Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I salute an outstanding military officer, Lt. Gen. Samuel E. Ebbesen, U.S. Army. General Ebbesen is retiring this month with more than 35 years of dedicated service to our country, culminating in assignments as Commanding General, Second United States Army, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy. In his most recent position, he was responsible for the establishment of all policies concerning military personnel matters including accessions and retention programs; compensation and benefits; and the classification, assignment and career development for the 1.4 million service members of the Department of Defense. His accomplishments were many, resulting in improved quality of life for our service members and the enhanced readiness of our Armed Forces. General Ebbesen, a native of St. Croix, VI, was commissioned in 1961 through the Reserve Officer Training Corps [ROTC]. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from City College of New York and a Masters degree in public administration from Auburn University. His military schooling includes the Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, and the Air War College. During his distinguished career, General Ebbesen served in numerous leadership and key staff positions throughout the Army. He served as the commanding general, 6th Infantry Division, Light, Fort Wainwright, AK, as the deputy commander, Alaska Command [ALCOM] and as the assistant division commander, 6th Infantry Division, Light. After the division relocated--north of the range--in Alaska, General Ebbesen was instrumental in successfully integrating the 6th Infantry Division--Light--into the Fairbanks community. He fostered strong community relationships which endure today. Under General Ebbesen's tenure, the 6th Infantry Division achieved safety records which were unsurpassed in the United States Army at that time. This record was achieved in spite of adverse and difficult climatic conditions. He ensured that the 6th Infantry Division were pivotal players in the U.S. Pacific Command's Expanded Relations Program throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Further, General Ebbesen significantly improved quality of life for those soldiers and their families stationed throughout Alaska. Additionally, General Ebbesen served as the Deputy Chief, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison, United States Army, Washington, DC; Chief of Staff, I Corps, Fort Lewis, WA; commander, 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, Air Assault, Fort Campbell, KY; Deputy Chief, Plans and Operations Division, and later Executive Officer, Office of the Chief, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Army, Washington, DC; and Commander, 2d Battalion, 32 Infantry, 7th Infantry Division; Executive Officer, 2d Brigade, 7th Infantry Division; and G3, 7th Infantry Division, Fort Ord, CA. General Ebbesen's military awards and decorations include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit--with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters, Bronze Star Medal with ``V'' Device--with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters, Meritorious Service Medal--with Oak Leaf Cluster, Air Medal and Army Commendation Medal--with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters. His combat assignment and training resulted in the award of the Combat Infantry Badge. Expert Infantry Badge, Parachutist Badge, and Air Assault Badge. He is authorized to wear the Army General Staff Identification Badge and the Office of the Secretary of Defense Identification Badge. Mr. President, I ask you and our colleagues to join me in saluting General Ebbesen for his distinguished service to this great Nation and to the great State of Alaska, as well as his superb leadership of the men and women of our Armed Forces. It is with great pride that I congratulate him upon his retirement and wish him the very best.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Alaska lost one of its greatest 20th century pioneers this month, when Robert B. Atwood died on January 10. Many today remember him as the man who edited and published Alaska's largest newspaper, the Anchorage Times, for more than 50 years. But some of my best memories are of the hours and days and weeks we spent together in the 1950's, when he was chairman of the Alaska Statehood Committee and I was assistant to the Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton as Alaskans sought Statehood. Bob Atwood was a leader in that fight. He crystallized the support of our Nation's press to put the 49th star on our flag. It was his understanding and knowledge of the news media, and his friendships among editors and publishers across our Nation that brought the press on board, to champion the cause for bringing Alaska into the union. Not too many years later, he was responsible for newspapers across our Nation understanding the importance of building our great Alaska pipeline. Bob Atwood was more than a great publisher, more than the successful chairman of the Statehood Committee. He was a cultural renaissance man, who did much behind the scenes to promote the arts and education in Alaska. Bob loved new technology, and brought his newspaper into the computer age long before most of the Nation's largest dailies were on line. He was the first one on the staff of the Anchorage Times to learn how to use the new computers, while his staff struggled with the transition from typewriters to the electronic age. His knowledge of history, and of the many serious- and humorous- stories about Alaska and Alaskans who shaped my State's history, was extraordinary. Bob was generous in sharing those stories with organizations and groups who asked him to speak or to attend their meetings. Above all, Bob Atwood understood the importance of a strong military presence in Alaska, the crossroads of the world, and he helped to make the Nation aware of our strategic global position. He was a tireless supporter of our service men and women, and remained friends with many of them long after their tours of duty in Alaska were over. For 40 years Bob served on the