Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have checked, and since we have become a State, we have built very few new bridges. We have replaced the ones destroyed in the 1964 earthquake, with one exception. The reason we have not built new bridges is we haven't had any new roads. Mr. President, I will not object.

Mr. STEVENS. I object.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 send to the desk for proper referral the Old Alaska Native Health Center Conveyance Act of 1998 to address a serious issue in Anchorage, Alaska. The Federal government finished construction of the Alaska Native Hospital Center in 1953. This facility is situated on a 15-acre parcel of land near downtown Anchorage. It was substantially affected by the 1964 Alaska earthquake, but was patched up and maintained until it could be replaced. In 1997 a new Alaska Native Health Center was opened. The old facility was boarded up and abandoned after being stripped of fixtures, wiring, heating, and ventilation systems, and other components. It now awaits disposal action by the General Services Administration. The facility is unsalvageable in its present condition and is in violation of multiple safety codes. A recent environmental assessment found not only the presence of asbestos but also lead- containing paint. Anchorage has a unique and pressing need for this site. The Port of Anchorage is the largest port in Alaska and the 17th largest in the nation--it has grown steadily in recent years, and the tonnage of goods moving through our major port is expected to continue to increase. However, truck access to the Port is limited to either a single two- lane road or through the streets of downtown Anchorage. This is a limiting factor to continued growth, and is already negatively affecting the transfer of goods on and off the domestic and international container ships that call on the Port of Anchorage. The solution is to have new access to the port through the land now occupied by the abandoned hospital center. My bill would assist the Municipality of Anchorage with this plan by instructing the General Services Administration to clear the land and transfer it to the Municipality of Anchorage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my attention was called to an article, an op-ed article, in the New York Times for Wednesday, February 4, of this year entitled: ``NATO: A Debate Recast.'' It was authored by Howard Baker, Sam Nunn, Brent Scowcroft and Alton Frye. I read the article with great interest and asked the question of whether this had been inserted in the Record at the time it was written. I am informed that that was not the case, that it has not been put in the Record, not been called to the attention of the Members of the Senate. I call the attention of the Members in the Senate to this article because I think it makes some very good points about NATO expansion. I particularly want to quote this one provision. These writers said: The Senate would be wise to link NATO and European Union expansion. If that link is made, it is essential to stipulate that admission to the European Union is not sufficient qualification for entry into NATO. NATO should weigh any future applicant against the contributions and burdens its membership would entail. What is called for is a definite, if not permanent, pause in this process. Mr. President, we soon will be, I assume, taking up the debate on NATO expansion. I do ask that Members pay attention to the words of our two former colleagues, Senator Baker and Senator Nunn; and also Brent Scowcroft, who was the National Security Advisor to Presidents Ford and Bush; and Alton Frye, who is senior fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, March 2, 1998, at 2:45 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk for proper referral the Old Alaska Native Health Center Conveyance Act of 1998 to address a serious issue in Anchorage, Alaska. The Federal government finished construction of the Alaska Native Hospital Center in 1953. This facility is situated on a 15-acre parcel of land near downtown Anchorage. It was substantially affected by the 1964 Alaska earthquake, but was patched up and maintained until it could be replaced. In 1997 a new Alaska Native Health Center was opened. The old facility was boarded up and abandoned after being stripped of fixtures, wiring, heating, and ventilation systems, and other components. It now awaits disposal action by the General Services Administration. The facility is unsalvageable in its present condition and is in violation of multiple safety codes. A recent environmental assessment found not only the presence of asbestos but also lead- containing paint. Anchorage has a unique and pressing need for this site. The Port of Anchorage is the largest port in Alaska and the 17th largest in the nation--it has grown steadily in recent years, and the tonnage of goods moving through our major port is expected to continue to increase. However, truck access to the Port is limited to either a single two- lane road or through the streets of downtown Anchorage. This is a limiting factor to continued growth, and is already negatively affecting the transfer of goods on and off the domestic and international container ships that call on the Port of Anchorage. The solution is to have new access to the port through the land now occupied by the abandoned hospital center. My bill would assist the Municipality of Anchorage with this plan by instructing the General Services Administration to clear the land and transfer it to the Municipality of Anchorage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Byrd will not speak during the time that he had reserved, but Senator Kempthorne would like to speak. How much time does the Senator from Idaho need?