Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the bill before the Senate contains the conference agreement reached by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee with the House on the bill H.R. 3610, the Fiscal Year 1997 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. I am proud of this bill, and urge all Members to support the conference report. We initially reported this bill to the Senate on June 21, 1996. We passed the bill in July, and intended to proceed to conference. Sadly, the House chairman, Bill Young, was temporarily out of action due to heart surgery. I am pleased to report that Chairman Young's vigorous and determined leadership this past month testified to his complete recovery from the problems that caused his brief absence in July. Despite this delay, we completed our work on Thursday, September 12, and expected the bill to come back before Congress the following week. Intervention by the White House resulted in the delay that brings the defense bill before the Senate today, as part of this omnibus appropriations package. Happily, the content of the bill remains as set by the conferees earlier this month. The conference report provides a total of $243.946 billion in new budget authority for the Department of Defense for 1997. That total is $950 million less than the level passed by the Senate, and $1.3 billion less than the House passed bill. Compared to the President's budget, the bill provides $9.268 billion more than he sought for 1997. But when compared to the 1996 level, including all the supplementals for Bosnia and other overseas contingencies, this bill is effectively a freeze at the 1996 level. In my view, the amounts provided in this bill are the bare minimum that can be provided for our national defense. This conference report remains true to the priorities set by the Senate in its version of the bill. We have fully funded the pay raise for military personnel, and added funds above the President's request for housing, barracks, and health care. This conference report truly enhances the quality of life for military personnel, their families, and retirees. That is our obligation and duty, and we have discharged that responsibility in this bill. The increases in the bill compared to the President's budget are spread among all titles. Personnel spending is increased by $233.7 million. Operation and maintenance spending is increased by $701 million. Procurement spending is increased by $5.7 billion, but remains $253 million less than the amount provided by Congress for 1996. Research and development accounts are increased by $2.7 billion, an increase of $951 over the level provided for 1996. The increase for R&D addresses the commitment of this Republican majority Congress to put us on the path to a meaningful ballistic missile defense program. I especially note the increase of $325 million for national missile defense, including funds for the Air Force Minuteman II based national missile defense concept. We must accelerate to the maximum extent technology will permit work on a real national missile defense system. The funds in this conference report keep us on that path. Additionally, we provide $137 million for breast cancer research in the conference report, and $45 million to establish a new prostate cancer research initiative through DOD. I want to note Chairman Hatfield's leadership in expanding the funding in the bill to fight prostate cancer. I want to close by thanking my friend from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, for his commitment to getting this bill through, and working to achieve a true bi-partisan consensus. Additionally, it was a great pleasure to work once again with the House subcommittee, led by Chairman Bill Young, and the ranking member, Jack Murtha. This conference report is a compromise. We sought to accommodate the concerns of the Joint Chiefs, our colleagues, and the Secretary to the maximum extent possible. I ask all my colleagues understanding where we were not able to fully fund their concerns--we started this conference with a difference of $16 billion between the two bills. I believe the bill reflects a fair settlement between the House and Senate positions, and I urge adoption of the conference report by the Senate. fiscal year 1997 department of defense conference report

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I certainly will yield to the Senator from Arizona, but I just want to say passage of that bill will kill the bill. The House is not in session. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. What was that?

Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. I am not prepared to yield during this statement, Mr. President. I don't intend to take much time. I want to alert the Senate--and I know the Senator from Illinois has a matter he wishes to bring up that is quite similar to what I am talking about. But I would like to finish my statement. We had Victoria Cummock, a survivor of a victim of the Pan Am crash. She has done a great deal to alert families who have been similarly affected of the need for Federal legislation to deal with family assistance to those that are affected by these crashes, the survivors of the victims of the crashes. One of the things they asked us to do was to pass House bill 3923. And as I said at the hearing, I don't intend to get too personal about this, but I personally know something about victims of air crashes. I know that it is necessary for us to wake up and make sure that the Federal law does assure assistance to families of passengers involved in aircraft accidents. This bill does that. The aviation bill does that. The bill that is in the conference report that is being held up now over one provision in the bill. It requires the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board to designate and publicize the name and phone number of a director of family support services to designate an independent nonprofit organization, such as the Red Cross, to assist in the taking of responsibility for coordinating the emotional care and support for those families. It has a substantial designation of assistance, such as providing mental health and counseling services, to provide it in the environment in which families may grieve in private, meet with families, communicate with families as to the role of Government agency, and arrange for a suitable memorial service after consultation with the families. It is a bill that is absolutely necessary, as we think of the number of families that have been affected by these air carrier crashes. It will provide that unsolicited communication concerning a potential action for personal injury can't be made before 30 days after the accident. It does have a requirement that the air carrier submit plans to address the needs of families if their aircraft is involved in an accident. There is absolute necessity for this bill to pass. It establishes a task force within the Department of Transportation to assure that this will be done. Mr. President, my main reason for addressing the issue, though, is the problem of safety at our airports. The Aberdeen, SD, runway has almost closed for safety reasons. It has no carryover money. It has to have this bill passed today so that money will be available tomorrow. In my capital city of Juneau, we have a wind shear problem. It has recently developed that the FAA wishes to change the takeoff requirements and will not allow a plane to take off until they can prove there are no wind shears in the community. We have in this bill the authorization for the money to take wind shear equipment to Juneau. This is just one of the items. In Massachusetts, for instance, as a result of formula changes in this bill, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will receive $3.5 million more under its entitlement, which is nearly $1.4 million greater than what it gets now. But its Boston airport entitlement and Nantucket entitlement both increase. In the State of Wisconsin, they would have an apportionment of $1.9 million more in entitlement for the airports. In Wisconsin, for instance, Madison's airport--a very interesting area--needs the money to proceed with the improvements to their airports. This bill is not only airports, but we are talking about security provisions. We have changed, as a result of the bill that I wish to have brought up and passed today, the provisions for the authority to check criminal records for security screeners at airports; given new authority for the FAA to facilitate interim deployment of advanced aviation security technology, including the explosive detection equipment that we must have. They can make and will make vulnerability assessments of every airport in the country, and they are going to deal with new ways to develop passenger profiling. But above all, they are going to have the national academy of science work on the explosive detecting and aircraft hardening technology. This bill cannot wait until we get back next year and organize and get around to passing bills. It would be, roughly, February 15, at the earliest, before that could be done. Under the essential air service, which is absolutely essential to maintain transportation in my State and many of the Northern States, funds could not be taken from the trust fund if this bill does not pass. There is only a 1-month carryover, which means that all of our planes that are involved in essential air service will be grounded before December if this bill does not pass. This is the most critical bill that I can think of in terms of aviation safety. I have a whole list of items here that deal with the security requirements that are funded by this bill. Huntsville, AL; Fort Lauderdale; Fort Myers; Orlando; St. Petersburg; in Atlanta, Savannah; Valdosta, GA; Lexington, KY; Greensboro, NC; Wilmington, NC; Chattanooga, TN; Nashville, TN; in Illinois, the Springfield capital security fencing is absolutely required that it be fixed. That money is not there unless this bill passes today. It will not be there until the second quarter of the fiscal year, at the earliest. In Minnesota, there is a firefighting building provided for. I believe that is very much associated with security. When we go through all of these, Ohio has the largest number of security requirements in the country that are funded by this bill. In Racine, WI, there are obstructions on the field that must be removed. It has one of the highest priorities in the country to deal with this. I made a mistake; I said Ohio had the highest number. California has the highest number of security requirements and facilities that are funded by this bill. Mr. President, the question comes down