Ted Stevens

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.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have all been pleased with the recent decline in crime in many areas of the country, and today I am introducing a bill to acknowledge the great commitment and sacrifice public safety officers at every level have made to that decline. From responding to traffic accidents, apprehending violent criminals, fighting fires, combating domestic terrorism, assisting people during natural disasters--not to mention performing the functions many of us take for granted--public safety officers are essential to the well- being and stability of the United States. While public safety accomplishments often go unrecognized, the selfless service of those who work each day to preserve the peace and improve safety in our communities continues. This past year were reminded of the tremendous sacrifices of this American mainstay when Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson gave their lives defending the peace and protecting lives in our nation's Capitol. In fact, since 1988 over 700 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty, another 629 have been killed in duty-related accidents, and over 600,000 have been assaulted. We owe a tremendous debt to these heroes and to their families who have made such a tremendous sacrifice for the rest of us. In the past ten years we've had earthquakes, flooding, hurricanes, vast fires, record cold spells, and numerous other natural disasters. Throughout those natural disasters, Americans from around the country counted on firemen, emergency medical technicians, emergency services personnel, and other public safety personnel from all levels of government. The many peaceful moments and days that we enjoy between these disasters and tragedies are the product of the vigilance, dedication, and hard work of those dedicated to the protection of the public. In recognition and honor of these great public servants, I am introducing the Public Safety Medal of Valor Act. This Act establishes the highest national recognition of valor for public safety personnel for acts above and beyond the call of duty. Under this legislation, an 11-member Medal Review Board selected by the Congress and by the President will consider nominations of public safety officers and select recipients of the medal. No more than 10 Public Safety Medal of Valor recipients will be selected in one year. I call on all of the members of the Senate and House to join me in support of this important measure to at last provide national recognition to the heroes in the field of public safety.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have all been pleased with the recent decline in crime in many areas of the country, and today I am introducing a bill to acknowledge the great commitment and sacrifice public safety officers at every level have made to that decline. From responding to traffic accidents, apprehending violent criminals, fighting fires, combating domestic terrorism, assisting people during natural disasters--not to mention performing the functions many of us take for granted--public safety officers are essential to the well- being and stability of the United States. While public safety accomplishments often go unrecognized, the selfless service of those who work each day to preserve the peace and improve safety in our communities continues. This past year were reminded of the tremendous sacrifices of this American mainstay when Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson gave their lives defending the peace and protecting lives in our nation's Capitol. In fact, since 1988 over 700 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty, another 629 have been killed in duty-related accidents, and over 600,000 have been assaulted. We owe a tremendous debt to these heroes and to their families who have made such a tremendous sacrifice for the rest of us. In the past ten years we've had earthquakes, flooding, hurricanes, vast fires, record cold spells, and numerous other natural disasters. Throughout those natural disasters, Americans from around the country counted on firemen, emergency medical technicians, emergency services personnel, and other public safety personnel from all levels of government. The many peaceful moments and days that we enjoy between these disasters and tragedies are the product of the vigilance, dedication, and hard work of those dedicated to the protection of the public. In recognition and honor of these great public servants, I am introducing the Public Safety Medal of Valor Act. This Act establishes the highest national recognition of valor for public safety personnel for acts above and beyond the call of duty. Under this legislation, an 11-member Medal Review Board selected by the Congress and by the President will consider nominations of public safety officers and select recipients of the medal. No more than 10 Public Safety Medal of Valor recipients will be selected in one year. I call on all of the members of the Senate and House to join me in support of this important measure to at last provide national recognition to the heroes in the field of public safety.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we've reached agreement to include the American Fisheries Act in the legislation being passed today (as title II of division C of the bill). This Act will not only complete the process begun in 1976 to give U.S. interests a priority in the harvest of U.S. fishery resources, but will also significantly decapitalize the Bering Sea pollock fishery. The Bering Sea pollock fishery is the nation's largest, and its present state of overcapacity is the result of mistakes in, and misinterpretations of, the 1987 Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Anti-Reflagging Act (the ``Anti-Reflagging Act''). In 1986, as the last of the foreign-flag fishing vessels in U.S. fisheries were being replaced by U.S.-flag vessels, we discovered that federal law did not prevent U.S. flag vessels from being entirely owned by foreign interests. We also discovered that federal law did not require U.S. fishing vessels to carry U.S. crew members, and that U.S. fishing vessels could essentially be built in foreign shipyards under the existing regulatory definition of ``rebuild.'' The goals of the 1987 Anti-Reflagging Act therefore were to: (1) require the U.S.-control of fishing vessels that fly the U.S. flag; (2) stop the foreign construction of U.S. flag vessels under the ``rebuild'' loophole; and (3) require U.S.-flag fishing vessels to carry U.S. crews. Of these three goals, only the U.S. crew requirement was achieved. The Anti-Reflagging Act did not stop foreign interests from owning and controlling U.S. flag fishing vessels. In fact, about 30,000 of the 33,000 existing U.S.