military's civilian advisory boards in Alaska, and was president since 1976 of the Alaskan Command Civilian Advisory Board. He assured that in Alaska there was-- and still is--a partnership between our military stationed in our State and Alaskans. Immediately after the 1964 earthquake, he told me he wanted to buy land and build a house close to the area most damaged by the earthquake, to show his confidence in the future of Alaska. He built that house and opened it up time and again to men and women from our State and hundreds of others he had met during his travels in our country and all over the world. My friend Bob was quietly generous to a number of causes which were never publicized. In addition, he was proud of those which bear his name, to which he donated millions of dollars, including the Atwood chair in journalism at the University of Alaska, the Atwood Center at Alaska Pacific University, and the Evangeline Atwood Theater at Anchorage's performing arts center. His generosity touched the lives of thousands of Alaskans, though they may never have known it. Bob Atwood had the manners of an old-fashioned gentleman, the curiosity and sense of fun of a youngster, and writing and editing talents that could only be achieved through graceful maturity and a great understanding and love of words. In helping to make life better for all Alaskans, Bob Atwood made history. He was indeed a great man, who helped to make our great land even greater. He was also a dear, good and loyal friend. I will miss him. Our sympathy goes out to his daughter Elaine and his grandsons and granddaughter, to whom he was devoted. As a visitor comes into my office, there is a photo of Bob Atwood and me with our snowmachines in the broad fields near Alyeska, the ski resort in my home town, Girdwood, AK. I cherish those days when I spent time there with Bob, with Evangeline and Elaine Atwood. Bob was a true Alaskan--a real pioneer. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Committee on Appropriations held its organizational meeting on January 28. Among other business conducted, the Committee approved subcommittee assignments for the 105th Congress. I submit a list of the subcommittees and their membership for the 105th Congress, and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield just a moment?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I hope we will agree to vote as quickly as possible, but I do want to say that I welcome this nomination. Madeleine Albright at the United Nations as our Ambassador helped to make the world realize how important it is we conserve the oceans. She assisted in many ways with those of us who are trying to really protect the oceans. I welcome her coming to the Department of State now where I think she can carry on the same fight and help us really deal with the overwhelming problem of assuring that the oceans of the world continue to produce the food that mankind needs.

Mr. STEVENS. Is there time left, Mr. President?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, during the 104th Congress, Senators Breaux, Chafee, Moseley-Braun, Murkowski, Thurmond, Simpson and I introduced legislation (S. 1420) to implement the ``Panama Declaration,'' an agreement under which twelve nations would comply with a new regime to reduce dolphin mortality and conserve marine resources in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). Our bill was approved by voice vote in the Senate Commerce Committee, and its companion (H.R. 2823) was passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives. Because of our focus in the second session of the 104th Congress on reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, we were not able to turn to the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act until the closing weeks, and opponents of the measure were able to prevent its passage simply by objecting on the Senate floor. We believe the bill would have passed in the Senate by a large majority if they had not objected. I am pleased today to be joined by Senators Breaux, Thurmond, and Murkowski in reintroducing the bill. On September 30, 1996, Majority Leader Lott committed to us that he will do everything he can to provide time on the Senate floor if it is necessary to pass this important measure. The Panama Declaration would cap dolphin mortality in the ETP at 5,000 dolphin per year and set a goal of eventually eliminating dolphin mortality altogether in that area. Only twenty years ago, hundreds of thousands of dolphin were being killed each year in the ETP. The Declaration presents the opportunity to lock in a maximum of 5,000 dolphin mortalities per year and strengthen other conservation measures, including measures relating to fishery observers, bycatch reduction, and the protection of specific stocks of dolphins in the ETP. The dolphin mortality cap and new conservation measures under the Panama Declaration will only take effect if specific changes are made to U.S. law. The two key changes are: (1) a change to allow tuna caught in compliance with the Panama Declaration (including through the encirclement of dolphins) to be imported into the United States; and (2) a change so that ``dolphin Safe'' in the U.S. will mean tuna caught in a set in which no dolphin mortality occurred (rather than through non-encirclement). Our bill would make these changes and allow the new regime under the Panama Declaration to go forward. If the U.S. does not make the changes, other nations will move forward without adequate conservation measures and significant increases in dolphin mortality may occur. Our legislation would guarantee U.S. consumers that no dolphin were killed during the harvest of tuna that is labeled as ``dolphin safe.'' Under existing law, dolphins may have been killed, but as long as the tuna was not harvested by intentionally encircling dolphins, it can be labeled as ``dolphin safe.'' To avoid consumer confusion and increase confidence in the ``dolphin safe'' label, other labels with respect to marine mammals will not be allowed. Only ETP tuna caught without killing any dolphins would be labeled as ``dolphin safe.'' The Administration helped negotiate the Panama Declaration, and the