Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. STEVENS. It would be very hard, Mr. President, to figure out the net amount. The actual savings would be determined by how much of the projects fall into this year by reprogramming and then how much more money has to be requested next year to pay for the money that is spent for the projects that had been delayed because of the transfer of the money to these projects. I believe that the net will be that there will be $450 million less this year. But I do believe it will increase the cost of defense in later years because of the fact that these projects have been deferred and other projects will be deferred in order to pay for the 18 according to that document.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from New York when he comes. I know he wants to make a statement. But the Senator from Texas has just made the point that I have been trying to make. This is the process of the Line-Item Veto Act. It is the first time we have attempted to use it. This is the override mechanism that is provided by that act, and it was provided by Congress because mistakes could be made. In this instance we now know that mistakes were made. The statement came to us today from the Office of Management and Budget that admits there was erroneous material given to the President on which they matched against the criteria that they had used under the Line-Item Veto Act to determine whether any projects should be eliminated. We asked for the list of those projects. My staff tells me we still have not received the ones that mistakes were made on. We have no alternative under the circumstances than to include them all. There are two here that are not included because of the specific requests of the States involved not to have their projects involved. But the administration has now clearly said on the record that there were mistakes made. The veto message, as I said, violates the spirit and intent of the balanced budget amendment. That again is why the override mechanism is in the act. This action taken by the administration does not comply with the act. We have a way of saying to the Presidency we intended that money be spent, and we want it spent for these projects. Let's look at this criteria again that the administration used. It set forth three criteria, one of which was that the project had to be in the President's budget by definition. In this instance, that was an erroneous criteria because the Presidency had agreed to increase the amount of money that was in the President's budget for defense by $2.6 billion. In the budget agreement that was worked out with leadership. Of that $2.6 billion, $800 million of that was allocated to military construction. Nothing came forward from the administration that indicated that it had any desire to decide where that money went. So our committee allocated the money. In allocating it, we gave money to these 38 projects. Our criteria was they had to be projects that the military supported. We had a hearing after the line-item veto took place. At that hearing the military witnesses stated that every project on the list was supported by the Department of Defense military people. They were essential to the program. And I believe all but five were in the long-range program. The other five were covered by changes in circumstances since the long-range 5-year program was devised. But they were specifically supported by the military witnesses. The criteria that the Presidency used to determine whether to apply the line-item veto does not stand up to the scrutiny of this Congress. I am corrected about one thing. One of the criteria was that no design work had been done. The impact of that is that again there were projects where the information was erroneous that was received by the White House. These projects were in fact underway and could be completed in the next fiscal year. I thank you for telling me about that. But the problem of the criteria is they were not designed to find projects that were wasteful, or would increase the deficit. In this instance, I failed to point out that since we obtained the increase in money allocated to our committee for defense we looked into the long-range program, and we brought up into the 1998 year years that are in the long-range program but were specified to commence at a later time. We did that because some money had already been allocated to those projects by the Department of Defense, and those projects could be more efficiently completed if money was available this year. My point is these are not wasteful projects. No one can claim that there any one of these projects that meets the criteria of the Line- Item Veto Act will increase the deficit. By definition they are within this budget. They are within the amount that the administration agreed could be spent this year for defense. And, second, they are not by definition wasteful. Those are the two criteria of the Line-Item Veto Act. The President can use the Line-Item Veto Act to eliminate wasteful projects, or projects that would increase the deficit. Neither apply to any one of the 38 projects. Under the circumstances, Mr. President, having allocated $800 million to military construction, what we find now, as I said just a little while ago, is a line-item veto eliminates $287 million from the $800 million which was part of the $2.6 billion overall increase for defense. The line-item veto eliminated 35 percent of the money we put into projects to use the increased amount which was available for military construction. That means right now that if the administration goes forward with what is stated in this announcement today from OMB that Senator Byrd has read, they will reprogram money from other projects that have already been approved by the Presidency and move it over to the 18 in which the mistakes were made. What does that do to the rest of the budget? It means that we are paying twice. We have lost the $287 million, if this bill does not pass. And, in addition to that, they are going to take somewhere in the vicinity of $175 million. We believe it will be $450 million not spent for needed projects, if this bill is not passed. Mr. President, this is the mechanism. That is why I say I will support and, as a matter of fact, introduce a bill to repeal the act, if this mechanism doesn't work. If there is any example where it should work, it is this one. It is admitted that there are 18 projects on which they made mistakes. They refused to tell us which ones. I don't know how to handle this when people say you can't do this because this violates the spirit of the Line-Item Veto Act. This is the spirit of the Line-Item Veto Act. And I urge Senators who supported the line-item veto to consider that. If this mechanism is ever to work, this is the point where it should work. If it won't work in this one there is no reason to support this act anymore, in my opinion, because this is really the worst example I could think of a situation where information provided to the President leads the President to line-item veto items that were eliminated by mistake. Another avenue, of course, is for this to go to court. If it goes to court, and the court finds in the final analysis that the line-item veto is unconstitutional, which is what my good friend from West Virginia says, then the money will be restored thereto. But let's see if the mechanism works. There are already some court challenges. I don't see any reason to have another court challenge to the Line-Item Veto Act. The Senate and the House ought to do its duty on this and the duty is to try to remedy the mistake that was made when the line-item veto was wrongfully exercised in connection with these 38 projects. Mr. President, I don't see anyone else seeking time. I ask how much time remains?

Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. STEVENS. There is no Alaska project that was eliminated by the President. Second, the difficulty that I really have with what the Senator has said is the line-item veto was intended to eliminate waste or projects that would lead to a deficit. We asked for the list. Can the Senator now tell me what 18 or 19 projects the President made a mistake on? Can he give us a list? We never got a list. We have 36 to 38 projects in this bill--because we never got a list from the White House as to what projects the President admitted were erroneously line-item vetoed.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have time remaining. I yield to the Senator from New York such time as he wishes, and I reserve the remainder of the time to be equally divided between the Senator from West Virginia and myself.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is always a pleasure to be in the Chamber with the Senator from West Virginia. But mine is a more mundane task right now, and that is to try to get the Senate to understand that this is the process provided by the Line-Item Veto Act. If it is not followed, the defense budget per se and the military construction budget in general will be lowered. If we pass this act and it becomes law, the President still has control over these projects. He has already reprogrammed money for military projects for Bosnia. Next spring we will face another problem of paying for Bosnia. But should we let $450 million go astray here now because of mistakes? I regret that the mistakes were made, but I hope the Senate doesn't make another one. This bill should be overwhelmingly passed to tell the Presidency the line-item veto is a very discrete mechanism and it must be used with care. Above all, its use cannot be based on mistakes. I ask for the yeas and nays if they have not been ordered.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that means that there are two projects that are not in this bill that are in the House bill. If the Senate passes this bill--and I seriously urge that it do so--we will go to conference, and the only matters that can be considered in the conference are those two projects. If the House passes the bill--and I presume it will--which has all of the 38 projects, and we pass this one which has 36 projects, the only 2 things that can be discussed in that conference are the 2 projects. And we will bring the conference report back before the Congress very quickly, I believe. But, Mr. President, this bill goes beyond the question of what should normally happen under the Line-Item Veto Act concerning actions of a President. This bill pertains to projects that were eliminated at a time when there was an agreement entered into by the leadership of the conference and the Presidency on the level of spending in several discrete categories. From the point of view of this Senator, the most important one was the agreement on the level of spending for the Department of Defense. If this bill does not become law, $287 million of the amount we thought would be available to meet our needs of the Department of Defense will not be there. That $287 million is part of the most vital part of our spending. It is spending for facilities for our people to live in and to work in. I can't think of anything that is more essential right now than to try to maintain our efforts to modernize our bases, modernize our facilities, and to assure that we maintain the quality of life for the military by doing so. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to stand together with the House to assure that the President--and really the Presidency--lives up to the bargain that was made with the Congress. I do not speak of the President in a personal vein. I think he relied on the advice that was given him. I do object to the use of the concept of the criteria that was announced by the White House. I think Senator McCain will speak about that. Senator McCain and I are in agreement in terms of what the White House should have done when the law was passed. It should have announced then the criteria the President and the administration would use to review individual bills and then match every bill up against that type of criteria. That was not done, Mr. President. I believe this bill should become law. I thank the Chair. I yield to my good friend from West Virginia. I believe the Senator from West Virginia controls 5 hours; is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS. Just one last word about this procedure. This bill is not subject to amendment in the sense of adding anything to it. I state now that we will not offer the Senate's Appropriations Committee amendment to this bill, and I ask it be withdrawn at this time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as original cosponsors: Senator Shelby, Senator Hagel, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Lautenberg. I further ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized in this order in consideration of this measure: Senator Burns, Senator Murray, Senator Coverdell, Senator Cleland, Senator McCain, and Senator Graham.