Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I say to my friend, the difficulty is that we started off with what was supposed to be 5 minutes for each Senator and that turned into 26 minutes and now we are about ready to do the same thing. I do want to limit the time. I hope he will agree with me that we will proceed and the Senator would take his 10 minutes now and the Senator from Georgia has 35 minutes. I will still be back here by 25 minutes of 5 o'clock.

Mr. STEVENS. Would that meet the Senator's approval? We want to get back to the defense bill before the afternoon is over.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am a little reluctant. What we are getting into is an equal time situation. Every time one Senator speaks the other side wants to answer. If we can find some way to add the Senator's time to what has already been used on your side of the aisle on the education matter and agree now how long that will be--the leader wants some time, too. The Senator is entitled, as I understand, to about 25 or 26 minutes already because of the statements made concerning education, if we follow an equal time proposition. I do want the floor at no later than 10 minutes of 5 o'clock to go into these other amendments, and even prefer to have it before that.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the Senator from Georgia is here and wishes to have time while we are on the defense bill to respond to the Senators from Massachusetts and Connecticut. I announce to the Senate, as soon as the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, arrives he will present an amendment and that amendment will be voted on at 5:30 today. It would be my hope that we also would be able to take a series of amendments prior to that time, amendments that we have been working on with individual Senators. It should take us 20 to 30 minutes to deal with four or five amendments that will be accepted. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Georgia be allowed a time now not to exceed the time taken by the Senators from Massachusetts and Connecticut and that time take place as soon as possible.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, on page 18 of our committee report, it stated that $10 million is provided for the national forest system account within the Forest Service. This does not accurately reflect the action taken in the committee markup. We added $2 million for payments to States, pursuant to section 405 of the bill. The total in the bill for the national forest system should be $12 million. I ask that the bill be corrected accordingly.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have a list at the desk. I ask unanimous consent these members of the staff of the Appropriations Committee be admitted to the floor during the consideration of the supplemental.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I send the amendment to the desk on behalf of the two Senators from New Mexico, Senators Domenici and Bingaman, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the Senator from Georgia is still here, and we are waiting for the beginning of the time on the McCain amendment. I yield him 5 minutes at this time.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. STEVENS. I am sure the Senator still has some time coming on his 26 minutes, and we certainly will account for that before this bill is over.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the Senator from Georgia is very kind. But I prefer to let him continue until the time comes to lay down the next amendment. It should be before his time expires, I assure him.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am going to speak for a few minutes about the issue of NATO expansion, and I want to offer these two amendments today. These amendments, I believe, will serve to bring greater accountability to the unresolved issue of the additional costs that will result with the accession of Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic to the NATO alliance. My first amendment requires all costs related to either the admission of new NATO members or their participation in NATO to be specifically authorized by law prior to the payment of these costs. I am speaking of the U.S. costs. Our U.S. costs would have to be specifically authorized by law before they could be paid. Actually, this ought to be the proper interpretation of the Constitution. But too often we find that costs--particularly those of foreign policy objectives supported by the Department of Defense--are incurred and then we are asked to pay for them in the budget process later. The costs related to NATO enlargement are still general estimates, but the debate is continuing as to what is actually required and what portion of these requirements should be paid by the NATO common budgets. These estimates will continue to evolve and change in the coming months, well past the completion of the NATO expansion debates here in this Chamber. U.S. costs could increase as NATO finalizes its implementation plans and eligibility criteria for common funding, or if new member countries have problems paying for infrastructure improvements. A Congressional Budget Office study released last week confirms that the United States is likely to incur bilateral costs for expanded exercises, training, and programs to incorporate NATO compatible equipment into the central European militaries. My amendment would ensure a more accurate accounting for, and explanation of, the actual costs related to NATO enlargement as the process continues to develop. My second amendment will restrict the use of funds for payment of NATO costs after September 30 of this year unless the Secretaries of Defense and State certify