President and Vice President strongly support our legislation to implement it. The bill is also supported by the U.S. tuna boat owners, mainstream environmental groups such as Greenpeace, the Center for Marine Conservation, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, and the World Wildlife Fund, the American Sportfishing Association, the National Fisherman's Union, Seafarers International, and United Industrial Workers, the 12 nations who signed the Panama Declaration (Belize, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Spain, Vanuatu, and Venezuela), and the editorial boards of a number of the major U.S. newspapers. I ask for unanimous consent that the following material related to the bill be printed in the Record immediately following my statement: First, the Panama Declaration; second, letter from President Clinton to the President to the Mexico supporting the legislation; third, letter from Vice President Gore supporting the legislation; fourth, article by State Department Under Secretary Tim Wirth supporting the legislation; and fifth, editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces from USA Today, the Washington Post, the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle, the New York Times, and the Christian Science Monitor supporting the legislation; sixth, letters from numerous environmental, fishing, and labor organizations supporting the legislation. I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee to secure the expeditious approval of the Committee of this important bill, and with the majority leader once the bill has been reported by the Committee.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Alaska Wetlands Conservation Act, a bill to conform wetlands protection to the unique conditions found throughout Alaska. My State contains more wetlands than all other States combined. Since 1780 we have developed less than 1/10 of one percent of those wetlands. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, about 170.2 million acres of wetlands existed in Alaska in the 1780's and about 170 million acres exist today. That represents a negligible loss rate over a period of 217 years. Furthermore almost ninety percent of our wetlands are publicly owned, protected by strict land use designations that guarantee these wetlands will remain intact permanently. We Alaskans have substantially conserved our wetlands. Unfortunately Federal policies established to protect and restore wetlands in the southern forty-eight States do not recognize our unique circumstances nor do these policies provide an appropriate level of flexibility in managing the roughly one percent of land available for private or commercial development in Alaska. My bill continues to require Alaskans who apply for discharge permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on wetlands, but it would eliminate requirements to mitigate for unavoidable impacts. It also removes the burden for an applicant to prove that no alternative sites are available. Most of Alaska's communities are surrounded by literally millions of acres of wetland. These areas are made unaccessible under the law for mitigation purposes since they are already protected. In Alaska, mitigation makes no sense except to extort compensatory concessions from applicants which would otherwise not be justified. The threat of mitigation sends a chilling message to potential investors by artificially raising the costs of doing business in Alaska. In turn, this contributes to unemployment and weakening the economic self sufficiency of our far flung communities. In the long run, the current program wastes taxpayer money in an ill advised attempt to protect abundant wetlands that are already more than adequately protected in Alaska. The resources at risk in Alaska are not our wetlands, they are our people. The blind application of legislation written to protect wetlands elsewhere inhibits reasonable growth by our Native villages and local governments. In effect, the section 404 program has a life threatening choke hold on Native Alaskans. It is difficult to place a stake in the ground in Alaska without impacting a wetland, let alone to build critical infrastructure. Compounding the problem, we have recently seen the Administration begin to phase out nationwide permits. This makes it increasingly difficult to address the huge task facing our local and State officials in providing safe drinking water, sanitation systems, electric power and other critical services to far flung Alaskan communities. Without this bill, the Federal wetlands bureaucracy simply lacks the authority to apply common sense. Mr. President, many rural Alaskans are trapped living under third world conditions by well-meaning outsiders and bureaucrats narrowly focused on environmental protection. Unfortunately for Alaska, in this case the problem is larger than protecting our over abundance of wetlands. Wetlands policies conflict with other laws which were passed to promote the economic self sufficiency of Alaskans. My bill would require approval of permit applications with reasonable safeguards for ``economic base lands'' meaning those lands conveyed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act or Alaska Statehood Act, both acts intended to provide the means for Alaskans to achieve economic self sufficiency. The Alaska Wetlands Conservation Act is a common sense approach to Alaska's circumstances. It maintains flexibility to protect wetlands without hurting people. With respect to existing activities related to airport safety, logging, mining, ice pads and roads, and snow removal or storage, the bill prevents Alaskans from having to obtain section 404 permits to continue those activities. The bill would also require the Army Corps of Engineers to approve general wetlands permits with reasonable safeguards for specific categories of activities if the general permit is requested by the State of Alaska. There has been negligible benefit to the environment in Alaska as a result of the expansive wetlands regulations issued by bureaucrats inside the beltway. On the other hand, the harm caused by overzealous Federal wetlands police is documented in many examples of bureaucratic delay, expense and irrational decision making. Ask the Mayor of Juneau how the Federal Government handled that city's application for a general permit. It is a national disgrace simply because laws intended to protect scarce wetlands elsewhere were strictly applied in an area of abundance. This bill restores rational decision making authority to those closest to the wetlands situation of Alaska. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate and the House to act expeditiously on my proposed remedy.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. As chairman of the Senate Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, I wish to comment on section 1102 of S. 1004, my bill to reauthorize the U.S. Coast Guard which was recently passed by both the House and Senate. Section 1102 provides funding for the Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute [OSRI] located in Cordova, AK. The OSRI was created under section 5001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 [OPA '90] to identify the best available techniques, equipment, and material for dealing with Arctic and Subarctic oil spills and to assess the effects of the Exxon Valdez spill on Prince William Sound's natural resources and on the environment, economy, and lifestyle of its residents. Section 1102 of S. 1004 amends OPA '90 so that the National Pollution Funds Center will make payments directly to the OSRI for these activities, rather than through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or annual appropriations. The OSRI will conduct its mission over the next 10 years using annual interest from $22.5 million that was transferred from the Trans-Alaska Liability Pipeline Fund to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The initial payment to OSRI, which will occur within 60 days after the enactment of S. 1004, will include the interest that has accrued from the date of the first transfer of funds from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Fund to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund pursuant to section 8102(a)(2)(B)(ii) of OPA '90. Section 1102 makes other changes to enhance the effectiveness of the OSRI. It reduces the size and changes the composition of the OSRI Advisory Board, broadens the OSRI's mission, and allows the OSRI Advisory Board to request a scientific review every 5 years by the National Academy of Sciences to be performed by the Academy in carrying out section 7001(b)(2) of OPA '90. The conferees intend for the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (established under section 7001 of OPA '90) to coordinate with the OSRI and the Arctic Research Commission in developing and overseeing the national oil spill research plan. By involving these two entities, the Interagency Committee will be able to ensure that Arctic and Subarctic prevention and mitigation research needs are being fully identified and met. The Interagency Committee should include relevant recommendations of the OSRI in its reports to Congress, and should include OSRI representatives in meetings and other activities regarding oil pollution.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on another matter, I announce we will have a Governmental Affairs Committee meeting as soon as this vote starts in S-128 to consider reporting a nomination at the request of the administration, for the Administrator of the General Service Administration, and other nominations. I ask unanimous consent that be in order.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is a rather difficult situation. We have just passed, recently, a Defense appropriations bill. I was the chairman of that conference. Before it was over, we had a whole series of other bills, a series of legislative items. It was not necessary to raise a point of order. Everybody knew we exceeded the scope of the conference. I ask any chairman of a conference if he or she has ever really been totally restricted by this rule? This is an extraordinary time where we are in the last hours of this Congress. When the leader became aware that Senator Kennedy was going to raise this point of order, the leader determined to raise it himself. I take it that having done that, there is no question this is a rather significant occasion. I hope it will be a rather narrow precedent. I point out to the Senate that this provision is not the only matter that exceeds the scope of the conference. We had to include, at the administration's request, special authority for the executive branch to purchase and deploy explosive detection devices. We put in here the provisions that pertain to the rights of survivors of victims of air crashes. We put in provisions requiring passenger screening companies to be certified by the FAA. That is not required under any existing law. We put in restrictions on underage pilots, following the one disaster that involved a young girl who was a pilot. We put in a provision requiring the FAA to deal with structures that interfere with air commerce. My point is, as we get to the end of a session, we, of necessity, include in a bill extraneous matters totally beyond the scope. We know they are beyond the scope. As the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, I knew all those items we brought to the floor earlier this week were beyond the scope of the conference, but we did not anticipate anyone would raise a point of order. Anticipating that Senator Kennedy would bring this point of order before the Senate, the leader made this point of order. I ask the Senate to keep in mind this will be a rather limited precedent, in my opinion. I do not know whether the Chair will agree with me, but clearly when you get to the end of a Congress some things have to be done. We did not have time to take up separate bills. We held a hearing on the bill in the Senate Commerce Committee dealing with the rights of victim-survivors of air disasters. They pleaded with us to include that bill in this legislation. We have done so. In other words, this point of order is not only valid, in my judgment, against the amendment offered by Senator Hollings, but against the other provisions where we have exceeded the scope in various matters on this bill. I ask the Senate, when the time comes to vote, to overrule the Chair. It will not be debatable, but I clearly expect a ruling from the Chair that this report does exceed the scope of the conference under the rules and, in these circumstances, I ask that the ruling of the Chair be overturned. I yield to Senator McCain.