Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I think the Senator's time has expired some time ago.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I see the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee is here. If he wishes to make an opening statement on this bill, I will be pleased to yield to him. I have a lengthy statement to make about the subject I believe should precede this omnibus appropriations bill, the FAA conference report. If the Senator from Oregon wishes to make a statement, I will be happy to yield to him. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from Oregon with the understanding that I will resume the floor when he has completed his statement.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I might say to the leader, that last resolution was a significant resolution. I would like to talk about that later. In any event, Mr. President, let me yield to my good friend from Alabama for the statement he wishes to make, reserving the right to resume the floor after he finishes his short remarks.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I concur. Though we have been unsuccessful in enacting S. 1420 and H.R. 2823 before the close of the 104th Congress, it is our intent to reintroduce the bill at the beginning of the 105th Congress and seek its expeditious enactment. At the beginning of the next Congress, we will have the time to overcome procedural measures used by opponents.

Mr. STEVENS. I urge other Senators to help us enact this important legislation before the 104th Congress adjourns. Mr. President, I am greatly disappointed by the efforts that have been made to prevent S. 1420 and H.R. 2823 from being enacted this Congress. As I mentioned in my statement, this legislation would implement the Panama Declaration, an important step forward in the protection of dolphins during tuna fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Because of the Senate floor time needed for the appropriations bills, we simply have not had the time to overcome the procedural obstacles that opponents of S. 1420 have used, or would attempt to use, to try to stop S. 1420.

Mr. STEVENS. On October 4, 1995, 12 nations agreed in the Panama Declaration to create a binding regime to reduce dolphin mortality and conserve fish in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean [ETP]. The Panama Declaration would cap dolphin mortality in the ETP at 5,000 dolphin per year, with the goal of eventually eliminating dolphin mortality. To put this cap in perspective, in the 1970's, over 300,000 dolphin were being killed each year. We now have the opportunity to lock in the significant reductions that have been achieved in the killing of dolphins in the ETP. In addition, the Panama Declaration would create binding measures for fishing vessels for observers, bycatch reduction and measures to protect specific stocks of dolphins in the ETP. On November 17, 1995, Senator Breaux and I introduced S. 1420, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act, to implement the Panama Declaration. Cosponsors include Senators Chafee, Johnston, Moseley- Braun, Murkowski, Thurmond, and Simpson. The Commerce Committee held a hearing on S. 1420 in April, and voted to approve the bill on June 6, 1996, without objection. At the hearing in April, we heard the testimony of Senators Boxer and Biden. The bill approved by the committee in June accommodated their concerns to the extent that we could. We've also tried to accommodate Senator Smith, who raised some concerns about the legislation. The bill passed by the House (H.R. 2823) addresses the concerns of the three Senators as much as possible too. If we make further changes, however, we will not fulfill the requirements of the Panama Declaration, and we may as well pass nothing. The new binding conservation measures under the Panama Declaration can only take effect with the specific changes to U.S. law in S. 1420 and H.R. 2823. The two key changes to U.S. law 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 nonencirclement). S. 1420 and H.R. 2823 would make these changes and would allow the new regime envisioned in 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 progress in protecting dolphins in the ETP will be lost. 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.'' Our legislation is supported by: (1) U.S. tuna boat owners; (2) the mainstream environmental community including Greenpeace, the Center for Marine Conservation, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, and the World Wildlife Fund; (3) the American Sportfishing Association; (4) U.S. Labor, including the National Fishermen's Union, Seafarers International, and the United Industrial Workers; (5) the 12 nations who signed the Panama Declaration (Belize, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Spain, Vanuatu, and Venezuela); and (6) the Administration. I ask for unanimous consent that the letter I received from Vice President Gore in support of S. 1420 be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. If the leader will yield, I want to commend all Senators for this action and thank the leader for his determination, and the Democratic leader also for being patient and finding a way to bring this matter to a close. Under the circumstances--and I have discussed this with the Parliamentarian--this means that we will vote before the week is out on the FAA bill. For that reason, I do withdraw all the objections that I filed to the matters pending. We have been waiting for some action to indicate we will vote on this bill this week.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the conference report be dispensed with.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regret that the language requested by the Senator from Michigan was not included in the report language. I wish to assure Senator Abraham and Senator Levin that this was due to an administrative oversight. It was the Senate's intent that this language be included in the conference report, and to my knowledge, there was no objection in the House.

Mr. STEVENS. I concur with the Senator from Washington. The express authorization of fees in the Magnuson Act to pay for the costs of administering plans, amendments and regulations that include IFQ programs results in the repeal of section 208. Because the VBA program that Senator Murray has described fits within the definition of an IFQ, upon enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, the moratorium in section 208 will no longer be applicable to the VBA program. As I mentioned in my discussion with Senator Murray about section 208, the Sustainable Fisheries Act's express authorization of fees to pay for the costs of administering plans, amendments and regulations that create IFQ programs results in a repeal of section 208. Once the President signs the Sustainable Fisheries Act, section 208 will be completely repealed.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his support. lame deer health facility