-flag fishing vessels are not subject to any U.S. controlling interest requirement. The Anti-Reflagging Act also failed to stop the massive foreign shipbuilding programs between 1987 and 1990 that brought almost 20 of the largest fishing vessels ever built into our fisheries as ``rebuilds.'' Today, half of the nation's largest fishery--Bering Sea pollock--continues to be harvested by foreign interests on foreign-built vessels that are not subject to any U.S.- controlling interest standard. On September 25, 1997, I introduced the American Fisheries Act (S. 1221) to fix these mistakes. Senators from almost every fishing region of the country joined me in support of this effort, including Senator Breaux, Senator Hollings, Senator Gregg, Senator Wyden, and Senator Murkowski. As introduced, the bill had three primary objectives: (1) require the owners of all U.S.-flag fishing vessels to comply with a 75 percent U.S.-controlling interest standard (similar to the standard for other commercial U.S.-flag vessels that operate in U.S. waters); (2) remove from U.S. fisheries at least half of the foreign-built factory trawlers that entered the fisheries through the Anti-Reflagging Act foreign rebuild grandfather loophole and that continued to be foreign- owned on September 25, 1997; and (3) prohibit the entry of any new fishing vessels above 165 feet, 750 tons, or with engines that produce greater than 3,000 horsepower. I am pleased to report that the package we are approving today accomplishes all three of the main objectives of S. 1221 as introduced. I wish to thank Senator Gorton for his tremendous effort in this. For almost a decade now, he and I have had various disagreements about the Bering Sea pollock fishery and issues relating to the Anti-Reflagging Act. At the Commerce Committee hearing in March, and later, at an Appropriations Committee markup in July, Senator Gorton plainly expressed his concerns with S. 1221. In August, however, he spent considerable time with representatives from the Bering Sea pollock fishery and by sheer will managed to develop a framework upon which we could both agree. After he presented the framework to me, we convened meetings in September that went around the clock for five days. Those meetings included Bering Sea pollock fishery industry representatives, industry representatives from other North Pacific fisheries, the State of Alaska, North Pacific Council members, the National Marine Fisheries, the Coast Guard, the Maritime Administration, environmental representatives, and staff for various members of Congress and the Senate and House committees of jurisdiction. At the end of those meetings, a consensus had been achieved among Bering Sea fishing representatives on an agreement to reduce capacity in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. For the next three weeks, we drafted the legislation to give effect to the agreement, and spent considerable time with the fishing industry from other fisheries who were concerned about the possible impacts of the changes in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. The legislation we are passing today includes many safeguards for other fisheries and the participants in those fisheries. By delaying implementation of some measures until January 1, 2000, it also provides the North Pacific Council and Secretary with sufficient time to develop safeguards for other fisheries. This legislation is unprecedented in the 23 years since the enactment of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. With the council system, Congressional action of this type is not needed in the federal fisheries anymore. However, the mistakes in the Anti-Reflagging Act and the way it was interpreted created unique problems in the Bering Sea pollock fishery that only Congress can fix. The North Pacific Council simply does not have the authority to turn back the clock by removing fishery endorsements, to provide the funds required under the Federal Credit Reform Act to allow for the $75 million loan to remove capacity, to strengthen the U.S.-control requirements for fishing vessels, to restrict federal loans on large fishing vessels, or to do many other things in this legislation. While S.1221 as introduced was more modest in scope, I believe the measures in this agreement are fully justified as a one-time corrective measure for the negative effects of Anti-Reflagging Act. I ask unanimous consent that the section-by-section analysis I have prepared be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the omnibus package, H.R. 4328, includes a measure involving commercial fishing in Glacier Bay and Upper Dundas Bay within Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. While working on this in the past weeks, a fisherman commented to my office that the choices presented are like choosing whether to cut off your finger, hand, or arm. In short, because the Department of the Interior has taken the position that commercial fishing in Glacier Bay and Dundas Bay should end, there simply has been no solution that Alaskans can fully support. In the omnibus bill we have chosen the lesser of evils. Without Congressional action, the National Park Service would have gone forward with regulations to phase out fishing in the Bay over 15 years and eventually ban it altogether. The National Park Service would also have blocked Dungeness crab fishermen who fish in Upper Dundas Bay and the Beardslee Islands, the so-called wilderness waters, from continuing a fishery that has existed for nearly 20 years with no evidence of environmental damage. Whether the Service would have ever agreed to a fair plan to compensate these crabbers is doubtful. Discussions have been ongoing for three years without the Park Service putting a compensation plan on the table. Without Congressional action, the Service might have proceeded with plans to shut down the scallop fishery, stop flounder fishing, close out crabbing, and block fisheries outside Glacier Bay itself, again relying on what it believes are its inherent powers to stop commercial activities in parks, the spirit and letter of the Alaska National Lands Conservation Act to the contrary. In my opinion and the opinion of the State of Alaska, the Service has no such authority because regulation of fisheries is a state prerogative in Alaska as well as the rest of the nation. Furthermore, the Alaska Department of Law maintains that the submerged land within Glacier Bay and, as a result, the water column above it, both fall under the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska under the Submerged Lands Act