Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have just said goodbye to the majority leader, who has just retired. He has left the Senate with great support from those of us who have known him and really do have a great love for Bob Dole. I have known him since he was a Member of the House. I was not a Member of the House, but I knew he was there in the House. Bob Dole and I came to the Senate at the same time. As he leaves today, I am, as he just said, the sole survivor of the class of 1968. He has been a great friend of mine. I have been on the floor before to say how I felt about Bob Dole. I have also remarked about the fact that he has also been a great friend of the State I represent. He assisted us greatly in the passage of the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act, which paved the way for the trans-Alaska pipeline. He assisted me many times in matters pertaining to the oceans--the Fishery Conservation Act, which protects the fisheries off our shores. He voted with us on the Alaska Lands Act, on issues that we tried to change in that bill in 1980. He and Elizabeth Dole were very helpful in assisting us on the Alaska Railroad transfer. As a matter of fact, as I have told many of my friends, their Christmas card that year was the photograph of the Secretary of Transportation and her husband standing at the back of the superintendent's car on the Alaska Railroad. That was Elizabeth's trip to Alaska, and Bob was traveling with his wife in her official capacity. He was of great assistance to me at the time that we had the terrible disaster of the Exxon Valdez oilspill. I could go on and on and talk about things that Bob has done with me. What I really want to talk about, though, today is Bob Dole as a leader. As he said to some of us today, he believed that, as the leader, he tried to reach out to those of us here in the Senate who might disagree with him, and reach out to Americans. Recently, we had a report of a poll in my State that showed Bob Dole is more popular than almost any of us who are elected officials in Alaska. He is well known in the north country because they know that he has gone out of the way on the campaign trail to go as far away as Alaska. I am one of those. There are not very many of us remaining here now who saw service in World War II. Part of my role has been to work as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to assure that we keep the mandate we received from the Constitution to provide for the common defense. Bob Dole has never, ever voted against those of us who believe in a strong defense. He joined all of us who worked together in the Reagan years to see to it that we could rebuild our national defenses--really our total military capability--at the time that the Soviets were going into an enormous military monolithic Communist dictatorship. He was quite successful in getting the Senate to help President George Bush at the time of the Desert Storm victory. He knows the value of defense. One of the issues he is talking about now, as he leaves us, is our missile defense system. He has told us himself today about his role in the Disabilities Act. He has worked with us in child nutrition, and he certainly has been responsible for the family tax credits coming back to where they should be. We hope to really increase those in the future. As was remarked here on the floor by our leader, he has reduced the tax rates in our country from a maximum of 90 percent to a maximum of just over 30 percent--for most Americans, 28 percent. But I am really full of memories today as we have seen our leader leave us because, as he mentioned in his statement, in 1984, I, too, was a candidate to become the leader of the Senate. After several votes, it came down to a contest between Senator Dole and myself. During the counting of the vote, he came over and congratulated me and thought that I had won. To the contrary. He won the election by a narrow vote. At that time, I asked for recognition and asked Senate Republicans to vote unanimously for Senator Dole because it was clear we needed a united Republican group in the Senate to move forward. In retrospect, I think that was probably one of the smartest moves I ever made and one of the best votes I cast--to assure that Bob Dole was elected the leader of the Republican side unanimously. He has shown us what he can do. I want the Senate to know how much he demonstrated his philosophy of reaching out. After that election, he asked me to come see him, and he told me that he had some things in mind. For instance, one of the things he wanted to do was have the Senate more involved in the oversight of the arms control negotiations that were going on at that time. He asked me to chair the arms control observers group which he created at that time. He got the support of the minority, and we created a bipartisan group that played, I think, a very successful role in working on arms control negotiations. He also came to me--I think this is probably not too well known in the Senate--and said that he was disappointed that the move to bring television to the Senate had failed, and he asked me if I would work with others in the Senate to bring that about. It was at that time a privilege, really, to represent the leader in meeting with Senators from the other side and on our side of the aisle. There were some Senators who changed their positions when they realized that the new leader was very sincere and wanted to have the American public know what was going on in the Senate. I think that the Senate has been changed by television coverage in the Senate--some good and some bad, but mostly good. I believe it has demonstrated for the country what is ahead of us if Bob Dole is successful in his new quest, because he does reach out for people. He makes sure that everyone involved around him has a meaningful role and listens. He listens to advice. If there is one thing that I think can be assured in the days ahead, it is that candidate Dole is going to listen to America and America is going to listen to candidate Dole. For myself, I can think of no better thing for the country than to know that we go to the beginning of the new millennium with a new President. So I hope, Mr. President, that this day, this decision that my good friend has made to leave this Senate, which he loves and we all love, proves to be the right decision for him and for the country. I know that he has not left our hearts because those of us who know him will be with him all the way along the trail. As the statement made by Theodore Roosevelt was read today in our meeting, as we gave him the bust of Teddy Roosevelt, Bob Dole has known both victory and defeat, and he has shown his courage and his ability to stay the course. I believe he has what it takes. I hope he will know victory in the days ahead.