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to say just a few words about H.R. 3219, The Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act, which, if passed and signed into law, could become a landmark in the development of responsive and responsible housing for Indians and other native Americans throughout this country. To say that the time has come for legislation like H.R. 3219 is to indulge in understatement. For far too long native Americans have been required to look to the U.S. Government--especially HUD, for direction and funding in the essential area of housing. Passage of H.R. 3219 will enable Native Alaskans and other native Americans to become responsible for their own housing decisions. Mr. President, I am particularly proud of the fact that Ms. Jackie Johnson, a Tlinqit from Juneau, AK, who is Chair of the National American Indian Housing Council, played such an important role in the initiation and development of this historic legislation. Ms. Johnson has poured an enormous amount of work into this effort as has the entire National American Indian Housing Council. I also want to thank members of the Association of Alaska Housing Authorities and its president, Kristian N. Anderson, all of whom contributed so much toward the development of this legislation. All these fine Alaskans have reason to be proud. I am hopeful, Mr. President, that passage of H.R. 3219 will mark the beginning of a new era in native and Indian Housing that is responsive and responsible--and most importantly, by and for native Americans.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I continue until someone comes. There is another Senator here. I will continue my comments later. Thank you very much. Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate to make some comments on a sad occasion, as I witness the retirement of many good friends. For instance, Senator Mark Hatfield came to the Senate just 2 years prior to my arrival. We served in World War II during the same period, 1943-1946. As a matter of fact, at one time we compared notes and we decided jointly he was probably the commander of a Navy vessel that was in Tsingtao Bay, China, when I flew into Tsingtao at the end of the war. After the war, Mark became a college professor who displayed a great deal of independence. I have a photograph that I gave him a copy of the other day which was of Mark Hatfield, when he was Governor of Oregon, John Tower, when he was just a new Senator from Texas, and I when I was a candidate for the Senate. It was when we met up at a conference former President Eisenhower held in Gettysburg. We have shared a great many concerns as Senators from Western States, and Senator Hatfield has been very helpful to me over the years I have served as one of Alaska's first Senators. I was actually the third Senator to represent my State and as a Western Senator and former Governor, he has been very helpful to me throughout the time we have served together. We went to the Appropriations Committee on the same day, and I have served with him as he has been chairman of that committee during the eighties and, again, during this Congress. It has been a great privilege to serve with him. I have had the role on the defense side of the Appropriations Committee, and he has been very kind to me in allocating the funds necessary to fulfill that responsibility. He was the author of a compromise in 1980 of great importance to my State on the issue of subsistence for rural people in Alaska. It has been a very controversial compromise, but without that compromise, the bill that allowed Alaska and Alaska Natives to go forward with the selection of their lands would not have passed. It was a difficult situation through the 7 years of debate on what we call the D-2 legislation, and Senator Hatfield was on the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee at that time and served as an Alaska surrogate, really, in many ways. I have cherished my relationship with Senator Hatfield and his wife, Antoinette. We have really shared many private occasions together and visited each other's homes. It is the kind of friendship that is hard to witness coming to an end. Now it is my hope that I will become chairman of the Appropriations Committee next year. He has left a great mark on the Senate in his terms as chairman of the Appropriations Committee and also when he was the ranking member. I know that the Senate joins this Senator in wishing Mark and Antoinette Hatfield farewell as they return to their native State, and we hope they have many fine years there. I am certain Mark Hatfield is not going to retire. We will hear from him again and again as he pursues his former career as a professor and is involved in educating the people of his State, particularly in sharing with them the knowledge he has gained in the Senate. Another Senator I find it hard to say goodbye to is Senator Sam Nunn. Sam came to the Senate in 1972. He had been a member of the U.S. Coast Guard prior to becoming a Senator. He has had a consistent commitment to our military forces and to a strong national defense. We have traveled together on many occasions throughout the world attending NATO meetings and, in particular, I remember the trips that we took into the Persian Gulf during the Persian Gulf war. Actually, we have not talked too much about it, but Senator Nunn, Senator Inouye, Senator Warner and myself were in the Israeli defense ministry one night when it was subject to attack by Scud missiles from Iraq. It was a very memorable occasion. The next morning, we went out to look and see what happened to that Scud, and it had fallen short of coming into the center of Tel Aviv. We were fortunate. Those who lived in the homes where it fell were not that fortunate. But we both remembered the Patriot missile system and its deployment to Israel. Had