Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 3 hours equally divided for debate today on the conference report to accompany H.R. 4328, the omnibus appropriations bill for 1999, notwithstanding the receipt of the papers, and that when the Senate receives the conference report, it be considered as having been read with no action other than debate occurring and the vote to occur at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, without any intervening action, debate or motion, and that paragraph 4 of rule XII and all points of order be waived.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays on this bill.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated to Senator Gregg be vitiated, and I yield the Senator from Idaho the time reserved for Senator Gregg.

Mr. STEVENS. Does my time that the Chair just announced include Senator Gregg's 15 minutes?

Mr. STEVENS. It does.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments concerning Senator Byrd and myself. I do want to emphasize just a few things as we close. In this year, the Appropriations Committee has tried very hard to move forward as quickly as possible to get bills before the Senate as early as possible so that this would not happen. I wish to place in the Record a status of appropriations bills in the second session of this 105th Congress. It shows, and I have circled-- and I hope in the Record they will highlight those dates circled--the days that the Appropriations Committee first brought to the Senate's attention its work product of the 13 subcommittees that deal with appropriations measures. They were all in June and July, with the exception of one bill, Labor, Health and Human Services, which was brought first to the Senate's attention on September 1 when we held the full committee meeting and reported the bill to the Senate on September 3. This was because of the illness of one of our colleagues. But all of these bills were available for the Senate to act on and for the Congress to act on very early. This also shows the action by the House committee under Chairman Livingston--probably one of the earliest periods in history when all of the bills were completed, except one to bring before the House, and the delay has not been the delay of the appropriations process; but it has been caused by the process of handling those bills once they were reported to the House and Senate. I decry the process also, as so many people have here today, but I am not ashamed of the work product. I have signed my name to the work product, as Chairman Livingston has, and a majority of both of our committees has endorsed these bills to be reported to the House and Senate. We are still the largest military power in the world, the last superpower in the world. We have added $7.5 billion so the men and women who serve us in uniform can be fully equipped, they can be assured we are trying to get them the best systems available, and we are doing our best to restore the lifestyle we believe a person should be able to lead in the uniform of the U.S. military. We have not been able to handle one basic problem, and that is the problem over the pension system. I hope that the Armed Services Committee early next year will address that problem and that we can present in the first bills brought out to the floor by the Appropriations Committees money to fund the restoration of a pension system that is adequate and is an incentive to people to stay in uniform and particularly to use the skills they have developed as members of the armed services in our defense. Mr. President, this is a good bill. I know a lot of people are going to vote against it for one reason or another, but I hope that the public understands, while this is the largest bill to ever be presented, it is large because it contains eight separate bills plus three supplemental appropriations bills. It contains really 11 appropriations bills. The total adds up to almost $1/2 trillion. It is large in the sense of spending, but we do spend a lot of money as a large Government, and we have kept these bills to the minimum in terms of the appropriations process. These negotiations that we have been talking about added $20 billion to that total--plus $20 billion. I do believe that the bill is a good one, and I urge our colleagues tomorrow to vote for it. I ask unanimous consent that the ``Status of Appropriations" be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. How much time does the Senator seek?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator such time as he wishes to use.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. How much time does the Senator from Montana wish, Mr. President?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time that has been allocated to the Senator from West Virginia and myself.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that closes debate on this bill.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is with some regret that it is my job to bring before the Senate the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999. Throughout the year, I have urged that we find a way to move on the individual appropriations bills so that we would avoid a repetition of what took place 2 years ago. Unfortunately, that request was not followed, despite the urging of the distinguished majority leader and minority leader to work with the Appropriations Committee. We were unable to finish the bills within the normal timeframe this year. We had an extremely difficult calendar because of the fact that Labor Day--the first Monday was the 7th of September. We then had the Jewish holidays which we were in recess for. We were just unable to finish in time. We had to get first one and then another and then another and now another continuing resolution in order to try and finish our work. I deeply regret the process that we are going through now. It is my task to present to the Senate, I think, the largest appropriations bill in a decade. Mr. President, it contains a grand total of $486.8 billion in appropriations. The regular appropriations bills are a total of $203 billion; the balance are in the supplemental and emergency appropriations. It has been a very difficult process to go through. We have had a series of meetings with representatives of