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the budget deficit for 1996 is estimated at $144 billion. It is projected to nearly double by the year 2002 under current budgetary policies and will continue to grow each year thereafter. It is growing at an astounding rate, over $335,000 a minute. I am sure people are tired of hearing this, but in my opinion, we have to keep repeating it. The average young couple starting life today will pay about $113,200 in interest on this debt. I have a number of children, six of them. I have eight grandchildren. I am very worried about the future as far as they are concerned in terms of what their share of this national debt will be if it continues to grow at this astounding rate. It was projected that my youngest granddaughter's share of this debt will increase 25 percent in just the next 5 years, and that she will pay something like $187,000 in taxes in order to pay the interest on the national debt during her life. I have been impressed by what the leader, Senator Dole has been saying. Interest rates are 2 percent or more higher than they would be if the debt and the deficit were under control. It is not a matter of trying to pay down the debt overnight; we cannot. It is over $5 trillion. It is not a matter of trying to eliminate the deficit overnight; we cannot. The debt is mounting too fast. What we can do is pass House Joint Resolution 1 which would be a symbol to our people and to the world that we are prepared to set a new standard for the Federal Government. The Federal Government of this country will do exactly what every State in the Union must do, balance the budget annually, bring interest rates under control, and try to find a way to start paying down the debt. That is what this battle is all about. It is not about this generation and the deficit created under it. It is about whether this generation is going to solve the problem created during their lifetime, or are we going to pass it on to our children and grandchildren? I do not believe you can have any more graphic example than the experience that Senator Dole shared with some of us the other day. He told us about how he visited with this young couple, and because of the 1-percent increase in interest rates, they were not able to buy the house they wanted. It meant $65 more per month. That is getting down where the rubber hits the road. Many of us remember those days when we had to figure out, to the penny, what we were doing as young couples in order to have a home and to buy a car and to be able to plan ahead for our family. These higher interest rates are denying young couples today the access to the type of housing they need to raise a family. I think that is the worst part of this situation we are dealing with right now, the disincentive for young people to start their families, to plan ahead and provide homes for them. That is not only the American dream, it is the American lifestyle. We ought to have a way to get back to that lifestyle. We ought to not deny it for future generations. I do believe when we look at this problem today, whether or not we are going to send this constitutional amendment to our States for ratification, we ought to think of future generations, not just ourselves. We need to think of our children and our children's children. Given our enormous debt, will their taxes be out of sight? They will be. Will they be paying into Social Security retirement funds that will not be there when they retire? They will be. Will the interest on the debt squeeze out the type of services that ought to be provided by the Federal Government? The answer is yes. Interest in the national debt is growing now to the point where it will be 20 percent or more of Federal spending by the year 2002. I support this constitutional amendment. In the past I have questioned whether there was a basic commitment to the discipline that is necessary in Congress to carry it out without cutting necessary discretionary spending. I believe there is a commitment in this Congress and we ought to send this constitutional amendment to the States.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield myself 5 minutes.

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

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Millennium Act of 1996 along with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Dodd, Bennett, Boxer, Breaux, Burns, Chafee, Coats, D'Amato, Graham, Heflin, Hutchison, Jeffords, Kerry, Lieberman, Lott, Moseley-Braun, Murkowski, Pell, Pressler, Robb, Simon, Snowe, Bryan, and Cochran. This bill is a bipartisan effort to focus the Nation's attention on what may become one of the most anticipated events in history--the beginning of the new millennium. As the new millennium nears, this bill hopes to focus our attention on the achievements of the past 1,000 years and helps to foster educational opportunities for those who may take on leadership responsibilities in the next 1,000 years. Since its founding in 1979 by a group of college students from around the world, The Millennium Society has worked to organize a global celebration and commemoration of humankind's achievements during this millennium and to endow a cross-cultural scholarship program to help educate future leaders. I believe it is the oldest organization in the country formed for the specific purpose of celebrating and commemorating the historical significance of the Millennium. The Society was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, charitable organization in 1984 for the purpose of establishing and administering the Millennium Society Scholarship Program. The Millennium Society plans to organize and telecast ``Countdown 2000'' celebrations here and around the world to enable the international community to both view and participate in this historic moment. The Society hopes that the ``Countdown 2000'' events will raise at least $100 million to permanently endow its Millennium Scholars Program. Unlike the Bicentennial Commission which required Federal funding, this bill asks for no Federal funds. Title I of this bill provides the Society with the official authorization and designation to administer Millennium activities both here and abroad and ensures that charitable proceeds go to the Millennium Scholars Program. The organizers hope that this designation can operate much like the U.S. Olympic Committee trademark. Mr. President, to the best of my knowledge, there are no other organizations that are competing for this designation nor have any indicated any specific interest in doing so. The second title authorizes the minting of commemorative coins. This bill incorporates some of the language from the House Commemorative Coin reform legislative package, H.R. 2614. Specifically, the Millennium Society agrees not to derive any proceeds until all the numismatic operation and program costs allowable to the program have been recovered by the U.S. Mint. Moreover, it embodies some of the key criteria and recommendations of the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Commission. The minting of the Millennium coins would not begin until July of 1999. Further, through its own fund raising efforts, the Millennium Society will match the funds received through commemorative coin sales for its scholarship program. The third title of the bill expresses the sense of Congress that the U.S. Postal Service should consider the issuance of stamps to commemorate the close of the second millennium and the advent of the third millennium. The Millennium Society was established as an international charitable organization dedicated to giving students from around the world a chance to go on to college and to promote international fellowship and understanding among the world's peoples on an unofficial and nongovernmental basis. I hope other Senators will join us in supporting this legislation to both commemorate the coming millennium and help provide scholastic funding for its future leaders.