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may I engage the distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy? A few years ago, I sponsored an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill regarding the eligibility for Alaska Native villages for the BIA road funding program. This amendment was necessitated by an internal ruling eliminating Alaska Native villages which populations had fallen below 50 percent Alaska Native. The Alaska Native villages are unique in the country because of the special nature of the land settlement under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Unlike lower 48 Indian reservations, these villages received title to their land in fee simple; the Federal Government does not own the land in trust as with reservations in all other States. However, since the land is privately owned, Congress protected it from taxation and levy by Federal, State and local government while it is undeveloped. This has protected this land from being involuntarily conveyed out of Alaska Native corporation ownership because of inability to pay taxes, but it has also dramatically reduced the tax base in villages which also have municipal governments providing municipal services. Because of this situation, normal property tax and other municipal levies on land in the villages are not permitted unless the land is specifically developed. The vast majority of this land is not developed and is protected from municipal taxation. That is why I sponsored an amendment to change the BIA road funding rule in Alaska requiring 50 percent Alaska Native population for village eligibility. This amendment was passed twice in the subcommittee, and once by the Senate. Ultimately, an agreement was worked out with BIA to change this qualification standard administratively. Mr. President, I am relating this history because I have been recently contacted by the same village municipality which brought the BIA funding issue to my attention. This time a similar rule has been adopted and is being enforced for village sanitation, water, sewer, wastewater, and solid waste grants by the Indian Health Service. This is the same issue again. The exact same arguments and fact patterns apply. The IHS is the principal grant agency for village water, sewer, wastewater and solid waste for Alaska Native villages. Now it is either changing the rule or beginning to enforce a rule which until now has not been enforced. Either way, this is unfair for Craig, which is completely surrounded by Native village corporation land from two villages, Shaan Seet Corp. and Haida Corp. In many ways, Craig is more heavily impacted than most municipalities because these two villages are so close together that their land selections are adjacent to each other. What I ask here, Mr. President, is that the same policy adopted by the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for BIA roads apply for IHS village sanitation funding. The issues are the same; the result should be the same. Can I get the assurance of the chairman of the subcommittee that he agrees with this position? It is a direct match up with the BIA issue with which this subcommittee has already dealt.

Mr. STEVENS. As my good friend from Florida has already stated, we have been following this issue for some time now. I share his disappointment over the failure of DOD to provide a useful report by which the Congress can evaluate their recommendations. I look forward to reviewing the GAO's findings on this matter. I am confident that these issues will be discussed during future Defense subcommittee hearings with DOD officials. In the interim, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has provided funding to insure the Eglin range can maintain and improve its EC capability, including instrumentation, consistent with the BRAC recommendations.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. That is correct. My committee held a hearing on September 24, 1996, and found questionable use and minimal cost analysis of interagency agreements. I was a cosponsor of the Thomas amendment and was disappointed to see that it was not included in the bill.

Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the work of the Senators from Wisconsin and Minnesota on this issue. As my colleagues are aware, the Defense Department has informed me that it has a familiarization program to help training instructors and health care professionals recognize and evaluate recruits with attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder at basic training bases. The conferees have encouraged the Department of Defense to continue this familiarization program so that personnel who deal with potential recruits and service members beyond basic training are able to recognize the characteristics and markers of these disorders.

Mr. STEVENS. My colleague is correct. That was the objective of the conferees in including this language.

Mr. STEVENS. I agree with my colleagues on both statements.

Mr. STEVENS. I agree with my friend from Missouri.

Mr. STEVENS. I certainly do. The limitation on staff years specifically does not apply to the funds needed by Lincoln Lab to acquire industry support for major system development or demonstrations. It is the conferees, understanding that these funds are used to contract with industry and are not used to expand staff years of technical effort at the laboratory.

Mr. STEVENS. The problem faced by Lincoln Laboratory for fiscal year 1996 was caused not by the statutory dollar ceiling but by the Defense Department. DOD chose--unwisely in my view--to assign a lower priority to the lab's allocation and a higher priority to funding the studies and analyses FFRDC's. I disagreed with that decision. I wrote to the Department and urged it to assign a much higher priority to the Lincoln Laboratory programs. The Department chose to do otherwise, and I regret its choice.

Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to highlight our action. In past years, the annual Defense Department appropriations acts have included a statutory ceiling on the total amount of funds which might be allocated by the Department for its 10 FFRDC's. In response to DOD's request that it be allowed to manage overall FFRDC resources through staff years of technical effort instead of dollars, the conference agreement for fiscal year 1997 includes such a statutory limit. The Department is required to control its staff years to maintain total FFRDC spending at the fiscal year 1996 level, but the conferees did agree that limits on staff years were a more appropriate management mechanism for fiscal year 1997. This was a reasonable compromise which tries to address DOD's concerns while at the same time not obscuring the budgetary impacts of funding FFRDC's, which has been a concern to the Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as the senior Senator from Pennsylvania knows, the conference report provides $123,000 over 5 years for establishing and maintaining the database, which is necessary for safety and hazard mitigation after the site is delisted from the national priority list of Superfund sites. I understand that the initial start-up costs are a disproportionate amount of the total $123,000 and would occur that the Department should provide at least $72,000 in fiscal year 1997.

Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to inform my distinguished colleague from Mississippi that this conference report includes explicit directions to the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, no later than April 1, 1997, detailing the requirement, cost, and schedule for the various Dragon upgrade options under consideration. Further, the conference report also includes $100 million of miscellaneous procurement funds under the direct control of the Chief of the Army National Guard, a portion of which, could be used for the Dragon development effort. If the report from the Secretary of the Army is supportive of the Dragon modification, I would expect the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to give immediate consideration to using miscellaneous procurement funds under his control to proceed with this development effort.

Mr. STEVENS. The majority leader is well informed about this critical safety shortfall in the Dragon missile system and because of his leadership on this issue, the Senate-passed Defense appropriations bill included $4.9 million to complete safety modification on the entire inventory of National Guard Dragon missiles. I am also pleased to inform the leader that because of his interest and support, the conference report before the Senate today includes the full amount proposed in the Senate bill for the safety modifications.

Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to engage in a discussion with the distinguished majority leader in any matter dealing with enhancements of our Reserve component forces.