitted a joint resolution of censure for consideration in lieu of the Articles finally voted upon. It restated: Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the censure of William Jefferson Clinton. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is the sense of Congress that-- (1) on January 20, 1993, William Jefferson Clinton took the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States faithfully to execute the office of President; implicit in that oath is the obligation that the President set an example of high moral standards and conduct himself in a manner that fosters respect for the truth; and William Jefferson Clinton, has egregiously failed in this obligation, and through his actions violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of President, and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him; (2)(A) William Jefferson Clinton made false statements concerning this reprehensible conduct with a subordinate; (B) William Jefferson Clinton wrongly took steps to delay discovery of the truth; and (C) in as much as no person is above the law, William Jefferson Clinton remains subject to criminal and civil penalties; and (3) William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, by his conduct has brought upon himself, and fully deserves, the censure and condemnation of the American people and the Congress; and by his signature on this Joint Resolution, acknowledges this censure and condemnation. On December 19, 1998, the House minority in the full house offered this resolution on the House floor which stated: That it is the sense of the House that-- (1) on January 20, 1993, William Jefferson Clinton took the oath prescribed by the constitution of the United States faithfully to execute the office of President; implicit in that oath is the obligation that the President set an example of high moral standards and conduct himself in a manner that fosters respect for the truth: and William Jefferson Clinton, has egregiously failed in this obligation, and through his actions violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of President, and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him: (2)(A) William Jefferson Clinton made false statements concerning his reprehensible conduct with a subordinate: (B) William Jefferson Clinton wrongfully took steps to delay discovery of the truth, and (C) inasmuch as no person is above the law, William Jefferson Clinton remains subject to criminal and civil penalties and (3) William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, by his conduct has brought upon himself and fully deserves the censure and condemnation of the American people and this House. As a former United States Attorney, Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, and defense attorney, I believe I understand the rule of law. The conduct which the President engaged in was clearly wrong, and his actions clearly warrant his Impeachment, which the House of Representatives has done. But with regard to the allegations in Article I, I do not believe his criminal activity rises to the level of ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' which require his removal from office by this Senate. Article, II, charging obstruction of justice, to me, involves a very different matter than the perjury charge in Article I. Article II involves the use of Presidential powers to impede or imperil the impartial administration of justice in a civil as well as before the grand jury. We have pledged to ``Support and Defend the Constitution,'' and I suggest that in our present roles we must do so by fulfilling and reaffirming the freedoms and obligations of all Americans under that document. By micromanaging the briefing of witnesses and the concealment of evidence and by testifying before the grand jury to what he knew was not the whole truth, the President has obstructed justice. His oath as President requires him to faithfully execute laws, and by his actions he has violated this oath. In his 1992 book ``Grand Inquests,'' the Presiding Officer of this Court (and the Chief Justice of the United States) wrote: The framers [of the United States Constitution] and the authors of the Federalist Papers had not envisioned political parties as we now know them . . . Would the dominant role played by political parties make the Senate a partisan tribunal which would be willing to undermine the fundamental principles of the Constitution in order to remove a political enemy from office? I also wonder whether the Framers anticipated that in 85 of the 106 Congresses, the minority party has held more than the necessary one- third strength to prevent the removal of a President? The action of the House of Representatives was not partisan. But, it is obvious from the final vote that future generations could reach such a conclusion. In fact, it is obvious that many of our Democratic Senators have done so. In this Senate, a final vote strictly on party lines should not occur. The fundamental principles referenced by the Chief Justice--particularly the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of our Federal Government--should not be undermined. The most basic principle at issue is the obligation of each branch to dedicate itself to protect the separation of powers of our three branches of Government. In my judgment, the power of the Senate to reach across to the executive branch and remove a President of the United States may be exercised only when the President's actions seriously threaten our nation's security, when he violates his oath to ``faithfully execute the law of the United States,'' or does such violence to the rule of law that removal from office is clearly the only way to protect our nation from the possibility that he might do great harm to our people. While I believe the President violated his oath, it does not necessarily follow that he must be removed. For myself, if I knew my vote