it not been there, I am confident Senator Nunn and I would have departed the Senate much earlier. I also thank he and Senator Hatfield for the many wonderful mornings we have had together at the Senate prayer breakfast. And like my friendship with Senator Hatfield, my wife, and I have had a wonderful relationship with Colleen Nunn and Sam, and have also joined them at their home for private occasions. It has been the kind of relationship, as I said, that is very difficult to see come to an end. I spoke to Senator Nunn as he was leaving here, and I know we will see him again and again. Senator Kassebaum has decided to retire. She brought to the Senate a legacy established by her father who had been a candidate for President in the thirties. After coming to the Senate, Senator Kassebaum became the first woman Senator to chair a major Senate committee. Senator Margaret Chase Smith chaired a special committee back in the fifties, but Nancy Kassebaum was the first to chair a permanent committee, and demonstrated to the Senate the real skill and capabilities of a woman Senator as she chaired her committee and used her soft-spoken approach. I find that her approach works very well, particularly since we know her as a very tough, resilient negotiator. Whether she is an opponent or ally, depending upon the issue at hand, she is well known for her skills as a mediator, and we all admire her very much. As chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, she brought to us on a bipartisan basis the best possible health care insurance legislation we could have, and she was very effective as part of the Republican health care task force as we studied for over 3 years the problem of our health care and health insurance systems. I know her deep interest in education legislation, and she has repeatedly helped us in Alaska with the various problems we face because of the rural nature of our State and the real demands on our State and local governments for job training programs. I recall very pleasantly Nancy Kassebaum's trip to Alaska, and we hope that she will return and visit us again and again. Her deep interest in aviation product liability legislation brought us changes in that area of the law so that we hope we will, once again, start having small planes constructed in the United States of the type that we very much need in Alaska. I know that she has indicated she is leaving to spend more time with her five grandchildren. I have to tell the Senate, I think we will see her most in airports, because one of her grandchildren lives in South Carolina, three live in Connecticut and one lives in Kansas. Our great lady Senator has a good reason in her grandchildren to travel the country, Mr. President. She has been a good friend, and Catherine and I are sad to see her leave, also. Senator Exon came in 1978, a year that I also was candidate for reelection, and in that year we also had the disastrous air crash that the Senate knows of in which I lost my first wife. It was following that time that Senator Exon, having served in the Army in World War II and in the Army Reserve for many years, became one of my traveling companions, in the early 1980's, as I was chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and we went to many different meetings that related to the defense of our country and with the defense establishments of other nations. I have to say, however, Senator Exon's fame in my State was overshadowed by his wife, Pat, who is a much better fisherman, I mean fisherwoman; in my State we say ``fisherperson'' now. When they came to Alaska we enjoyed having them with us. I note, now that he is leaving the Senate, he may be able to come up and meet the challenge and be able to leave a little bit better record and surpass the records established by his wife when she was fishing with us in Alaska. In terms of a Senator whom I have known for many years, Senator Alan Simpson--I actually met him before he came to the Senate, as the son of the late Senator Milward Simpson. He was very active in Wyoming affairs, and prior to being here in the Senate, I remember meeting him at a Republican event in Wyoming. I have gotten to know him very well since he has been in the Senate. Senator Alan Simpson has served the Senate as the Republican whip longer than any Senator in our history. He served 10 years. As a westerner with particular understanding of the problems that are experienced by those of us who come from the West, he represented us very well with his knowledge of small population, public land States. With his very quick wit and his pithy observations of the circumstances that we face, he has always been able to find a solution that was acceptable to the Senate on issues that affected our Western States. He has generated a bipartisan solution in many instances when many of us thought there was no way out. It has taken real courage on his part in many instances to find that bipartisan solution. The Senate has witnessed that just recently in the immigration issue. Knowing his departure was coming upon us, many of us have worked with him long and hard to try to help him achieve his goal of the passage of sound legislation in the immigration field. We wish him and Ann, his lovely wife, the very best as they now return to Wyoming and to other endeavors. Alan Simpson is also a person we are going to hear more about.