and the Alaska Statehood Act. When this issue was brought before this Congress, I supported Senator Murkowski's amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill to block the Park Service's planned regulations to give us more time to work out a solution. I also cosponsored Senator Murkowski's bill to resolve this problem once and for all. Unfortunately, because of Administration opposition, the bill did not pass Congress, leaving us with the provision for a moratorium on regulations in the Interior bill. As we approached the end of the fiscal year, the Administration became more vocally opposed to allowing traditional fisheries in Glacier Bay to continue even though there is no scientific evidence that either the fisheries or other resources which depend on them are in trouble. For example, whale counts are actually up in Glacier Bay, an indication that there is an abundance of fish upon which to feed. Secretary Babbitt threatened to recommend a veto of the bill if the provision blocking the Park Service's fishing ban was included in the spending bills. At the same time, the Congressional leadership stepped up efforts to develop an omnibus spending package the President would sign. As much as they supported the Delegation's efforts in Glacier Bay, the Congressional leadership were not willing to give the President any excuse to veto bills and shut down the government to divert attention from other matters. I was asked to try to work out a solution that the President would accept. We worked for nearly a week to develop a plan; and after consultation with fishermen, crabbers, and the other members of the Delegation, I reluctantly concluded that this proposal was better than taking no action at all. The plan we developed allows the fishermen who have historically operated in Glacier Bay to continue to fish for the rest of their lives. We had sought the right to allow fishermen to pass on their permits to their children or assignees, but that was rejected by the Interior Department. Had the regulations gone forward in their current form, all fishermen would have been banned from the Bay in 15 years. The proposal also offers a compensation package to the five or six crabbers who will be forced out of designated wilderness areas in Glacier Bay and Upper Dundas Bay. It will compensate them for their permit and lost income for six years or $400,000, which ever is greater. In addition, if a fisherman chooses to be compensated for his or her permit and lost income, he or she may also sell to the Secretary his or her boat and gear for additional compensation. Each crabber will obviously have the option of keeping their boat and gear and fishing elsewhere. Lost income is net after expenses which should be calculated by taking gross receipts and subtracting the cost of insurance, crew, fuel, and bait. Paper losses such as depreciation used for Internal Revenue purposes only, should not be subtracted in calculating net income. The crabbers will have until February 1st to file a claim and the Interior Department will then have six months to act on those claims. There will be an appeals process with a right to go to court if no agreement is reached on an acceptable compensation plan. The office of the Assistant Secretary for Parks and Wildlife has pledged to me to expedite this process so the Dungeness crabbers will be compensated as quickly as possible. The compromise that was reached also maintains the State of Alaska's prerogatives with respect to state management of the state's fisheries. There will be a cooperative management plan developed jointly by the Interior Department and the State of Alaska. As that plan is developed, I have been assured by the Secretary's office that the Glacier Bay Working Group representing the fishing industry will be consulted. There will be a full public process including hearings, testimony, and an opportunity to comment on any proposed plan. In addition, the legislation includes a savings clause to clarify that nothing in the Act undermines the power and authority of the State of Alaska to manage fisheries in the State. Finally, I want to make clear that unless explicitly provided in the Act, the legislation is not intended to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act which generally and specifically governs management of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve as well as subsistence and commercial fishing. With respect to subsistence fishing, while the Interior Department would not agree to explicitly allow subsistence activities, I was assured by the Secretary's office that personal use fisheries could continue, most notably for the people of Hoonah who have had a long running dispute with the Park Service on this issue. I was advised that the Park Service is authorized under National Park Service Organic Act to recognize a state-run personal use fishery. Of critical importance is the status of the outer waters of Glacier Bay. The original proposal made by the Interior Department offered no assurance that commercial fishing could continue outside the Bay itself. Language was specifically included to address this shortcoming, making it clear that commercial fishing is authorized under law and will continue to be permitted in the outer waters. Although the Secretary, acting jointly in consort with the State of Alaska, through the cooperative management plan, may retain the right to protect park resources, that goal must be achieved through reasonable regulation. For example, an area around a seal rookery may be closed to salmon fishing to protect that specific location, but the rest of the outside waters must remain open to salmon fishing. I view this compromise as an insurance policy, a safety net that offers better protection to Glacier Bay's fishermen than was offered by the draft Park Service regulations. But I do not view it as the end of the story. There are provisions I do not like. Senator Murkowski has already indicated his intention to introduce legislation on this issue and hold hearings in the Senate Energy Committee which he chairs. I also have indications that Congressman Young, the Chairman of the House Resources Committee, has similar plans. The Secretary of the Interior agreed to extend the comment period on the pending agency regulations until January 15, 1999. One issue that has not been addressed in this legislative compromise are the losses of local communities and fish processing companies. The Interior Department acknowledges that this is a shortcoming and has pledged to work with me and the rest of the Delegation to address this issue. I pledge to work with local communities and processors in the months ahead. Internet Speech Regulation

