Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business not to exceed 5 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I lend my strong support to Senator Murkowski and Congressman Young in their efforts to provide better access to emergency medical services for the people of King Cove, Alaska. Senator Murkowski's bill, S. 1092, and its companion bill in the House will put an end to the recent string of deaths resulting from emergency medical evacuation efforts out of King Cove. King Cove is one of the most prolific fishing communities in the nation and has the largest fish processing operation in Alaska. It sits at the tip of the Alaska Peninsula, 600 miles southwest of Anchorage in the North Pacific Ocean. King Cove is served by a small dirt runway. The runway has no lights and no instrument capability, and has no personnel manning it. It sits in a valley between two large mountains. The weather and the surrounding terrain create winds that are described as ``venturi effects''--under these conditions the wind can blow in opposite directions at opposite ends of the runway. The winds aloft over the runway create wind shears that have flipped planes and thrown them into mountains. King Cove's airstrip is closed roughly one out of every three days, often for many days at a time. Cold Bay also lies on the tip of the Alaska Peninsula. It is a community built entirely around the third largest nonmilitary runway in the state. Cold Bay is a ten minute plane ride from King Cove, just on the other side of a wildlife refuge. The main runway at Cold Bay is over ten thousand feet long. The crosswind runway is over five thousand feet long. Both are paved. Cold Bay's airport has runway lights and supports full instrument approaches. It is a designated landing site for the space shuttle, and is closed an average of two days a year. The people of King Cove need emergency access to Cold Bay when the weather turns bad. Ferry service is not a viable option. The same wind that shuts down King Cove's runway can drive forty foot seas on Cold Bay. Recently, state officials looking into King Cove ferry service saw a one hundred twenty foot fishing boat fail to make it into the harbor because the seas were too rough. The people of King Cove want to build a single lane gravel road to Cold Bay, but they need an easement through seven miles of federal land to do it. Many people who have never been to Alaska don't want to see this road built. They cite the cost of the road, the precedent of granting a right of way, and the availability of other options. What they don't cite is the eleven people who have died in recent years trying to fly out of King Cove. Senator Murkowski's bill does not authorize a single dollar of federal funds to build this road. It merely provides a land exchange in which the refuge gains five hundred acres of wilderness area. The bill does not establish any precedent with respect to land use in wildlife refuges. There are currently 42 miles of road in this refuge, about a third of which are in wilderness areas. The Fish and Wildlife Service already encourages people to use these roads for bird-watching. Congress frequently allows a number of uses in wilderness areas. Just last Congress we allowed the use of all-terrain vehicles in the Anaktuvuk Pass land exchange. Some people say that telemedicine is the answer to King Cove's emergency medical needs. I am a strong supporter of telemedicine, but I know that it is a diagnostic tool. Once a diagnosis is made, patients still need to get to a hospital. Telemedicine cannot reattach limbs or provide prenatal care. Alaska is used to being micromangaged by Washington, but we will not sit by and listen to specious arguments made to raise funds for extreme environmental groups. We have a simple bill to fix a simple problem, and if we don't do it more people will die. The people of King Cove deserve reasonable access to medical facilities. They have made a generous land exchange offer in return for the right of way. I strongly support Senator Murkowski's efforts and urge my colleagues to support him as well when the bill comes to the floor. I ask that I be added as a cosponsor to the King Cove Health and Safety Act.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. No. I thank my colleague very much.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the other day, I had the pleasure of being invited to join my son Ben at the Blessed Sacrament School in Arlington to see my granddaughter participate in one of her first events at that school. I appreciated that opportunity because I had occasion to meet up with a friend, Elizabeth ``Betsy'' Downs Engelken, who has been a teacher there for some 20 years. We have something in common. She happens to also have a relationship to my granddaughter, because she is the mother of my son's wife, Elizabeth. As Betsy retires after 20 years, I thought I would come to the floor and talk about this lady who has developed such creative teaching skills and has endless enthusiasm for the children with whom she works. She has a sparkling sense of humor, and it is really a delight to see what she has done working with the Diocese of Arlington for these past 20 years. While she has been there, Betsy Engelken has developed unique talents to identify students that need special assistance and have learning disabilities. She has been a representative of the teachers on the school board and successfully initiated action to bring about additional recognition for teachers and pay increases. She has worked on developing new techniques to find ways to bring children into the 21st century. She has brought them awareness of the new kinds of systems that they encounter as they go through school. But above all, I think she has really had a great impact on the many children she has taught because she has a real commitment to children. So I want to share with my colleagues the joy I have had recently in terms of being able to participate in this event with my granddaughter Susan. And I also want to congratulate Elizabeth ``Betsy'' Downs Engelken for her years of commitment to the children of this area. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I introduce for proper referral the No Gun Tax Act of 1998 to address the implementation of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which takes effect November 30, 1998. As you know, the Brady Act had two provisions: an interim provision, which will expire on November 29, 1998, and permanent provision which will take effect on December 1, 1998. The permanent provision mandates the establishment of a National Instant Criminal Background Checks System (NICS). The operation of the NICS will be the responsibility of the Justice Department. The Department of Justice now proposes to charge fees for the NICS using the authority of a provision in the 1991 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-515)--an Act that was passed two years before the NICS program and which was never intended to allow fees under the NICS program. This limited 1991 authority allowed fees only ``to process fingerprint identification records and name checks for non-criminal justice * * * and licensing purposes.'' It was not intended to apply to programs like the NICS program, which checks the criminal background of purchasers and has nothing to do with licensing. For years I and others pushed for the instant check system as the most thorough and efficient way to ensure that criminals cannot buy firearms. The imposition of a fee would encourage some to try to obtain firearms on the black market. No matter how you feel about gun control, we should all do what we can to make sure the new background check system works. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I urge all of my colleagues to support this very important bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I introduce for proper referral the No Gun Tax Act of 1998 to address the implementation of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which takes effect November 30, 1998. As you know, the Brady Act had two provisions: an interim provision, which will expire on November 29, 1998, and permanent provision which will take effect on December 1, 1998. The permanent provision mandates the establishment of a National Instant Criminal Background Checks System (NICS). The operation of the NICS will be the responsibility of the Justice Department. The Department of Justice now proposes to charge fees for the NICS using the authority of a provision in the 1991 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-515)--an Act that was passed two years before the NICS program and which was never intended to allow fees under the NICS program. This limited 1991 authority allowed fees only ``to process fingerprint identification records and name checks for non-criminal justice * * * and licensing purposes.'' It was not intended to apply to programs like the NICS program, which checks the criminal background of purchasers and has nothing to do with licensing. For years I and others pushed for the instant check system as the most thorough and efficient way to ensure that criminals cannot buy firearms. The imposition of a fee would encourage some to try to obtain firearms on the black market. No matter how you feel about gun control, we should all do what we can to make sure the new background check system works. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I urge all of my colleagues to support this very important bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. You said that for the third time. What is it, if it is not an entitlement program?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to announce that the Appropriations Committee will hold a meeting at 2 o'clock to discuss ISTEA, and until that meeting is over, I will object to any proceedings on ISTEA.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from Texas has said. This Senator supported the concept that moneys which come in through gasoline tax should be spent for the purposes the taxes were collected. We have not had an argument over that. Where we have the argument is over whether there should be a bill passed every 5 years that sets absolute corridors for the spending of money, with no discretion on the part of appropriators or the Congress itself to change--6 years, I beg your pardon. That is even worse. The real problem we have with it is flexibility. I still haven't seen the bill. I have come to tell the Senate that I have visited with the chairman of the Budget Committee, for whom I do share with the Senator from Texas our admiration of the Senator from New Mexico as the chairman of the Budget Committee. Based upon his understanding of the bill, there is not a great problem, at least in the first 2 years of 1999 and the year 2000 with regard to the nondiscretionary funds that are within the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee being reduced because of the expenditure of more moneys to highways that are currently estimated. Now, that is our understanding. We haven't seen the language yet. To my knowledge, no one in the Senate yet has read that language. Under the circumstances that we have, I have come to this conclusion after having the meeting with our committee members and listening to the staffs of the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee with regard to the impact of this bill on the appropriations process. I will not insist upon the delay of this bill. However, I believe it may set a new unfortunate course with regard to the flexibility and expenditure of taxpayers' money and the ability to use the money for the purposes that have the most need at the time the bill is passed annually. This is