[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 117 (Thursday, August 18, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: August 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM ALASKA, TED STEVENS
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Anchorage Daily News has published a
series of articles on our good friend from Alaska, the senior Senator.
The first article was entitled ``Senior Senator, Big Voice for
Alaska.'' It has a fine, flattering photograph of Ted Stevens on the
front page.
I hope that Senators will have an opportunity to read the entire
series. The articles talk about the life and career of our good friend,
the senior Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens. There are seven in all,
beginning on Sunday, August 7, and continuing through August 13.
They confirm for all of us what we all have known, and that is that
Ted Stevens is a very effective, influential Member of the U.S. Senate
and makes sure that the interests of Alaska are always taken into
account whenever legislation is pending here.
All of us who know Ted Stevens respect him. Most of us who know him,
including this Senator, have a great feeling of affection for him and
consider him a valuable friend.
I personally congratulate him on the flattering content of these
articles and invite the attention of all Senators to the series.
These articles add to our knowledge of his early years and confirm
that our respect and affection for him are well placed.
Senator Stevens is one of the most influential Members of this body,
and he has been for many years. His tireless and effective efforts to
insure that the interest of Alaska are taken into account by the
Congress are well known by all of us in the Senate, and these articles
remind us of some of the most important legislative battles he has won
for his State over the years.
I urge all Senators to read this series on our good friend and
colleagues, knowing that when you do you will understand more fully why
he is so deeply appreciated by the citizens of his State.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all of the articles in
the series entitled ``Senior Senator'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Anchorage Daily News, Aug. 7, 1994]
Big Voice for Alaska
(By David Whitney)
(The milestone in Sen. Ted Stevens' career this season is
his 25th year in the U.S. Senate, but his impact on Alaska
extends much further. From his earliest days of public
service, he's demonstrated a remarkably single-minded vision:
Get more for Alaska. Though sometimes criticized for pork
barrel politics, for a famous temper and for his atypical
stands on traditional party issues, he has more often been
celebrated as an effective champion for his vision of the
state. Repeatedly, he emerges an overwhelming victor at
election time. By nearly any yardstick, Ted Stevens belongs
in the front rank of Alaska statesmen. From his little-known
private history through his role shaping state history, this
is the story of Alaska's senior senator.)
Washington.--When Ted Stevens rose earlier this year to
oppose a balanced-budget amendment on the floor of the U.S.
Senate, he was also standing against the main political
currents of his party and his state.
The Alaska Legislature has supported such an amendment. So
have Rep. Don Young and Sen. Frank Murkowski, Stevens'
partners in the state's all-Republican congressional
delegation. So did virtually all other Republicans in
Washington.
But not Stevens. Stevens was doing the same thing he has
done for more than two decades in Washington: ignoring party
pressure and political currents to fight anything that might
threaten the flow of federal dollars to Alaska.
It's a drive that dates back to the 1950's, when the battle
for Alaska statehood was being fought and Stevens was a
junior bureaucrat in the U.S. Interior Department. There, he
helped write the federal law that let Alaska become a state,
and he helped overcome President Dwight D. Eisenhower's fears
that Alaska was too large in size and too small in population
to sustain itself as a state.
Nearly 40 years later, Stevens' 70th birthday is behind him
and his body is aging, but the fight hasn't left him.
``We have worked and worked and worked to get out from
under the yoke of Uncle Sam and we cannot do it,'' Stevens
said during the debate on the balanced-budget amendment. ``We
are economically dependent on the federal government.''
Only three other Republicans joined Democrats in Congress
to kill the amendment.
``How will I ever get a waiver of the balanced budget
amendment to try and get special money to meet special
problems in Alaska?'' Stevens asked plaintively.
In the Senate, seniority is power and only seven senators
have served longer than Stevens. During 25 years in
Washington, his clout has shaped legislation on a series of
defining Alaska issues, from North Slope oil to Native land
claims to preservation-vs.-development battles.
That clout has also brought home everything from defense
installations and logging subsidies to tax favors for Native
corporations--billions of dollars in federal largesse.
This has made him a favorite target of congressional
watchdogs, such as Citizens Against Government Waste. The
group regularly criticizes him in its annual ``pig book'' for
slipping Alaska projects into the federal budget.
``He certainly stands high in the pantheon of pork,'' said
the group's spokesman, Sean Paige.
