Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 226, submitted earlier today by Senator Snowe and others.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and any statements with regard to the resolution appear in the Record at this point.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 265 which was received from the House.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, may proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 314, S. 1244. I further ask unanimous consent there be 10 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form, and following that debate, the committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be read for a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, on Monday, the Senate will proceed to morning business until 2:30 p.m. and then attempt to consider several high-tech bills on short time agreements. Also, at approximately 3 p.m., the Senate will consider the agriculture research conference report, and at approximately 4 p.m., the Senate will begin consideration of the missile defense bill. However, no votes will occur during Monday's session of the Senate. Any votes ordered on Monday will be postponed to occur on Tuesday at approximately 12 noon. The Senate could also consider other legislative and executive items cleared for action, including the charitable contributions bill on Tuesday of next week.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, may proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 310, S. 1046, the National Science Foundation reauthorization bill. I further ask unanimous consent there be a total of 10 minutes of debate equally divided on the bill and that no amendments be in order other than a substitute amendment offered by Senator McCain. I further ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the amendment, S. 1046 be read for a third time and the Labor Committee then be discharged from further consideration of the House companion bill, H.R. 1273. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate then proceed to its consideration, all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of S. 1046, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof. I further ask unanimous consent the bill then be read for the third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on the passage of H.R. 1273, as amended. And I finally ask unanimous consent that S. 1046 then be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a reasonable amendment to this bill relating to a very unique ``tool of the trade'' in the fishing industry of Alaska. the bill already would increase the cap for the value of tools of the trade exempted from IRS levy to $5,000, up from $1,250. My amendment addresses a class of tools--State-issued permits that give their holder the privilege to commercially harvest fish or game in our State. The State of Alaska has never conceded that these permits are property that may be seized by IRS. Yet, the IRS seizes them, without giving any consideration to the unique circumstances in Alaska, particularly western Alaska. In those villages, commercial fishing is the only industry. If you don't have a fishing job, you do not have a job. When a fisherman in that area fails to pay taxes on time, the IRS never gives any consideration to the fact that without the fishing permit, the taxpayer would have no way to pay back taxes. In addition, he or she will then have no way to support their children, their family, pay child support, or buy heating oil for their house, or face other problems. We do have a problem in western Alaska--the IRS estimates that commercial fishermen owe over $20 million in back taxes. That is not much, nationally. But as one IRS agent visiting rural Alaska pointed out, they have in some cases been trying to collect taxes from people who did not even know the IRS existed. There are positive changes, in the bill with respect to IRS collection procedures, but the language and cultural barriers, and isolation of vast areas of Alaska still lead to results that people in the rest of the country find hard to believe. Instead of exempting State permits entirely from IRS levies, I have accepted a compromise. Under section 3445 of the bill, the IRS will be required, before seizing the assets of a small business, to first determine that the business owner's ``other assets'' are not sufficient to pay the back taxes and expenses of IRS proceedings. My compromise would require the IRS to consider future income from State-issued fish and game permits as ``other income'' in its determination before making a levy on such permits. This means the IRS must consider whether the future income from the permit would allow the fishermen to pay the tax debt and procedural expenses before the maximum time possible for repayment under law has occurred. In treating these permits as an asset used in a trade or business, Congress does not intend to determine whether such permits are property or a right to property. We only mean to say that as long as the IRS asserts that the permits are property or a right to property, the holder should have the added protection of having future income considered. amendment No. 2385 (Purpose: Relating to the report ont ax complexity and low-income taxpayer clincs) On page 375, line 11, strike the period and insert ``, including volunteer income tax assistance programs, and to provide funds for training and technical assistance to support such clinics and programs.'' On page 375, line 22, strike ``or''. On page 376, line 2, strike the period and insert ``, or''. On page 376, between lines 2 and 3, insert: ``(III) provides tax preparation assistance and tax counseling assistance to low income taxpayers, such as volunteer income tax assistance programs.'' On page 376, line 20, strike ``and''. On page 376, line 25, strike the period and insert ``and''. On page 376, after line 25, insert: ``(C) a volunteer income tax assistance program which is described in section 501(c) and exempt from tax under section 501(a) and which provides tax preparation assistance and tax counseling assistance to low income taxpayers.'' On page 377, line 9, strike ``$3,000,000'' and insert ``$6,000,000''. On page 377, line 11, after the end period, insert ``Not more than 7.5 percent of the amount available shall be allocated to training and technical assistance programs.'' On page 377, line 15, insert ``, except that larger grants may be made for training and technical assistance programs'' after ``$100,000''. On page 378, line 16, insert ``(other than a clinic described in paragraph (2)(C))'' after ``clinic''. On page 396, strike lines 18 through 20, and insert ``Finance of the Senate. The report shall include any recommendations-- (A) for reducing the complexity of the administration of Federal tax laws, and (B) for repeal or modification of any provision the Commissioner believes adds undue and unnecessary complexity to the administrator of the Federal tax laws.