Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I move to table the Grassley amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. No. I was asking for the yeas and nays on the motion of the Senator from Hawaii to table.

Mr. STEVENS. That was not the understanding at the time we were going to make it. We are going to have one vote on Senator Harkin's amendment and then a separate vote on this one. We were going to make the motion to table and vote. However the Chair wishes to do it--go back and read the Record--that is not the understanding. In any event, I will take my minute on the Grassley amendment, not the Harkin amendment, so we understand.

Mr. STEVENS. This amendment would affect the rates for carriers of all Government cargoes, not just the rates set for cargo preference on agricultural cargoes. I remind my friends from Iowa, both of them, that we put $10 billion into agricultural subsidies a year. We are talking about here in this bill reducing the cost of keeping this merchant marine available for our Department of Defense from $200 million a year to $100 million. For 10 years we will get it to $100 million. Senator Grassley's plan is unnecessary. Existing law already allows the military use of foreign-flag vessels if the U.S. carriers' rates are excessive or otherwise unreasonable or if they are higher than the charges for transporting like goods for private persons. In terms of cargo preference, the law already provides the rates must be fair and reasonable for cargo preference. As I stated Friday, this amendment will result in the loss of the majority of the U.S.-flag fleet. We need that for national defense. I point out that during the Persian Gulf war, the charge for the foreign ships averaged $174 per short ton and for the domestic fleet it averaged $122 per short ton. We are preserving a merchant marine fleet for our defense purposes. I move to table the Senator's amendment.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. My information is, this is the last vote. After that last courageous vote, I hope that all Members will remember this is national defense--national defense--keeping ships available for emergencies, saving $100 million a year. I urge the Senate to vote positively on this bill. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there is a Corrupt Practices Act. As a matter of fact, the $10 billion paid out of agricultural subsidies has no similar provision. This amendment is unnecessary. It is a killer amendment trying to convince Members to vote for amendments so the bill will go back to the House and die. The purpose of this bill is to save $100 million a year and to continue the program of keeping the merchant marine available for the United States in time of emergency. It will cost $100 million a year for 10 years under this bill, not $1 billion, as that article on your desks says; $100 million a year for 10 years. I move to table this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may we have order now? We have one more vote. Amendment No. 5394