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are 10 hours, as I understand it, on this bill. I do not have any knowledge yet as to how much time we will take. I will give myself such time as I need in the beginning of this statement. On October 6, the President impounded funds for 38 projects contained in the fiscal year 1998 military construction bill, which totaled $287 million. Let me first take a moment to review the merits of this bill. Mr. President, in June, President Clinton reached a budget agreement with the bipartisan leadership of the Congress. That agreement provided for an increase of $2.6 billion for national defense over the amount the President had requested for the budget in the fiscal year 1998. The President's action on the military construction bill, in my judgment, reneges on the budget agreement that he reached with the Congress. Congress was given spending caps. We then allocated that within the appropriations process, and the Appropriations Committee presented the Senate with 13 appropriations bills consistent with the spirit, terms, and limits of the revised budget. Mr. President, I state to the Senate, without any chance of being corrected, that the Senator from West Virginia and I have done our utmost to live within the terms of the budget agreement, although we didn't agree with it and we weren't present at the time it was made. Now, we have upheld the congressional commitment to the President. Simply stated, the President did not when he used the line-item veto on this bill. After consultation with Senator Byrd, the committee held a hearing 3 weeks ago to evaluate the President's use of the line-item authority and review the status of these projects for military construction. We asked military witnesses from three services to testify. They told us there were valid requirements for each of these projects, Mr. President. They were mission-essential to the U.S. military. They also informed the Appropriations Committee that each of these projects was, in fact, executable during the coming fiscal year. Now, these projects clearly did not meet the criteria intended by Congress to eliminate wasteful or unnecessary spending. Those were the tests under the line-item veto law. Instead, the President chose to cancel a project because of three criteria that were announced after the action taken by the President. First, he would veto a bill if it was not in the President's 1998 budget request and no design work had been initiated and it did not substantially contribute to the well- being and quality of life of the men and women in the armed services. Senator Byrd is going to speak at length on this. He is an expert in this area, and I don't want to go into the area he will cover. It is very clear that that was not within the terms of the bill passed, the law that the President signed, which set forth the process for using the line-item veto. At our Appropriations Committee hearing, it was apparent that, in fact, some design work had been initiated on most of these projects--not all of them, but most of them. The generals that were before us confirmed what many of us already knew. The White House decision conflicted with the military needs of the Armed Forces. In every instance these projects were needed and desired by the military services. Since that time the administration has stated--and even today, the President has a message out today--that mistakes were made. The administration has indicated that it will support many of these projects. But so far it has not told the committee which ones, Mr. President. We have a criticism of this bill from the administration, but the administration vetoed 38 projects, and it says it made some mistakes. But it has not publicly said which ones. It is my belief that we will be successful in our effort to overturn these line-item vetoes in this instance because the projects the President has attempted to eliminate are meritorious. They are sought by the Department of Defense and by the services involved in each instance, and they are within the budget agreement. I want to go back and emphasize that, Mr. President. We had a budget presented to us by the President that was lower than many of us thought was necessary to meet our national needs. The President, in the budget agreement, agreed to that, and he agreed to an increase in defense spending. Our committee received no specification on what he thought that increase should be spent for. So we did what the Constitution gives us the right to do. We determined where the money would be allocated. None of these projects have been listed as being either wasteful or excessive spending. Again, almost all of them are in the 5- year plan, and those that were not in the 5-year plan were indicated to be necessary and ones that were needed by the military. I believe that our military people, soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and Coast Guardsmen are the ones that are being shortchanged by the President's veto--not the officials in the Pentagon or the White House. Let me tell you why I believe the President is reneging. If this line-item veto application, the application of that law to these projects, is sustained, we lose part of the increase that was in the budget agreement. This $287 million is no longer available for expenditure