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join Senator Murkowski as a co- sponsor of this Senate resolution commending the Prince William Sound Community College, which is located in Valdez, Alaska, as it celebrates its twentieth anniversary. In 1971, concerned citizens of Valdez and in the neighboring town of Cordova petitioned the University of Alaska to establish extension offices in each of these communities. In 1976, a Learning Center was established in this area. Community college status was granted in 1978 and the centers officially became known as Prince William Sound Community College. In 1989, the College received accreditation from the Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges and has maintained that status. Since that date, the College has established several new programs, such as the Prince William Sound Community College Theater Conference, which attracts nationally-known dramatists; the Industrial Safety/Marine Response Training Department; a wellness center; and a television station. The University of Alaska merged all community colleges into the university system in 1987. Prince William Sound Community College has remained the only individually-accredited community college in the system because of the continuing strong support from the City of Valdez. The University of Alaska's Board of Regents has recognized the growth and accomplishment of the College by approving several new degree and certificate programs. In twenty years of existence, Prince William Sound Community College has developed into a recognized leader in the University of Alaska system and continues to serve Prince William Sound and the Cooper Basin area as a comprehensive community college intent on life-long learning. I urge other Senators to help us pass this resolution to commend the Prince William Sound Community College for these accomplishments in conjunction for these accomplishments in conjunction with its 20th anniversity on May 10, 1998.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, last spring, the Duma Chairman of the Committee on the Problems of the Russian North, Vladimir Goman, met with Senator Cochran and myself to ask us for our participation in a new project which would help facilitate Russia's efforts in the remediation of nuclear wastes. Since that meeting, the Russian Duma has passed a Resolution pledging funding and infrastructure for the Advanced Technology Research Project (ATRP). In Europe, industry and key decision makers of the European Parliament, the German Bundestag, the Union of European Labor Parties, and several national nuclear waste management and research and development institutions, including the Swiss NAGRA, have all pledged their support for the ATRP. This ATRP, originally proposed by the Russian Duma, with participation from academia, private industry and governmental and public organizations, is a privately funded, neutral organization. It will facilitate information exchange on nuclear waste management technologies, and the development of a worldwide nuclear waste management technology marketplace. It is the goal of this project to advance self sufficiency in nuclear waste management in Russia and to globally provide advanced and affordable solutions to nuclear waste. ATRP will be entirely privately funded through private industry, public interest, and scientific organizations. This Private-Public Partnership will be implemented through ATRP's global nuclear waste technology clearinghouse, database, conferences, workshops, and trade shows worldwide. The objective is advanced, safer, and efficient nuclear waste management at the lowest possible cost. The management of nuclear waste is one of the world's most pressing concerns and perhaps Russia's greatest ecological threat. ATRP will help Russia help itself by developing an international market for technology exchange. It will also benefit United States and all other nuclear nations by making nuclear waste management technology more readily available in the international market place. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this Resolution which will help us all work toward an international solution to this very pressing issue of nuclear wage management.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to yield, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS. To me, this is a matter of simple justice. As the surviving superpower of the world, we must take action to limit our international commitments at least to the extent that we have limited our own budgets within the United States for the Department of Defense. Both of my amendments do that. They merely say there is a restriction on the future obligation of funds of the United States to these NATO processes unless they are previously authorized by law. There is no barrier to going above the 1998 limit, and there is no compulsion to reduce down to 20 percent as far as the total overall commitment to the common budgets. But my amendment will bring about a process by which further expenditures will have to be authorized by law and will give Congress a specific control every year over the additional cost, if any, that may be incurred because of this NATO expansion.