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation now with regard to time?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding the distinguished Senator from Illinois would like to have time to make a statement. I ask unanimous consent the Senator have 5 minutes as in morning business while we try to work out this agreement.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield such time as the Senator from Hawaii wants. Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. The answer is simple, in my opinion. What we have is a situation where today the only thing we have available to us in the event of war or emergency is to contract once again with foreign shipping. We did that in the Persian Gulf war. As I said, we paid 50 percent to 100 percent more on the total charter price. This bill is an attempt to change that concept and make available to us the U.S.-flag ships already crewed, ready to serve, and ready to go in harm's way because of their contractual commitments. We had foreign ships that would not enter the war zone. We had foreign crews that deserted their ships as they were going into the Persian Gulf. We need a program to give us the capacity to continue to serve our fighting men and women when they are abroad. The impact of this bill is to provide a system to in effect have a standby charter. It is very similar to the reserve fleet we have for the airlines. The civil air reserve program provides us the aircraft. And just as in this case those people who fly civilian planes into harm's way get war bonuses, they get special bonuses, because, as the Senator from Hawaii points out, they have no rights to any of the benefits that are available to those people who serve in the military should they be harmed when they are in harm's way. What we are doing here now would authorize $100 million annually for sustainment sealift. That is $250 million less than the funded levels before and $150 million less than it is today --$250 million less than it was during the Persian Gulf period, $150 million less than the existing program today. The Senator's amendment is an attempt to destroy a program that is designed to save $150 million from the program as it stands today. Now, we are going to pay these companies to reserve these vessels for our use in the event of war. The contracts that the Senator has mentioned are subject to approval by the Secretary of Defense. The payments that would be made will be made on an equitable basis, and they will be subject to annual review by the Appropriations Committee which I hope to chair. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, we only use these vessels for the time they are actually in the war zone under this contract. As the Senator from Hawaii says, we pay people by the day rather than by the lifetime. I agree with the Senator from Iowa, we ought to compensate our people in the military who go in harm's way more than we do, but we set up a very complex system here to take care of the people who are actually harmed in the military. We set up a different system for people who enter harm's way for a very short period of time and we have no further responsibility to them for any injuries they might sustain, as far as that is concerned. All of the costs of this bill are subject to rejection by the Secretary of Defense at the time the ships will be called up. He could decline to use these ships and once again go back to trying to use foreign ships if they were available to us at a reasonable cost. There are no foreign ships available to us anywhere near the cost of this bill. So I have moved to table this. I hope Senators will not be misled by this concept that, somehow or another, conservatives oppose this bill. This is a very fair bill to us and to the people who might be put in harm's way in order to serve the defense of our country. I move to table, Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield, that includes time for Senator Harkin to offer his amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have not had a chance to study the amendments. I only have the first one in my hand now. We have two more. I can't debate these amendments until I have a chance to analyze them. So I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish I had the luxury of the Senator from Iowa to make statements that he just made. The Senator from Hawaii and I have the duty to also manage the defense budget. We know what it costs to maintain ships and crew them 12 months a year, to pay for the construction of the ships in order to have them available to send food and supplies to our service men and women when they are at war. We can no longer afford that. We have had to abandon the program started by President Eisenhower. As I said on the floor right here last night, the build and lease programs where we built the ships and we leased them to other people during peacetime and we used them during war, it cost us a great deal more than the system does now. I am sad that these great organizations that support the concept of protecting the taxpayers have been misled again. But they have been misled. If we followed the advice of the Senator from Iowa, we would be spending billions more--billions. We did spend billions. We have cut it down now to where it is going to be less--I have said $150 million less than the program costs us today--if we pass this bill. This amendment of the Senator would require that U.S. ships carry Government cargo at rates no more than 6 percent higher than the lowest rate charged by any foreign-flagged vessel, regardless of the quality of the vessel or whether or not that vessel could even handle the cargo. These foreign-flagged vessels operate under flags of convenience. They do not meet our safety requirements, environmental standards, and they do not pay decent wages. Their seamen left the ships when we had them under contract to go to the Persian Gulf. They abandoned their ships. They would not go into harm's way. Cargo preference accounts for only 1\1/4\ percent of all commercial and Government agricultural exports. The Senator from Iowa is representing farmers very well. I understand that. We represent the taxpayers. I think the fact that these taxpayers' organizations have been misled by things like my friend from Iowa has said is what gets us into so much trouble with these organizations. The 1997 budget estimate for cargo preference is $70 million--$70 million. The nationally recognized accounting firm of Nathan Associates estimated the U.S. Treasury receives back $1.26 for every $1 spent on cargo preference. The extra 26 cents comes from the fact that the U.S. taxes would not be paid if we do not have a U.S. fleet and U.S. crew. In other words, we are actually saving the taxpayers' money by using cargo vessels that pay to support our system. And we hire people who pay taxes. If you want to hire foreign ships and foreign crews, you do not get any taxes, you do not get compliance with Federal standards. We have all sorts of problems, including the fact that the crews abandon ship when they have to go into war zones. That has to be figured in, but the cost to the taxpayers, if we follow the approach that is outlined by the Senator from Iowa, would be to go back to building the ships, keep them standing in some port, paying people to sit on them, waiting until the time we have to go to war. We have worked out a better system. This system is being designed in the interest of the taxpayers. The GAO estimates without the cargo preference, the U.S. fleet would shrink dramatically. In other words, we would have no vessels available for sealift. None. We can predict how long it would be. We can actually tell you exactly when there would no longer be any ships, and we would be completely dependent upon foreign ships to maintain our military posture. Imagine that, the last superpower of the world would have to go begging around the world in time of crisis to find some way to send supplies to our people. The GAO found that we would lose 90 percent of the bulk cargo fleet, 80 percent of the cargo vessels, 75 percent of the intermodal vessels and 35 percent of the tankers. That is a vast majority of our fleet if we followed the advice of the Senator from Iowa. I tell the Senate again, I don't know why we have to, as Members of the Senate, be threatened--threatened--by the taxpayers unions. That is what the Senator is doing. It is already on a sheet. Every one of us is going to be rated now by a group that is being misled. If they want to come to me, I will show them what it will cost to build a fleet, I will show them what it costs to maintain the fleet, because we know what it used to cost us. We did that in the period after World War II. Then we went into the Eisenhower build and lease program, and we know what that cost. But it was the best system available then. We have a system now, we have an agreement from our people that they will provide us, just like we provide airplanes now. Mr. President, we do not maintain a full air cargo fleet in our military any longer. We have a CRAFT program, the civil reserve air fleet. We use our planes that are cargo planes--the best in the world--manned by Americans, built by Americans, owned by Americans, and they are available to us. That is exactly what we are going to do now with the maritime cargo fleet. We are going to deal with U.S. vessels. We have this system, and it is going to cost the least amount in the history of the United States to provide it. The Senator from Iowa has the audacity to tell me that I am going against the taxpayers of the United States to put forward this bill to provide that system. I say this is the kind of thing that destroys the confidence in the Congress, to have people of this country told that we are wasting money when we devise a system that brings back $1.26 for every dollar we spend in order to keep this reserve military sealift capacity available. I am sorry to say, unfortunately, under the agreement, we don't have any time to answer the Senator on Tuesday. Both Senators from Iowa will have 15 minutes to explain their amendments, and we have the right to table them. So I hope we have the confidence of this Senate that the Senator from Hawaii and I normally enjoy, and that is, that we will not mislead the Congress, we will not mislead the people of the United States, and we are not going to mislead the taxpayers. The people misleading the taxpayers are these people who are coming forward with these fallacious arguments and presenting figures that cannot hold up. These have been studied by independent people, by the nationally recognized accounting firms, by the Government Accounting Office that we rely on as a branch of the Government, and they have told us this system is sound. What the Senator from Iowa is trying to do is kill this bill. Any one of the amendments, if they are adopted this late in the Congress, sends this bill back to the House, and it is dead. So I intend to oppose all of his amendments and oppose them for what they are: Killer amendments. That is what they are, killer amendments, and that is his design--to kill. He has tried several times to kill the cargo preference concept. We back it because it is the most efficient way to handle export of products produced by farmers from the farm belt of this country, great people. We buy their grain and we ship it abroad on a humanitarian concept. The Senator objects to the fact we are using American ships, American crews, American management to do that. The reason we use the American fleet is that we must have it in the event of war. Without our program, we would not have it. We would not have any, and I, in my capacity as a member of the Commerce Committee, support the cargo preference concept because I know, in my capacity as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, if we do not, we have to put much more of our money that could be used to maintain our Army, our Air Force, our Navy, our Marine Corps, into maintaining a ready fleet to carry our goods to support our people if we ever have to deploy them. My staff points out if this bill is killed, it will leave intact the more expensive system we are trying to replace. That is the point I am trying to make, too. The bill before us has been the one we have been working on, the Senator and I, now for two decades trying to put forward a concept like this. We finally got a bill out of the House. I want to see it go to the President and signed before this Congress is over. I will come back at a later time and address the other amendments of the Senator from Iowa. Unfortunately, Mr. President, I must leave the floor, as the Senator from Iowa did last night several times. I must leave for an hour. I will be back at 1:30. Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wonder when we would be able to see the amendments that the Senator is offering?

