Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry. Is it in order to table the underlying amendment now?

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Alaska would like to have the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have made this motion to table. We have an extraordinary procedure, having the right to debate before it is voted upon, but, in fairness, I thought that should be the case. Let me state to the Chair and the Senate, we have checked with the Ways and Means Committee. The tax counsel for that committee has informed my staff that this provision will require a review by the Ways and Means Committee. What it is, it is a revenue-raising measure. This is an appropriations bill, a bill to spend money. It is not a bill for legislation. Until just a couple of years ago, we had a point of order about legislation on appropriations bills. That is no longer a valid technique for us to control the bill. The only way we can control a bill and keep amendments like this off is to have a motion to table. I urge the Senate to come back to our senses concerning legislation on appropriations bills, particularly legislation that raises money. The House is the place where revenue-raising measures start, under the Constitution. They have every right to take this bill to their committee. I do not disagree with the purpose that the Senator from Iowa seeks to fulfill with this money. But if he wants to do it, he should go to the legislative committees and have the tax committees raise the money, and then we will help him spend it. Our job is to spend money, not to raise money. This is a wrong provision on this bill. It is going to delay. We are not through tonight. I don't think we are through with this amendment unless we table it. Beyond that, if it passes, it is going to go over and this bill will go to the Ways and Means Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee will send it back to the Senate. That is no way to handle appropriations bills. I have tried my best as Appropriations Committee chairman to move these bills, to move them through, to be absolutely fair in consideration of provisions that could be in an appropriations bill. The Senator has part of his amendment which provides money to spend to FDA. We don't have that money. So what he does, he also puts in a provision to raise revenue. We do not have that right in an appropriations bill. The Senate doesn't have that right. Revenue- raising measures must start in the House of Representatives. I urge the Senate to read the Constitution, read it again, and table this amendment. Because that is the only way to handle amendments like this, is to table them, now, under our procedure. I believe we should not vote on this in a substantive way. We should table it and leave it to the tax-raising committees to raise the revenue. We should handle spending. Has my time expired?

Mr. STEVENS. I just want to say that my information was that that committee of the House has taken one of our bills previously. I do ask for the yeas and nays and renew my request that the leaders be recognized.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the Harkin amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield to the Senator from Iowa, and I also ask unanimous consent that my motion then be set aside so that the two leaders can arrange the balance of the program for this evening. There are Senators who have problems, as I understand it. The two leaders will address that. I have made the motion to table, right?

Mr. STEVENS. I made a motion to table, and I asked unanimous consent that I be able to listen to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. STEVENS. What is the question, Senator?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the pending amendment is the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina to raise a tax. The underlying amendment is an amendment to raise a fee, and then it turns around and spends the fee. I view my job as chairman of the Appropriations Committee--I beg your pardon, did he make a motion to table?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the Harkin amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to appeal to the Senate on this bill. It is my hope that we can finish this bill tonight and move on to State, Justice, Commerce bill tomorrow and finish it before we recess for this week. We still will have two more to do or three more to do next week, in terms of appropriations bills. Our goal has been to try and finish all that we can before the recess. Mr. President, this amendment that is pending, the Harkin amendment, as I understand it, would require that this bill be referred to Ways and Means when it goes to the House. I do not believe that we should be handling this amendment on this bill. The Senator knows that has been my feeling. I am grateful to the Senator for bringing it to the floor rather than having a prolonged discussion of it in the Appropriations Committee. But it is my hope that the Senate will understand this motion I am about to make and support it, so that we can keep the momentum we have for our appropriations bills and finish this bill tonight. I do not think the bill will be able to be finished tonight unless we do get this motion of mine agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the Harkin amendment and I will yield in a minute.