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 thank the Members of the Senate for taking this extraordinary step to make certain this important legislation passes and goes to the President. As I said many times, this is probably the most important bill to my State that we have considered in this Congress. As the Senator from Kentucky just stated, I believe that we are indebted to the Administrator of the FAA, David Hinson, for constant, tireless work on this matter. As a result of what we are doing, I announce to the Senate, in my office right now are the safety people who are going to carry out this new law and try to find a way to reopen the airport at my capital city of Juneau. There are many other airports that are going to be open because of the action we have taken and, above all, Mr. President, I think we can say to the American people that the skies will be safer. There will be competent people in charge of disasters, should they, God forbid, occur again, and we will have a way to deal with people who are survivors of victims of air crashes in the manner that the coalition of survivors has recommended to the Congress. This is responsive legislation, and it is responsible legislation. I am grateful to the two managers of the bill, my good friend from Arizona, Senator McCain and Senator Ford and, of course, to the chairman, Senator Pressler, and the ranking member, Senator Hollings, for their constant commitment to see to it that this Congress passes this landmark legislation for aviation.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I intend to get back now to talking about the bill that is before us. I am saddened that the Senator from Massachusetts has seen fit to attack the Republicans on the floor because of the situation we are in right now. As my friend from South Carolina said, the amendment being objected to by the Senator from Massachusetts is the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina. It is not a Republican plot. I don't know what all that stuff is over there. As a matter of fact, I don't think it complies with the rules. You can have billboards, as I have here, of a certain size, in order to illustrate a point pertaining to the matter pending before the Senate, which is the FAA bill. In any event, Mr. President, I want to make sure that everyone understands this is probably the most far-reaching bill in the history of the United States dealing with aviation security and safety. It is a bill that, if it does not become law, is going to make us next year go back to square one and start the process all over. Meanwhile, any tragedies that happen in this country, in terms of aviation safety or security, are going to be laid right at the feet of the people who prevent this bill from becoming law. There is a possibility that tomorrow a point of order will be raised against the bill even if we shut off debate, on the basis of the scope of this conference report. In the conference report, we have included a series of matters that we thought were absolutely essential to the outcome of this process. The President appointed a commission. It was called the Gore Commission. That commission represented a series of things. In the things that were recommended, we have tried to include in this bill provisions that were in either the House bill or Senate bill to respond to the Presidential Commission on Airport Security and Safety. For instance, there is the child pilot safety provision, Mr. President. That is title VI of this bill. I spoke earlier today about the family assistance provision, which was H.R. 3923. That is title VII of this bill. They are beyond the scope of the conference, there is no question about it. It takes the forbearance of the Senate to pass the bill that the House has already passed, recognizing the emergency that exists in our country coming out of recent tragedies in the aviation field. Now, we have in this bill a provision that requires the FAA to study and report to Congress on whether some security responsibilities should be transferred from airlines to airports. That is in section 301. The FAA is directed now to certify companies that provide security screening. No longer is that going to be just an airport activity. It is an FAA responsibility now. We have provisions to bolster weapons and explosive-detection technology. Money for that is in the appropriations bill that passed now. It passed on Monday. The authorization to spend the money is in section 303. Unless the bill passes, that will not be done. There will not be explosive-detection facilities at our airports until Congress gets around to passing the bill again in the next year-- hopefully. It has taken us 2 years to get it in this Congress. I predict that it will take at least 18 months in the next Congress to get back to this point. This bill requires that background and criminal history records checks be conducted on airport security screeners and their supervisors, on those people, airport security screeners and supervisors. In other words, we are not going to let the fox in the henhouse in terms of the security of the aviation facilities. We require the FAA to facilitate the interim deployment of currently available explosive-detection equipment. That means they will do it immediately. It is going to happen immediately if this bill passes. We require the FAA to audit the effectiveness of criminal history records checks and encourage the FAA to assist in the development of the passenger-profiling system. We permit the Airport Improvement Program and passenger facility charges funds to be used for safety and security projects at airports. That is direct availability of funds for that purpose. The FAA and FBI must develop an aviation security liaison agreement. They must lay out in advance how they are going to work together on security problems. FAA and FBI must carry out joint threat assessments of high-risk airports. That begins immediately when this bill passes. There is money in the appropriations bill to do it. It requires the periodic assessment of all airport and air carrier security systems, and it requires a report to Congress on recommendations to enhance and supplement screening of air cargo. Mr. President, this bill is absolutely essential to the future security of our airports and our airway systems. Further, let us talk about aviation safety. This bill reiterates in section 401 that safety is the highest priority of the FAA. It facilitates the flow of FAA operational and safety information primarily. It authorizes FAA to establish standards for the certification of small airports so as to improve safety at those airports. The NTSB and FAA must work together to improve the system for accident and safety data classification so as to make it more accessible and consumer friendly. It requires the sharing of pilots' employment records between former and prospective employers to ensure that marginally qualified pilots are not hired. That is one of the basic defects in our laws today. This mandates