Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the chairman yield me 10 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent that, consistent with the law and the rules of the Senate Rules Committee, the maximum amount of copies of the Senate version of this conference report be printed and, if possible, that 50 copies be delivered to each Senator's office.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to lend my voice to those of my colleagues supporting the passage of the treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on further reductions and limitations of strategic offensive arms, known more commonly as START II. The original START Treaty mandated United States and former Soviet Union reductions to 6,000 strategic offensive nuclear weapons incorporated in intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers. START II goes further by limiting each country to 3,500 accountable warheads on strategic offensive nuclear weapons on ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons on bombers in each country. This is a reduction of one-third of the number of deployed nuclear weapons each country managed in 1990. START II significantly reduces the United States and Russian nuclear arsenal. I am satisfied that the treaty provides an inspection regime that will verify compliance with the treaty, and that the United States will continue to have a nuclear response capability appropriate for any possible future threat. I recommend the Senators on the Arms Control Observer Group for their bipartisan investment in dialogue and compromise that has brought us to this moment. I also recognize the tireless efforts of the Arms Control Observer Group staff, and the members and staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in making START II a reality. And I would be remise if I did not recognize President Bush for his foresight in negotiating this Treaty and signing it in January 1993. With the world awash in turmoil, Mr. President, we should all be very encouraged by the action of the Senate today in moving this treaty. The United States is the world's only superpower. And it is appropriate for the rest of us to bring leadership to the rest of the world, particularly with regards to the issue of weapons of mass destruction. I encourage the Senate to move the START II Treaty today with the knowledge that the future of mankind is more secure because of it. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Subcommittee on Post Office and Civil Service, of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the House Subcommittee on Postal Service, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, will hold a hearing on January 25, 1996, on USPS Reform--The International Experience. The hearing is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Pat Raymond, Senate Staff Director, at 224-2254, or Dan Blair, House Staff Director, at 225-3741. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. It is my understanding that this bill is now for the full year for all of the subjects mentioned.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, just one comment further. It is my understanding that the figure is the House figure on those disputed items which are in conference with the Senate. That is the Senator from Oregon's real objection to this procedure.

Mr. STEVENS. Right.

Mr. STEVENS. The difficulty is--I have not spoken directly with the Senator from Oregon, but he has sent to me his concerns as chairman of the Appropriations Committee that what this does is it pulls out of some bills, as the leader said, provisions that may disturb really the synergy of the whole bills when we come back and try to get them finally adopted and sent to the President. So he does really express great reservation to the procedure that is being used. So he wants me to indicate that the Appropriations Committee on this side will not pursue this procedure again.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. In fiscal year 1978, which was really the calendar year 1977, Congress had a lapse from the 30th of September until the 13th of October, the next lapse was from the 31st of October until the 9th of November, and the next one from the 30th of November through the 9th of December. In other words, Mr. President, in 1977, during the term of President Carter, there were three lapses, substantial lapses. In 1978, for fiscal year 1979, again there was a substantial lapse, from September 30 until October 18. As a matter of fact, lapses as we have indicated have been the rule rather than the exception. The difference is this year we have the great problem of the fact that the President has vetoed five bills, five appropriations bills, a continuing resolution, and the debt ceiling and has decided to put pressure on the Congress by sending people home. I find that very unfortunate, and I think it is harming a lot of people, people who do live from paycheck to paycheck, as Senator Dole has said, people who really need their income. They are people who work on an annual salary basis, Mr. President. They are people who are going to get paid anyway. They have been paid-- no Congress has ever failed to pay an employee who is subject to a lapse in appropriations, and both leaders have said this is not going to happen this time. Why in the world should we send them home? Why does the President send them home? I take the position that there is no nonessential Federal employee. If they are not essential, they should not be on the payroll to start