Stevens bristles at these criticisms.
``If I leave in what the president has requested, it's not
controversial,'' Stevens said. ``But if I take that money out
and put another item, of higher priority for Alaskans, in,
then it's very controversial. Everyone says Stevens is
increasing the deficit. It's not true.''
the state builder
When Stevens joined the Senate in 1968, the State of Alaska
was only a decade old. Over the next few years, his hand was
in a stack of major bills that determined the final shape of
the 49th member of the union:
The 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which created
profit-making Native corporations and seeded them with 44
million acres and nearly $1 billion in cash. Stevens fought
for a provision requiring about half the money to come from
state funds.
The 1973 Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, which
permitted the development of Prudhoe Bay, the state's cash
cow for nearly two decades. Stevens worked on a key amendment
to bar court review of environmental questions about the
project, but it took the tie-breaking vote of Vice President
Spiro Agnew to get the measure out of the Senate. Stevens
also voted for an amendment restricting oil exports. The
amendment was considered crucial to win passage of the act,
but it since has come to be viewed in Alaska as an unfair
abridgement of the state's rights.
The 1976 Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
which gave the state a majority voice in managing the $1
billion annual fishery in federal waters off the Alaska
coast. Stevens was a leading architect of the bill and
lobbied a reluctant President Ford to sign it.
The 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act,
which set aside more than 104 million acres of federal lands
as national parks and refuges. Though Stevens voted against
the final measure, he tried to negotiate the smallest
possible set-aside and he obtained an annual $40 million
federal subsidy for logging in the Tongass National Forest.
``Ted Stevens has been instrumental in shaping the state
with his seat in the Senate,'' said Claus-M. Naske, a history
professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and author of
several books on Alaska.
In many of the battles to pass major acts affecting Alaska,
Stevens had to fight the state's business establishment,
ordinarily a Republican lawmaker's best friend.
When he helped work out a compromise on the Native claims
bill with Sen. Mike Gravel--it was one of the few times they
worked together--the Alaska business community screamed.
Many business leaders didn't think Natives should get any
land or property. Stevens argued that any legislation that
would take lands away from the federal government and give
them to Alaskans was good for the state.
But what was most galling back home was that Stevens
endorsed a compromise giving Native corporations nearly $1
billion, half of which was to come out of state royalties
from Prudhoe Bay.
The Anchorage Times, then the state's leading newspaper,
said Alaskans should not have to pay a dime for the
settlement and that any money for Natives should come out of
federal coffers.
Stevens didn't blink.
He believed the cash settlement was vital if the Native
corporations were to succeed. Besides, he said, the money
would stimulate the state's economy.
``Given the circumstances at the time, Stevens behaved
admirably and maybe even heroically,'' said Don Mitchell, an
Anchorage lawyer who has represented the Alaska Federation of
Natives.
Later, as construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline geared
up in the early 1970s, Stevens was hung in effigy in downtown
Fairbanks for suggesting that pipeline contractors refurbish
Army property at Fort Wainwright to house their offices and
equipment rather than build new facilities in town.
But Stevens prevailed. And, when the pipeline construction
crews left, the Army took over the modernized facilities and
they became a major draw for the 6th Infantry Division
(Light), which Stevens had helped steer to the state.
a legislative tactician
Stevens' long tenure in the Senate has earned him
considerable clout.
He is the leading Republican on defense spending and, when
Republicans were in charge of the Senate from 1980 to 1986,
Stevens helped engineer President Reagan's huge military
buildup, which added billions of dollars to the national
debt.
``I've certainly always thought of Stevens as quite strong
and solid on defense matters,'' said Baker Spring, senior
defense analyst for the conservative Heritage Foundation.
But Stevens also has been a potent force on other national
issues, some of which put him at odds with more conservative
members of his party.
He is a strong supporter of federal funding for the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, despite Republican
complaints that its news programming has a liberal slant.
Stevens is a leading advocate of women's rights, including
the right to abortion. He also was an early supporter of
increased federal research into the AIDS virus.
Stevens' position on these issues has contributed to an
impression that he is a social liberal. But, overall, his
record is that of a Republican moderate.
For example, he voted against a bill to let teen-agers get
abortions without notifying their parents. And last year
Stevens voted against allowing people with the AIDS virus to
immigrate to the United States.