would be the deciding vote here, I would not vote to remove this President, despite his unlawful acts. He has not brought that level of danger to the nation which, in my judgment, is necessary to justify such an action. The President remains answerable, as all Americans should be, to the criminal processes of our justice system. We do not have the power to convict him of a crime; the Constitution forbids it. Instead, the Constitution provides that the Senate, by a \2/3\ majority of those voting, may remove him from office. For me, that makes this more than a factual issue, so I do not vote as I would were I a juror in a criminal case. As I prepared my decision, it was apparent to me that there was no alternative that will dispose of this matter consistent with the sanctity of oaths and the importance of truth other than to adopt findings of fact. Not to do so and to not remove the President undermines the great success of a nation based upon observance and loyalty to our oaths. Having no other alternative, I shall vote guilty on Article II. As I previously pointed out, I would not do so if I knew such action would remove the President from office. I do so to demonstrate my firm conviction not only that the President has obstructed justice, but also that we should have followed the procedure which would establish the facts clearly and then determine if the President should be removed from office. When we had our first meetings on this issue, I told my colleagues we had forces in Kuwait on high alert, forces in Bosnia, an alarming situation in North Korea, and Asian flu plaguing the economies of emerging nations, and Pakistan and India drawing closer and closer to conflict. President Yeltsin, when I saw him yesterday, was a very ill leader, a leader of a nation that has the ability to threaten our freedom. NATO could well order an assault in Kosovo if negotiations there break down. The world has one stable superpower--the United States of America. Removal of the President by the Senate for the first time in history could destabilize our nation--leaving him in office will not. The long national ordeal our country has undergone over the past year has been agonizing for all of us. Since the Senate convened as a Court of Impeachment, I have received thousands of e-mails and letters from every reach of my state, from the most remote Eskimo village to our largest urban center. I have literally received letters from every walk of life: from doctors, lawyers, and Indian chiefs. Many are filled with advice on how I should cast my vote, the most important vote I will ever cast as a Senator. But whether they believe the president should be removed from office or not, all express deep concerns about the future of our country and the example we set for future generations. I have laid awake many nights pondering those very questions, and I share the anguish that many have felt. When I was appointed to the Senate 30 years ago Christmas Eve, I had a motto that I have tried to live by. ``To hell with the politics. Just do what's right for Alaska.'' Today, as one of 100 men and women who have been chosen to exercise this mighty power that our founding fathers conveyed on us over 200 years ago, I modify my creed: ``To hell with the politics. Just do what's right for the nation.'' There are many who will disagree with the votes I cast in this historic trial. But I hope all will know that I have done my best to live by the oaths that I took, and to do what I think is right for the nation.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senate Appropriations Committee has unanimously adopted rules governing its procedures for the 106th Congress. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the ``Standing Rules of the Senate'', I send to the desk a copy of the Committee rules for publication in the Congressional Record. The rules follow: SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE RULES--106th CONGRESS I. Meetings-- The Committee will meet at the call of the Chairman. II. Quorums-- 1. Reporting a bill. A majority of the members must be present for the reporting of a bill. 2. Other business. For the purpose of transacting business other than reporting a bill or taking testimony, one-third of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum. 3. Taking testimony. For the purpose of taking testimony, other than sworn testimony, by the Committee or any subcommittee, one member of the Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum. For the purpose of taking sworn testimony by the Committee, three members shall constitute a quorum, and for the taking of sworn testimony by any subcommittee, one member shall constitute a quorum. III. Proxies-- Except for the reporting of a bill, votes may be cast by proxy when any member so requests. IV. Attendance of staff members at closed sessions-- Attendance of Staff Members at closed sessions of the Committee shall be limited to those members of the Committee Staff that have a responsibility associated with the matter being considered at such meeting. This rule may be waived by unanimous consent. V. Broadcasting and photographing of Committee hearing-- The Committee or any of its subcommittees may permit the photographing and broadcast of open hearings by television and/or radio. However, if any member of a subcommittee objects to the photographing or broadcasting of an open hearing, the question shall be referred to the Full Committee for its decision. VI. Availability of subcommittee reports-- To the extent possible, when the bill and report of any subcommittee are available, they shall be furnished to each member of the Committee thirty-six hours prior to the Committee's consideration of said bill and report. VII. Amendments and report language-- To the extent possible, amendments and report language intended to be proposed by Senators at Full Committee markups shall be provided in writing to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member and the appropriate Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Minority Member twenty-four hours prior to such markups. VIII. Points of order-- Any member of the Committee who is floor manager of an appropriation bill, is hereby authorized to make points of order against any amendment offered in violation of the Senate Rules on the floor of the Senate to such appropriation bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. We cannot hear that monitor. Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. I will read the answer again: . . . and Mr. Jordan informed you of that, is that right? Answer: No, sir. Now, in fairness to the President, he gives a longer answer than that. I welcome anybody to read it, but it appears rather convoluted. I think that you can see the contrast. There is no question in Mr. Jordan's mind as to the details that he is providing to the President on a regular basis. We are on December 19. The subpoena is issued. He notifies the President. He notifies the President how the job search is going. He notifies the President that they got representation through Mr. Carter. So the details are provided to the President and to contrast that with the President's recollection as to did he have any contact with Mr. Jordan, once again diminishing that. Let's go back to December 19, back to the chart--to December 19 when the subpoena is issued. Mr. Jordan meets with Monica Lewinsky. He confronts her about the relationship. Now, he goes that evening to see the President at the White House to confront him personally about it to discuss this with him. Let's hear from Mr. Jordan, and this is at the White House. (Text of videotape presentation:) Q. Now, would you describe your conversation with the President? A. We were upstairs, uh, in the White House. Mrs. Jordan-- we came in by way of the Southwest Gate into the Diplomatic Entrance--we left the car there. I took the elevator up to the residence, and Mrs. Jordan went and visited at the party. And the President was already upstairs--I had ascertained that from the usher--and I went up, and I raised with him the whole question of Monica Lewinsky and asked him directly if he had had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and the President said, ``No, never.'' (Text of videotape presentation:) A Well, we had established that. Q All right. And did you tell him that you were concerned about her fascination? A I did. Q And did you describe her as being emotional in your meeting that day? A I did. Q And did you relate to the President that Ms. Lewinsky asked about whether he was going to leave the First Lady at the end of the term? A I did. Q And as--and then, you concluded that with the question as to whether he had had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky? A And he said he had not, and I was satisfied--end of conversation. Q Now, once again, just as I asked the question in reference to Ms. Lewinsky, it appears to me that this is an extraordinary question to ask the President of the United States. What led you to ask this question to the President? A Well, first of all, I'm asking the question of my friend who happens to be the President of the United States. Q And did you expect your friend, the President of the United States, to give you a truthful answer? A I did. Q Did you rely upon the President's answer in your decision to continue your efforts to seek Ms. Lewinsky a job? A I believed him, and I continued to do what I had been asked to do. Q Well, my question was more did you rely upon the President's answer in your decision to continue your efforts to seek Ms. Lewinsky a job. A I did not rely on his answer. I was going to pursue the job in any event. But I got the answer to the question that I had asked Ms. Lewinsky earlier from her, and I got the answer from him that night as to the sexual relationships, and he said no. You will have to judge for yourselves as to why Mr. Jordan felt compelled to ask the question. He is asking the right questions. It was important information. If the President had said, ``Yes; there is,'' then it would certainly have been inappropriate to continue providing a job benefit for a witness that you are seeking an affidavit from denying a relationship when you know the relationship exists, when that witness would be adverse to the President's interest who is seeking the job. To some that might be convoluted, and perhaps I didn't explain it as best it can be. But it looks to me like that is why Mr. Jordan is asking the question because he knows it would be inappropriate if that, in fact, did exist. He got an answer ``no.'' I don't know what he thought in his mind. But clearly you see the conversations develop when Ms. Lewinsky made it totally clear to him without any question that there was that relationship. But still the job benefit was provided. We are not going to have time to go through it all. But sequentially, the next thing that happens is December 2 when Ms. Lewinsky goes to Mr. Jordan's office where Mr. Jordan drives her in the chauffeur-driven government vehicle to Mr. Frank Carter's office where the attorney is that is provided for Ms. Lewinsky. And that is the only time that it happened in the referral that Mr. Jordan took it upon himself to personally deliver a client to Mr. Carter. During that conversation, Ms. Lewinsky tells Mr. Jordan more of the details of their relationship. But let's go to another element of obstruction--on December 28, a few days after Christmas. You are very familiar with this episode in which Ms. Lewinsky and the President meet. They exchange gifts. The testimony in the Jones case is discussed. There is concern expressed about the gifts. She asks the President in essence, Should I get them out of my house? And you will hear her answer. Her testimony is very clear on this. That is what I would like you to listen to. There is no ambiguity. There are no ``what-ifs.'' It is very clear. And let's move now to the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky. (Inaudible.)