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, very soon, Senator Murkowski will submit for himself, for me, and for Senator Gorton and Senator Helms, a resolution condemning the Government of Canada for its failure to protect the right of innocent passage of the Alaska ferry Malaspina in the Canadian territorial sea. The Malaspina entered the Port of Prince Rupert on Sunday morning and was blockaded by, we are told, about 200 Canadian fishing vessels and was prevented from leaving that port. On Sunday, at the request of the State of Alaska, a Canadian court issued an injunction against the blockaders. The governments of Canada and British Columbia ignored the court's directions to enforce that injunction. The Malaspina was finally able to leave Prince Rupert on Monday evening, only when the Canadian fishermen agreed to end the blockade. In my judgment, through its inaction, the Government of Canada has exhibited a disregard for its own domestic laws, for international law, and for what I would call the concept of being a good neighbor to our country, the United States. Mr. President, over the past 3 years the Government of Canada has shown a pattern of complacency--and, in some cases, complicity--in the harassment and illegal treatment of United States vessels and our citizens. In 1994, Canada charged an illegal transit passage fee to United States fishing vessels proceeding from the Seattle area north to Alaskan waters. Following that, at my request, Congress directed the State Department to reimburse these United States fishermen and to seek repayment from Canada for the illegal fees that were imposed upon our citizens. To date, Canada has not repaid and, as a matter of fact, has ignored the request for reimbursement to the United States for these costs. The Government of British Columbia continues to seek to prevent use by the United States of an underwater missile testing range that is critical to NATO activities, at a place called that Nanoose Bay. I found that to be unacceptable, Mr. President. To have one NATO partner use land that has been made available under NATO for leverage on a fisheries issue is unprecedented. The United States vessels have also periodically been harassed by the Governments of Canada and British Columbia under the guise of enforcement of Canada's customs laws. My colleague and I are here today to call on the Government of Canada to put a stop to these actions. We ask that the President of the United States now take action to ensure that harassment of our citizens comes to an end. The measure my colleague will submit condemns the Government of Canada for its failure to protect United States citizens from these types of illegal actions and harassment while our people exercise their absolute right for innocent passage through these Canadian territorial waters. They are international waters under international law and available to our people just as our inside passage in southeast Alaska is available to and used by the Canadian people. Our resolution calls on the President to ensure that this pattern of harassment will not continue. We ask that the President use assets of the United States to protect our citizens if necessary, and, also his authority to prohibit the importation of Canadian products into this country until Canada agrees to protect our citizens. We also believe the President should find a way to provide financial support to those who were damaged by the blockade of the Malaspina. Mr. President, there were, I am told, over 300 people on board that vessel, and many had to be removed and transported by air to Alaska. In addition to that, it is my information that the Malaspina carries the United States mail. It is absolutely unheard of for the Government of Canada to interfere with the delivery of United States mail. I hope that Congress will consider favorably the resolution that my colleague will introduce, and we intend to consider other measures as well. We have already passed a bill and sent it to conference with the House that will deny funds for the environmental cleanup of defense sites that were used by Canada and the United States during the cold war period because of the action of British Columbia authorities to try to discontinue our use of Nanoose Bay. That, Mr. President, is essential to our testing program for torpedoes. It has been a joint venture between our Canadian neighbors and our Nation in defense efforts for many years. I am really saddened by that in terms of our relationship for our mutual defense. But we believe that we should assure that Canada will protect our citizens as they exercise their right of innocent passage through Canadian waters, and we believe very sincerely that Canada or its citizens should repay those people that have been damaged by the illegal blockade of the Malaspina. We also call on Canada to repay the United States the illegal transit fees that were charged to our fishing vessels in 1994. And, further, we plead with Canada and its citizens to match the good-faith efforts of the United States to continue to negotiate and renew the Pacific salmon treaty. Mr. President, it is a time for leadership in these matters. We risk getting more and more rhetoric involved. I have tried to be restrained today. I think Alaskans share this point of view, but we are pushed to increase the stakes. Our people are most upset. They are even more upset by the act of burning our U.S. flag. I think for a neighbor that shares such a long border to allow citizens to burn a flag of this country is really uncalled for. I don't know really how to express our deep concern about that. To my knowledge, there has been no action at all taken with regard to that. We have a flag-burning issue here in our own country. But to see it done as an act of defiance by people illegally blocking the ferry owned by our State is upsetting. That vessel is owned by the State of Alaska, and it is part of the trek for people who come from all over the world. Many take a ferry up to Canada. Then they take a Canadian ferry from Vancouver Island to Prince Rupert. They take the Alaska ferry on up into Alaska. It is a right of all vessels to have innocent passage through the waters of a neighboring country. This blockade of our vessel on top of the harassment and seizure of our fishing vessels is too much, Mr. President. I don't know. We are few in number in Alaska. If this happened to California, there would be 54 Members of the House talking about it. We have one. And, unfortunately, right now he is recovering from a very serious operation. But, Mr. President, the rights of American citizens should be protected by our Federal Government. We have heard nothing really yet from our National Government in response to these measures. I think that it is high time that this Government stands up to Canada and explains once again what the role of good neighbors really must be. I do not want to get to the point where we really have to start retaliating and raise the level of this rhetoric even further. But, clearly, those people who say, ``Well, now, just let it cool off,'' don't understand. We cooled off after 1994 when they put our people in jail and charged them fees. Congress agreed, and we paid the fishermen back for the fees they paid to the Government of Canada. Now we see our vessel with 300 Americans on board held up for more than 2 days, denied the right to keep their schedule and go on to Alaska according to the ferry schedules. Mr. President, I hope the Senate and the Congress will view this matter with as deep concern as we do and will assist Alaska in assuring that we have the same rights of all Americans as we try to pursue our right of innocent passage through the territorial sea of our neighboring country. I urge the support of the measure prepared by Senator Murkowski. This happens to be the part of our State that Senator Murkowski came from. He knows Ketchikan very well, and he is proud about his heritage and about the area he comes from. He has transited these waters down to Seattle many times. I sincerely believe there must be some recognition by the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of this trespass on the rights of Alaskans and other Americans that were on board the Malaspina. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays on the Bingaman amendment be vitiated.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the provision in this bill requires compliance with existing law. Our information is that the cost of modernization of these facilities to the Federal Government is approximately $4 billion. Unless existing law is complied with, it will cost us $1 billion more than it would if we had true competition. The figures show it would cost $3 billion if they complied with the law; it would cost $4 billion if they continue to flout and ignore the law. The Bingaman amendment would take out of the bill the requirement no funds can be spent except in compliance with existing law. I do not understand a refusal to accept the fact that that is the law. If the committee of jurisdiction doesn't like the law, they should come to the floor with suggestions to amend it. But we should, supporting expenditures of Federal funds, require compliance with the law that mandates competition in this area. I move to table the amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. data access