On foreign policy, his views are in line with those of
Texas Republican Phil Gramm, one of the Senate's most
conservative members.
In action on the Senate floor, Stevens uses parliamentary
procedures and rules to his advantage. He is not the Senate's
most gifted orator, but he is an effective advocate because
few have his institutional memory or detailed grasp of the
issues.
Stevens works his way most effectively by tagging add-ons
to major bills. The bills are usually so long and complex
that Stevens' special Alaska provisions are difficult to spot
and harder still to decipher.
One example is a huge financial break he arranged for
Alaska Native corporations in the mid-1980s. Despite the vast
sums of money conferred by the 1971 Native Claims Settlement
Act, some of the corporations were on the brink of bankruptcy
15 years later. In 1986, when Congress was working on a
sweeping tax-reform bill, Stevens came to their aid again.
Since 1984, federal tax law had allowed unprofitable
corporations to ``sell'' their net operating losses (or NOLs)
to corporations that were making money. The money-losing
corporation would get a cash infusion to erase some of its
red ink, while the profitable corporation would get a
reduction in its tax bill. But now Congress was about to end
the transactions.
When Stevens learned that the depressed steel industry was
trying to get an exemption from the cut-off, he quietly
attached a provision to the tax-reform bill giving the same
break to Alaska Native corporations. He argued that the
Natives had suffered huge losses because congressional
actions had delayed the conveyance of all 44 million acres
promised by the 1971 settlement act.
The steel industry didn't get its exemption, but the
Natives did.
Stevens estimated at the time that the Native exemption
would cost federal taxpayers maybe $50 million. But the
volume of transactions quickly swamped all projections, and
Congress shut down the exemption two years later.
Then-House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan
Rostenkowski, D-Ill., said in April 1988 that the huge volume
of transactions was fueled by profitable corporations
approaching Natives with ``schemes'' to create paper losses
that the money-making firms could then buy.
``If Congress does not move to restrict this unintended tax
avoidance, it may cost $200 million or more in additional
lost revenue that very profitable companies would otherwise
pay in federal taxes,'' Rostenkowski said.
Even Rostenkowski apparently underestimated the money at
stake.
Steve Colt, an economist at the Institute of Social and
Economic Research at the University of Alaska in Anchorage,
said the Natives had sold more than $3 billion in operating
losses by the time the exemption was terminated in 1988. He
estimated the tax loss to the federal government exceeded $1
billion.
The final cost could turn out to be lower because the
Internal Revenue Service is intensely auditing the sales.
Stevens has met with Treasury Department officials to promote
the best resolutions he can for the Natives.
Stevens said he considered the provision social legislation
that helped restore the economic vitality of several Native
corporations while pumping hundreds of millions of federal
dollars into the state.
``It deserved to be in Alaska,'' he said.
According to Wally Powers, vice president of finance for
Nome-based Bering Strait Native Corp., which sold $35 million
of its losses still under IRS audit, the transactions could
be a lifesaver.
``We were officially in bankruptcy when the NOLs went
through,'' Powers said. ``They give us a second chance to
achieve the promise of the Native Claims Settlement Act.''
A FIERY TEMPER
Stevens has a reputation as one of the Senate's most
incendiary members, and he's proud of it.
He believes his angry outbursts are one of his most
effective tools.
``I don't lose my temper,'' he quips. ``I always know where
it is.''
Shortly after Stevens was appointed to the Senate in 1966,
the Nixon White House got a taste of that temper.
The Labor Department wanted to fill a position in Alaska
with a Californian. Stevens thought an Alaskan should get the
job, but had recently refused to support the White House on
one of its issues--he doesn't remember just which one.
A Nixon bureaucrat named Fred Webber called Stevens' office
and asked why the administration should bend over backward
for Stevens if he wouldn't help the president.
Stevens still remembers the showdown with Webber. So does
Ron Birch, who was Stevens' top aide at the time and
witnessed the blowup.
Stevens summoned Webber to his office and politely inquired
about pending legislation important to the Labor Department.
Webber courteously ticked off a list of bills.
``You go back and tell your boss that I am putting a hold
on every one of those bills,'' Birch recalls Stevens telling
Webber. Because much of the Senate's routine business depends
on unanimous consent, even a rookie like Stevens then was,
can keep legislation off the floor. It is an especially
potent tool toward the end of a congressional session when a
last-minute ``hold'' can effectively spike a bill.