to the Congress that the total percentage of NATO common costs paid by the United States will not exceed 20 percent during the NATO fiscal year. Historically, NATO has not systematically reviewed or renegotiated member cost shares for the common budgets. This amendment would effectively require a reduction of the U.S. percentage paid in support of NATO common budget costs from a historic average of 24 or 25 percent. And I believe it is actually higher than that, but that is the average that they use. This is a reassessment that is long overdue in light of U.S. global defense responsibilities. We have to remember that NATO was formed at the time when we were coming out of World War II, before the United States had started really to carry out its global responsibilities. When Spain joined NATO in 1982, there were pro rata adjustments to the civil and military budget shares based upon Spain's increased contribution. No other formal renegotiations have occurred since 1955 in these two common budget areas. The NSIP--or NATO infrastructure budget--has been adjusted five times since 1960, but that was due more to the way projects were approved and funded than any actual attempt to reallocate the percentages. With the amount included in the emergency supplemental that we will consider today, the United States will have expended over $7.5 billion for operations in and around Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia by the end of fiscal year 1998. Mr. President, it is estimated that the United States is paying over 50 percent of the costs of maintaining the peace in Bosnia--nearly $200 million a month in 1997 alone--and there is no end in sight to the U.S. presence there with the President's decision to keep deployments there indefinitely. Our defense overseas funding in NATO countries--the cost of maintaining our forces there, including the operations and maintenance, military pay, family housing, and military construction--now averages nearly $10 billion a year. Security assistance to the NATO allies since 1950--this is the military assistance and military education and training--has totaled over $19 billion. No other member of NATO has the global defense role of the United States, nor does any other member have the forward-deployed presence in potential flash point areas such as the Middle East or the Korean peninsula. There is just no alternative but to take the two steps that I am going to ask the Senate to propose to the House and to the President by these two amendments. I would like to introduce the amendments. The first is an amendment that I mentioned to require prior specific authorization of funds before U.S. funds may be used to pay NATO enlargement costs. It is cosponsored by Senators Byrd, Campbell, Roberts, Thurmond, and Warner. The second amendment is the amendment to require that certification of payments to NATO will not cause the U.S. share of NATO common budget accounts or activities to exceed 20 percent, and that is cosponsored by Senators Byrd, Campbell, Roberts and Warner. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from Arizona for raising these issues, and I think it is good to have a dialog on what we are doing. I am trying to get the answer to the question the Senator asks. On page 14 of the report, we report that we have recommended $4 million for the development of the electric wall accelerator technology, in the atomic energy division of the Department of Energy. It is fully offset by a reduction in Federal funds for defense. It is not an emergency; it is not an add-on. It really is a reprogramming through this bill. I understand it is at the request of the Department. It was presented by a Senator to the full Appropriations Committee. I might add, I am a member of the committee and I am trying to get further information about the wall accelerator technology. It is related to the smaller accelerators, I am told, not the large types. It is a $4 million item using money that has already been allocated to another form of defense activity and moved over to this, and the other account has been reduced accordingly. I might say, this is one of my problems about the bill, Mr. President, because when we reprogram this money, it is my understanding that the Congressional Budget Office still charges us with the original $4 million and the second $4 million. This is what has led us into this great debate with the Office of Management and Budget and the CBO about the scoring for the purpose of our Budget Act of transfers, reprogrammings, and recessions. I hope to talk about that at a later time. I note, also, the Senator has given us a list of the items. He is correct; there is no question about it that Olympics cost us money. There isn't a nation in the world that doesn't fight to have Olympics. I have just come back now from Australia where I looked at the venue for the Olympics to be held in the year 2000 by that country. I can tell the Senator that every National Government expends substantial funds. I saw the changes in the wharfs, I saw the changes in the site. As a matter of fact, they are making an addition to one of their national parks as their venue for their world Olympics. There is a considerable amount that will be spent there in the effort to assure that those games are carried on to meet their national needs. Many of these items really are moneys that are in advance of expenditures under other Federal programs. I also went up to look at the site of the 2002 Winter Olympics. I am sure the Senator remembers, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, my interest in the Olympic movement. I can report that he is absolutely correct. This is not the last time we will hear about the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. It