to, ``How can we get this bill up?'' There are ways, Mr. President, that we can delay the present bill until the FAA bill is brought up. I do not want to do that. I appreciate, as I have already said, the work done by the leaders of our Appropriations Committee, and the joint leadership of the Congress, to see to it that there is no hiatus in funding in terms of our National Government at this time. But the FAA bill comes before us when the country has been rocked with aviation tragedies. ValuJet is just starting to fly today. That reminds all of us of the tragedy in Florida. We still have the unexplained TWA Flight 800. We have all kinds of speculation concerning that. In the wake of the tragedy, the White House had a commission chaired by the Vice President. Many of those recommendations are in our bill. We have added to them considerably. But, clearly, the explosive detection devices are No. 1 in regard to our joint effort to find a way to upgrade our security at our Nation's airports. Mr. President, there is a small group of Senators that are delaying this bill because of one provision. It is just as easy for them to come in here next year and repeal that. That will not be difficult. If they have the votes to repeal it, they can repeal it next year. The idea of delaying the safety of the Nation over one amendment--I must say, it was an amendment offered on the other side of the aisle, which most of us on this side of the aisle supported, but it is a provision that corrects a technicality in the law. And the law that was passed by Congress, as I understand it, was a mistake in the law. But, in any event, why this bill? Why can't these Senators find a way to meet their objectives without putting the Nation's safety at risk? I want the Senate to know that if this bill does not pass, I am going to see to it that the survivor of every victim gets the personal telephone number of the people that oppose this bill. I urge people involved in this victims' rights committee to get on the phone and call these people right now. There is no reason for this delay. We have tried our best to work out a problem here with regard to aviation safety, and it is the basic problem which brought us to the point that we are here today; that is, that we were in disagreement as to how to finance future additions to the trust fund. There was no dispute among Members of the Senate over what we had to do to meet the security requirements, or what we had to do to find a way to increase funding. It was as to how we were to do it. We have had disagreements whether we should have taxes, or whether we should have a new entity that replaces the aviation trust fund, or whether we should have new fees and find new funding mechanisms. The question was not whether we needed more money to modernize our system and improve safety, and particularly deal with the increased terrorist threat. The question was how to get that money. That is a separate issue, but it is not the issue that is delaying this bill. What is delaying this bill is about three sentences in the bill that deal with an error which was made in the ICC bill passed through the Congress. I understand that some people are very disturbed about that. I have heard from some people in my State who are very disturbed about that. But my answer to them has been, look, this bill means Juneau will reopen. This means that the people who are in these areas where the money will run out will not face a closure of their airports as Juneau has been placed--it means that the essential air services will continue. And we will not have to notify the people in 170 villages in my State that, ``I am sorry, you can't have Christmas transportation because the money has run out. Two or three Senators objected to a bill.'' There is a procedure here, Mr. President, so that we can continue. I ask the leadership to join together and notify us. We will stay in session until we pass the FAA bill. A procedure has to be followed. It is a cloture procedure. It can take a series of days, and it will be a severe inconvenience to many Senators. But what is inconvenience to the Senators as compared to having additional crashes in this country? I usually don't speak--I do speak loudly and angrily, but I do not speak with such personal involvement, Mr. President. I cannot conceive that anyone would stand in the way of passing legislation that might--I can't say it will, but it might--lead to the installation of safety equipment which would prevent an aircraft crash in this country. I intend to be back and back. I seek the assurance of the leadership that we will stay in session to pass this bill. It means tomorrow, Wednesday, and probably Thursday before we can get it done. But this Senator is prepared. And I am a candidate. I would like to go home. I am prepared to stay here as long as it takes to convince these Senators that we have the authority in our rules to go around two or three Senators to get a bill passed. It may well be that. I also urge leadership not to accept the objection of any absent Senator. Two of these Senators are not here, and they are sending in objections. I am going to start reading off their names the next time. If I have to come to the floor, starting tomorrow I am going to talk about the Senators personally who are obstructing the passage of a bill that is absolutely necessary in the interest of the safety of this country.