``Yeah, I got a little exercised,'' Stevens remembers. ``I
got up, opened my door, grabbed him by the seat of his pants
and his collar and threw him out on the god....d floor.''
According to Birch, Stevens was willing to risk offending
the White House to make clear that he could not be bought.
``He said that the first time you sell your vote, you're a
whore,'' Birch said. ``And once you're marked as a whore, you
are marked forever.''
Stevens instructed Birch that he would take no more calls
from the White House, even from Nixon, until there was an
apology for trying to pressure a vote out of him. It was
delivered by a delegation from the White House the next day,
Birch said.
Neither Webber nor people in the White House delegation
could be located for comment.
``I've heard many stories about Ted Stevens' temper,'' said
Bill Van Ness, a former congressional lawyer and now the
senior partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm that lobbies
on Alaska issues.
``But I've always believed that he is in control, that he
always knows what he is doing,'' Van Ness said. ``And I think
it has had an intimidating effect. There aren't many in the
Congress who will take him on, head to head.''
Stevens' prickly independence may have worked well for
Alaska, bringing billions of dollars in federal spending, but
it has not necessarily served him well personally.
In 1984, Stevens narrowly lost a race against Kansas Sen.
Bob Dole for Republican majority leader. The majority leader
sets the agenda for the entire Senate and usually serves as
one of his party's leading policy-makers.
Stevens believed he had enough votes to win the job. He had
worked his way up to the position by serving as the chairman
of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, which raises
money to elect Republicans to the chamber, and later as
Republican whip--the party's second-ranking leadership post.
The defeat cost Stevens his job as whip. Among the perks
were a suite of offices in the Capitol and a chauffeured car.
Press accounts at the time attributed Stevens' loss to the
desire among other senators for the committee chairmanships
that would be opened up by Dole's elevation.
But press reports also cited Stevens' fabled temper. He
said in a recent interview that he believes he was hurt by
the fact that he had angered so many of his colleagues over
the years.
``I think I didn't get the votes I should have from some
people because I had offended them in some connection or
other, but it was something I had to do to get bills passed
for Alaska,'' Stevens said.
Despite his long public career, Stevens' private life has
been marked by family hardship, tragedy and regrets.
Stevens, born in Indianapolis, was the third of four
children in his family. His parents divorced in 1929 just as
the Great Depression was beginning. He lived with his
grandparents until he was a teen-ager, helping support a
blind father and a mentally retarded cousin by hawking
newspapers on the street and later by working at a soda
fountain.
Stevens flew Army cargo planes in China during World War
II. After the war, he earned a law degree at Harvard
University, then worked for law firms in Washington, D.C.,
and Fairbanks. But he abandoned the lure of big money to
enter public service and then politics.
Roger Ernst, who worked with Stevens at the Interior
Department during the Eisenhower administration, recalled
Stevens working even on Sundays. It was a habit he kept up
when he entered the Senate.
He came to regret those long hours away from his family.
On Dec. 4, 1978, a Learjet carrying the Stevenses and
several others hit gusty crosswinds and crashed while
attempting to land at Anchorage. The senator was one of two
survivors. His wife was not.
In the months of grieving that followed, Stevens seemed to
blame Alaska's other senator, Democrat Mike Gravel, for Ann's
death. At the time of the crash, the Stevenses were en route
to a fund-raiser for a lands act lobbying group. Stevens said
at a congressional hearing that the trip was necessary only
because Gravel had blocked a compromise on the Senate floor
that would have let the lands act pass two months earlier.
It took months for Stevens to work through Ann's death. He
read a book by Arthur Freese called ``Help for Your Grief.''
Though the book is now out of print, Stevens sends a
photocopy of it to friends when they have a death in the
family, inscribed with remarks about how it got him through
Ann's death.
Two years later, Stevens married Catherine Bittner
Chandler. In 1981, when he was 57, Catherine gave birth to
his sixth child, Lily, upon whom he dotes. He reserves time
to go to movies with Lily now that she is a young teen-ager,
and he drives her and her friends to weekend soccer games. A
corner of Stevens' office is filled with Lily's artwork. When
Lily was younger, Stevens would hold hot-dog and ice-cream
parties for her in a Senate dining room.
By 1980, his nemesis, Gravel, had been defeated and the
major pieces of law affecting Alaska had been enacted.