with. And we are looking at the opinion of an Attorney General in interpreting the problem of the Antideficiency Act, and that is why we are all in this situation. I believe that we should all, the President and the Congress, get together and agree that what Congress did before the Civiletti opinion was right. Congress presumed, the managers presumed that Government would go on, that employees would be paid, and in fact they were paid. This President has taken the unprecedented action of borrowing from the trust funds of the Federal retirement plans. As chairman of that committee, I am going to make a report one of these days as to what actually happened in terms of that. But we have not reached the point where we have a crisis in Government due to the failure to have funds to operate. Everybody knows that. We have not reached the point where the debt ceiling act is really putting the pressure on the President to do what he has done. As a matter of fact, in my judgment, it is not something the President alone should bear. The Congress bears some of the responsibility here, too. And we have to find a way to put these people back to work. They are people who live as I used to live when I worked in the Department of Interior years ago with a family of five small children. We could not have gone from one paycheck period to another paycheck period without having some help. This is a most unfortunate situation for Government employees. I have been chairman of the subcommittee on Government employees in Federal service this year, and I was before for 7 years. I have served on it now for a very long time in the Senate. But I say to the Senate and to the Congress and to the President, these people are public servants. They have been employed to work for the Government. They have not done anything wrong. They are going to be paid when this is all over. There is no reason for them not to be called back to work. I say that as strongly as I can. There is no reason for these people not to be called back to work. It is absolutely essential that we end this situation where the only pressure between the Congress and the President is being felt down at the level of the employee who cannot work or cannot exist without his or her paycheck every pay period. That is something we must face up to. It is, in my judgment, a sad, sad follow-on to the opinion of the Attorney General that I mentioned that was issued in 1980. There has been one other thing brought to my attention this morning, Mr. President, and I thank Liz Connell of my office for bringing this to my attention, and Phil Baker-Shenk of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. The two of them this morning have mentioned that the lack of the continuing resolution means the Interior appropriations bill has not been passed. By the way, we hope that bill will be sent back to the President again. It is one of the ones he vetoed. But the lack of funding for the Interior Department is now going to have a substantial impact on American Indians and Alaska Natives. Native American self- determination contracts and self-governance compacts operate, Mr. President, on a calendar-year basis. That is the reason that until now it has not been a matter of great concern. Until December 31, the funds on which the tribal organizations operated these programs were there. Beginning today, however, these organizations have no money to operate or to pay employees. This is the situation where Congress, under what is known as Public Law 93-638, authorized the BIA and the IHS to contract with Indian and Native organizations to run the entities that assist our aboriginal people in this country. The organizations receive funds under contracts or compacts with the BIA and the IHS. As of December 31, those funds expired. The great problem now is--and we need to get rulings from the BIA and the IHS on this, I believe--we do not believe they are Government contractors in the usual sense. As far as I am aware, no backpay promise has been extended to Federal contractors like building security guards or truck drivers. But tribal contracts and compacts have been understood by law to be different from Federal procurement contracts, because tribes stand in the shoes of the Federal agency, assuming responsibilities for activities and programs formerly carried out by the Federal Government for the tribes. Tribal contracts and compacts have also been considered to be different from Federal privatizing contracts because the tribal contracts and compacts maintain and enhance the ongoing government-to-government relationship between tribes and the United States. These people are people who are carrying out the work of Government in connection with the organizations that assist American Indians and Natives. For instance, child care, job training, and provision of health care services--programs that do not flow through the normal process of the Health and Human Services appropriations--come through the Interior appropriations bills to the BIA and IHS, and then go out to these agencies that conduct programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives. The BIA and the IHS apparently have no solution to how we are going to get money to these contract entities that actually hire the people who are doing this work, which is essential. If these people were still on the Federal payroll, they would have been deemed essential by the bills we passed before the end of the year. Now, I do want everyone to be aware of the fact that their phones are going to