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to again address the question of the failure to approve the conference report on the aviation trust fund. This is the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996. Mr. President, the bill before us contains the funding for the Government. We have already dealt with the appropriations for transportation. But the conference report on the Aviation Authorization Act for 1996 contains the authority to spend the money. There currently is just $50 million, out of a $1.46 billion program, left after today to continue the work of the modernization of our airports and airways. We have worked now 2 years--a bipartisan group--to try and improve the safety and security of the Federal aviation system. I give great credit to the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler, the ranking member, Senator Hollings, and to the chairman of the aviation subcommittee, Mr. McCain, and the ranking member of that committee, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Ford. We have, many of us, had differences of opinion on the bill. But we found a way to work it out. This bill is absolutely necessary now to proceed to strengthen the safety and security of the aviation transportation system. I am here this morning to again serve notice to the Senate that this bill must be passed before we adjourn sine die. Again, let me say, there is only $50 million left in this fund that can be expended after today. What we are looking at, Mr. President, is a bill that has been crafted in order to meet some very important objectives of people who are very much involved with the issues of aviation safety. Let me point out, for instance, that just this past week we, once again, had a hearing with regard to the rights of those people who are survivors of victims of air disasters.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the chairman and ranking member of our full committee, the Appropriations Committee. I certainly do apologize to them for seeking the floor ahead of them, because I knew they were coming. But I wanted to make certain that I did retain the right to alert the Senate to a very difficult problem as we proceed to consider this bill. First, let me say I know that this is the last bill to be handled by the Senator from Oregon. He and I went on the Appropriations Committee on the same day. I have sat beside him for so many years now working on matters affecting appropriations, and we have both served with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia in a way that most people would never understand. There is a deep friendship among those of us who worked through long nights trying to figure out how to solve the problems of keeping this Government going and at the same time pursue the objectives of policy enunciated by our leaders. It is not an easy thing. Both the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from West Virginia have spent many more hours in conference on this bill than any other member of the Appropriations Committee, and they certainly deserve our great respect and thanks for all the work they have done to get us to this point. As the Senator from West Virginia just said, this bill absolutely must be signed tonight. It is our intention to see to it that that takes place. I do give both the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from West Virginia great credit for what they have done and the manner in which they have handled this bill. As a postscript, I also say I certainly do agree with the Senator from West Virginia--and I think the Senator from Oregon does too; I know he does--this is not the way to handle appropriations bills, and we must find a way to deal with our procedure to assure that bills from appropriations committees, that each bill is considered on its own merits and it goes to the President in a way that expresses the will of the Congress, and the President can express the will of the executive branch. Under our traditional system of checks and balances, that must be preserved in order to assure the freedom of this country. So I intend to work with the Senators to achieve that goal. I do, again, apologize to them for seeking the floor ahead of them because I know they are entitled to present their positions in the very beginning.

Mr. STEVENS. I have just conferred with Senator Byrd, and I agree. I do amend my request that I be recognized after the Senator from West Virginia completes his statement.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, what is that?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Coast Guard is very important in Alaska, where the commercial fishing industry is the largest private sector employer. We have over half the coastline of the United States, and sportsmen from around the world come to fish off Alaska. Alaskans and others rely on the Coast Guard every single day in Alaska. At a national level, the Coast Guard is also important. Nationwide last year, the Coast Guard: (1) saved 4,450 lives--an average of one life every two hours; (2) assisted 98,900 persons in distress; (3) conducted 12,634 fisheries boardings; (4) inspected 38,000 U.S. vessels and 9,000 foreign vessels; (5) conducted 51 drug seizure cases, confiscating 23 tons of marijuana and 49,000 pounds of cocaine; (6) conducted 16,976 pollution investigations; (7) serviced 39,059 Federal navigation aids; and (8) saved or protected $7.3 billion in property, more than twice the Coast Guard's budget in 1995. In short, the Coast Guard performs functions that are vital to every American who goes near the water. The conference bill and statement reauthorize the important activities of the Coast Guard for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Our statement explains each of the sections of the bill, so I will not go through it in detail here. I would like to thank Conference Chairman Bud Shuster and his staff, Rebecca Dye and Ed Lee. They have done a great job running this conference. In the Senate, I want to thank Chairman Pressler, and his staff Tom Melius and Jim Sartucci. Chairman Pressler's record as chairman this Congress has been remarkable. His accomplishments have included the Telecommunications bill, the ICC dismantling bill, the Maritime Security bill, the Magnuson reauthorization, and now the Coast Guard authorization, to name a few. Both Tom Melius and Jim Sartucci have been invaluable to the chairman and to me on the Coast Guard bill and other legislation. Thanks also to Senator Hollings and Subcommittee Chairman Kerry for their help with this bill, and to their staff, Penny Dalton, Carl Bentzel and Lila Helms. Lastly, I would like to thank my legislative director, Earl Comstock, and my staff on the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, Trevor McCabe, for their work on S. 1004. I strongly support the enactment of this important legislation.