Stevens began what amounted to a second life. It was
comfortable until financial problems beset his new family.
An untimely investment in a crab boat in 1979, named the
Lady Ann after his first wife, saddled him with more debt
than his Senate salary could absorb, and Catherine's
investment in an Arizona cattle ranch drew an Internal
Revenue Service tax claim in the mid-1980s.
The Stevenses settled their debts by selling their Maryland
home in December 1986 and moving into a rented house in the
District of Columbia.
Stevens' financial situation didn't completely turn around
for another three years.
C.W. Snedden, the longtime publisher of the Fairbanks Daily
News-Miner who had helped give Stevens his political start
three decades earlier, died in August 1989. Snedden
bequeathed Stevens an expensive motor yacht. Stevens
immediately sold it to pay off his bills and buy the house he
and Catherine were renting.
Stevens' failure to accumulate much wealth due to his
public service has at times left him sounding somewhat
bitter.
In 1988, a year before the bequest from Snedden and when
his financial situation seemed bleak, Stevens was beginning
to think about his 1990 re-election campaign.
He said in an interview that he could have made millions of
dollars as a lawyer and that voters needed to understand the
personal sacrifice he had made for a life of public service.
He said he viewed the 1990 election as a turning point in his
life and for the state.
Stevens' remarks drew letters to the editor attacking him
for arrogance, but they didn't dent him at the polls. In the
1990 Republican primary, his conservative rival, Bob Bird,
ridiculed Stevens as ``his highness''--and got just 30
percent of the vote.
At 70, Stevens' hair is graying and, despite a passion for
exercise and healthy foods, he has had serious medical
problems--including prostate cancer two years ago and back
problems requiring surgery in February. But Stevens has
already said he will run again in 1996.
Anything can happen in an election, but at least for now
Stevens is looked upon even by many Democrats as the
workhorse who can get things done for Alaska.
In May 1993, a group of Alaska Democrats fanned out over
Washington. They were trying to figure out if they had any
sway with the Clinton administration, coming as they did from
a state with a Republican-turned-independent governor and an
all-Republican congressional delegation.
Just months before, Stevens had predicted that Clinton's
policies would bring economic ruin to Alaska. Now the
Democrats courted him as if he were the only person who could
hold their own president at bay.
``I remember being asked once what one thing we could do
that would be best for the state,'' said Anchorage lawyer
Tony Smith, who ran against Sen. Frank Murkowski in 1992. ``I
said that the best thing we could do would be to take $20
million out of the state's permanent fund to find a fountain
of youth to keep Stevens alive and in office.''
Smith--who is now running for Republican Don Young's seat
in Congress--says he still stands by that statement.
____
[From the Anchorage Daily News, Aug. 8, 1994]
Stevens' Life Wasn't Easy Growing Up in the Depression With a Divided
Family
(By David Whitney)
Washington.--A wooden surfboard stands amid the plaques and
letters of appreciation in Ted Stevens' office in the marble-
walled Hart Senate Office Building.
Polished to a gleam and parked in the corner nearest
Stevens' desk, the board is a memento of a rare mellow period
in the life of a politician not known for mellowness.
Stevens paid $40 for it when he was a teen-ager in
Manhattan Beach, Calif. He lived there with an aunt and uncle
who took him in when he was 15.
``In 1940, I bought a surfboard and a gold 1931 Pontiac
convertible,'' he said. ``The surfboard cost almost as much
as my car.''
With the board in the back of his car, Stevens and high
school friend Russell Green would head for San Onofre to ride
the waves.
``We were beach bums,'' Stevens said.
Theodore Fulton Stevens was born Nov. 18, 1923, in a small
cottage behind his grandparents' home in Indianapolis. His
grandfather built the little house after Stevens' father,
George, married Gertrude Chancellor.
The couple divorced when Stevens, the third of George and
Gertrude's four children, was 6, and the 1929 stock market
crash was plunging the nation into the Great Depression.
At the time of their divorce, Stevens' parents lived in
Chicago. The Depression cost Stevens' father his job, and the
children went back to Indianapolis to live with their
grandparents.
They were soon followed by Stevens' father, an accountant
who developed severe eye problems and went blind for several
years.
Stevens' mother landed in California and, as she could
afford it, she moved Stevens' siblings out to be with her.
Stevens said he stayed behind to help care for his blind
father and a mentally retarded cousin who also lived with his
grandparents.