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this legislation includes the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act Amendments of 1998, a bill that Senator Campbell joined me in cosponsoring to update the federal charter of the U.S. Olympic Committee and the frame-work for Olympic and amateur sports in the United States. This framework is known as the ``Amateur Sports Act,'' because most of its provisions were added by the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-606). The Act gives the U.S. Olympic Committee certain trademark protections to raise money--and does not provide recurring appropriations--so therefore does not come up for routine reauthorization. The Amateur Sports Act has not been amended since the comprehensive revision of 1978--a revision which provided the foundation for the modern Olympic movement in the United States. The bill we will soon pass does not fundamentally change the Act because our review showed us that is still fundamentally sound. We believe the modest changes we will make will ensure that the Act serves the United States well in the 21st Century. The significant changes which have occurred in the world of Olympic and amateur sports since 1978 warrant some fine-tuning of the Act. Some of the developments of the past 20 years include: (1) that the schedule for the Olympics and Winter Olympics has been alternated so that games are held every two years, instead of every four--significantly increasing the workload of the U.S. Olympic Committee; (2) that sports have begun to allow professional athletes to compete in some Olympic events; (3) that even sports still considered ``amateur'' have athletes who with greater financial opportunities and professional responsibilities than we ever considered in 1978; and (4) that the Paralympics--the Olympics for disabled amateur athletes--have grown significantly in size and prestige. These and other changes led me to call for a comprehensive review of the Amateur Sports Act in 1994. The Commerce Committee has held three hearings since then. At the first and second--on August 11, 1994 and October 18, 1995--witnesses identified where the Amateur Sports Act was showing signs of strain. We postponed our work until after the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, but on April 21, 1997, held a third hearing at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs to discuss solutions to the problems which had been identified. By January, 1998, we'd refined the proposals into possible amendments to the Amateur Sports Act, which we discussed at length at an informal working session on January 26, 1998 in the Commerce Committee hearing room. The bill that Senator Campbell and I introduced in May reflected the comments received in January, and excluded proposals for which consensus appeared unachievable. With the help of the U.S. Olympic Committee, the Athletes Advisory Council, the National Governing Bodies' Council, numerous disabled sports organizations, and many others, we continued to fine tune the bill until it was approved by the Commerce Committee in July. I will include a longer summary of the bill for the Record, but will briefly explain its primary components: (1) the bill would change the title of the underlying law to the ``Olympic and Amateur Sports Act'' to reflect that more than strictly amateurs are involved now, but without lessening the amateur and grass roots focus reflected in the title of the 1978 Act; (2) the bill would add a number of measures to strengthen the provisions which protect athletes' rights to compete; (3) it would add measures to improve the ability of the USOC to resolve disputes--particularly close the Olympics, Paralympics, or Pan-American Games--and reduce the legal costs and administrative burdens of the USOC; (4) it would add measures to fully incorporate the Paralympics into the Amateur Sports Act, and update the existing provisions affecting disabled athletes; (5) it would improve the notification requirements when an NGB has been put on probation or is being challenged; (6) it would increase the reporting requirements of the USOC and NGB with respect to sports opportunities for women, minorities, and disabled individuals; and (7) it would require the USOC to report back to Congress in five years with any additional changes that may be needed to the Act. Mr. President, I am the only Senator from President Ford's Commission on Amateur Sports who is still serving. It has therefore been very helpful to have Senator Campbell--an Olympian himself in 1964--involved in this process. Over my objection he has included an amendment the package to name the Act after me. There are many others who deserve recognition for their work to bring about the 1978 Act, and since he has prevailed, I will accept this honor on their behalf. I ask unanimous consent that my summary of the major components of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for this clarification.