to meet military needs. It is a way for the administration to renege and not meet the goals that we sought for military spending. The President indicated some protected areas in the budget--areas that he wanted protected because of his priorities. Our committee has met every single one of those. We have not stood here and used a pen and taken them out. We have not used what would be a congressional line- item veto and said, no, we don't agree with you on this or that. We have not done that. But in this instance, the use of the line-item veto reduces the amount that is available for defense spending for fiscal year 1998 by the amount of the application of the line-item veto. I am differing with my good friend from West Virginia. Although for many years I opposed the line-item veto, I came to the conclusion that because we needed additional impetus behind our efforts to bring about a balanced budget, I indicated I would support the line-item veto--and, as a matter of fact, due to circumstances that developed, I was the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the Senate side of the conference on the Line-Item Veto Act. I supported it because I believed it should be used for the stated purpose to eliminate wasteful and excessive spending, and only to eliminate wasteful and unnecessary spending--not to be used as the display of Presidential executive or political power. I urge the Senate to support this bill that is before us. We have conferred with all of those involved in the projects. I state that all of the projects except 2 that were in the President's 38 are in this bill. There are two not in there at the request of the Senators involved. Those two, however, are in the House bill. Committee Amendment Withdrawn

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I will.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes. It is the intent of the amendment that a trial on the merits be conducted in the U.S. District Court if the villages decide to file suit. Such a trial would be held in lieu of an administrative hearing conducted by the Department of the Interior and in lieu of a court appeal of any administrative decision that was limited to the current, incomplete administrative record. The court must hear all relevant evidence related to the circumstances surrounding the land selections and conveyances and should not be limited to hearing only the views of the Interior Department or reviewing the limited administrative record that currently exists. Nor, in my opinion, should it defer to any prior decision that was not based on a hearing and a full review of the facts. In order to ensure justice for the parties, it is necessary that the court have all relevant evidence available to it. Since this dispute has a complex fact pattern that stretches over 20 years, the case should not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment. The lands sought by the village corporations were originally selected in 1974. The selections were accomplished with the assistance of officials at the Bureau of Land Management. The village corporations have never varied in their selection priorities, and the selection priorities must be honored by the Federal Government. Those of us who are familiar with the history of this dispute understand that the purpose of the Deficiency Agreement was to give effect to the land selections made by the village corporations. The lands should be conveyed to the villages in the priority order in which they were selected, the same requirement that applies to all land conveyances made to Native corporations under the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act. It is important to read all provisions of the agreements in question in the context in which they were negotiated and in light of the legislative purpose the agreements served to fulfill village land selection rights. I regret that litigation may be necessary in this case. I am disturbed that the Department of the Interior decided to change its interpretation of the conveyance requirement and is using a very limited interpretation of the Deficiency Agreement to clear title to the appendix C lands. The Department is attempting to acquire more land for Lake Clark National Park. However, it is important to note that the boundaries of Lake Clark National Park were not expanded to potentially include appendix C lands until 6 years after the original land selections were made by the village corporations in 1974. As a result, the appendix C lands are not park lands by virtue of the prior valid Native land selections. Since enactment of ANCSA, there has been a substantial amount of litigation regarding interpretation of the statute, but no case has been heard that is directly on point with respect to appendix C. Further no opinion--including Court of Claims cases--has been issued interpreting the Deficiency Agreement based on a full hearing of all the relevant evidence. It is one purpose of this amendment to ensure that the district court's resolution of the present matter will not be bound by any decision or opinion not based on a full review of the legal and factual record. The court must take a new look at the dispute after reviewing a full and complete record.