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Millennium Act of 1996 along with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Dodd, Bennett, Boxer, Breaux, Burns, Chafee, Coats, D'Amato, Graham, Heflin, Hutchison, Jeffords, Kerry, Lieberman, Lott, Moseley-Braun, Murkowski, Pell, Pressler, Robb, Simon, Snowe, Bryan, and Cochran. This bill is a bipartisan effort to focus the Nation's attention on what may become one of the most anticipated events in history--the beginning of the new millennium. As the new millennium nears, this bill hopes to focus our attention on the achievements of the past 1,000 years and helps to foster educational opportunities for those who may take on leadership responsibilities in the next 1,000 years. Since its founding in 1979 by a group of college students from around the world, The Millennium Society has worked to organize a global celebration and commemoration of humankind's achievements during this millennium and to endow a cross-cultural scholarship program to help educate future leaders. I believe it is the oldest organization in the country formed for the specific purpose of celebrating and commemorating the historical significance of the Millennium. The Society was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, charitable organization in 1984 for the purpose of establishing and administering the Millennium Society Scholarship Program. The Millennium Society plans to organize and telecast ``Countdown 2000'' celebrations here and around the world to enable the international community to both view and participate in this historic moment. The Society hopes that the ``Countdown 2000'' events will raise at least $100 million to permanently endow its Millennium Scholars Program. Unlike the Bicentennial Commission which required Federal funding, this bill asks for no Federal funds. Title I of this bill provides the Society with the official authorization and designation to administer Millennium activities both here and abroad and ensures that charitable proceeds go to the Millennium Scholars Program. The organizers hope that this designation can operate much like the U.S. Olympic Committee trademark. Mr. President, to the best of my knowledge, there are no other organizations that are competing for this designation nor have any indicated any specific interest in doing so. The second title authorizes the minting of commemorative coins. This bill incorporates some of the language from the House Commemorative Coin reform legislative package, H.R. 2614. Specifically, the Millennium Society agrees not to derive any proceeds until all the numismatic operation and program costs allowable to the program have been recovered by the U.S. Mint. Moreover, it embodies some of the key criteria and recommendations of the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Commission. The minting of the Millennium coins would not begin until July of 1999. Further, through its own fund raising efforts, the Millennium Society will match the funds received through commemorative coin sales for its scholarship program. The third title of the bill expresses the sense of Congress that the U.S. Postal Service should consider the issuance of stamps to commemorate the close of the second millennium and the advent of the third millennium. The Millennium Society was established as an international charitable organization dedicated to giving students from around the world a chance to go on to college and to promote international fellowship and understanding among the world's peoples on an unofficial and nongovernmental basis. I hope other Senators will join us in supporting this legislation to both commemorate the coming millennium and help provide scholastic funding for its future leaders.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to recognize an outstanding group of students from West Anchorage High School in Anchorage, AK. Twenty-three young people, from my home State, were recently in Washington, DC to compete in the We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution national finals. They successfully competed against 49 other classes from around the Nation and demonstrated a thorough understanding of the fundamental ideals and values of American constitutional democracy. The program, administered by the Center for Civic Education is the most comprehensive of its kind, reaching more than 22 million students at the elementary, middle, and high school levels in its 9 year history. The national finals, in which these students competed, simulated a congressional hearing whereby students testified as constitutional experts before a panel of judges. I commend the following students and their teacher, Roberta McCutcheon, for their determination and dedication to such a worthwhile competition: Susan Angst, Jessica Burton, Nathan Carr, Amber Christensen, Allen Clendaniel, Claire Dennerlein, Theodore Dickson, Whitney Faulkner, Clifford Haywood, Todd Holway, Anne Kelly, Lori LeMaster, Brooke Maury, Amber Popken, Joanna Resari, Thomas Sardy, Kivlina Shepherd, Lisa Stokes, Ian Street, Zareena Tran, Kate Weber, Justin Weeks, and Kiao-Le Zhao.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold hearings regarding security in cyberspace. This hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 5, 1996, in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Daniel S. Gelber of the subcommittee staff at 224-9157. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, in the Wall Street Journal yesterday there was an article entitled ``They Also Served Who Bark and Sniff.'' I think perhaps some Members of the Senate may have missed this. Since tonight is the night we honor President Eisenhower, I urge all Members to read this very touching story about a small dog that was a mascot to the Air Corps in World War II and what Ike did about that. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I come before you with pride to recognize and honor Jake Lestenkof upon his promotion to brigadier general. General Lestenkof is a native Alaskan who is the adjutant general of Alaska. He has held a number of important positions both in the Federal Government, Alaska National Guard, and private sector. General Lestenkof is a greatly admired and respected leader throughout the State and by the National Guard. General Lestenkof entered the Marine Corps as an enlisted man in 1951 and served both in the United States and the Republic of Korea. After leaving active duty, he joined the Alaska Army National Guard in 1956. Over the years, he has held a number of positions within the Alaska Army National Guard. He was appointed assistant adjutant general, Army, and served in that position until 1990. General Lestenkof took over the Alaska National Guard on December 21, 1994. Since that time, he has worked to integrate the Alaska National Guard with our Nation's defense requirements. General Lestenkof has worked closely with the U.S. Army, Pacific, and the National Guard Bureau, to build units that are relevant to the total force as we move into the 21st century. It is my pleasure to see him promoted in acknowledgment of his years of service to the country and to the State of Alaska. I am very honored to be able today to recognize General Lestenkof and his distinguished career. Congratulations to him and his family and the Alaska National Guard.