Mr. STEVENS. This is the amendment that I believe the Senator from Delaware will discuss. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. STEVENS. In any event, Mr. President, if it is in order for me to do so at this time, I would like to place before the Senate amendment No. 2065 so I may ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, with the amount included in the emergency supplemental, the United States will have expended over $7.5 billion for operations in and around Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia by the end of this fiscal year 1998. It is estimated that the United States is paying over 50 percent of the cost of maintaining the peace in Bosnia, nearly $200 million a month in 1997 alone, and no end is in sight to the United States presence there, with the current wish of the President to extend our mission there. Defense overseas funding to NATO countries continues. The cost of maintaining our U.S. forces there averages $10 billion a year. Let me state that again. Defense overseas funding in NATO countries is such that the cost of maintaining our forces there averages nearly $10 billion a year. Security assistance alone to NATO allies since 1950, and that includes military assistance and military education and training, now totals over $19 billion. No other member of NATO has the global defense role that the United States has, nor the forward-deployed presence in potential flash-point areas such as the Middle East and the Korean peninsula. It is for this reason, Mr. President, that I wish to discuss the two amendments that I proposed. I presented them last month. The amendments both deal with the challenges of defining and controlling NATO expansion costs. My original intent in proposing these amendments was to bring some greatly needed accountability to the critical issue of recognizing and clarifying all the costs to the United States to enlarge the NATO alliance. My first amendment is No. 2065, which requires all costs related to either the admission of new NATO members, or their participation in NATO be specifically authorized by law. It is my understanding that the managers of the bill have not accepted this amendment for inclusion in the resolution, and for that reason I will, in a moment, ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment. I will explain it further if anyone wishes me to do so, but I think it is very plain. It just says any further costs must be authorized by law. The second amendment has evolved since I originally offered it for the Senate's consideration. My original amendment would have restricted the use of funds for payment of NATO costs after September 30 of this year unless the Secretaries of Defense and State certified to the Congress that the total percentage of NATO common costs paid by the United States would not exceed 20 percent during the NATO fiscal year. After the administration expressed their concern that this would be too difficult to achieve in such a time period, I redrafted this amendment to reduce the total U.S. contribution by only 1 percent each year over a 5-year period. That would have been no more severe a reduction than the Department of Defense has experienced as a whole in real terms since 1995. However, during the extensive consultation that I have had with the Secretary of Defense, our former colleague, Secretary Cohen, and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joe Ralston, they have requested further changes to this amendment. Subsequently, I have sent to the desk now a modification of the latest version which is what I will ask the Senate to vote on, and that is a sense of the Senate, that beginning in fiscal year 1999 and over the next 5 years, the President should require the U.S. representative to NATO to propose to NATO a 1-percent reduction in U.S. contributions to the common-funded budgets of NATO. Sixty days after the proposal has been made, the President is requested to submit to Congress a report outlining the action taken by NATO, if any, on this U.S. proposal. Additionally, this amendment directs the limitation on the total expenditures by the United States for payment to the common-funded budgets of NATO to the fiscal year 1998 levels unless an increase over that is specifically authorized by law. Mr. President, a soon-to-be-released report of the General Accounting Office that has been conducted confirms--and I have seen the draft-- confirms that NATO does not systematically review or renegotiate member cost shares for the common budgets. And it is well past time for this practice to be instituted. As I have stated before, this reassessment is long overdue in light of the United States' global defense responsibilities. No formal renegotiations have occurred in the military and civil budgets in NATO since 1955. Let me repeat that. There have been no formal renegotiations in the military and civil budgets of NATO since 1955. When Spain joined NATO in 1982, there was a pro rata adjustment in the civil and military budget shares based upon Spain's contribution. The NSIP, or the NATO infrastructure budget, has been adjusted five times since 1960 because of changes in the way projects were approved or funded, but there was no attempt to reallocate the percentages. Mr. President, I think that is long overdue. I understand there will be no objection to my amendment, No. 2066. If that is the case, I would urge that it be adopted as soon as the managers have made their statements. Executive Amendment No. 2065 (Purpose: To require a prior specific authorization of funds before any United States funds may be used to pay NATO enlargement costs)

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I yield for that purpose, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I do not wish to inconvenience Senator Conrad. I would be perfectly willing to wait if he is the next one in line. So I can get in line and I know what the time is, so I can plan the day. And I can tell the Senator, I will not take longer than 30 minutes on my amendments.

Mr. STEVENS. One additional request, if I may. I ask that my second amendment be modified. I have that right without unanimous consent. And I send it to the desk so that it can be reproduced so all Senators have a copy of it when I call it up after the 3 o'clock votes.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to lay them aside after the scheduled votes at 3 o'clock and take up my two amendments at that time before I leave.

Mr. STEVENS. What is the order of business after the Warner vote, after the three votes scheduled at 3 o'clock? Is there an agreement after that time?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the order of business after the-- if I may, with the Senator's permission?

Mr. STEVENS. All I am trying to do, Mr. President, is accommodate the Senate. I thought instead of having three votes, have five votes after we are finished. It is all right by me. I will wait. I want to be assured some time--I am leading a delegation, pursuant to the Byrd amendment to the supplemental bill, to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia tonight. I would prefer that we were going to finish this or postpone it until we get back, one or the other.

Mr. STEVENS. I am not asking for people to sign off on the amendment. I am only asking for time to debate it and have a vote.