ring off the hook if they live in areas that have American Indians or Native populations, because they are going to wake up to the fact today that the moneys to run their contract entities and their contracting operations expired on December 31, 1995. To make matters worse, there is currently no provision for employee back pay or operating expenses for these 638 contractors. That is another reason I am on the floor. It is another reason I have come back from Alaska, to try to find a solution. Many, many Alaska Natives are employed by or receive funds that they are entitled to through the 638 contractors who are in fact Alaska Native organizations. Mr. President, I am quite hopeful that we can find a way to deal with this. I wish to assure my friends from Virginia, I heard what they said. I hope that we would work together in good faith to find some way around this. But it is not a one-sided thing to me. I would say to the Senator from Virginia that when I was home I talked to many, many people who are being affected by this inaction of Congress. Not one of them asked me to come back here and try to change the course that we are on. They asked me to come back here and find out why Congress and the administration--together--have allowed this hiatus to develop as far as Federal employees being on the job. They are going to be paid anyway. I am sure the Senator from Virginia has heard the same concerns from his constituents that I have heard from mine. Not one of them has failed to ask me, ``Why aren't you letting those people work if you are going to pay them?'' I believe this problem has come about because of our failure to recognize that Civiletti's opinion was wrong. The President and the Congress, prior to Civiletti's opinion, assumed that we did not intend this stupid result and, therefore, it did not take place. We have to find some way to reverse the Civiletti opinion, and that is what the bill that the distinguished Senator from Virginia and I cosponsored and was offered by Senator Dole does. I am hopeful the House will pass that bill. At least it will take care of a portion of the problem we face and certainly is something that must be done very soon. It will not, unfortunately, take care of the problem I mentioned about Indians and Alaska Natives. That is something that comes because of a failure to have a continuing resolution for the Interior appropriations bill and is something that must be addressed rather quickly, because, there again, some of the most indigent people in this country are American Indians and Alaska Natives. They should not be hung out to dry because of this battle between the executive branch and the Congress, in which I support the congressional position, as I am sure the Senator from Virginia does, but it is our job to find a solution to eliminate this hiatus. Exhibit 1

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I had hoped to stay in Alaska. I have been in Alaska and had a very interesting visit. I intended to spend the rest of the week, but due to a call I received from my good friend from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, I have returned so I can confer with him about matters on the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. I have come to the floor today to talk a little bit about this shutdown. I think there have been some statements in the press, unfortunately, made without knowledge of the past history of these lapses in appropriations. For those Members who are interested, I have spoken on the floor before about the work of James P. McGrath, who is the analyst in American national government, in the Government division of the Congressional Research Service. He has issued a series of bulletins on this whole subject of lapses in appropriations and the shutdown of the Federal Government and the effects on the Federal work force. I find it very interesting. It has been pointed out in his report that from fiscal year 1962 to fiscal year 1981, in the 2 decades preceding the opinion of Attorney General Civiletti, who was President Carter's Attorney General, that the General Accounting Office found interruptions in agency fundings took place 32 times. Mr. McGrath reports that, Such lapses appear to be the rule, rather than the exception, according to GAO, which noted that from 1961 to 1980, ``85 percent of appropriations bills for Federal agencies have passed after the start of the fiscal year.'' The reason we now have a different circumstance is that in a landmark opinion in 1980, just prior to leaving office, Attorney General Civiletti issued an opinion concerning the Anti-deficiency Act, and Mr. McGrath's report states that ``Prior to that landmark 1980 decision, Federal agency managers, while cognizant of the anomaly of continuing to operate during a lapse of appropriations, and while concerned about the legal implications thereof, did precisely that.'' I am still quoting from this report: They did so under the belief that ``Congress does not actually intend that the Federal Government shut down while the agencies wait for enactment of appropriations or the passage of a continuing resolution.'' Now, what has changed? In 1981, as I said, the Attorney General issued this opinion. The problem that we have now is that notwithstanding the substantial interruptions of the past--and, Mr. President, let me clear that up, too, while I am at it, because we have a very good chart that has been made by the CRS, and I ask unanimous consent that it appear in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator did not intend to end my comments, did he?