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I support Senate passage of H.R. 1965, a bill to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA] through fiscal year 1999. H.R. 1965 is similar to section 205 of S. 1142, a bill that Senators Pressler, Hollings, Burns, Breaux, and I have sponsored to reauthorize the activities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Our bill has been reported by the Senate Commerce Committee, but has not yet been brought before the full Senate. The CZMA was enacted in 1972 to, among other things, provide grants to States as an incentive to develop Federally approved coastal zone management [CZM] plans. CZM plans are intended to help plan for development in, and protect, coastal areas. Twenty-four coastal States and five island territories now have Federally approved CZM plans. Alaska, which has over half the coastline of the United States, has had a CZM plan in place since 1979. Of the seven eligible coastal States and territories that do not yet have approved CZM plans, five--Georgia, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas and Indiana--are in the process of developing plans. In fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996, the States and territories with approved CZM plans received appropriations totalling $45.5 million and $46.2 million, respectively. H.R. 1965 authorizes appropriations through fiscal year 1999 with modest growth to these amounts, at roughly the same levels as S. 1142. The bill also reauthorizes grants for States to develop CZM plans, increasing the amounts that may be received, but ending the development grants program after October 1, 1999. H.R. 1965 includes an amendment to prevent the Secretary of Commerce from delaying the issuance of permits. Section 307 of the CZMA requires federal activities--including private activities that require a Federal permit, and federal assistance to State and local governments--to be consistent with the State's CZM plan. Applicants for Federal permits-- including permits to explore, develop or produce oil in areas leased under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act [OCSLA]--are required to certify that the activity is consistent with the State's CZM plan before the Federal permit can be issued. States must concur with the certification, but applicants may appeal the State's decision to the Secretary of Commerce. Section 8 of H.R. 1965 requires the Secretary to publish a notice when the record for any appeal has ended, and to make a decision on the appeal within 90 days--with a possible extension of 45 days. This would prevent the Secretary from simply refusing to make a decision on an appeal. H.R. 1965 does not reauthorize funds for the Secretary of Commerce and Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the section of law passed in 1990 to require States with CZM plans to prepare ``coastal nonpoint pollution control programs,'' and also does not reauthorize grants to States to prepare those programs. I encourage other Members of the Senate to support Senate passage of H.R. 1965.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold hearings regarding security in cyberspace. This hearing will take place on Wednesday, May 22, 1996, in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Daniel S. Gelber of the subcommittee staff at 224-9157. subcommittee on parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator very much. I was saying, due to the forbearance of our friend from Arkansas, I was able to go home to my State. I have just gotten back from Alaska. I was able to go home on Friday. I have been all over my State at various functions, the regional meeting of the Ahtna Native Corporation up in the Gulkana area, down to Homer and Kenai and Fairbanks and Anchorage. I want to report to my friend that one of my constituents asked me about the comments we make here on the floor. He said, ``That fellow from Arkansas certainly can't be your friend, Senator.'' And I told him, ``No, that's not true. He is a friend. We just disagree violently.'' And it is possible to disagree violently and still be friends. I came in just as the Senator from Arkansas had his shell game card up, talking about the budget shell game. I was reading, as I came back into Washington, a summary that my staff had given me about the budget that President Clinton had submitted. This budget, at first glance, looks like it balances, but it relies upon a trigger that is in the budget that reduces discretionary spending by $67 billion in 2001. In 2002, it does not indicate which programs will be cut, but, miraculously, the President that takes office in 2001 would be asked to cut the discretionary budget by 20 percent. If you want to talk about a shell game, we ought to talk about shell games. As a matter of fact, if you want to look at the defense portion of the President's budget, you would find that it is a very interesting defense budget. It goes through the year 2000--that is what stuck in my mind as I looked at that--it goes through the year 2000 with a declining amount for defense, and then, miraculously, in 2001-2, the defense budget goes up, so it looks like over that period of time there is a level spending for defense; but that money is there for defense only if that President who is in office in 2001-2 cuts discretionary budgets 20 percent. I have to tell my friend, the shell game here is that part of the President's budget that provides what he seeks to provide in this period of time if the asset sales that the Senator from Arkansas is talking about cutting out occurs. If the Bumpers amendment is agreed to, that President, after the year 2000, when he takes office in 2001, is going to have to present us with a budget that increases the cut in discretionary spending even more. Strangely enough, the problem about this is that we voted on this last year. I understand my friend from Arkansas's position, but from my point of view, you know, it is unfortunate that once again we have seen the Statue of Liberty and Mount Rushmore, and the indication is that, somehow or other if we approve this bill, it is possible to sell one of those national treasures. No one is suggesting that in connection with this bill. There is a suggestion in the other body about selling some of the park lands. And I find some difficulty in addressing the Senator from Arkansas' amendment because what we are talking about is a lot of assets that are out there that do have value now, and the question is not really whether we sell them but whether asset sales should be counted in the budget process. The President has submitted the request that the budget take into account the receipts from the sale or lease of assets that are owned by the Federal Government. That has not been the case in the past. If it is the case that we take into account the sale or leasing of Federal assets, then we do have an entirely new circumstance, those of us who come from public land States, because there has been a lack of understanding of the value of Federal land to this country. We have some developing attitudes concerning areas such as those controlled by the National Park Service. Mr. President, I served in the Eisenhower administration in the Department of the Interior and I remember well that President Eisenhower wanted to double the Park Service land areas and create new parks over a period of 10 years from 1956 to 1966. He did. The idea that somehow or another we would be against national parks, those of us who believe in asset sales, does not really ring a bell with me. I do not understand how those charts enter into this debate. I do understand there is a lot of land that is surplus to the Government's needs. There are many assets that could be used during this period of very tight budgets to raise a considerable amount of money. I remember when other Senators raised similar objections when I first suggested that, instead of having people apply and file a request to lease spectrum from the Federal Communications Commission, we have an auction of those licenses. Some people