the President and with our leaders. I thank the distinguished chairman of the House committee, Congressman Livingston, and his colleague, the ranking member there, Congressman Obey, as well as my colleague and great friend here in the Senate, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. We have worked many long hours now. And I really think our staffs deserve a great deal of credit, because we worked a lot of long hours, but they worked through the night after we had worked long hours and were there again the next morning when we started our negotiations once again. These negotiations have gone on now almost 3 weeks, and the product is the bill that was filed in the House last night. That bill, Mr. President, contains 11 divisions. Division A contains 8 of the 13 annual appropriations bills for the fiscal year 1999; for the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce-Justice- State, the District of Columbia, Foreign Operations, Interior, Labor, Health and Human Services-Education, Transportation, and Treasury- General Government. This division also contains the emergency agricultural assistance package and supplemental appropriations under Energy and Water Development and VA-HUD. It also contains the spending offsets that were presented to us by the administration. I might state that those were checked out by our Budget Committees and by the Congressional Budget Office. We believe that we are under the caps as were set by the budget agreement with the President. The division B contains emergency appropriations for military readiness and overseas contingency operations, storm damage to defense facilities, antiterrorism, the year 2000 conversions--the so-called Y2K problem--and counterdrug activities. Divisions C through K are various authorizing measures that were added to the bill. I hasten to point out that while many of them come from authorization committees, it is the Appropriations Committees that must put our names on these bills as they are presented to the House and Senate. We have done our very best to check through these bills. And I might state that our staffs have read them through not just once but twice to make certain that each one of them is as it was represented to us as these measures were brought to us. Division C is in fact a potpourri of measures, including the FAA reauthorization extension, post office namings, the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act amendments, Internet legislation, the American Fisheries Act, Persian Gulf veterans health, and others. Division D is the Drug Demand Reduction Act. Division E covers methamphetamine trafficking. It is another drug bill. Division F covers the marijuana for medical purposes. Division G is the State Department reauthorization bill. Division H is the new provisions concerning Sallie Mae. Division I covers the chemical weapons convention. Division J covers tax extenders and home health care provisions. Division K contains pay-as-you-go provisions to maintain the separation of mandatory and discretionary spending as outlined in last year's balanced budget agreement. Let me just take a few minutes of the Senate, Mr. President, to provide some highlights of the bill under the Appropriations Committee's jurisdiction; that is divisions A and B. The total discretionary spending in division A is $206 billion. This includes $2.8 billion in offsets. The agriculture portion of the conference includes the conference report on the agricultural appropriations bill that was vetoed by the President with some modifications. It contains an additional $1.64 billion in emergency crop and market loss assistance for farmers and ranchers. This brings the total agricultural emergency assistance funding for this year to $5.9 billion. There are also increases for food safety and rural empowerment zones and enterprise communities. The Commerce-State-Justice portion of this bill contains funding through June 15. It supports crime fighting and antidrug activities, counterterrorism, and border patrols. The Census Bureau will receive the funding it needs to continue to prepare for the decennial census. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, and Science programs are, in my judgment, adequately funded. The State Department would receive funds for international programs and U.N. arrearages subject to authorization. The District of Columbia provisions would largely ratify the District's own consensus budget and continue ongoing management reforms. The Foreign Operations portion contains funding for export promotion and economic aid, as well as the funding for the International Monetary Fund, IMF, with conditions for reform. I might say, I am personally very gratified that this is finally being sent to the President for approval. The Department of the Interior would receive increases for park operations and much-needed maintenance, funding for the Everglades restoration effort, and other public land needs. Full funding for many cultural and historical preservation programs are also included in that portion of the bill. The Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill provides funds for worker assistance, increases funding for medical research at the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion, and fully funds the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. Increases were provided for child care block grants, special education, and to reduce class size. The Transportation portion of the bill contains the highest limitation in history on obligations in the highway trust fund--$4 billion above last year's level. Adequate funds for the Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation Administration and our mass transportation programs are included. The Treasury-General Government portion contains funding to increase drug control programs and improve IRS customer relations. Two bills already passed by the Congress and signed by the President were, in fact, reopened by the final negotiations and additional materials are available for those bills. Division A contains additional appropriations under Energy and Water Development, including funds for the Tennessee Valley Authority, and authorization to refinance its debts, and funds for the Department of Energy's energy supply programs. The