going to lock us in for 5 years. Again, I am saying to the Senate, with I hope at least the understanding of my great friend from West Virginia, this Senator, who is chairman of the appropriations bill, intends to look at this bill, examine it very closely, and if it does constrict us so that we do not have the flexibility we should have, we will bring before the Senate this year an amendment to this bill and we will have it out. We are not arguing over whether the highway tax money should be spent for highways; we are arguing how it should be allocated and when the determination should be made as to what the priorities are for the use of that money. This bill will set it for 6 years now. If it went through the appropriations process, we would determine that annually. I see my great friend here, Senator Daschle, who just went through that horrible flood up in his area. We have disasters in this country. We have earthquakes and floods, and we have enormous tornadoes. We have to have discretion to allocate funds in a way that meets the best needs of our people as a whole. I do not think that the bill that is going to come before the Senate can be followed without an enormous spillover into the areas of other nondefense discretionary funds, which must be allocated by the Appropriations Committee annually. What I mean is, I think the effect of this bill will be that we will have to constrain other nondefense discretionary spending in order to accommodate the extraordinary demand here that if the revenues from the gas tax money exceed the caps, exceed the estimates, it is going to be spent anyway. And we have a 4- percent leeway, what I call a ``fudge factor.'' But if they go up to 10 percent, we are going to have to absorb 6 percent of that from other nondefense discretionary accounts. That is going to affect every single State in the Union adversely. It is going to affect the operations of this Government adversely. I can't tell the Senate it will happen now. I can only tell the Senate that, as I understand the way the bill has been written, it could happen. And if it does, I do think that would be a disaster. Again, to a certain extent, I sense a feeling here, particularly from my friend from Texas, that the Appropriations Committee has not provided funds for highways. We have exceeded the amount that came in from the gas tax in the period of the last 5 years. We have spent more money through the appropriations process for highways than would be spent under this bill for highways, if we had had the allocation of funds that the Budget Committee has generously brought back into this process and made available for this entitlement. This turf battle that I sense is not coming from our committee. All we are saying is that there is not flexibility here. If the authorizing committee wants to pass a law saying you are going to allocate this money, then pass a law saying you are going to allocate it every year. But don't sit around and tell people you have done a good job for the country when you have allocated for 6 years, based upon an estimate that the two organizations that really are most concerned--OMB and CBO-- disagree, as you know. They have about a $10 billion difference in the estimates of expenditures. We are taking the high one, of course; we are going to follow the high one. If we were wearing our budget-cutter hats, we would take the low one. But here we are spenders, so we are taking the high one. The problem is that one section of this bill says--and I have not seen this yet--if the money doesn't come in, we have to make it up. I was just told by one of the staff that that probably is not true. He used the words ``flexible guarantees.'' I am going to be anxious to read how we write a bill that is flexible every year based upon the variations of one anticipated and estimated revenue, as opposed to estimated actual revenues, when either one is any more than an estimate. I have to adjust the budget and meet a total cap level under the budget agreement and be subject to a point of order if we are not right. I say to my friends who have been involved in this, I wish you luck. Don't feel surprised if this Senator is back out on this floor this year with amendments to this bill to do it right. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield further, there are lots of programs where the taxes are collected for a particular purpose. Take the airports and airways funds, for instance. There is a whole series of them. Those funds come from the appropriations process and they are appropriated. You have created an entitlement in this bill, the most massive entitlement other than the Medicare trust fund entitlement, that I know. There is no discretion for anyone to change that except by an act of Congress, a subsequent act of Congress. There is no individual allocation of those moneys to meet needs. The President will submit a budget in January. It will lay out what the highway department believes will be the return as estimated to have been brought into the Treasury from the year before and it will be spent. It will be spent according to this bill. There will be no review of what has happened in the year before, and we in the appropriations process would go over the budget request through the year and in September send a bill to the President to spend the money as we believe--that Congress believed, not the Appropriations Committee, but Congress believed--it should be spent. That will not occur because this money will be spent according to the budget received from the Federal Highway Administration every year. That will be done by the Federal Highway Administration under their understanding of this law for 5 years. It will not be changed except by an act of Congress. To this Senator, that is the most stringent entitlement that we have on the Federal laws in this country, that we have ever had.