Mr. STEVENS. I also rise to explain section 120 of the Interior appropriations bill, which provides a right of action for owners of mining claims in the area in Denali National Park and Preserve known as the Kantishna Mining District. This provision is designed to bring an end to nearly 20 years of uncertainty surrounding the future of these claims, and it will ensure that the owners of the claims receive just compensation in return for their interests. The plan envisioned by this provision addresses the unique needs of both sides of the debate over the future of mining at Denali National Park and Preserve. The American people, through the National Park Service, will receive the title to lands within the Denali National Park and Preserve and near its crown jewel--Mount McKinley. With this provision, we are assured that those lands will be held for the benefit of all Americans. In return, the owners of mining claims who participate in the program will be fairly compensated for the loss of their interest that has been uncompensated since mining was effectively terminated in the mining district many years ago. At this time I wish to clarify my understanding of the provision. We have provided a way for the Secretary of the Interior to take title to mining claims inside Denali National Park, following procedures outlined in the Declaration of Taking Act. We have also identified the mechanism by which the owners of the mining claims who choose to participate and transfer title to their claims are to be compensated for the loss of their claims. The Congress has not, however, fixed the dates as of which the claims at issue were taken, as that is a factual question best left to the parties to determine or, if necessary, for resolution by the jury in proceedings under section 120. Moreover, it is our intention that any action that is brought either by the Secretary or affected claim owners be conducted in accordance with the substantive and procedural law of the Declaration of Taking Act, except where inconsistent with claim owners' rights under section 120, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the claimaint's right to have a trial by jury.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from Washington for the manner in which he has handled this bill as the chairman of the subcommittee for Interior appropriations. I presented to the conference at a very late moment an amendment, which is amendment No. 128, that modifies the regular amendment that was in the original House bill dealing with the problems associated with management of Alaska fish and game. I want to tell the Senate, in July at our request the Secretary of the Interior came to Alaska and met at Senator Murkowski's house with me and Congressman Young, with the Governor, the attorney general, and members of what we know as the Governor's task force on subsistence. We agreed then to try to work together to assure that Alaska, along with all other States, would continue to manage fish and game on Federal lands within its borders. It is a very difficult problem for us, but very clearly Secretary Babbitt has carried through with the commitments he made at that time, and we have worked toward finding a resolution to these problems. This task force did come up with a report. It is a very interesting task force. It is made up of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor, Governor Knowles and Lieutenant Governor Ulmer, also the speaker of the house, Gail Phillips; the president of the senate, Mike Miller; a former Republican Governor, Jay Hammond; and the former Republican attorney general, Charley Cole. Byron Mallot, Director of the Alaska Permanent Fund, who has held leadership roles in Alaska Native organizations, was also on that task force. This task force worked hard over the summer and came up with some recommendations. We hoped those recommendations would be presented to a joint session of the Alaska Legislature this year. That was not possible. When it was really evident it could not be done, I asked the conference to adopt this amendment. It is covered on pages 94 and 95 of the conference report, and I will not comment at large about it. But I do want the Senate to know and the Record to show that we have done our best to meet this. Senator Murkowski has just said he is going to hold some hearings, and Congressman Young may hold some hearings. I do hope they will hold them. I hope they will hold them in Alaska. There are a lot of Alaskans who want to be heard on the matter of what should be done. The Congress may be asked to adopt further amendments next year. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. The lands at issue were selected by five Alaska Native village corporations pursuant to the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The lands were selected in 1974, pursuant to an agreement among the villages, a full 6 years before the creation of Lake Clark National Park. For years, the Department followed a course of processing village land selections outlined in both appendix A and appendix C of the agreement. This prior course is well documented including formal conveyance decisions and reservation of easements. In the 1990's, the Department changed its course effectively denying the village corporations the land to which they are entitled. This provision is designed to allow the Native corporations to challenge the Department's refusal to convey them their land in a court of law. While the Alaska congressional delegation believes the Native people are entitled to the land, the Department of the Interior disagrees. We have agreed to allow an objective third party decide, based on the facts of the case and an interpretation of the 1974 agreement, whether the Native people are entitled to the lands in appendix C. Because the Interior Department has taken so long to process the villagers land claims, the statute of limitations for challenging the Department has