Stevens helped raise money for the household as a newsboy
on the streets of Indianapolis.
``I remember selling lots of newspapers on the day of the
Lindbergh kidnapping,'' Stevens said. Charles Lindbergh Jr.,
the son of the famous aviator, was kidnapped on March 1,
1932. Stevens was 8 years old.
In 1934, Stevens' grandfather, the only one in the house
with a job, tumbled down a flight of stairs and punctured a
lung. He contracted pneumonia and died.
Stevens stayed in the house until 1938, when his
grandmother could no longer afford the bills. Stevens, then
15, moved with his retarded cousin, Patricia Acker, to
Manhattan Beach to live with her mother, Gladys Swindells.
Before and after classes at Redondo Union High School, he
still had to work. But there also was time for his growing
friendship with Russell Green, son of the president of Signal
Gas and Oil Co.
For three years, Green and Stevens partied, surfed and
studied together. They're still close friends.
Green recalled cutting classes with Stevens to hear Glenn
Miller's orchestra, Miller was making a movie at the time and
also doing nightly radio broadcasts from a nearby town.
He said they approached Miller and told him they had cut
class to see him. ``Miller said, `Just tell your teacher you
were up seeing Glenn Miller and they will let you out,'''
Green said.
``Ted has a lot of fun in him and a great sense of humor,''
Green said. ``But he was serious enough to get absolutely top
grades.''
Except when the now-famous Stevens temper surfaced in an
English class, Green remembered.
``One of our classmates was an A student but he was always
talking,'' Green said. ``So the teacher gave the student a B.
Ted got into an argument with the teacher, saying that the
grade should be for the work he's done and not his
deportment. The teacher got so mad at Stevens that she
knocked his grade down to a B, too.''
off to war
After graduating from high school in 1942, Stevens attended
classes at Oregon State University for a semester and then,
with World War II raging, tried to enlist in the Navy Air
Corps.
He flunked the vision exam.
``I had strained my eyes considerably in an engineering
course I was in.'' Stevens said. Facing the prospect of being
drafted, he moved to Los Angeles and took eye exercises six
days a week.
There, Stevens met a former military officer and member of
the Selective Service board who helped arrange another test
for flight training.
This time, Stevens passed. The Army sent him off to study
at Montana State University. He said he scored at the top of
an aptitude test and immediately was transferred to preflight
training in Santa Ana, Calif.
``We went right down to join a group that already had
started in preflight,'' he said. ``We got our wings in the
early part of 1944. The other group at Montana State got its
wings just in time to be discharged. They never went
overseas.''
From Santa Ana, Stevens went to Bergstrom Field in Texas,
where he trained to fly P-38s. Because of an incident during
graduation, Stevens never got the chance to fly the fighters
in combat.
``Someone in the class booed the godd--n colonel who gave
the speech to our graduating class,'' said Stevens, who
recalls that the colonel was supposedly the son of an Army
big shot. ``Suddenly we were copilots in a troop carrier
squad.''
Stevens was dispatched to China to fly for the 14th Army
Air Corps Transport Section, which supported the Flying
Tigers.
Leroy Parramore, who flew with Stevens in China, said they
piloted C-46 and C-47 cargo planes, often without escort,
throughout the China theater to resupply mostly Chinese units
fighting the Japanese.
``We transported everything from bombs to Chinese troops to
gasoline,'' said Parramore, a retired Internal Revenue
Service agent in Texas.
Parramore said their worst enemy was the weather.
``I remember one occasion when we were flying and we were
running out of gas,'' Parramore said. ``Ted was in one C-46
and I was in another. We hit a strong headwind and we started
looking for an alternate landing field. I landed first. And
when Ted finally landed, he had run out of gas on the
approach.''
``If I had anyone I would have trusted my life to, it would
have been Ted,'' Parramore said.
When Stevens left the Army Air Corps in March 1946, he had
collected a Distinguished Flying Cross for flying behind
enemy lines, an Air Medal and a Yun Hai Medal, awarded by the
Chinese Nationalist Government.
After the war, Stevens returned to California, where he
received a bachelor's degree in political science at UCLA in
1947.
By then, Stevens had decided to go to law school. He
applied at Stanford University and the University of
Michigan.
But, when he told Green's father he planned to go to
Stanford, he said he was told to ``look East.''