here laughed about that. It took two Congresses for us to get around to authorizing the FCC to auction spectrum. As a matter of fact, the first time the Congressional Budget Office looked at it, as I recall, they said the maximum that could be raised was somewhere around $250 million over a period of time if we auction FCC licenses. They did not understand what some of us understand--the developing technology of telecommunication. We have raised over $20 billion so far from the sale of spectrum licenses. Now, we believe there are substantial portions of public land in the West that are needed and can be used in the economies of those Western States that could, in fact, be leased or sold. One of the assets happens to be the area that was set aside by my good friend, Senator Scoop Jackson in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980--1.5 million acres on the arctic plain, specifically set aside for oil and gas exploration and development. The act provided for a special environmental impact statement to make sure the area would not be damaged by exploration. It is an area just east of Prudhoe Bay, the great development of Prudhoe Bay, which incidentally is on State land, Mr. President; it was not on Federal lands. The Federal lands adjacent to Prudhoe Bay are the 1.5 million acres Senator Jackson set aside. We have, since 1981, tried to obtain approval to proceed with the leasing of those lands for oil and gas exploration and development. The asset sale authorization in this budget resolution could lead to that if the Energy Committee reports a bill and the House approves that bill and the President approves it. Mr. President, President Reagan requested that every year. President Bush requested that every year. It was denied under the former leadership of the House and Senate. Now, with new management of the House and Senate, we approved last year two bills to authorize the Secretary of Interior to proceed with leasing of that area. The bills were vetoed. What we are really talking about in this amendment is whether we should use the assets that the people in the United States own now, particularly those in public land States, to derive income, or whether we should drive forward to the day we have to increase taxes. The net result of Senator Bumpers' position is, do not count asset sales as income for the purpose of trying to balance the budget, which automatically means you have to raise income from somewhere for the Federal Government. The only way to do that is taxes. There is another alternative. You could cut further either defense spending or discretionary spending. The issue of our arctic plain is just one portion of this debate with the Senator from Arkansas. What we are really talking about is whether the sale or lease of assets should lead to income which should score in the budget process. The budget process is hard for anyone to understand, but there is no question that I do not think there would be anyone outside of the Congress that would disagree with counting as income money actually put into the Treasury. We are talking about balancing the budget. That is really what the heart of the Bumpers amendment is. It gets rid of the scoring process for the sale or lease of assets that belong to the Federal Government, which process enables us to count that money and tell the American public that income will, in fact, be counted toward balancing the budget. The benefits to the taxpayers are exactly the same as from the revenues that came from the sale of the spectrum by the FCC. That is a sale of an asset that belongs to the public. We changed the method of leasing. Prior to my concept of auctioning spectrum, people filed no lease--really, a permit--to use spectrum. They just paid an annual fee. Now they pay substantial amounts of money for the privilege of obtaining that permit. That is what comes from a competitive lease of oil and gas potential on Federal lands. Exactly the same thing. Today the law does not count the money you get from the leasing of Federal lands for oil and gas but it does count the income you get from spectrum. I hope the Senator understands this. If money comes into the Treasury, it makes sense we record it as money received for the purpose of balancing the budget. The Senator from Arkansas fears once we discover the amount of money you can get from that, from development on Federal lands, we will go wild and we will start sending the message that we should sell the national parks. Nothing is further from the truth. What we should recognize, though, is that we should not keep putting our head in the sand and say there is no money coming into the Treasury, when, in fact, there is. The asset sales ought to be recorded as income that are to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office. There is no question we should do exactly what we did last year. That is, we should defeat this amendment to the budget resolution. It is the same thing offered by the Senator from Arkansas last year. Let me go back to my visit. I have just come back from home. I talked to a lot of people in Alaska. I talked to many of our labor leaders. We are a State where when we get together there are not very many of us. We have our labor leaders, people from the chamber of commerce, and heads of the various corporations--Native and non-native--in meetings together. One thing we lack right now is the ability to create new jobs. Our economy is flattening out. It is more and more related to tourism which is very seasonable, obviously, in Alaska. There are not many people getting off cruise ships when it is 60 below zero. We do have a lot of industry that is capable and does work through the wintertime. Strangely enough, that is the best time to work on Federal lands in our State, during the wintertime. What we want to do is to find a way to expand the availability of Federal lands in Alaska for oil and gas exploration. Mr. President, at the height of the transportation of oil by the great Alaska pipeline, the pipeline carried 2.1 million barrels of oil a day to Valdez for delivery to markets in the United States. Now it is down to 1.3. The reserves at Prudhoe Bay are playing out. They are not going to disappear overnight. They will just steadily decrease. Adjacent to Prudhoe Bay, as I said, on Federal lands--Prudhoe Bay being on State lands--is an area that we believe is the greatest reservoir for oil and gas in the North American continent. It has been explored, it has been analyzed. Everyone has accused us of all kinds of things, but I wish I could take the whole Senate up there, show them Prudhoe Bay, and show them the area we are talking about, the 1.5 million acres along the same arctic coast. There is no difference. One is not pristine, and the other, somehow a waste land. They are arctic tundra lands. They are not in the mountains. They do not have lakes and trees. I remember one day I came out on the floor and showed a brochure that had been prepared by the Wilderness Society showing lakes and trees and a Caterpillar coming over the hill, and moose standing down by this nice lake. It was a fabricated brochure. To their credit, they withdraw the brochure when I held it up in front of God and everybody. There are people who somehow think there is a difference between the lands we have developed at Prudhoe Bay and the lands that are available for exploration and development just east of Prudhoe Bay. That great reservoir, if it does produce oil and gas, is going to be a significant asset for the United States. Mr. President, it will