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have in the past brought to the attention of the Senate one of the most significant economic problems facing Alaska--the underdevelopment of the business sector in the rural areas of Alaska. Today I am introducing the Rural Business Lending Act to help fix this problem in my state and in Hawaii. Senators Inouye, Murkowski, and Akaka join me as cosponsors. Many of my colleagues have heard me speak of Alaska's vast size, of our lack of a highway system, and of the problems faced by small Alaska communities because of their remoteness and because they are islands surrounded by a sea of federal land. Our economic problems are in some ways more like the problems of third-world countries than the problems of towns in the contiguous 48 states. More than 130 Alaska villages and communities have populations under 3,000, and almost 80 percent of these communities are not connected to any road or highway system. They can be reached only by small plane or boat. Many do not have a bank branch office or any other lending source. The nearest banks--which, even within Alaska are likely to be hundreds of miles away--often cannot make loans in rural communities due to the cost of servicing the loans, the cost of transportation, higher credit risks and other unknown risks, the seasonality of the economy, and the collateral limitations inherent to remote real estate. Most Alaska villages have few, if any, privately- or independently- owned small businesses. The Rural Business Lending Act would attempt to help with these problems. The bill would create a pilot loan guarantee program in Alaska and Hawaii administered by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). The pilot program is modeled after the SBA 7(a) program that was in effect prior to changes made in 1995. These changes dramatically reduced small business lending by banks and other financial institutions in Alaska. Among other things, the changes: (1) decreased the portion of a loan that SBA could guarantee under the 7(a) Program, from 90 percent of the loan amount down to a sliding scale of only up to 80 percent; and (2) increased the guarantee fee for 7(a) loans from 2 percent of the loan amount up to a sliding scale of between 2 percent and 3.875 percent. Another change was that the SBA discontinued servicing loans that have gone into default. This change is particularly detrimental in Alaska and Hawaii, because of the transportation costs involved in servicing a loan, and in small Alaska communities because it is difficult for the employee of a bank branch to take action against his neighbor on a loan. Before these changes went into effect, the SBA 7(a) lending program provided much of the critical financing for rural Alaska businesses. For instance, the SBA guaranteed 315 loans totaling $29 million with fiscal year 1995 funds--170 of which went to businesses in what we consider rural areas of Alaska (generally not on the road system). By comparison, the SBA guaranteed only 88 loans in Alaska--and only 48 in rural areas--with fiscal year 1998 funds, after the changes had gone into effect. The total amount of the loans between fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1998 decreased by over 60 percent, from $29 million down to $10 million. It appears this downward trend is continuing during the Fiscal Year 1999 cycle. Prior to the changes, the National Bank of Alaska was one of SBA's biggest 7(a) lending program participants, having made over 91 loans totaling more than $15 million during the fiscal year 1995 cycle. Three years later, during the fiscal year 1998 cycle, the National Bank of Alaska made no loans under the 7(a) program. There is no question that the changes have negatively affected the availability of loan funds and credit in rural Alaska and other rural areas. The bill I am introducing today is intended to make the 7(a) program more viable in the rural parts of Alaska and Hawaii. The Rural Business Lending Act would create a 3-year ``Rural Business Lending Program'' in the 49th and 50th states that would be similar to 7(a) Program before the 1995 changes. It would allow up to 90 percent of loan amounts to be guaranteed, cap the guarantee fee at 1 percent, require the SBA to service loans on which it honors a guarantee, and allow the SBA to waive annual loan fees (one-half of one percent of the outstanding loan balance under existing law) if necessary to increase lending. Loans under the ``Rural Business Lending Program'' would be available only in communities with a population of 9,000 or fewer. The program would be required to be administered from the SBA's Alaska and Hawaii offices, where the unique characteristics and needs of rural small businesses are more likely to be understood. The SBA would be required to report to Congress after two years on the effectiveness of the program so that consideration could be given to making it permanent or expanding it to other areas. This legislation will ensure that small businesses in rural Alaska and Hawaii have similar access to the national 7(a) Program that other small businesses have. The national 7(a) program should not provide opportunities only to businesses in urban settings. The changes in the Act are intended to revive the SBA 7(a) Program in rural parts of Alaska and Hawaii, creating a model that perhaps can be applied more broadly in the future. I look forward to working with other Senators on the enactment of this legislation that is so critical to small businesses in Alaska and Hawaii, and ultimately perhaps, to small businesses in rural areas throughout the United States.