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senate is going to vote soon on the override of the President's veto to H.R. 2631, the bill disapproving the line-item vetoes of projects contained in the fiscal year 1998 military construction bill. I am here as chairman of the Appropriations Committee to urge all Members to vote in favor of the override of the President's veto in this matter. Let me begin by congratulating Senators Burns and Murray for their leadership in handling the military construction bill and the line-item veto process over the past few months. At no time has the discussion on this military construction bill and the line-item veto been marked by partisan rancor. These two members of our subcommittee, Senators Burns and Murray, and our full committee have proceeded in a completely bipartisan fashion to deal with this bill and the line-item process. As Senator Burns noted in his comments earlier today, this debate and vote provide the first test of the line- item veto process enacted by the Congress. As chairman of the conference that presented the final version of the line-item veto bill to the Senate, I am pleased that the procedures established in that bill have worked. I regret that we must act to override the President's veto of this disapproval bill. In a hearing before our committee and in numerous public statements, administration officials conceded that errors were made in handling the military construction bill. During a time of intense pressure on our defense budget, there could be no consideration of foregoing these critical projects that are necessary to support our military efforts. Override of the President's veto restores 38 projects, totaling $287 million, for this fiscal year 1998. All of these projects have been defined as necessary by the Armed Forces and are executable during this fiscal year. Subsequent to the President's action on the military construction bill, the administration took a very different approach to the remaining 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 1998. I do believe that the confrontation that has occurred over this bill has refined the process for dealing with the line-item veto. While I do not support the President's decision with regard to many of the specific line-item vetoes he presented to Congress with regard to the 1998 bills, our committee did not hold any hearings or report disapproval bills on any of the other line-item veto messages. We did not challenge the President's decision on any line-item veto on any bill other than this military construction bill, although, again, I will say, as chairman, I disagreed with many. For 1998, the President transmitted 81 line-item vetoes of specific appropriations totaling $483.4 million. In my judgment, the line-item veto has proven to be a useful and appropriate tool for any President to reconsider spending matters passed by the Congress. Consideration of this bill, however, and this override will demonstrate the effectiveness of the process created by the bill that created the line-item veto. We definitely prepared a process to overturn a Presidential veto of a disapproval bill, and that is what we are dealing with now. We passed the original bill, the President line- item vetoed it, we passed a disapproval bill, and he vetoed that. This is a process to overturn that veto of our bill whereby the Congress decided to literally overturn his veto. I again regret that the President chose to veto this measure. I think he did so on the basis of misunderstanding or upon misinformation presented to him. As I said in the beginning, the criteria used by the White House, as applied to these projects, just did not fit. This was not a proper veto of the items in this military construction bill. I am here to urge all Members to vote to override the veto on this bill, restore the funding for these projects that are urgently needed for military construction, and validate the process that the line-item veto bill presented to the Congress and make it work. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the time is set at 6 p.m., is it not?

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

Mr. STEVENS. Ten minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we seek to preserve the time as it is currently allocated for the next 10 minutes before the vote on the MilCon bill.