bring in more money than the spectrum sales brought in. But you cannot count it until it comes. What you can predict--and we do--is there will be a substantial bonus for the lease, a bonus paid by people for the privilege of exploring. Those are the assets covered under the Bumpers amendment. The Bumpers amendment would deny us the right to count the money paid for the privilege of exploring. More generally, it would deny us the right to count any revenues from asset sales. I am not going to continue, except to say to my friend that I hope we all realize that when I stood on this floor and we finally got the privilege to develop the Alaska oil pipeline, the amendment passed by one vote. It was a tie vote, the only vote that Vice President ever cast. Every time we want to bring about some development in my State, we face horrendous odds. That was in the 1970's, and this feeling existed then. We were told we would destroy the caribou and it would be a terrible thing for the fish and wildlife. Mr. President, the caribou herd at Prudhoe Bay is six to seven times the size it was when the pipeline was authorized. The difference now is that, through new technology, we can tell the Senate that the amount of land that would be utilized in the development of the production facilities for oil and gas, if it is a good discovery on that million and a half acres, will be about one-twentieth the size of land used in the development of Prudhoe Bay. Also, we have made an absolute commitment that, once oil and gas production is over, the natural contour, natural vegetation would be totally restored. That is why I like to take people up to Alaska to show them the pipeline camps. I took one group over a pipeline camp and said, ``We are going to fly by helicopter up this road, and I want you to tell me where the pipeline camp is. We will be going to go over two camps.'' Not one saw the area where the camps were. It is totally restored to its natural condition. That same thing will happen when the day comes that Prudhoe Bay is over and production in the ANWR area, the million and a half acres I am talking about. It is an area that is within the wildlife refuge --it is not the wildlife refuge. It is a million and a half acres that Senator Jackson, in his great wisdom, decided should be set aside in the early 1980's for oil and gas exploration. So I believe Senator Bumpers presented, once more, an opportunity for us to talk about the differences between those who deny us the ability to use public lands to raise money to legitimately bring in income and to count it toward balancing the budget and those who want to drive on, not make the changes necessary in order to bring about a balanced budget and know that, ultimately, we have the power to tax. Ultimately, the final result of the Bumpers amendment is, someone following us will be standing here urging the American people to increase their contributions from their own personal income to support this Government. One thing I found out this last weekend at home, I will tell you, is ``that dog don't hunt in Alaska.'' No one up there wants any more taxes. As a matter of fact, they all urge us to find some way to reduce the cost of Government. They urge us to find a way to bring about a balanced budget. They want us to find some way to restrain the growth of the expenditures of the Federal Government. I think this budget resolution, to the great credit of the Senator from New Mexico and also the Senator from Nebraska, who also contributed to this process--even though he may disagree with us on some things, I know that he, too, seeks to balance the budget without raising income taxes. So, Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will defeat this amendment and that we can go on with the process of trying to use the Federal lands that are available for oil and gas exploration, mineral development, and basic utilization to develop the economies of the Western States. We can use those sensibly and count the income from the utilization of those lands towards balancing the budget. Mr. President, the one election I lost in my lifetime--well, I lost in another one, too--but one I lost even before I got in the Senate here was an election to be the president of the Alaska State Conservation Society. I believe that we do things in our State in a wise way in terms of protecting our environment. We go out of our way to do that. Unfortunately, we get tarred by a brush such as the one you have just seen. I see a new chart that my friend has, so I will yield the floor here in a minute. Clearly, there is no proposal before the Senate to do what Senator Bumpers says. This is not a national yard sale, if I can borrow from the chart. This is not a proposal to sell the national parks. It is a proposal to use the unreserved lands, the lands that have not been set aside for a specific conservation purpose for development in the Western States, and to produce income to help us balance the budget without raising taxes. I thank my friend from New Mexico and yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend for his forbearance. He is, as he says, a good friend from Arkansas. We have postponed this debate until this afternoon, and that enabled me to return to my home. May I have some of the Senator's time, by the way?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor in a state of shock. Adm. Mike Boorda, a personal friend, traveled with me to my home State this year. I have spent many times with him in my office and in his office. We will say a lot about him later, but Mike Boorda was the first Chief of Naval Operations to have been a walk-in enlistee. He was an enlisted man who worked his way through the Navy to the highest position in the Navy, as the CNO and Chief of Staff. I really say to the Senate that this is a great loss. He suffered the loss of his father this year, very dramatic for Mike Boorda. And we talked a lot about that. But I hope that this is something that we can find a way to deal with very quickly because he is going to be sorely missed in this mix of our national defenses. I think that from what I have heard, what the assistant majority leader just said, that we are in a different circumstance now. This is hard for us to take for certain what we have heard, which I hope is not true. It is a very difficult situation. Mike Boorda I think was one of the bright stars of our military system today as it stands and is responsible for a lot of the initiatives that would have brought the Navy back to its prominence of days gone by. So I am really sad to be here. I am pleased you have made the announcement, Senator Lott. But that it is a most disturbing development is all I can tell the Senate, very disturbing. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Mark Stasik and Daryl Miller, of Talkeetna, recently achieved a great distinction in our State of Alaska--they endured a 45 day, 350 mile circumnavigation of the Denali and Foraker massifs, in Winter, on foot. Along the way, the men crossed four remote mountain passes, traveled approximately 100 miles on 16 glaciers, 80 miles on rugged and diverse, high mountainous terrain, 115 miles on frozen rivers, creeks, and lakes, and 55 miles amidst dense boreal forest. There was an estimated elevation gain and loss of 60,000 feet, the equivalent of two Mt. Everests. The two men also encountered temperatures as low as 60 degrees below zero and winds up to 100 mph, while carrying 150 pounds of gear per person. This expedition not only shows the personal strength and perseverance of these Alaskans, but it also provided scientific and educational data for the Denali National Park. This was the first expedition of this kind. I am sure the family and friends of Mark and Daryl are very proud of their achievement. Mr. President, I ask that an article entitled ``Off The Couch'' from the Climbing Magazine be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From Climbing Magazine, June 15-Aug. 1, 1995] Off the Couch--Talkeetna Locals Complete Grand Circumnavigation Leaving from their couches in downtown Talkeetna, the Alaska Range veterans Mark Stasik and Daryl Miller endured a 45-day, 350 mile circumnavigation of the Denali and Foraker massifs--a first in winter. Calculating an elevation gain/ loss of 60,000 feet for the trip, Stasik and Miller experienced expectedly horrendous conditions, including 60- below temperatures and 100 mph winds. They also weathered a tent fire, a fall through river ice, the loss of their maps, and three days of travel without food or fuel. The routefinding involved crossing four remote mountain passes, 100 miles over 16 glaciers, 115 miles along (usually) frozen rivers, creeks, and lakes, 80 miles of rugged mountain terrain, and 55 miles of dense boreal forest undergrowth--all while toting sleds and packs weighing in at 150 pounds per person. The extremes of terrain and conditions savaged their equipment: Miller broke two ski bindings, and then his skis, then both of his snowshoes, before borrowing Stasik's backup pair. ``It was a product tester's wet dream,'' says Stasik. Stasik and Miller share a great deal of Alaskan experience, with 14 Denali expeditions between them, numerous other backcountry trips, and involvement in search-and-rescue operations. Having seen the yearly circus of climbers on Denali, many unprepared for and disrespectful of the dangers, Stasik and Miller hope to make a statement with their expedition. ``It was important for us to strip down to the rawest elements, to show how locals could do it, on foot, off the couch, and out the back door, to assimilate the experience into an everyday frame of reference, without it needing to become a Spandex production,'' says Stasik. ``All this hype and lionization of climbing has gotten to be a tad much.''

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this week is National Peace Officers' Week, and the 15th Annual Peace Officers' Memorial Service is occurring today on the West Front of the Capitol. We Americans go about our daily routines with the comfort that we can do so safety. We tend to forget that this comfort is the result of the efforts of thousands of dedicated peace officers around the country who are working to protect us from crime 24 hours a day. While we are resting comfortably at home in the twilight hours of early morning, many peace officers are protecting our neighborhoods, patrolling our streets, and often putting themselves in harm's way. Their efforts are not without sacrifices. Police work does not always lend itself to family schedules. There are times when the children's weekend soccer matches are missed, when dinner is enjoyed in a patrol car, and when officers do not have the opportunity to tuck their children into bed. And, there is always the lingering anxiety of the spouse, worrying if tragedy will strike. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of Senator Kempthorne's Senate Resolution 251, a resolution commemorating and acknowledging the dedication and sacrifices of the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as law enforcement officers. A preliminary report of the National Association of Police Chiefs noted that 145 law officers died in the line of duty in 1995, including 13 in the Oklahoma City bombing. While I am pleased to report that Alaska did not lose any peace officers in 1995, Alaska has lost 28 peace officers in the line of duty since statehood. Today, we honor the memory of all fallen peace officers, and grieve for their families. In particular, I honor the memory of the 28 Alaskans who paid the ultimate price. I will read the names of those 28 Alaskan peace officers and ask that their names be inserted in the Record of today's Senate proceedings. They are: Doris Wayne Barber, Earl Ray Hoggard, Dennis Finbar Cronin, Harry Edward Kier, Jimmy Earl Kennedy, Louie Gordon Mizelle, Ignatius John Charlie, Donald Thomas Dull, Karl William Reishus, Benjamin Franklin Strong, Thomas Charles Dillon, Johnathon Paul Flora, Richard James Adair, Troy Lynn Duncan, Roland Edgar Chevalier, Jr., David Cameron Harris, Anthony Crawford Jones, Kenneth Grant Nauska, Gary George Wohfiel, Frank Stuart Rodman, Larry Robert Carr, John David Stimson, Gordon Brewster Bartel, Harry Biddington Hanson, Jr., Ronald Eugene Zimin, Robert Lee Bittick, Leroy Garvin Bohuslov, and Claude Everett Swackhammer. Mr. President, in closing I bring to the attention of my colleagues the Blue Ribbon Campaign organized by Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc., also known as COPS. Blue ribbons are being flown this week from patrol antennas nationwide to ask communities to support law enforcement, and to remember those officers who have given their lives in the line of duty. You can see them flying proudly from our Capitol Hill Police patrol cars. In keeping with this sign of support and remembrance, I urge all Alaskans to fly blue ribbons from their car antennas this week.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, pursuant to section 3(b) of S. Res. 400, I ask that bill S. 1718, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, be referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs so that the committee can consider, among other things, provisions of the bill relating to the establishment of the Intelligence Community Senior Executive Service and the establishment of a Commission to Assess the Organization of the Federal Government to Combat the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. These specific provisions pertain to matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Governmental Affairs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed with this statement the text of a letter from both Mr. Glenn, the ranking member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, and myself advising the Select Committee on Intelligence of this action.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the proponents of this amendment. I spent this morning, as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, in a classified session, meeting with members of the Department of Defense, uniformed members, considering what we do about replacing our fighter force. The F-15 will be 30 years old in 2003, Mr. President. We have a situation where, after the turn of the century, the C-141's and the C-5's will be retired. They will be retired. They also will be about 30 years old, one of them 30-plus years old. We have to find a way to replace them, too. I find it interesting to listen to people who propose this amendment, because they are unwilling to take the step that would be necessary to accomplish what they want to do, and that is restore the draft. Over 60 percent of our money spent for defense, sometimes almost 70 percent, depending upon the year involved, goes to pay for the Volunteer Force, the best force in the world. It is the force of a superpower, but it is an expensive force. The remainder of the money goes for research and development, for acquisition of new systems. What this amendment will mean is the people that have come to our committee already and said they