Stevens did, graduating from Harvard in 1950. He was able
to finance part of the cost with money from the GI Bill
because of his military service. But, he said, he also had to
sell his blood, work several jobs--including one as a Boston
bartender--and borrow money from an uncle.
Alaska Supreme Court Justice Jay Rabinowitz praised
Stevens' scholarship at Harvard. Rabinowitz said the Alaska
Supreme Court issued an opinion recently that cited an
article on admiralty law Stevens wrote for the Harvard Law
Review 45 years earlier.
After graduation, Stevens headed off to a Washington, D.C.,
job that put him on the road to Alaska.
____
[From the Anchorage Daily News, Aug. 9, 1994]
The Road North--Needing Work, Stevens Borrows $600, Answers Call to
Alaska
(By David Whitney)
Washington.--For Ted Stevens, the long, unexpected road to
Alaska began in the Washington, D.C., law office of Mike
``Northcut'' Ely.
Ely had been an assistant secretary in the Interior
Department during the Hoover administration. Twenty years
later, he had a high-profile law firm specializing in
natural-resources issues. He recruited Stevens out of Harvard
Law School in 1950.
``He was a vigorous chap, highly effective,'' Ely, now 90,
said in a telephone interview from Redlands, Calif., where he
still maintains a office, ``He was very personable, with a
good sense of humor.''
Stevens was assigned to handle the legal affairs of Emil
Usibelli, an Ely client in Alaska who was trying to sell
Healy coal to the military.
Stevens was interested in natural-resources law, but he
wanted to pursue that interest in government, not private
practice.
So he volunteered for the 1952 presidential campaign of
Dwight D. Eisenhower, the World War II hero who would become
the first Republican to occupy the White House since the
defeat of Herbert Hoover in 1932. Stevens hoped an Eisenhower
victory would mean a federal job for him.
Stevens said in an interview that campaign volunteers would
meet at a Washington, D.C., hotel to write position papers.
Stevens was assigned Western water law and the problems of
Western lands.
Eisenhower's election in November 1952 looked like perfect
timing for Stevens.
``I had done several papers for them. I had met several
people by the time Eisenhower won. They said, ``We want you
to come over to Interior.'''
Eight months earlier, Stevens had married the former Ann
Mary Cherrington, the adopted daughter of the chancellor of
the University of Denver. A graduate of Reed College in
Portland, Ore., Ann was a Democrat who worked for the State
Department in the Truman administration.
Stevens told Ely he was quitting to look for work in the
Eisenhower administration.
But the job didn't come through, and suddenly Stevens was
out of work, with a new wife and no place to go. About this
time, Stevens got a call from Charles Clasby inviting him to
join his law firm in Fairbanks. Stevens knew Clasby because
Clasby was the Alaska lawyer for Emil Usibelli, the coal
miner Stevens had represented in Washington.
alaska calls
``Ann and I were both from the West,'' Stevens said. ``We
liked Clasby and Usibelli. We had done some things together
when they were down here. And Clasby was in a hard spot. He
had told me he had lost one of his people.''
Ely said he was sad to see Stevens go. But he recalls
Stevens offering another reason for leaving Washington.
``He said he'd like to settle in the West and get into
politics,'' Ely said. ``I told him he should stay in law.''
Stevens recalls saying no such thing. According to Stevens,
the job in Fairbanks came along at a time when he needed work
and he had no idea that he would eventually get into
politics.
The Stevenses packed their bags and began the long drive
north in the dead of winter, traveling on $600 borrowed from
Clasby. They hit Fairbanks in February 1953.
Stevens said he kids Gov. Wally Hickel about the loan from
Clasby.
``He likes to say that he came to Alaska with 37 cents in
his pocket,'' Stevens said of Hickel. ``I came $600 in
debt.''
Stevens quickly cultivated the city's Republican
establishment. One of his new friends was C.W. ``Bill''
Snedden, who had recently bought the Fairbanks Daily News-
Miner. Helen Snedden, Bill's widow, said her husband and
Stevens were ``like father and son.''
``The only problem Ted had was that he had a temper,''
Helen Snedden said. ``My husband helped and guided him along
the way. He kind of steadied him, like you would do with your
children. My husband taught him the art of diplomacy.''
Helen Snedden became especially close to Ann.