Mr. STEVENS. We are talking about the 10 minutes before 6 p.m.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Defense Department and Congress recently lost an able and dedicated adviser. Mr. Philip Hitch, Department of Defense Deputy General Counsel for Fiscal Matters died recently at the age of 52. Phil had served the Department of Defense for 27 years in a number of positions. Mr. Hitch began his career in the Army, serving from 1971 to 1975 as an Assistant Staff Judge Advocate for the Military Traffic Management Command. Upon leaving the Army in 1975, he represented the Office of the Counsel for the Navy Comptroller. He became the Counsel for the Navy Comptroller in 1981. In 1992, Philip Hitch became the Deputy General Counsel for Fiscal Matters for the Department of Defense. In this role, Phil served the Defense Department capably by supporting DOD's legislative proposals regarding financial matters. Equally important, at a time of significant Congressional activity in the areas of Defense navigate its way through the process of change. However, few know that the Congress, particularly the Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Defense, relied heavily on Phil for advice on general provisions and other financial legislation under consideration. In this sensitive and occasionally conflicting role, Phil was able to provide thoughtful and precise legal counsel while maintaining the trust the Committee needed in the delicate task of seeking Defense Department views on legislative proposals. In this role, Phil was able to make a significant contribution to the nation's defense acquisition process, serving both the Defense Department and committee on Appropriations as confidant and counsel. In a busy town dominated by people seeking to be heard and recognized, Phil Hitch generally sought neither. Indeed, one of Phil's strong qualities as his willingness to take time and listen to all aspects of the issue at hand. When asked for his advice, it was clear and concise--formulated to make the process of managing fiscal legal matters more productive for the nation as a whole. Fortunately, I can tell you that the quality of Phil's work was recognized through his receipt of the Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Service and the Navy Distinguished Service Award. The Navy Distinguished Service Award notes that ``Mr. Hitch has left indelible contributions to the management and operations on the Department of the Navy.'' Mr. President, the Defense Department and the Senate will miss his wise counsel.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call the Senate's attention to an individual who has dedicated his life to liberating his people and restoring his nation. Eduard Shevardnadze's career of government service is marked most significantly by his personal journey from being a member of the Soviet hierarchy to being the prominent democratic leader he is today. I am proud to have met him on several occasions and draw the Senate's attention to this extraordinary man's accomplishments in celebration of his seventieth birthday which was January 25, 1998. Eduard Shevardnadze's career began with a steady rise through the Communist Party. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs, his ability as a diplomat brought the United States and Soviet Union into a better understanding of one another. He was a significant force in ending the Cold War peacefully and ushering in an historic era of improved world- wide relations. In 1991, however, Eduard Shevardnadze was at odds with the dictatorial policies of the Communist Party. His strong principles ultimately drove him to forego the trappings of the elite political class and he resigned his position. Upon his resignation, Eduard Shevardnadze returned to Georgia. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, his homeland was destabilized and struggling economically. Eduard Shevardnadze began assisting in the revitalization of Georgia, and in November, 1995, he was elected president. His policies have focused on restoring territorial integrity, as well as promoting economic and political independence. Since his election, President Shevardnadze's notable achievements include adopting and implementing a new constitution, introducing a new currency, cracking down on organized crime, and negotiating important treaties with neighboring countries to secure Georgia's future. President Eduard Shevardnadze's personal journey from communist to democratic leader is a compelling example of the triumph of the human spirit. His high standing among Western leaders has been earned through his principled democratic leadership and perseverance in the face of adversity. I would like to express my warm regards to President Shevardnadze in wishing him a prosperous seventieth year.