VA-HUD bill is also augmented by additional spending for urban empowerment zones, the Boston Harbor cleanup, climate change, and the Corporation for National and Community Service. As I said, division B contains the emergency supplemental spending in the omnibus bill, with the exception of agriculture assistance, which is in division A. The total discretionary spending in division B is $14.9 billion. It includes $6.8 billion to improve military readiness and to fund ongoing overseas contingency operations such as Bosnia. Mr. President, $2.4 billion is included to protect our embassies around the world and to fund our continuing fight against terrorism worldwide. And $3.4 billion is provided to address the Y2K problem--the year 2000 problem--throughout the Federal Government as a whole. This is provided in emergency appropriations subject to the President's approval. Mr. President, $700 million is included for a package of counterdrug activities. Another $1.5 billion is provided to address the damage caused by Hurricane Georges and Hurricane Bonnie. Mr. President, as I indicated, this is a very complicated bill. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to talk about two of the provisions that are in the bill that are legislative items. They were bills that I presented to the Senate. One is the American Fisheries Act. It is a culmination of the negotiations that were undertaken with my colleagues from the State of Washington after I had introduced Senate bill 1221. We reached the agreement to include this American Fisheries Act in the legislation that is being considered. It is title II of division C of the bill. This act will not only complete the process begun in 1976 to give the U.S. interests a priority in the harvest of U.S. fishery resources, but will also significantly decapitalized the Bering Sea pollock fishery. The 1976 act was, in fact, the Magnuson Act, that extended our jurisdiction to the 200-mile limit. The Bering Sea pollock fishery is the 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, which is generally known as the Anti-Reflagging Act. In 1986, as the last of the foreign-flag fishing vessels in the U.S. fleet 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 the word ``rebuild.'' The goals of the 1987 Anti-Reflagging Act were to, one, require the U.S. control of fishing vessels that fly the U.S. flag; two, stop the foreign construction of the U.S.-flag vessels under the ``rebuild'' loophole; and, three, to require the U.S.-flag fishing vessels to carry U.S. crews. Of these three goals, only the U.S. crew requirement was achieved by the 1987 act. The Anti-Reflagging Act did not stop foreign interests from owning and controlling U.S.-flag fishing vessels. 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 rebuilding programs between 1987 and 1990 that brought almost 20 of the largest fishing vessels ever built in the world into our fisheries as ``rebuilt'' vessels. Today, half of the Nation's largest fishery--which is the 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 try to fix these mistakes. Senators from almost every fishing region of the country joined me in supporting that effort, including Senators Breaux, Hollings, Gregg, Wyden and Murkowski. As introduced, the bill had three primary objectives: requiring 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; two, to remove from U.S. fisheries at least one-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 as of September 25, 1997; and, third, to prohibit the entry of any new fishing vessels above 165 feet, 750 tons, or with engines producing greater than 3,000 horsepower in the North Pacific fisheries fleet. I am pleased to report that the package we are submitting to the Senate today accomplishes all three of these main objectives of S. 1221 as introduced. I thank Senator Gorton and his colleague from Washington, Senator Murray, for their efforts, particularly Senator Gorton for his tremendous effort in finally reaching an agreement on this bill. For almost a decade now, he and I have had various disagreements on the Bering Sea pollock fishery and issues related to the Anti-Flagging Act. At the Commerce Committee hearing in March of this year, and later at an Appropriations Committee markup in July, Senator Gorton plainly expressed his concerns with my bill, S. 1221. In August, 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 agree. After he presented the framework to me, we convened meetings of fishery representatives in September that literally went around the clock for 5 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, National Marine Fisheries, the Coast Guard, the Maritime Administration, environmental representatives and staff for various Members of Congress and the Senate and House committees that have jurisdiction over this. 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 3 weeks, we drafted legislation. We have spent considerable time with the fishing industry from other fisheries that were concerned about the possible impacts of the changes in the Bering Sea pollock fishery upon their areas in offshore fisheries. The legislation we are passing today includes many safeguards for those other fisheries and for the participants in those fisheries. By delaying implementation of some of the measures until January 1, 2000, it also provides the North Pacific Council and the Secretary of Commerce with sufficient time to develop safeguards for those other fisheries. This legislation is unprecedented in the 23 years since the enactment of what is now known as the Magnuson- Stevens Act. With the council system, congressional action of this type is not needed in 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 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 the overcapacity in the area, and to strengthen the U.S.