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have in the past brought to the attention of the Senate one of the most significant economic problems facing Alaska--the underdevelopment of the business sector in the rural areas of Alaska. Today I am introducing the Rural Business Lending Act to help fix this problem in my state and in Hawaii. Senators Inouye, Murkowski, and Akaka join me as cosponsors. Many of my colleagues have heard me speak of Alaska's vast size, of our lack of a highway system, and of the problems faced by small Alaska communities because of their remoteness and because they are islands surrounded by a sea of federal land. Our economic problems are in some ways more like the problems of third-world countries than the problems of towns in the contiguous 48 states. More than 130 Alaska villages and communities have populations under 3,000, and almost 80 percent of these communities are not connected to any road or highway system. They can be reached only by small plane or boat. Many do not have a bank branch office or any other lending source. The nearest banks--which, even within Alaska are likely to be hundreds of miles away--often cannot make loans in rural communities due to the cost of servicing the loans, the cost of transportation, higher credit risks and other unknown risks, the seasonality of the economy, and the collateral limitations inherent to remote real estate. Most Alaska villages have few, if any, privately- or independently- owned small businesses. The Rural Business Lending Act would attempt to help with these problems. The bill would create a pilot loan guarantee program in Alaska and Hawaii administered by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). The pilot program is modeled after the SBA 7(a) program that was in effect prior to changes made in 1995. These changes dramatically reduced small business lending by banks and other financial institutions in Alaska. Among other things, the changes: (1) decreased the portion of a loan that SBA could guarantee under the 7(a) Program, from 90 percent of the loan amount down to a sliding scale of only up to 80 percent; and (2) increased the guarantee fee for 7(a) loans from 2 percent of the loan amount up to a sliding scale of between 2 percent and 3.875 percent. Another change was that the SBA discontinued servicing loans that have gone into default. This change is particularly detrimental in Alaska and Hawaii, because of the transportation costs involved in servicing a loan, and in small Alaska communities because it is difficult for the employee of a bank branch to take action against his neighbor on a loan. Before these changes went into effect, the SBA 7(a) lending program provided much of the critical financing for rural Alaska businesses. For instance, the SBA guaranteed 315 loans totaling $29 million with fiscal year 1995 funds--170 of which went to businesses in what we consider rural areas of Alaska (generally not on the road system). By comparison, the SBA guaranteed only 88 loans in Alaska--and only 48 in rural areas--with fiscal year 1998 funds, after the changes had gone into effect. The total amount of the loans between fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1998 decreased by over 60 percent, from $29 million down to $10 million. It appears this downward trend is continuing during the Fiscal Year 1999 cycle. Prior to the changes, the National Bank of Alaska was one of SBA's biggest 7(a) lending program participants, having made over 91 loans totaling more than $15 million during the fiscal year 1995 cycle. Three years later, during the fiscal year 1998 cycle, the National Bank of Alaska made no loans under the 7(a) program. There is no question that the changes have negatively affected the availability of loan funds and credit in rural Alaska and other rural areas. The bill I am introducing today is intended to make the 7(a) program more viable in the rural parts of Alaska and Hawaii. The Rural Business Lending Act would create a 3-year ``Rural Business Lending Program'' in the 49th and 50th states that would be similar to 7(a) Program before the 1995 changes. It would allow up to 90 percent of loan amounts to be guaranteed, cap the guarantee fee at 1 percent, require the SBA to service loans on which it honors a guarantee, and allow the SBA to waive annual loan fees (one-half of one percent of the outstanding loan balance under existing law) if necessary to increase lending. Loans under the ``Rural Business Lending Program'' would be available only in communities with a population of 9,000 or fewer. The program would be required to be administered from the SBA's Alaska and Hawaii offices, where the unique characteristics and needs of rural small businesses are more likely to be understood. The SBA would be required to report to Congress after two years on the effectiveness of the program so that consideration could be given to making it permanent or expanding it to other areas. This legislation will ensure that small businesses in rural Alaska and Hawaii have similar access to the national 7(a) Program that other small businesses have. The national 7(a) program should not provide opportunities only to businesses in urban settings. The changes in the Act are intended to revive the SBA 7(a) Program in rural parts of Alaska and Hawaii, creating a model that perhaps can be applied more broadly in the future. I look forward to working with other Senators on the enactment of this legislation that is so critical to small businesses in Alaska and Hawaii, and ultimately perhaps, to small businesses in rural areas throughout the United States.