Mr. STEVENS. Has the Senator proposed the amendment?

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to make a few remarks concerning the Senator from Iowa's comments and his three amendment. First, I oppose his VISA program amendment. The amendment would require Maritime Security Fleet Program [MSFP] contractors to participate in Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreements [VISA]. This change is unnecessary. The bill already requires MSFP participants to enter into Emergency Preparedness Agreements [EPA]. EPA is the same as the VISA program, with several improvements suggested and supported by the Defense Department. The Senator's amendment would limit the Department of Defense's ability to access all of a contractor's assets. This would handcuff DOD's ability to tailor commercial sealift assets to meet DOD's sealift needs. The DOD helped write this bill. The bill provides the flexibility DOD wants. Further, it would impose additional restrictions that are not found in the bill or even in the existing VISA program that is voluntary today. This amendment simply does not make sense--it would impose additional costs on moving government goods. It would cost taxpayers more, not less. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this amendment. Second, I oppose his lobbying and campaign contribution amendment. The amendment would prohibit the use of funds provided to Maritime Security Fleet Program [MSFP] contractors from being used to fund lobbying or public education efforts or campaign contributions. This amendment is unnecessary and unfairly singles out one industry with which the Government enters contracts. Current Government contracting and Federal election campaign laws prohibit the use of Government funds for these purposes. The Byrd amendment, 31 U.S.C. 1352, generally prohibits recipients of Federal contracts, grants, loans, and cooperative agreements from using appropriated funds for lobbying the executive or legislative branches of the Federal Government in connection with a specific contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. There is absolutely no legal basis for restricting the lawful activities of the employees of the recipients, as suggested by the Senator from Iowa. A logical extension of this suggestion would be to restrict the lawful activities of the contractor's fuel supplier or ice cream vendor. Any attempt to change current lobbying and campaign contribution restrictions should be broader in scope so as to treat all such recipients of Federal funds in a similar and fair manner. I intend to move to table this amendment. Finally, Mr. President, as I said earlier, I am opposed to the Senator from Iowa's amendment on rates. All of these amendments are designed to kill the bill. They are killer amendments. I intend to move to table the Senator's amendment on rates. The managers of the bill will also move to table the second degree amendment to that amendment that has been proposed by the other Senator from Iowa. The second degree amendment is just as objectionable as the underlying one.

Mr. STEVENS. Have we had an adjournment order yet?

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum. I will take care of that.