almost expired. To allow a suit to be filed, the conference report extends the statute of limitation through October 1, 1998, under which the five village corporations and Cook Inlet Region, Inc., the regional corporation, may bring litigation challenging the Department's refusal to convey the appendix C lands to the village corporations. The amendment clarifies that if litigation is brought by the village corporations or Cook Inlet Region, Inc, it shall be filed in the U.S. district court. The court trial permitted in this amendment will result in a fresh hearing on the merits of the case. The court record will not be limited to the current, incomplete administrative record, but shall consider new evidence introduced that is relevant to the interpretation of the agreements and conveyances in dispute. The language allowing introduction of new evidence was proposed by the Office of Management and Budget. This will provide for a neutral hearing on the total circumstances of the dispute. A fresh look at the case prompted the Anchorage Daily News, the daily newspaper in Alaska's largest city with a strong record of environmental advocacy to endorse conveyance of the appendix C lands to the villages. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record. [From the Anchorage Daily News, Oct. 24, 1997] First Principles Interior, Do Right in Land Dispute A long-standing land dispute between the U.S. Department of the Interior and Cook Inlet-area Native village corporations should be settled in the corporations' favor, either through a deal brokered by Sen. Ted Stevens or, better yet, through direct action by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. Until Secretary Babbitt steps in, Interior lawyers and high-level bureaucrats will keep fighting with five village corporations and Cook Inlet Region Inc., the Native regional powerhouse that has intervened for its member village corporations. The dispute centers on roughly 29,000 acres of land on the west side of Cook Inlet. The Natives say they're entitled to the acreage, but the department wants to add the disputed parcels to Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. On this matter, the Clinton administration unfortunately appears to be more intent on locking up another corner of the state than respecting the will of Congress as expressed by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The 1971 act created Native-owned corporations--both regional and village--to manage settlement money and land. Plain and simple: It is wrong that, over 20 years later, a handful of village corporations in Southcentral Alaska are still awaiting title to selected acreage. Both sides look to a 1976 agreement to bolster their respective arguments. The agreement was supposed to sort out competing government and Native interests through land trades. It summarized how trades would take place and in what order lands would be selected and conveyed. Aside from minor amendments, the document hasn't changed--but the feds and Natives have reached different conclusions about what it says. Sen. Stevens has unsuccessfully tried several times in recent years to end the dispute in the corporations' favor. His latest attempt suffered a setback Thursday when it was cut out of a Department of the Interior budget bill. While it is commendable that Alaska's senior senator has gone to bat for a just cause, it is unfortunate that his latest effort was special-interest legislation attached to the coattails of a bigger bill. The preferable alternative: Secretary Babbitt can and should direct his staff to convey the disputed acreage to the five Cook Inlet-area village corporations via Cook Inlet Region Inc. While he and park proponents may not like the results--after all, the land can be used for commercial purposes--the anticipation of what may happen later should not stop him from doing the right thing now. If, after nearly three decades, a just portion of an aboriginal land settlement is circumvented by clever bureaucrats, then the integrity of Congress will have been compromised so that a national park can be expanded. The right and only call for Secretary Babbitt to make is to lay this old chapter of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to rest and turn over title of the disputed land to its rightful owners.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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, not many Americans--in fact not many human beings--have the opportunity to bring about permanent change in our world. Even if a person has the opportunity, it is seldom that change can be brought about in a time span of only 3 years. A distinguished exception to this is the president of the World Bank Group, James D. Wolfensohn. Under President Wolfensohn's wise guidance, the World Bank Group is facilitating global changes through the application of systems and knowledge developed in the United States. Jim Wolfensohn, formerly president and chief executive officer of his own corporation, chairman of the board of trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and executive partner at Salomon Bros., recently delivered his third yearly address to the board of governors of the World Bank Group. After reading this compelling statement twice, I concluded his message should be available to all who wonder if our citizens are applying the lessons of enlightened free enterprise in their business and personal lives throughout the world. I envy Jim Wolfensohn. He is truly making a difference in this world. It is my pleasure to commend his remarks to the Senate, and I ask unanimous consent that his statement entitled ``The Challenge of Inclusion'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this resolution would extend the continuing concept of our appropriations to Friday, November 7, of this year. The terms and conditions are exactly the same as the bill that was passed by the Senate in September. The 