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are facing a very serious matter before the Senate and Congress adjourns. The authority to spend money from the Airport and Airways Trust Fund expires on September 30. After that date, it will not be possible to spend, literally, millions and millions of dollars necessary to continue the modernization of our airway system, improvements in airports, in particular, that are safety-related, unless this bill is passed. The airport at my capital city in Juneau is now red-lined because of the failure to have a system to deal with shear winds that develop there. We are now working to move into Juneau some portable equipment that can deal with wind profiling and predict shear wind. We have had over 1,000 people stranded in Juneau in the last week. We were seeking to go out of Juneau because of the failure to get clearance for the jets that fly from my State to Seattle. Alaska Airlines has practically been grounded there at a time when there was no winds at all. This bill is being held up because of a provision offered by a member of the Democratic Party in this Senate, supported in conference by all but two members of that conference, and it is literally being blocked. Mr. President, this bill provides for safety equipment at airports all over this country. Once we get to September 30, if that bill is not passed, they will come to a screeching halt. I want the Senate to know I will use every parliamentary maneuver I know to keep us in session until that bill passes. I want everyone to listen because I am serious. We cannot recess without passing the FAA bill, and there is no way that this Senator will permit that. One Senator can keep the Senate in session if he wants to do that. We will stay in session until it passes. I want further to note that there will not be another bill pass here by unanimous consent that has a Democratic name on it until the FAA bill passes. I make strange statements at times, but at this time I know I can carry that out. I hope all Members of the other side in this body and in the other body are listening, because I don't care who it is--there is a conspiracy now against the extension of the airport-airways trust fund authorization. Now, in my State, which is one-fifth the size of the whole United States, we don't build roads, we fly; 75 percent of the communities in my State can be reached only by air. We are in the process now of moving in new equipment. The bill contains a sizable amount of authorization to carry out that new equipment. As this Senate knows, we have had too many recent crashes. I was in one crash, Mr. President, in 1978, that was brought about by sheer winds. I have tried, in my time in the Senate, to do everything I can to get the authorization to get the changes and we now have them coming. This bill provides them. I cannot tell the Senate in any stronger terms, we are going to stay in session--I am sorry to serve notice on the leadership itself--we are going to stay in session until that bill passes. If it is December 31, we are still going to be here. We cannot operate in my State without airways trust fund moneys. They provide the basic security for our transportation system. I am just appalled that this one little provision that represents correcting an error that was made in the ICC bill--when it passed the Senate and the House, it was an acknowledged error. One little provision that was placed in there by my good friend from South Carolina that is in this bill now is apparently an excuse for some of the Members on the other side of the aisle to hold up this important bill. It is a bill, by the way, that will provide hundreds of millions of dollars for the continuation of construction at airports throughout this country. Those will all come to a halt. No money is authorized to be spent after September 30 unless this bill passes. So, Mr. President, I yield back to my friend, so he can bring about the closing. But I shall be here every minute the Senate is open now in order to assure that that bill will pass. It is a bill that we have worked on now for 2 years, and I was part of the conference committee. I know what happened in conference. But that is the democratic process. The two Senators who are objecting, and who are missing, better get on the plane and come back, because I am going to start calling them by name Monday if they are not back here and are trying to block this bill in absentia. This is the most important bill to my State every time it comes up. It is going to pass. That is all there is to it.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the 10th amendment was a promise to the States and to the American people that the Federal Government would be limited, and that the people of the States could, for the most part, govern themselves as they saw fit. Unfortunately, in the last half century, that promise has been broken. The American people have asked us to start honoring that promise again: to return power to State and local governments which are closer to and more sensitive to the needs of the people. The 104th Congress and in particular, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, started to shift power out of Washington by returning it to our States and to the American people. As chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I wanted to continue its shift of power. More than a dozen colleagues and I introduced S. 1629 on March 20 of this year. Within 5 months of its introduction, the bill had 32 cosponsors. On May 8 of this year, a House companion bill was also introduced. I want to introduce a bill today which is the product of work by the Governmental Affairs Committee over the past several months. Unfortunately, the session is ending before we can complete action. However, before adjourning I wanted to provide a summary of the committee's consideration of this issue, and put forward a bill that reflects revisions made as a result of our hearings and discussions with interested parties. The