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this joint resolution, the Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment, proposes an Amendment to the Constitution that would empower Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of our Flag. I am proud to join Senator Hatch and my other colleagues as a sponsor. Two years ago the Senate came close to passing this amendment. At that time, ninety percent of Alaskans who contacted me supported this effort. I am confident their stance has not changed. Alaskans support our flag and the freedom it represents. Alaskans strongly support the protection of this symbol of freedom. Our flag has a special place in my heart and the hearts of all Americans. As those who have served overseas know, the flag was our reminder of America and our freedom. Freedom much greater than any country ever offers. Our missions oveaseas were to protect that freedom and the flag which symbolizes it. Too many have devoted their lives for our country for us not to protect its most sacred symbol. Forty-eight states had laws preventing flag desecration before the Supreme Court struck them down. The flag is a direct symbol of our country. Fifty stars for fifty states. I remember the day the forty- ninth star was pinned on the flag. Having played a role in the Alaska statehood movement, I can say it was one of the proudest moments in my life. I support every effort to preserve the sanctity of America's flag. The Supreme Court has given us a choice. We can accept that the First Amendment allows the desecration of America's flag. Or we can change the law to prevent it. The power to amend the Constitution demands a cautious respect. It is a considerable power--one that has helped chart the course of our history. We should not jump headlong into amendments. But we should not be afraid to act on our beliefs, either. The people of Alaska are strong in their belief that our flag should not be desecrated, and we support this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this joint resolution, the Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment, proposes an Amendment to the Constitution that would empower Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of our Flag. I am proud to join Senator Hatch and my other colleagues as a sponsor. Two years ago the Senate came close to passing this amendment. At that time, ninety percent of Alaskans who contacted me supported this effort. I am confident their stance has not changed. Alaskans support our flag and the freedom it represents. Alaskans strongly support the protection of this symbol of freedom. Our flag has a special place in my heart and the hearts of all Americans. As those who have served overseas know, the flag was our reminder of America and our freedom. Freedom much greater than any country ever offers. Our missions oveaseas were to protect that freedom and the flag which symbolizes it. Too many have devoted their lives for our country for us not to protect its most sacred symbol. Forty-eight states had laws preventing flag desecration before the Supreme Court struck them down. The flag is a direct symbol of our country. Fifty stars for fifty states. I remember the day the forty- ninth star was pinned on the flag. Having played a role in the Alaska statehood movement, I can say it was one of the proudest moments in my life. I support every effort to preserve the sanctity of America's flag. The Supreme Court has given us a choice. We can accept that the First Amendment allows the desecration of America's flag. Or we can change the law to prevent it. The power to amend the Constitution demands a cautious respect. It is a considerable power--one that has helped chart the course of our history. We should not jump headlong into amendments. But we should not be afraid to act on our beliefs, either. The people of Alaska are strong in their belief that our flag should not be desecrated, and we support this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to recognize the assistance I have received over the years from a longtime friend, A. Michael Arnold, whose intellectual capacity and international insights have proven to be of significant value to me and others. I have often passed on Mick Arnold's comments to many Members of Congress including our leaders. Since the early eighties, Mick and I have corresponded regularly, and occasionally have had the opportunity to meet either here or in Britain. He is a resident of Great Britain. We are both blessed with wonderful wives. Mick's wife Wendy is a respected author in her own right. My wife, Catherine, and Wendy share in our friendship. These insights in Mr. Arnold's correspondence have run the gamut from the 1980's arms buildup in South America, to the current conflict in Bosnia with its implications for world peace, the internal convulsions in Russia, the tensions between Israel and the Arab world, the threats from Iran and Iraq, and to the reason d'etre of the United Nations. Mick's observations have been provocative, accurate, and full of sage advice. He has not sought recognition for his efforts. He told me that knowing that his observations may help to bring clarity to a confused world scene was sufficient to him. I recall several specific instances of Mick's perceptiveness in international affairs. Mick's assessments in 1983 and 1984 of the political scene in the Soviet Union: He anticipated that Chernenko would stabilize his power base and advance Gorbachev as one of his key deputies. By early 1984 Chernenko had made Gorbachev his No. 2. Noting Chernenko's precarious health, Mick then anticipated that Gorbachev would succeed Chernenko. History records the accuracy of that assessment. That advice was very helpful to those of us who were working on Soviet affairs in the 1980's. In 1991 Mick expressed anguish over the potential for a conflagration in Yugoslavia * * * one that could envelope Bosnia-Herzegovina. Once again Mick's international instincts proved accurate. Many times that he shared his worries in papers I then passed on to others, those fears were realized in what did take place in Bosnia. In April of this year, Mick commented on the upcoming Presidential elections in Iran and observed that Mohammed Khatemi would, if elected, be more open to foreign relations. History