Mr. STEVENS. For the information of all Senators, a number of votes were scheduled to occur beginning at 5:15 today. Over the weekend, and most of today, the managers of the Treasury appropriations bill have been working to resolve those outstanding amendments, and it now appears that the Campbell amendment offered on behalf of Senator DeWine regarding abortion funds and passage are the only remaining votes that need to occur with respect to the Treasury Appropriations bill. There may also be a Bingaman amendment, but we are not clear about that yet. As many Members are aware, the U.S.S. Constitution made its maiden voyage as a refurbished symbol of America's proud past today on the waters off Massachusetts. However, the ceremonies surrounding this event were delayed. Consequently, several of our Members will not be returning in time for the vote. Therefore, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall votes scheduled to occur today now be postponed to begin at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, July 22. Obviously, needless to say, there will be no rollcall votes that will occur in today's session, but there will be some further matters.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rollcalls not take place as ordered.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are several amendments now pending at the desk that will be subject to a vote on Monday. I ask unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments be in order. I understand this has been cleared on both sides.

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is not an easy task to appear in opposition to this amendment. It is not easy for me personally, because I am a survivor of prostate cancer. I come from a family where my oldest brother, my father and my grandfather and my mother all died prematurely of cancer, and I thankfully just received word today that my younger brother has now survived prostate cancer. The question before the Senate is not cancer. The question before the Senate is how to raise money for cancer research. I have strongly urged that this amendment not come before the Senate, because we reformed the postal system and made it an independent entity. It has evolved from the old Post Office Department, where a member of the Postal Service, the Postmaster General, was a member of the President's Cabinet, to one that is run, basically, by a board of governors with a Postmaster General that is appointed by that board of governors, and we have not issued a stamp in Congress since 1978. There is no power in the Congress to do what this amendment asks. The power under existing law was given to the Board of Governors, the Postal Service, and the Postal Rate Commission. As a matter of fact, the Postal Service does not have the authority to issue a stamp and charge more than that established by law by the Postal Rate Commission. I refer the Senate to section 3622 of title 39 which specifically says that the cost for the stamps must be established through the postal rate procedure. This comes at a time when all I can say is this is plainly wrong, and I have urged the sponsors to remember what they are doing. If we have this stamp--and it looked nice. I saw it beside the Senator from California on C-SPAN. But we have AIDS problems, we have prostate cancer problems, we have problems raising money for the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts and the community programs to raise money for all sorts of problems. They have real trouble raising money, but, Mr. President, I started the concept of putting up defense money for cancer research for breast cancer at $25 million from the defense funds, and I have just urged the Senate to pass a bill from the subcommittee I chair, Defense Appropriations. It has in it $175 million for breast cancer research, specifically earmarked for breast cancer research. This stamp, if it is issued, if it sold as many as the famous stamp-- I think it was the Elvis stamp was the one that sold more than any stamp in history, a penny from each one of the Elvis stamps would bring in $1 million. So what we are seeing is a public relations campaign by people who want credit for being for cancer research, but it is really not an effective fundraising mechanism. I urge them to use a process like we did for selling savings bonds, to have the Postal Service sell cancer stamps that would go into booklets. You can have one for breast cancer, one for prostate cancer, one for just the general National Institute of Cancer. But you buy the book, put them in a booklet, and when you get $25 worth, you get a $25 bond. If you do that, you would make $1 out of every $20 that came in. If this stamp becomes approved, they get 1 out of every 35 cents. In other words, $1 out of every $35, but the cost of raising this is horrendous for the Postal Service. A person who wants to buy one of these stamps will go to a window and say, ``We want 100 breast cancer stamps.'' ``We don't have that. We have one that shows Jimmy Doolittle or one that shows World War II stamps, but we are out of those.'' This is not an effective way to sell stamps is what I am saying. It is true that there are stamp collectors, and on a one-time basis, as the Elvis stamp showed, a lot of people buy them just for collection, but I have to tell you, that is a one-time thing, but it is not a one-time thing for the Postal Service. It is plainly wrong, because its job is to deliver the mail. It is paid for by the ratepayers. The taxpayers do not support the Postal Service any longer. The Board of Governors is on record against this. The Postal Service is against it. We have seen that this has been done.

Mr. STEVENS. I will take 2 more minutes, if I may, and then I will quiet down. Canada issued a semipostal, that is what they call this, a semipostal stamp, to support literacy. It was a surcharge of 5 cent per stamp, and it raised $252,000 net. This is not an effective way to raise money for breast cancer. We have shown these people how to raise more money for breast cancer, how to improve breast cancer research. I want to work with them, but I tell the Senate that this is not the way to do it. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter that I received today from the Postal Service, from the Postmaster General, where he states that the Postal Service strongly opposes this amendment and states that it would be inappropriate for the Postal Service to raise revenue for purposes other than maintenance of the delivery system.