that a new employer has the right to the pilots' records from all prior employers. Now, Mr. President, if there is any reason, above all, to pass the bill, it is right there, title V: No more defective pilots being hired by someone who does not know of the prior record of the pilot. This will discourage attempts by child pilots to set records or perform other aeronautical feats. Unfortunately, that is required because of the recent problem we had with regard to a child pilot. Beyond that--look at this, Mr. President--this provides the authority to expend $1.46 billion on airports through this AIP program. That money can't be spent until this bill passes. I have a whole list of things that are underway, Mr. President-- underway now--and they are items that ought to proceed. I want to put some of them in the Record. Let me talk about some of them. In northwest Arkansas there is a grant for the replacement of a commercial service airport. If these funds are not available the new regional airport will cease until grant funds are made available in the early next year. In Reno at Lake Tahoe, the international airport there, they have completed a major parallel runway. But they have to have additional funds in order to complete that runway, and that must be available in the next 30 days. They are in this bill. The Sacramento International Airport just completed reconstruction of another parallel runway system. The immediate need is for the entitlement and discretionary funds to pay the debt for that process. In other words, that can't be finished. Over in Rhode Island at Providence, the Teddy Green State Airport, there is money in this bill. And if it is not available immediately the Rhode Island Airport Corp. will suffer financial hardship, and cash flow problems, if this grant is not made by the end of this first quarter of fiscal year 1996. In Philadelphia, there is a runway under construction; In Ithaca, NY, another runway construction; Albany, NY, construction; Clarksburg, WV; Buffalo, NY; Right here in Washington, the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority; Danville, VA; Roanoke, VA; The State airport in Baltimore; Charlottesville, VA; Out in Portland; In Denver; And, the Seattle-Tacoma Airport which is very familiar to people from my State and the occupant of the chair. Mr. President, this is a national bill. It is money that is spent from a trust fund. It does not come from the Treasury. It comes from the trust fund. In order to take money out of the trust fund it must be specifically authorized. And this is the authorization right here. This is the bill before us. If a point of order is made tomorrow against this bill and allows the bill to be destroyed, the whole conference report falls--the whole conference report. From there on, you can only operate by unanimous consent; unanimous consent. This whole bill will then be dependent upon unanimous consent. Any one Senator can say, ``No. I do not want go along.'' Now we have three or four Senators right now who say they don't want the bill to go forward as it is. And we are flying people back here from all over the country to get 60 votes. We will get 60 votes to stop this filibuster. That is what it is. It is a filibuster against FAA security and safety legislation because of one small provision, and the Senator from South Carolina stated what it is. It is to correct an error that was made when a bill was passed here last December. Under the circumstances, all this business--I am a very patient man normally. At least I think I am. Some people may disagree. But I think I am patient with regard to expressions of opinion here on the floor. But I never thought I would come out here and listen to this campaign speech from the Senator from Massachusetts when we agreed to 3 hours equally divided today to debate this conference report. Suddenly, it has developed into a campaign debate. If it is to continue, I am going to call for the campaign people to come out here and conduct the debate. I was prepared to debate this bill, and the reason this bill must become law. I want to say, Mr. President, in all seriousness now, if this bill is to be destroyed by a point of order on a technicality tomorrow, we are going to be around I think a long time next year, and we are going to be hearing the charges that will come out of the terrible calamity that will happen in the event there is another serious airline crash, and we end up with the same laws--the same inadequate laws--trying to deal with them. Because that has been the problem--whether it is the ValuJet in Florida or the crash over New York, these crashes now are involving so many different problems; problems of recovering the remains of the aircraft from deep water off our shores, or to try to get it out of a terrible swamp down in Florida, and all of the various problems particularly of the victims. I think I am about ready. What is the time situation?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from New Mexico desires. The order is specific, to be equally divided between the two leaders. The Senator from Massachusetts has been assuming he has been designated by the leader that he is to assume the time. I have not been advised.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, 46 Senators over there have an hour and a half, and 53 Senators over here have an hour and a half. I do not see anything unfair.

Mr. STEVENS. This time is to be equally divided between the two leaders.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts to look at the order. It is ordered that at 2 p.m., Wednesday, October 2, there is to be 3 hours for debate only, to be equally divided between the two leaders. That is what we are doing. If the Senator seeks any more time, I am prepared to stay here as long as he wants to have more time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there is no correction due. This time was divided across the aisle, an even amount of time for the Democrats and an even amount for Republicans. After all, we do have more Senators on this side of the aisle than that side of the aisle, and yet we split the time evenly. Three hours each day is to be split evenly between the two sides.