has yet to validate the accuracy of Mick's assessment of Khatemi's but many are hopeful he is correct. He continues to be one who observes the world scene from his background being a Don at Oxford. The world would be a far better place if there were more people with the intellectual capacity, compassion, and common sense of Mick Arnold, ones who would pass on their opinions without any publicity, without seeking any remuneration for their work--just to be a friend. It's from the point of view of friendship. I look forward to continuing this friendship and value Mick's informed observations on the international scene. I come today because my friend has told me he is going to reduce the frequency of his comments. He is not totally retiring, but he's going to limit the scope of his activities. But I wanted the Senate to know that, whether many are aware of it, the U.S. Senate has benefited from his counsel and his insights. I have benefited greatly from his friendship. My wife and I wish Wendy and Mick many more years of success, and I continue to value his advice. I yield the floor. Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I concur with Senator Inouye that this is a critical problem for Alaska and Hawaii. I would suggest that it is in the interest of all States to ensure that no State is left behind as we enter the digital age. Researchers in Alaska and Hawaii must have the same access to resources that their colleagues in other areas of the country have-- without compatible access our universities will be left behind in the race to secure research funding and they will not be able to compete when it comes to attracting top researchers and professors. There is another side to the problem. Just as our universities will be cut off from their colleagues--universities in the continental United States will be cut off from the expertise and resources that are housed in the universities of Alaska and Hawaii. Senator Inouye laid out our concerns with respect to participation in the next generation Internet project, I would like to take what he said one step further. The technology--the high speed access to the Internet that is the goal of the next generation Internet project--is currently being slated to be developed on top of the existing Internet infrastructure. The existing Internet infrastructure can be visualized as a series of pipes, of varying capacity. The main conduit of the pipe system connects the West Coast to the East Coast--essentially through the middle of the United States. Those States that host the main conduit are fortunate--they have low cost access to relatively high capacity. Those States that are not close to the main conduit face increasing costs the further they are from the main conduits. The NGI project has agreed to include some States--like Montana that face challenges connecting to the main conduits. However, our States-- Alaska and Hawaii--have been essentially written off. This isn't just a question of our universities being left behind. It is a question of our entire states being left behind as we enter the new millennium when high speed connectivity will be essential to every aspect of life. We are already witnessing mass scale technological convergence. From my computer here in the Senate I can make telephone calls, I can listen to the radio, I can watch television--all over the Internet. This is not possible from most of Alaska and Hawaii--the connections are simply too poor. Currently data traffic is growing at a much faster pace than telephone traffic--if this continues, early in the next century data traffic will surpass telephone traffic. Where will that leave Alaska and Hawaii if we don't have the infrastructure in place to send data? Right now many villages in rural Alaska can only access the Internet by dialing a 1-800 number which connects them to an Internet service provider in Anchorage. They are connected to the Internet at speeds of around 1200 BAUD. Not only is this access slow--considering that most Americans now normally connect at at least 28,800 BAUD--but it is also costly. I join Senator Inouye in asking that those universities and agencies who receive part of the $95 million that we have provided for the next generation Internet project use the funds in a manner that will advance the interests of our country as a whole. I also ask for the assistance of private industry in helping us to solve the technical problems that our States face in obtaining connectivity levels that are comparable to the rest of the country. As one of the witnesses said earlier this week at the NGI hearing before the Science, Technology, and Transportation Subcommittee, it will take an innovative solution to provide Alaska with good connectivity. Conventional solutions, such as laying high capacity fiber to every village are simply not feasible economically at this time. I am committed to finding a solution to these problems--I know that Senator Inouye is too--I hope that our colleagues will join us and that this will be viewed as a national problem and not just as a competition for Federal research funds.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for joining me in this colloquy, and I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Pennsylvania is correct. While the Department of Defense chooses to group selected FFRDC's in the category of advisory and assistance services, the Congress has for several years dealt with these issues separately. FFRDC's should be exempt from the reduction in contractor advisory and assistance services.