-control requirements for fishing vessels, to restrict Federal loans on large fishing vessels, and to do many other things we have agreed to do 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 the Anti-Reflagging Act that I have mentioned before. There is also in this bill the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act Amendments of 1998. This legislation includes that bill, a bill that Senator Campbell joined me in cosponsoring to update the Federal charter for the U.S. Olympic Committee and the framework 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. The act gives the U.S. Olympic Committee certain trademark protections to raise money--and does not provide reappropriations-- therefore, it does not come up for routine reauthorization. The Amateur Sports Act has not been amended since its comprehensive revision in 1978 which provided the foundation for the modern Olympic movement in the United States. The bill we are considering does not fundamentally change that act. Our review showed us it is fundamentally sound. We believe the modest changes that we ask the Senate and the Congress to make will ensure that the act serves the United States well into the 21st century. The significant changes which have occurred in the world of Olympic and amateur sports since 1978 warrant what I call fine- tuning of this act. Some of the developments of the past 20 years include, first, that the schedule for the Olympics and Winter Olympics has been alternated so games are held every 2 years instead of every 4--significantly increasing the workload of the U.S. Olympic Committee; second, that sports have begun to allow professional athletes to compete in some Olympic events; third, that even sports still considered ``amateur'' have athletes who with greater financial opportunities and professional responsibilities now compete more than we ever considered in 1978; four, 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 5 years with any additional changes that maybe 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. He is a good friend. Over my objection, he attempted to have this package named after me-- an honor that I have declined. There are many others who deserve recognition for their work to bring about the 1978 Act, and that continues to be the case. Specifically, I refer to my friend from Colorado, who has done a tremendous amount of work on this. I ask unanimous consent that my summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. I see the Senator from Nebraska here. I will yield him such time as he wishes on the bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I now ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9 a.m. on tomorrow, Wednesday, October 21. And I further ask unanimous consent that the time for the two leaders be reserved at that time.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene tomorrow, Wednesday, at 9 a.m. and immediately proceed to a rollcall vote on the passage of the omnibus appropriations bill. Following that vote, several Members will be recognized to speak in relation to the omnibus bill. At the conclusion of those remarks, the Senate may consider any legislative or executive items that may be cleared for action at that time.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. With regard to the criteria used to determine eligibility, Section 301(a)(3) refers to communities that experience special needs arising from severe unemployment or economic adjustment problems resulting from changes in economic conditions. Could my colleagues tell me whether EDA has flexibility in applying this criterion to areas--such as these timber-affected Alaskan communities-- that are requesting EDA assistance?

Mr. STEVENS. I would like to ask the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works a question regarding S. 2364, the Economic Development Administration Reform Act, which passed the Senate on Monday. As they are aware, the State of Alaska, while rich in resources, also has communities that suffer serious economic distress. EDA assistance can make a difference to many of these communities. Thus I am pleased to support the efforts of my friends to reauthorize this important agency; and indeed, I am a cosponsor of this bill. Let me ask specifically about an issue that is very important to Alaskans, especially those in Southeast Alaska. Under this bill, EDA programs are available to aid distressed communities with both public works and economic adjustment assistance. In Southeast Alaska, many communities have faced economic adjustment problems, such as high unemployment, as a result of Federal regulatory changes with regard to timber harvests. If these communities meet the definition of ``distressed'' as outlined in the bill, would a situation such as theirs qualify as eligible for EDA assistance?

Mr. STEVENS. I thank my colleagues for making these important clarifications.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I take a moment to honor Dave Rose, an Alaskan who has dedicated his life to public service. This weekend the American Diabetes Association (Alaska area) is honoring Dave for his leadership in raising funds to combat this disease. He will be the first recipient of the ``Golden Rose Award'' honoring his commitment in the fight against diabetes. Dave has diabetes, but he hasn't let the disease slow him down. Even with impaired vision and regular dialysis treatments, he has been a tireless fund raiser, spokesman, and volunteer organizer. When Dave isn't working to help combat diabetes he lends his time to a whole host of causes including the Anchorage Concert Association Foundation, the Alaska Pacific University Foundation, the Alaska Federation of Natives Sobriety Foundation, and the Alaska Community Foundation. Dave and his wife Fran also have their own foundation which distributes funds to arts, health, and higher education programs. Dave's leadership in Alaska goes beyond the philanthropic. After a distinguished career in the Army, he spent many years on the Anchorage Assembly. He also shepherded Alaska's permanent fund from a fledgling portfolio to the multi-billion dollar account which stands as a rainy day fund for the time when Alaska's oil revenues decline dramatically. Dave's optimism, his love of people, and his willingness to share his talents for the betterment of others deserves our recognition. Alaska is a better place for Dave's dedication and commitment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article about Dave Rose entitled ``Golden Attitude'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to encourage Members to read this article, a story about the hardships endured by the people of King Cove, and I ask that it be printed in the Record.