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I intended to close following the statement of my good friend from Virginia. I want the Record to show the District of Columbia is not the only place that relies substantially upon the income of Federal employees or the activities of the Federal Government. There is substantial impact throughout the country. Even my own city of Anchorage had an impact because of the shutdown. The difficulty I have with coming here today is that I do not think most Members nor the executive branch have thought over the consequences of Attorney General Civiletti's opinion. It is my judgment, and I say this advisedly as the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee now, that we should join together and find a way to legislate permanently so that this kind of a situation does not continue to occur. I think the taxpayers have every right to be very, very irate over the fact that we will pay a substantial number of people for not working, and those people who have been sent home as being nonessential Federal employees are chagrined over that decision of their superiors. They, too, take the position that their job is essential and that they should be paid. I believe it is absolutely essential that we not send Federal employees home in the belief that somehow or another pressure will be created on one branch of government or the other as a result of these people not being allowed to do their work. The real pressure ultimately comes on the taxpayer who is paying for work that is not done, and I think it is our job to change that. I hope the Congress will do something this week about it.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the bill I have proposed will provide the increases adopted by Congress for military pay and allowances. This action is necessary today for one reason--the President vetoed the Defense authorization bill. H.R. 1530, the fiscal year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act, passed both Houses of Congress with bipartisan support. I regret the President chose to veto this legislation. Beyond addressing these vital requirements to support the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces, and their families, this bill authorized important initiatives to accelerate modernization of the Armed Forces, and enhance our defenses against theater and intercontental ballistic missiles. These priorities are fully funded in the 1996 Defense Appropriations Act, which became law on December 1. Mr. President, with 20,000 Americans on their way to Bosnia, and 15,000 more deploying in support of the 1st Armored Division, this is not the time for the President to play politics with the pay and economic well-being of military families. With thousands more Americans deployed to the Persian Gulf, standing watch in Korea, and keeping the peace in Haiti, they should not have to worry about whether we will do our part to make sure they receive the pay and benefits they have earned through their service. Mr. President, this bill should not be controversial. The House and Senate each passed these pay and allowance increases in legislation earlier this year, and endorsed these funding levels in the appropriations bill. The pay raise for civilian Federal workers will take effect on January 1--that does not require further legislation. There is no rationale to deny this modest increase for the men and women of the Armed Forces, and I hope the Senate will pass this bill without objection. It had been my intention to offer an amendment today which would have authorized for all of 1996 the full military pay and allowance increase. At this time it is not possible to get unanimous agreement for this approach, therefore I reluctantly accept a time limitation as the way to ensure that the men and women of our Armed Forces will receive their pay and allowance increases in a timely manner. Just 2 weeks ago, the Senate voted with a large bipartisan majority to express its support for the military personnel ordered to Bosnia. Many of us disagree with the process that sent them there, but I believe all Members of the Senate strongly support those soldiers, sailors, marines, and Air Force personnel who are doing their duty. Even more than our expression of support for their mission, this bill gives us a chance today to take action, to enhance their economic well- being and the welfare of their families. We must act on their legislation today, to ensure that they will receive the full increase in pay and allowances for the month of January. I appreciate the efforts of the majority leader, Senator Dole, to move this legislation and protect the pay and benefits of all military personnel. I hope that the President will join with the Congress and sign this bill, and permit the pay and benefits increase already approved by Congress to become law.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that we be permitted to insert in the Record an explanation of each of the provisions within that amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. No.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Was there a summary of those amendments and a explanation along with the Senator's submission?

Mr. STEVENS. Let me ask the Chair, is it proper now to make statements on another matter?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. I think we should show that Mira Baratta, working with Senator Dole, has been very helpful in working with this group.