1997 fiscal year funding levels and policy limits will prevail during the extended period of this continuing resolution. We have made considerable progress on the appropriations bills for fiscal year 1998. The Defense, military construction, Treasury, energy and water, and legislative branch bills have all been enacted. The Transportation and VA-HUD bills are pending before the President and should be signed within the next few days. The Agriculture conference report has passed the House and is pending here in the Senate. We expect to file an Interior appropriations conference report later today. And it is my opinion we will complete the conference on the foreign operations, Commerce and Labor, Health and Human Services bills this week. Additionally, we should pass or obtain cloture on the District of Columbia bill this week. I am here to say I am grateful for the cooperation of the two leaders, Senator Lott and Senator Daschle, in aiding our Appropriations Committee in passing these bills with significant bipartisan majorities. We continue to need the help of all Members to complete our work prior to November 7. Mr. President, I do not hope to come back to this floor again during this session of Congress to seek another continuing resolution. We have very difficult policy issues to be settled on foreign operations, the Labor bill, and the Commerce bill, but I do believe we can complete the budget aspect of those bills this week. The controversial riders that are attached to the bills will dictate whether we can complete all of our work on these appropriations bills within this extended period. I urge Senators who are concerned about these bills to support this continuing resolution, to give the committee the time it needs to work out the remaining differences between the House and the Senate on the bills that I have just enumerated. Mr. President, again, it is my hope that we will, in this session, pass the separate appropriations bills, let the President exercise his will with regard to each bill, and conduct our affairs in the Appropriations Committee with separate appropriations bills and not to have one all-encompassing global type of continuing resolution as we wind up this session. It is possible, Mr. President, to do our job, as we should do it--13 separate bills. That is my plea to the Senate. Help us work out the 13 separate bills. I thank the President and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. House Joint Resolution 97 is now pending?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call to the attention of the Senate the fact that in a few days one of our Nation's most distinguished military officers, a veteran of World War II and of the Korean conflict, will celebrate his 90th birthday. Lt. Gen. William W. ``Buffalo Bill'' Quinn, a 1933 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, completed Command and General Staff School the day before Pearl Harbor. He had served as G-2 of the 7th Army, responsible for the intelligence on which the August 1944 allied landing in southern France was based when the 19th German Army was routed. The following year he helped to liberate the survivors of the Nazi death camp at Dachau. What he saw there so horrified him that he said he would never let the world forget, so that nothing similar could happen again. After the war, General Quinn became director of the Strategic Service Unit that was formerly known as the Office of Strategic Services. Later he was assigned to Korea where he boosted regimental morale by setting up a system for sending word of the accomplishments of individual soldiers to their hometown papers. He also served as G-2 for the daring and historic landing at Inchon. His duties as a combat commander began when he was assigned to command the 17th Regiment in Korea, which was known as the ``Buffaloes.'' On a cold winter day in 1951, ending a report on his regiment, he said, ``Tell the old man''--and he meant by that Maj. Gen. Claude Ferenbaugh, commanding general of the 7th Division--``that Bill of the Buffaloes said everything will be all right.'' From then on, Bill Quinn became known as Buffalo Bill. After Korea, he served for 2 years as an adviser to the Greek Army. Later he assumed command of the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Lewis, WA, and then returned to the Pentagon as the first Deputy Assistant Chief for Intelligence of the Army. In 1959, he became the Army's Chief of Public Information. Assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency as Deputy Director in 1961, he was then promoted to lieutenant general. In 1964, General Quinn was appointed the 18th commanding general of the 7th Army in Germany. He retired 2 years later. I met General Quinn when I went to visit Senator Barry Goldwater once over on the Chesapeake. He is a great individual, Mr. President. General Quinn's distinguished military career provides a picture of a great man. Those of us who are fortunate enough to call him a friend know that he has many more dimensions. He is a fine writer, who has contributed to many periodicals. He wrote a successful television series on our American infantrymen. General Quinn is an ardent fisherman, an outdoorsman, a golfer. In his Academy days, he played end on the football team and attack on the lacrosse team. As a father and grandfather, he has a family which is extremely proud of him. His list of citations, decorations, and civic activities and many accomplishments would be a long one and still would not tell the story of the whole man. I know him as an almost professional Irishman. He knows more jokes about Irish people and can tell them at length. And he enjoys Irish whiskey, as a matter of fact. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in honoring a great man, Gen. ``Buffalo Bill'' Quinn on his 90th birthday, which he will celebrate with his friends and family on November 1. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.