legislation that I offer today is a starting point for when we reconvene next year. This is an important issue and I intend to pursue it in the next Congress. The purpose of out legislation is to return power to the States and to our people by placing safeguards in the legislative process, by restricting the power of Federal agencies and by instructing the Federal courts to enforce the 10th amendment. This would be accomplished in five ways. The act includes a specific congressional finding that the 10th amendment means what it says: The Federal Government has no powers not delegated by the Constitution, and the States may exercise all powers not withheld by the Constitution. The act states that Federal laws may not interfere with State or local powers unless Congress declares its intent to do so and Congress cites its specific Constitutional authority to do so. The act gives Members of the House and Senate the ability to raise a point of order challenging a bill that lacks such a declaration or that cites insufficient constitutional authority. The act requires that Federal agency rules and regulations not interfere with State or local powers without Constitutional authority cited by Congress. Agencies must allow States notice an opportunity to be heard in the rulemaking process. The act, further, directs courts to strictly construe Federal laws and regulations that interfere with State powers, with a presumption in favor of State authority and against Federal preemption. During the course of the past year, we received bipartisan expressions of support from many Governors and State attorneys general, State legislatures, groups including the National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL] and the Council of State Governments [CSG]. As the Supreme Court stated in 1991 when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the majority opinion of the court in the case Gregory versus Aschroft: If Congress intends to alter the usual constitutional balance between the states and the Federal Government, it must make its intention to do so unmistakably clear in the language of the statute. Congress should make its intention clear and manifest if it intends to preempt the historic powers of the States. In traditionally sensitive areas such as legislation affecting the federal balance, the requirement of clear statement assures that the legislature has in fact faced, and intended to bring into issue, the critical matters involved in the judicial decision. The Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act that I have introduced will prevent overstepping by all three branches of the Federal Government, and will focus attention on what State and local officials have been advocating for so long: the need to return the power of our democracy to the States and to our people. The Governmental Affairs Committee held three hearings on the Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act: March 21, 1996, featured Senators Dole, Hatch, and Nickles. Attorneys general from Virginia and South Carolina, the solicitor general of Colorado, and elected representatives from Alaska, Ohio, and New York appeared, as well as Professors Nelson Lund and John Kincaid. Senator Dole said: I don't care what your party is. This isn't a Republican or a Democratic issue. Even the President has said ``The era of big government is over.'' . . . This is a bipartisan issue and this is a bipartisan bill. June 3, 1996 in Nashville, TN, cochaired by Senator Thompson, included elected representatives for Tennessee State and local governments, as well as the director of the Tennessee Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations and the deputy director of the Tennessee Division of Water Supply. This hearing enlightened us to the wisdom that resides in Tennessee. State legislators, mayors, and administrators know how to solve most problems, but Federal overreaching often prevents them from doing that. One of our witnesses offered an update on a familiar saying in Washington. To this Tennessean, it's not just all politics that are local, ``All solutions are local.'' July 16, 1996, testimony was presented by NCSL President-Elect Michael Box and constitutional lawyer Roger Marzulla speaking in favor of the bill, while Professors Mary Brigid McManamon and Ed Rubin spoke in opposition. Mr. Marzulla pointed out that Congress is the only branch of the Federal Government that does not analyze the source of its power before it acts. Courts and Federal agencies both do. We in Congress can do our jobs better by looking at our constitutional jurisdiction and authority first, then exercising or power appropriately to solve the Nation's problems. Let me conclude by saving, as a result of our work throughout this year and with input form the National Conference of State Legislatives, we have made the following changes to the Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act. We have removed the supermajority requirement on the point of order. It would take a simple majority to remove the point of order, not just a supermajority. It will require the Congressional Research Service to report on Federal preemption at the close of each Congress. It will exempt participation by State officials in agency rulemaking from the Federal Advisory Committee Act and allow State and Federal officials to work together on preemption issues without following the Federal Advisory Committee Act's detailed notice and reporting procedures. It would make funds received by States under Federal law subject to appropriation by the State legislatures. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