does require a substantial change in traffic patterns there, both in terms of rail and road connections, to assure that we can handle in this country the tremendous number of foreign visitors who will come to our country when we once again host the 2002 Winter Olympics. Beyond that, Mr. President, as I said, as I look at these questions that the Senator has raised, there is no question that there are terrible ice storms in the Northeast. One of the substantial problems there is to make available funds for the damage that occurred there in the area where they produce, as one of the major economic activities, the maple syrup. That is a lot of money, but it is something that we looked at, and it is consistent with the precedence of the Senate in dealing with the disaster. We accepted the amendment in regard to that. I personally, as I told the Senate, went to Georgia, met with the people handling the transportation activities in Georgia, and at the time met others who were involved in dealing with some of the difficulties that were encountered there in the floods. I did not make a trip to Alabama and Mississippi, but I did get a briefing on levy and waterway repairs in both of those States, and I believe that money that the Senator from Arizona has questioned is within, again, the precedence of the Senate in dealing with emergency funding. As a matter of fact, I might say to my friend from Arizona, we expect either today or tomorrow another request from the administration for FEMA money, Federal Emergency Management money, because of the two very difficult storms that occurred the past weekend. That money must be added to this bill or wait until fall when we approve the regular bill. I do not expect we will have another supplemental between now and consideration of the regular appropriations bills for the fiscal year 1999. That could change, but I do not expect it at this time. The road moratorium money is another item here that was questioned, section 405, that requires payments to counties to replace funds counties expected to receive from the timber road construction projects. This is another precedent established by the Congress. As a matter of fact, it was established in my State of Alaska when, by action of the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture, existing programs for road construction and for timber utilization were canceled and there was, in fact, passed by the Congress a substantial bill to replace those funds for a period of time because the schools in these counties where the timber activity takes place relied to a great extent on the revenue-sharing provisions of Federal law to maintain the schools. We have taken action in the past to replace funds under similar circumstances, and this section of this bill is to continue that precedent, also. I am pleased to try and answer any other question the Senator has. To deal with a bill of this type, you have to come back to the concept of the eye of the beholder. I honor and respect the Senator from Arizona as chairman of the authorizing committee that looks very carefully at all of the funds that are authorized in the normal process. This type of bill--a supplemental appropriations bill, disaster appropriations bill, and a defense emergency appropriations bill--relies to a great extent on items that have not been authorized. They are authorized by virtue of the very nature of the occurrence as disaster or emergency or defense matters, and, as such, these matters that the Senator from Arizona has raised have not been reviewed by the legislative committees and they should be fully examined by all Members of the Senate. I invite all Members of the Senate to examine these matters. We tried to go into these in depth in the Appropriations Committee and, because of the time circumstance, we may not have gone into each one to the extent we should, but I was convinced as chairman, and I know that other members of the committee were convinced through their own listening of the presentations, that these items do merit the approval of the Senate as legitimate disaster expenses or as legitimate funds to replace funds already spent by the Department of Defense. This defense money is to replace the money that has been spent and is necessary to be spent in terms of the deployment to Southwest Asia and in Bosnia, and they are declared emergencies. I believe they should be so classified.

Mr. STEVENS. I am pleased to yield briefly. May I inquire how much time the Senator desires?

Mr. STEVENS. I yield 3 minutes. I do not wish to look constrained, but we tried and notified Members we will vote at 5:30.

Mr. STEVENS. I will yield each Senator 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent the vote on this measure take place at 5:35. That is a vote on or in relation to this. I shall make a motion to table this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as if in morning business and to introduce two amendments to be considered at the time the NATO expansion issue is before the Senate for consideration.

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Under those circumstances, I ask unanimous consent the Senator be recognized for that period of time and that I regain the floor at that time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand Senator Feingold is seeking the floor to speak as in morning business, which we do not object to, provided there would be no amendments introduced to this bill during that period. I ask the Senator how much time he would like to have.

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

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

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator add my name?