Mr. STEVENS. Then I would like to ask the Senator from New Mexico his understanding of language in the report that states that of the $5 million made available for this program in Fiscal Year 1999, $2 million is for ``work to be performed in the United States by the Department of Energy and other U.S. contractors.'' Specifically, is it the Senator's understanding or intent that the Department of Energy should receive most of this money or impose a new management structure over this program that is working so well and is so well accepted by the Russians?

Mr. STEVENS. Is it also the Senator's understanding that from all indications, this program has been well run and has an existing and effective management structure with both U.S. and Russian representation?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished Senator form New Mexico, the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, on the subject of funding which is provided in P.L. 105-245 for the existing joint U.S.--Russian program, for the development of gas reactor technology to dispose of excess weapons- derived plutonium. As the chairman of the subcommittee knows, the purpose of this program is to develop a new reactor technology which is not only more efficient in burning weapons plutonium but is melt-down proof and more thermally efficient than existing reactors. Because of the promise of this technology, the Russians are very enthusiastic about it and the French nuclear company Framatome and the Japanese company Fuji Electric have been active participants. Further, because most of the technical work on this program is being performed by Russian nuclear scientists and engineers, program costs are reduced considerably the those same Russian scientist and engineers are engaged in stimulating non-nuclear weapons work. It is my understanding that this unique and innovative U.S.--Russian program to destroy weapons plutonium is the result of the very considerable expense and efforts of a particular U.S. company over several years. Is this also the Subcommittee Chairman's understanding?

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest that a General Accounting Office (GAO) audit be conducted periodically to ensure Americans that the retention of information and records run through the NICS is not being maintained, for any purpose, unlawfully.

Mr. STEVENS. The only information or records on approved firearms transfers that the FBI is permitted to maintain in a central registry is the ``NICS Transaction Number'' (NTN) and the date the transaction was requested. See, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(t)(2)(C).