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service more than 221,000,000 acres of wetlands existed at the time of Colonial America in the area that is now the contiguous United States. Since then 117,000,000 of those areas, roughly 53 percent, have been filled, drained, or otherwise removed from wetland status. In the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act, Congress broadly expanded Federal jurisdiction over wetlands by modifying the definition of ``navigable waters'' as used in the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act. The 1899 Act established the basis for regulating disposition of dredge spoils in navigable waters. The 1972 Act expanded that basis to encompass all ``water of the United States''. In 1975, a United States district court ordered the Army Corps of Engineers to publish revised regulations concerning their program to implement section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Since then, the Courts have further expanded upon the Corps's authority to include isolated wetlands and have issued decisions that effectively constrain agency decision makers to act only to promote conservation, often at the expense of sound economic development. This expansion of Congressional intent has also formed the basis for burdensome intrusions on the property rights of many Alaskans, Alaskan Native Corporations, and the State of Alaska. The erosion of agency discretion clearly undermines the Corps of Engineers' ability to implement sound public policy in my State. Over the 100 years since the Rivers and Harbors Act, their ``Section 404'' regulatory program has become unnecessarily inflexible and unresponsive to common sense. In recognizing the value of preserving and restoring wetlands where appropriate, Congress intended to leave appropriate discretion to agency managers to balance competing public values. That intent has lost flexibility with age. Today the lack of regulatory flexibility threatens to destroy the economic health of many Alaskans. We are being over-regulated to the point of economic strangulation. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, approximately 170,200,000 acres of wetlands existed in Alaska in the 1780's and approximately 170,000,000 acres of wetlands exist now. That represents a loss of less than one-tenth of 1 percent through the combined effects of either human or natural processes. Alaska contains more wetlands than all of the other States combined. Fully 75 percent of the non-mountainous areas of Alaska are wetlands. Yet we are regulating these vast wetlands in Alaska to the same strict levels as all the other states, without regard to either special economic hardships or the unnecessary federal expense this causes. Ninety-eight percent of all Alaskan communities, including 200 of the 226 remote villages in Alaska, which incidently are dispersed over 1/ 5th of the land mass of the United States, are located in or adjacent to wetlands. To promote the economic self sufficiency of these remote communities, about 43,000,000 acres of land were granted to Alaska Natives through regional and village corporations. These Native allotments were intended to be available for use. However between 45 percent and 100 percent of each Native corporation's land is categorized as wetlands. Therefore development of these Native lands and basic community infrastructure is delayed or even prevented by an ever tightening regulatory regime designed to protect an excessively abundant resource in Alaska because it is scarce elsewhere in the Union. Naturally Alaska villages, municipalities, boroughs, city governments, and Native organizations are increasingly frustrated with the constraints of the wetlands regulatory program because it interferes with the location of community centers, airports, sanitation systems, roads, schools, industrial areas, and other critical community infrastructure. The same is true of State-owned lands. 104,000,000 acres of land were granted to the State of Alaska at statehood for purposes of economic development. Nowhere is flexibility more appropriate than on these lands. What minimal identifiable environmental benefits expected from the ever tightened regulation of wetlands are certainly not justified in Alaska. The Federal Government already has vast wetlands holdings in Alaska under the protection of a variety of Federal land management programs. In Alaska we have 62 percent of all federally designated wilderness lands, 70 percent of all Federal park lands, and 90 percent of all Federal refuge lands, thus providing protection against use or degradation for approximately 60,000,000 acres of wetlands. National policies intended to achieve `no net loss' of wetlands reflect a response to the 53 percent loss of the wetlands base in the 48 contiguous States, but do not take into account the large percentage of conserved wetlands in Alaska. Only 12 percent of Alaska's wetlands are privately owned, compared to 74 percent of the wetlands in the 48 contiguous States. Wetlands regulation designed to protect a large majority of a dwindling resource are clearly too strict where they would only apply to a small percentage of a vase resource. Unfortunately, Federal agencies no longer enjoy the discretion to modify their program to address these special circumstances. As a result, individual landowners in Alaska have lost up to 97 percent of their property value and Alaskan communities have lost a significant portion of their tax base due to wetlands regulations. Expansion of the wetlands regulatory program in this manager is beyond what the Congress intended when it passed the Clean Water Act. In Alaska, it has placed unnecessary economic and administrative burdens on private property owners, small businesses, city governments, State government, farmers, ranchers, and others, while providing negligible environmental benefits. It is time to stop using the wrong regulatory tools. For a State, such as Alaska, with substantial conserved wetlands, my bill provides much needed relief from the excessive burdens of the current cumbersome federal wetlands regulatory program. It relaxes the most stringent aspects of wetlands regulation, without dismantling agency discretion to regulate where necessary. This bill restores common sense and cost effectiveness without loss of high value wetlands.