Mr. STEVENS. Not one. You had my staff's estimate of that run. I asked repeatedly for a copy of it and the Senator from Rhode Island will tell you, he told me the other day they were not available yet. We had an estimate of the run, and it was run on our own computers.

Mr. STEVENS. And it is not going to happen now without me seeing that report.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Leader, I regret deeply the death of your father. I have similar feelings when cancer comes before the Senate because my grandfather, father and brother all died from cancer. I understand those feelings. However, I also understand that our committee has responsibility for the controllable expenses. This bill reduces controllable expenses, if I am told right, by at least 2\1/2\ to 3 percent. It further will require, if I am informed right, that if there is an increase in the highway tax revenues, we must spend them, even if it means changing the budgets for other subcommittees. If there is a decrease and the estimates are not met, I am told we will take the money from controllable accounts and put it in this account to pay for highways at the cost of all the other functions that are controllable. Now, I think that is something that I have a right to look at and Senators have a right to debate if they want to do that. I regret deeply being in a position of apparently opposing my leader who I do support and am committed to, but I feel this process needs to be understood. Again, I am only reporting what I have been told because I have not been privileged to have a copy of this yet, despite the fact that I am on that conference committee. Now, I have been here almost 30 years, and I have never seen this happen before. Never.

Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry. Is the report before the Senate yet?

Mr. STEVENS. As I understand, no one lives further from the Senate than I do and I have a wife waiting for me halfway home. However, I am also a conferee. I have not seen the conference report. I was not given even the privilege of deciding whether I should sign the conference report. I do not know for sure what is in the bill as far as the jurisdiction of the committee I happened to chair at the time. I have not waited almost 30 years to be the chairman of this committee to see it emasculated in 5 minutes because people have to get a plane home.

Mr. STEVENS. Where is the report?

Mr. STEVENS. Respectfully, Mr. Leader, there have been meetings all over this Congress for the last 2 weeks and I have tried to get into them and I was not allowed in. Now, we are going to have a meeting of our committee to find out how this affects the appropriations process. Until we know how it does, I hope you will understand, I respectfully object to proceeding with this bill until we have seen a copy of the report.