Mr. STEVENS. I do not believe the law could be any clearer. The NICS statute is transparent and unambiguous on the point that the instant check system ``shall destroy'' such records. Subsection (t)(2) of 18 United States Code, Section 922, is clearly drafted so that destruction of an approved firearms transaction and personal identifying records shall occur contemporaneously upon the system's approval of the firearms transfer, the assignment of a unique identifying number, and upon the immediate voice or electronic conveyance of such approval and unique identifying number to the federal firearms dealer making the NICS inquiry.

Mr. STEVENS. The national instant criminal background check system clearly prohibits such action by the FBI. The centralization and retention of firearms transaction information and records on firearm owners would create a de facto system of firearms registration which has clearly not intended by the Brady Act or any other provision of federal law. In fact it was specifically prohibited.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, the Brady Act clearly states that upon approval of a firearm transaction, the instant check system shall ``destroy all records of the system with respect to the call (other than the identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records of the system relating to the transfer.'' 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(t)(2). Additionally, Section 103 of the Brady Act prohibits the establishment of a firearms registration system to prevent any records generated by the instant check system from being transferred to a facility owned, managed or controlled by the United States government.

Mr. STEVENS. Again the Senator is correct. The establishment of NICS contained important elements in the law designed to protect the privacy of individual law-abiding gun owners. One of the greatest concerns and legitimate fears of law abiding gun owners is that the federal government will create a federal gun owner registration system where law abiding gun owners exercise of their constitutional rights will be carefully monitored. This is why there are a number of provisions in law which prohibit such action by the government. One such law is the Firearms Owners Protection Act, passed in 1986, which specifically prohibits any record of firearms owners and firearms purchases from being maintained or recorded, for any period of time, in a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States government.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes. The Brady Act did not intend, nor did it authorize the Department of Justice to charge a tax or fee to law abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment right. The National Instant Check System (NICS) is a national criminal justice program which was designed to quickly screen prospective firearms purchasers--weeding out prohibited gun pruchases while ensuring that the sale of a firearm to a law-abiding citizen could go forth without significant delay. The NICS is a federal program of benefit to all citizens and therefore the cost should be and will be borne by the federal government in view of the absence of any enabling provision relating to assessment of a user fee to gun owners.

Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator 10 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. And Senator Byrd?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that 15 minutes of the time under my control as manager of the bill on our side be under the control of Senator Gregg, and that following the vote Senator Specter be recognized for up to 15 minutes for general debate, to be followed by Senator Ashcroft for 30 minutes of general debate.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me mention one final section in the bill. We have had a lot of contention in conferences over the small fishing village of King Cove, which lies at the tip of the Alaskan peninsula, 625 miles southwest of Anchorage. It is exposed to the Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea, and this community is often ravaged by 80-mile-per-hour winds, or more, and by driving sea winds. This extreme weather often shuts down access into or out of King Cove for days at a time. In an effort to improve King Cove's access to emergency medical facilities, I added language to the Interior appropriations bill that would grant a right-of-way from King Cove to the giant airport at Cold Bay. Mr. President, that road would have gone through a portion of the old army military base that is now known as Izembek Wildlife Refuge. This 30-mile road would have provided the cheapest and most reliable means of access to my constituents who live at King Cove. However, the administration raised environmental considerations regarding the wildlife refuge and refused to accept the provision that would authorize the road. After much discussion on a series of options being offered to us by the administration, we have crafted a compromise that provides for the health and safety of the Alaskan Native people of King Cove and still protects the refuge, as it was indicated that the administration believed that was its highest priority. This provision now provides King Cove Natives with the money to build a road from King Cove to a small lagoon some 20 miles away. There they will build a dock and use a small vessel to cross over the lagoon to property that they own adjacent to the runway at Cold Bay. The provision also provides funding to improve the airstrip at King Cove and for improvements to the health clinic at King Cove; namely, to put in state-of-the-art medical facilities and telemedicine capability there to protect our people until these transportation facilities are constructed. Mr. President, I will have other comments to make about this bill later. I have taken too long already.

Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding I had reserved 15 minutes for the Senator from New Hampshire. Is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.