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, the 10th amendment was a promise to the States and to the American people that the Federal Government would be limited, and that the people of the States could, for the most part, govern themselves as they saw fit. Unfortunately, in the last half century, that promise has been broken. The American people have asked us to start honoring that promise again: to return power to State and local governments which are closer to and more sensitive to the needs of the people. The 104th Congress and in particular, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, started to shift power out of Washington by returning it to our States and to the American people. As chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I wanted to continue its shift of power. More than a dozen colleagues and I introduced S. 1629 on March 20 of this year. Within 5 months of its introduction, the bill had 32 cosponsors. On May 8 of this year, a House companion bill was also introduced. I want to introduce a bill today which is the product of work by the Governmental Affairs Committee over the past several months. Unfortunately, the session is ending before we can complete action. However, before adjourning I wanted to provide a summary of the committee's consideration of this issue, and put forward a bill that reflects revisions made as a result of our hearings and discussions with interested parties. The legislation that I offer today is a starting point for when we reconvene next year. This is an important issue and I intend to pursue it in the next Congress. The purpose of out legislation is to return power to the States and to our people by placing safeguards in the legislative process, by restricting the power of Federal agencies and by instructing the Federal courts to enforce the 10th amendment. This would be accomplished in five ways. The act includes a specific congressional finding that the 10th amendment means what it says: The Federal Government has no powers not delegated by the Constitution, and the States may exercise all powers not withheld by the Constitution. The act states that Federal laws may not interfere with State or local powers unless Congress declares its intent to do so and Congress cites its specific Constitutional authority to do so. The act gives Members of the House and Senate the ability to raise a point of order challenging a bill that lacks such a declaration or that cites insufficient constitutional authority. The act requires that Federal agency rules and regulations not interfere with State or local powers without Constitutional authority cited by Congress. Agencies must allow States notice an opportunity to be heard in the rulemaking process. The act, further, directs courts to strictly construe Federal laws and regulations that interfere with State powers, with a presumption in favor of State authority and against Federal preemption. During the course of the past year, we received bipartisan expressions of support from many Governors and State attorneys general, State legislatures, groups including the National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL] and the Council of State Governments [CSG]. As the Supreme Court stated in 1991 when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the majority opinion of the court in the case Gregory versus Aschroft: If Congress intends to alter the usual constitutional balance between the states and the Federal Government, it must make its intention to do so unmistakably clear in the language of the statute. Congress should make its intention clear and manifest if it intends to preempt the historic powers of the States. In traditionally sensitive areas such as legislation affecting the federal balance, the requirement of clear statement assures that the legislature has in fact faced, and intended to bring into issue, the critical matters involved in the judicial decision. The Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act that I have introduced will prevent overstepping by all three branches of the Federal Government, and will focus attention on what State and local officials have been advocating for so long: the need to return the power of our democracy to the States and to our people. The Governmental Affairs Committee held three hearings on the Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act: March 21, 1996, featured Senators Dole, Hatch, and Nickles. Attorneys general from Virginia and South Carolina, the solicitor general of Colorado, and elected representatives from Alaska, Ohio, and New York appeared, as well as Professors Nelson Lund and John Kincaid. Senator Dole said: I don't care what your party is. This isn't a Republican or a Democratic issue. Even the President has said ``The era of big government is over.'' . . . This is a bipartisan issue and this is a bipartisan bill. June 3, 1996 in Nashville, TN, cochaired by Senator Thompson, included elected representatives for Tennessee State and local governments, as well as the director of the Tennessee Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations and the deputy director of the Tennessee Division of Water Supply. This hearing enlightened us to the wisdom that resides in Tennessee. State legislators, mayors, and administrators know how to solve most problems, but Federal overreaching often prevents them from doing that. One of our witnesses offered an update on a familiar saying in Washington. To this Tennessean, it's not just all politics that are local, ``All solutions are local.'' July 16, 1996, testimony was presented by NCSL President-Elect Michael Box and constitutional lawyer Roger Marzulla speaking in favor of the bill, while Professors Mary Brigid McManamon and Ed Rubin spoke in opposition. Mr. Marzulla pointed out that Congress is the only branch of the Federal Government that does not analyze the source of its power before it acts. Courts and Federal agencies both do. We in Congress can do our jobs better by looking at our constitutional jurisdiction and authority first, then exercising or power appropriately to solve the Nation's problems. Let me conclude by saving, as a result of our work throughout this year and with input form the National Conference of State Legislatives, we have made the following changes to the Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act. We have removed the supermajority requirement on the point of order. It would take a simple majority to remove the point of order, not just a supermajority. It will require the Congressional Research Service to report on Federal preemption at the close of each Congress. It will exempt participation by State officials in agency rulemaking from the Federal Advisory Committee Act and allow State and Federal officials to work together on preemption issues without following the Federal Advisory Committee Act's detailed notice and reporting procedures. It would make funds received by States under Federal law subject to appropriation by the State legislatures. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr President, House Concurrent Resolution 216, to move the Suffrage Statue from the crypt to the rotunda is a good compromise. I congratulate Representative Constance Morella and the leadership of the House for devising and approving this measure. The House resolution compliments the resolution passed in the Senate last session and recognizes three important women leaders: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Susan B. Anthony; and an important right--the right for women to vote. That change in our democracy changed the world. This statue will inspire some 4 million visitors to the rotunda next year with the physical reality that this Nation was shaped by both men and women leaders. There are several people that deserve special recognition: Of the $75,000 required for the move, $1,600 was raised by 9-year old Arlyss Endres from Arizona; Coline Jenkins--the great granddaughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton--worked tirelessly with the Woman Suffrage Statue campaign committee. Marian Miller, vice president of the Federation of Republican Women, and political activists from both sides of the aisle such as Republican Ann Stone and Democrat Joan Wages, demonstrated the commitment of women across the Nation to this cause. Among the literally thousands of men and women contributing their time and money to this project, I would like to recognize for the record the work of Shelley Heretyk, Kay Cash-Smith, Maia Greco, Sherry Little and cochairs Joan Meacham and Karen Staser. The resolution affirms our respect for the historic contributions of women. There is an unfinished portion of the statue that represents future generations of women leaders. My hope is that young women, like my own daughters, will take inspiration in the accomplishments of these historic figures. Mr President, these were real women who made real sacrifices to accomplish real social change. I am gratified that the Congress has acted to recognize them with this resolution.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Senator Burns for his leadership on the Savings in Construction Act of 1996. Senator Burns' original version of the bill, S. 1386, was referred to the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I chair. Senator Burns substitute amendment to H.R. 2779, the version passed by the House, conforms the bill with important recent improvements in Federal purchasing laws. Mr. President, recent procurement reforms have directed agencies to use commercial specifications and standards for all agency purchases, including construction of Federal facilities. However, GSA's new construction design guide contains Government-unique metric specifications for concrete blocks, ceiling tiles, lighting fixtures, and so forth. We received information last fall, indicating that the new GSA metric building design requirements would cost 20 percent or more than commercially available items. Also, the electric fixtures manufacturing and concrete masonry industries have registered concern with us about significant harm from the GSA guide reliance on noncommercial items. This is inconsistent with the recent laws streamlining Federal procurement and the 1988 amendments to the Metric Conversion Act of 1975. The Burns substitute amendment makes three important improvements in acquisition of Federal buildings. First, it ensures agencies conduct market research and design buildings to use commercially available components, allowing use of hard metric specifications as industry converts. Second, it allows Government to require hard metric specifications for concrete masonry and electrical fixtures when an agency head determines it is required and cost-effective. In making this determination, the agencies can take advantage of price analyses prepared to comply with recent modifications in the Truth in Negotiations Act. Third, it establishes a check-and-balance within each agency, an ombudsman, to review complaints. The ombudsman will review metrics-related complaints from prospective bidders on construction contracts. The bill makes clear that the ombudsman authority does not undercut the bid protest authority of the General Accounting Office. Mr. President, Senator Burns' legislation should result in savings to the taxpayers, while still allowing the Government to convert to metrics in building construction in a cost-effective manner. I am cosponsoring this amendment and encourage its adoption. I want to thank Senators Pressler and Hollings, the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Committee and Senator Glenn, for working with us in drafting the substitute amendment. I would also like to commend their staff and, especially Senator Burns' staff, for their work on this legislation.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. I think it was our intention that we would have 1 minute on each side; Senator Inouye with regard to the Harkin amendment, and myself with regard to the Grassley amendment. I ask unanimous consent that be the case. We have to have some time to move to table and make a comment.

Mr. STEVENS. The remainder of the amendments are likewise controlled?

Mr. STEVENS. It was my understanding the Senator from Iowa wishes to withdraw one of those amendments. I ask he be recognized for that purpose.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are three votes remaining. One is the Grassley amendment. There is a second Grassley amendment, and then final passage, hopefully, on the bill. I ask unanimous consent--this has been cleared--that each of these votes be a 10-minute vote.