want add-ons for this budget, they want things changed in the President's budget, they will not only be denied, but a series of things that are in the budget have to be taken out because the President's budget is not an honest budget. It does not fund for contingencies, just as last year he did not fund for Bosnia at all. We have to find $5 to $6 to $7 billion every year to pay for things this President has ordered that he spends out of the money that we provide for defense under his power as Commander in Chief. But what we are doing right now is ignoring our duty as Members of Congress if we do not follow the Constitution, which says we must provide for the common defense. To provide for the common defense of this country requires that we make the investment now to be assured that in the next century we will be as successful as we were in the Persian Gulf war. That Persian Gulf war demonstrated, as was just said by the Senator from Arizona, the wisdom of the decisions that were made in the 1970's and in the 1980's to acquire the F-15, to finance the Tomahawk, to produce the Stealth 117. All of those were possible because of the discretionary spending that was available then. If the amendment of the Senator from Iowa is adopted, we lose our advantage, we lose our capability to invest in the future, to invest in the research and development that is necessary, or we have to go to a draft, we have to start drafting people. I joined Senator Goldwater in opposing the draft in peacetime. We brought about the end of the draft in peacetime. We do not believe in drafting our people in peacetime. I hope we will never be forced to do it. But we certainly will be forced to do it if we adopt this amendment, because the testimony I heard this morning, as I said, in a classified session, demonstrates that we must have the money to invest in the systems that are being researched now, some of them in a development stage, so that we can have the systems to keep our country in a position of being No. 1 in terms of capability out into the next century. Now, I do not know any way to do it if we constantly have erosion on this budget, as mentioned by the Senator from Arizona. There has been an erosion on the budget every year. When Jack Kennedy was President of the United States, 51 percent of the budget of the United States went to defense. It is nowhere near that because of the growth of entitlements, the growth in interest rates. We get a portion of the controllable expenses for defense. It is a sizable portion, but nowhere near what we need. In terms of need, if we really defined need and came in here and asked for the replacement of all the systems that are aging, this budget would be much higher. It cannot go down, as was projected by the President, and maintain the defense of this country into the next century. We are not talking now. People ask, who is the enemy now? The enemy will be met with the investments we made in the 1970's and 1980's. For the next century, it will be the investments of the balance of this decade. To cut the investments means we weaken the United States in its ability to make commitments around the world to protect our interests. I cannot get more worked up about anything than the continued demand that we try to defend this budget in terms of what is the threat now. Look at Iraq. We had sitting Members of the Senate visiting Saddam Hussein about 5 months before he moved into Kuwait. Would anyone have come to the floor and when asked to define the threat, come up with Iraq, as we debated the bill, the year before that trip? I cannot define who is going to be the next country that we have to call an enemy. I can say to the Senate that if this amendment is adopted--I can see the Senator from Massachusetts here--I can tell you the money will not be there for Patriot. It will not be there for Patriot, which is being upgraded to a new, better system than that which we had at the time of the Persian Gulf war. It will not be there for improving the Aegis system, which will provide area defense for our Navy. I went with the Senator from Hawaii during the last recess to Hawaii and looked at some of the systems that are being tested now. They are just being tested, Mr. President. They are not capable of going into production yet. We went to classified bases and saw some of the things they are doing. They are very good. We have to have those systems to combat what is out there now. Russia is selling arms to the world. So is France. Many of our people are selling arms out there. We talked about this problem that happened in the Persian Gulf war when we found systems our allies were using were in the hands of Iraq at the same time. We have to design and produce and deploy systems that are capable of meeting any challenge that you can conceive now, in the next century. The difficulty is, some of the challenges we face we might not be able to conceive. So we continue our research. We continue our basic research to develop new systems to defend this country's interests. I think if we do not have the money called for in this budget--and I congratulate the Senator from New Mexico for his wisdom in putting it out--we will face a series of reductions in our effort before the turn of the century. The Senator from Arkansas says, ``Look at the budget. The President's budget is just $11 billion different from the budget that the Senator from New Mexico has presented over the 6-year period.'' That is true. That is true. But if you want to look at it in terms of defense, it declines continually until the year 2000. What is the year 2000? The end of the next Presidential term. What happens in 2001 and 2002? Mysteriously, substantial funds are ready for defense; more money than cut in the last 5 years is ready for the Presidency, starting in 2001. Is that not a miracle? A real miracle. Whoever is President in 2001 will have to have a new monetary system to finance what is proposed in the President's budget for defense. It is a false, phony budget. We need to correct that now. We cannot have a decline in defense over a period of 4 more years and expect in 2 years, magically, after the turn of the century, we will have an enormous increase in spending. That is false. It is fake. You cannot rely on it. You cannot rely on it in terms of the defense of this country and our interests well into the next century. I will say in terms of the comments made by the Senator from Arkansas, we have some very basic differences even when we look out into the future, because I want systems that will be capable of meeting those threats that we can project now through analyzing what we know other countries are doing. My area of Alaska is adjacent to the north Pacific. Six of the seven largest armies of the world are active in the Pacific region today, Mr. President. If you look at the national intelligence estimate, it says the continental United States does not have any threat for missiles for 15 years. Senator Inouye and I say: What about Alaska and Hawaii? Well, that is another thing. North Korea and Iran have missiles that can reach our States now, and the President wants to ignore the missile defense systems of this country. I say defeat this amendment and get back to the business of restoring the capability of our military well into the next century. That is what this amendment is all about.

Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to defer to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, if he wishes.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield on my time?