Mr. STEVENS. No, Mr. President. I do not have. I am grateful for the comments of my two friends. I do have another statement if we are finished with this matter, though.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think we have come to a very auspicious time in our United States history, the history of the Russian Federation, and probably the history of the world because we have the opportunity now to move forward and ratify START II and hopefully implement it. As the Senate knows, this is the second such treaty, following on the precedent set by the first START Treaty. We are doing our best to further reduce the United States and Russian strategic offensive nuclear weapons. I believe it is the result of President Reagan's vision. He certainly led the United States and the former Soviet Union to begin negotiations on the first START Treaty back in 1982. President Reagan's initiatives were carried on by President Bush, who, through his leadership concluded this effort that resulted in the signing of the first START Treaty on July 31, 1991. START mandates reductions in strategic offensive nuclear weapons, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBM's, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, or SLBM's, and heavy bombers. START also limits each country to 6,000 accountable warheads on 1,600 strategic offensive nuclear weapons. These limits reduce the number of warheads carried on ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons carried on heavy bombers by about 30 percent from the 1990 levels. Just before the end of President Bush's term in office on January 3, 1993, the United States and Russia signed the second effort to further reduce these nuclear weapons, and this is treaty before us now--START II. For the record the START II Treaty is formally titled ``The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Further Reductions and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms.'' This second treaty limits each country to 3,500 accountable warheads on strategic offensive nuclear weapons and reduces the number of warheads on ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons on bombers in each country to about one-third of the 1990 levels. I think that we have to really consider seriously where we are going with START II. It is I think the right direction for this country. It has come about not only because of the administration's commitment--both the prior administrations and this administration--to the reduction of these systems. But, also, I think because of the members of the committees on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate and the staffs of those committees involved, the Senate Committees on Foreign Relations, Armed Services, Intelligence, and Appropriations, as well as the staff of the Senate Arms Control Observer Group. I want to have the Record show my deep appreciation for those who have been so much involved in this process. On this side of the aisle, certainly the floor manager of this bill, Senator Richard Lugar, deserves a great deal of credit; our distinguished President pro tempore, Senator Thurmond; and I want to note that Senator Cochran and our relatively new Senator, Senator Kyl, brought a great deal of leadership and direction into this world- shaping issue. And I commend the counsel that has been given to us from the other side of the aisle, particularly from my good friend, whom I see returning to his seat right now, former chairman and now distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Pell. Senator Nunn, and Senator Levin have also been very much involved, and their counsel is likewise appreciated. Let me also mention, Mr. President, the support and thoughtful insights provided by the administration's representative in these negotiations--he is well known to us--he served on the Senate committee and is now the Special Assistant to the President, Bob Bell. One particular reason for my statement now is to make a record of what has happened with regard to the Arms Control Observer Group participation in these efforts. In 1985, this group was created by our leader, Senator Dole, in an effort to have greater Senate participation in the negotiations and the processes that would lead to arms control agreements. Along with other Arms Control Observer Group Senators, I made trips in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989, and on through the 1990's to Geneva, to Vienna, to Brussels, to the former Soviet Union, then to Russia, and to many of the countries of the former Soviet Union. We did so in order to see to it that the Senate was involved in the discussions and the negotiations so that there would be no surprises in the START process. We are now seeing the fruits of the Senate's wisdom in creating the Arms Control Observer Group, and I congratulate my good friend, Senator Dole. He did this in 1985 in his first year as being the Senate leader. It has given the Senate the ability to move through a very deliberative process, and it does so through this group of Arms Control Observer Group Senators who come from the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Intelligence Committee, as well as the Appropriations Committee. We have had a very dedicated staff who have assisted us. And it is through staff behind the scenes efforts as well as the members consensus, which is the result of the continued participation of the members of this group, which I think brings us to START II today. It is a relatively noncontroversial subject, Mr. President, because we have been able to give the Senate knowledge of what is going on. We have been able to hold hearings and deliberate on various issues. We have had a series of hearings where representatives of the administration and the military and the intelligence community have come and answered our questions. Only recently now we have come through an additional new process, and that is the process of working up a series of amendments which will soon be presented here as part of the managers' package. I congratulate all concerned in regard to this. Many of those initiatives came from the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl]. Others have added to them. And we now have a package which I think represents the viewpoints of all who have participated in the ongoing efforts of the Arms Control Observer Group. I can think of no finer gift to give the American people or the people of the Russian Federation and literally all mankind this holiday season than to deliver them a package which says that the Senate is prepared to take a major step for the world's really great major nuclear power. We will make the historic move that I think could significantly reduce the threat of nuclear conflagration, and that is the step to ratify this START II treaty. I wish to congratulate again the two managers of the bill. I think through their wisdom and knowledge and experience in handling this subject, that it is a subject which any Member of the Senate should be proud to participate in the deliberation of and hopefully the vote for the ratification of the START II Treaty. I hope that it will take place before end of the year, Mr. President. I look forward to the discussion with my friend from Arizona on some of the points that we have intensely reviewed now for the past week or so, and I wish to congratulate him and his staff for working with me and particularly John Roots who is on my staff now working on this matter. I am grateful to them for their assistance. I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the Senate return to legislative session.