Mr. STEVENS. I met him at Harvard Law School in 1947.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act Amendments of 1998, a bill to update the federal charter of the U.S. Olympic Committee and the framework for Olympic and amateur sports in the United States. Senator Campbell joins me as an original cosponsor. This framework is commonly 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. Key components of the 1978 Act included-- (1) measures to expand the authority of the U.S. Olympic Committee to allow it to better serve as the coordinating body for amateur sports; (2) criteria for the selection of national governing bodies, and mechanisms to allow NGBs to be replaced if they are doing a poor job; (3) and perhaps most importantly--comprehensive measures to protect the right of athletes to compete. The 1978 Act was based on recommendations of President Ford's Commission on Olympic Sports, which had worked from 1975 until 1977 to determine how to correct factional disputes between sports organizations which were depriving many athletes of the opportunity to compete. I served on the Commission, along with Senators Culver and Stone. When the Commission's report was delivered to Congress, Chairman Warren Magnuson asked me to head up the Commerce Committee's review. In addition to numerous working sessions, we spent two full days of Commerce Committee hearings on October 18 and October 19, 1977 discussing the report and the bill implementing it. Our bill was enacted into law on November 8, 1978. It was a tremendous achievement, which had the consensus support of all entities involved--a rarity even then. It is a resilient statute which, to the credit of all involved, served its purposes for 15 years before showing signs of needing a tune-up. Based on the review we've just completed, I can say that the Act is still fundamentally sound and that it will serve the United States admirably into the 21st century. However, 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 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 introduce today reflects the comments received in January, and excludes proposals for which consensus appeared unachievable. Some measures in the bill may need further refinement, and if necessary, I will ask for unanimous consent to issue a star print on June 4, 1998. As with the 1978 Act, I believe we will have broad consensus on the bill, and I expect to present the bill to the Commerce Committee for its consideration during June. 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 still serving--and of the Commerce Committee members involved with the 1978 Act, only myself and Senators Hollings, Inouye, and Ford remain on the Committee. It has therefore been very helpful to have Senator Campbell--an Olympian himself in 1964--involved in this process. Senator Campbell and I are hopeful the rest of the Senate and Congress will appreciate the need for the relatively minor improvements we propose today, and will help us enact these changes before the end of this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that both my summary and the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act Amendments of 1998, a bill to update the federal charter of the U.S. Olympic Committee and the framework for Olympic and amateur sports in the United States. Senator Campbell joins me as an original cosponsor. This framework is commonly 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. Key components of the 1978 Act included-- (1) measures to expand the authority of the U.S. Olympic Committee to allow it to better serve as the coordinating body for amateur sports; (2) criteria for the selection of national governing bodies, and mechanisms to allow NGBs to be replaced if they are doing a poor job; (3) and perhaps most importantly--comprehensive measures to protect the right of athletes to compete. The 1978 Act was based on recommendations of President Ford's Commission on Olympic Sports, which had worked from 1975 until 1977 to determine how to correct factional disputes between sports organizations which were depriving many athletes of the opportunity to compete. I served on the Commission, along with Senators Culver and Stone. When the Commission's report was delivered to Congress, Chairman Warren Magnuson asked me to head up the Commerce Committee's review. In addition to numerous working sessions, we spent two full days of Commerce Committee hearings on October 18 and October 19, 1977 discussing the report and the bill implementing it. Our bill was enacted into law on November 8, 1978. It was a tremendous achievement, which had the consensus support of all entities involved--a rarity even then. It is a resilient statute which, to the credit of all involved, served its purposes for 15 years before showing signs of needing a tune-up. Based on the review we've just completed, I can say that the Act is still fundamentally sound and that it will serve the United States admirably into the 21st century. However, 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 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 introduce today reflects the comments received in January, and excludes proposals for which consensus appeared unachievable. Some measures in the bill may need further refinement, and if necessary, I will ask for unanimous consent to issue a star print on June 4, 1998. As with the 1978 Act, I believe we will have broad consensus on the bill, and I expect to present the bill to the Commerce Committee for its consideration during June. 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 still serving--and of the Commerce Committee members involved with the 1978 Act, only myself and Senators Hollings, Inouye, and Ford remain on the Committee. It has therefore been very helpful to have Senator Campbell--an Olympian himself in 1964--involved in this process. Senator Campbell and I are hopeful the rest of the Senate and Congress will appreciate the need for the relatively minor improvements we propose today, and will help us enact these changes before the end of this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that both my summary and the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Monday, May 11. I further ask unanimous consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and that there then be a period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 2:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exception: Senator Bennett be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that committees have until 1 p.m. to file written reports to reported legislation.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.