``I don't think you could have found a better person,'' she
said. ``She was very smart, very caring. She fit in very
easily. The children came along, year after year. It was
hard. It was a struggle. But she made a home and she didn't
complain.''
Stevens lasted six months with Clasby. By September,
Fairbanks U.S. Attorney Bob McNealy, a Democrat, had resigned
and, Stevens said, U.S. District Judge Harry Pratt asked him
if he wanted the job.
``I said, `Sure, I'd like to do that,''' Stevens said.
``Clasby said `It's not going to pay you as much money, but,
if you want to do it, that's your business.' He was very p---
-d that I decided to go.''
Stevens was confirmed for the position by the Senate on
March 30, 1954.
``He was a very active D.A.,'' said Mike Stepovich, a
Fairbanks lawyer at the time who a few years later would
become territorial governor. ``He was a prosecutor all the
way through.''
Olga Steiger, a former court clerk in Fairbanks, said
Stevens, explosive temper often was fixed on Warren A.
Taylor, a criminal defense lawyer.
``They didn't get along,'' she said. ``Ted would get red in
the face, blow up and stalk out of the courtroom.''
gun totin' d.a.
Jay Rabinowitz, now an Alaska Supreme Court Justice,
arrived in Fairbanks not long after Stevens left. He recalls
tales of Stevens packing pistols and accompanying U.S.
marshals on raids.
In one particular vice raid, Rabinowitz recalled, ``U.S.
marshals went in with Tommy-guns and Ted led the charge,
smoking a stogie and with six guns on his hips.''
``It makes me sound like Eliott Ness,'' Stevens said. He
remembers only one such incident. It was in Big Delta, about
75 miles southwest of Fairbanks.
``We decided we'd take a combined force down there because
of information we'd received about a lot of different
violations of federal and territorial law. There was a
prostitution ring, and drugs and violations of liquor laws.
``They wanted to make sure everything was done right, that
the evidence would be admissible, the arrests would be legal,
so they asked me if I wanted to go along. I said, yeah.
``So one of them suggested I ought to take a gun,'' he
said. ``So he checked me out a gun. It was a holster with a
gun. It wasn't two guns. I never had two guns. I never walked
around town with it.
``But someone did see it,'' he said. ``Someone saw us
coming back in or going out of the federal building that day
and said, `Jesus Christ, there's the damn district attorney
carrying a gun.'''
The report spread ``up and down Fourth Avenue in every
bar.''
``And, to this day, kids come in and tell me their dads
have told them about me and they think a lot about me when
they see stories about Eliott Ness and that it must have been
the same,'' he said.
Stevens' most famous trial came at the end of his career as
federal prosecutor. The case managed to link tax evasion to
the cause of Alaska statehood--and Stevens lost.
Jack Marler, a former Internal Revenue Service agent, had
been accused of failing to file tax returns and there were
concerns that other Fairbanks residents were beginning to
follow his example.
In Marler's first trial, which Stevens did not handle, the
jury deadlocked and a mistrial was declared.
Marler hired Edgar Paul Boyko, a flamboyant young lawyer
from Anchorage, to defend him in the second trial.
Stevens and a local judge decided to clean up the mess,
Boyko recalls. ``They decided that Marler would be a good
start.
``Ted, who was young and full of piss and vinegar, decided
to take over the retrial,'' he said. ``He assembled an
entourage to help him.
``I built a defense around the theory that there should be
no taxation without representation,'' Boyko said.
``I gave a rabble-rousing closing argument to the jury,''
he said. ``I said this man wanted to raise the issue that we
had no representation in Congress. I said this case was the
jury's chance to move Alaska toward statehood.''
Newspapers around the country carried stories on the trial.
In his closing argument to the jury, Boyko called the panel
``twelve Alaskans with a rendezvous with destiny.''
He appealed to the jury to ``strike a blow for Alaskan
freedom.''
``The shock of acquittal will be felt all the way to
Washington,'' he told the jury.
``Ted had done a hell of a job in the case,'' Boyko
recalled. ``The jury's announcement of not guilty dropped
like a bomb.''
After the acquittal on April 3, 1956, Stevens issued a
statement.
``I don't believe the jury's verdict is an expression of
resistance to taxes or law enforcement or the start of a
Boston Tea Party,'' he said. ``I do believe, however, that
the decision will be a blow to the hopes for Alaska
statehood.''
But it wasn't. The long battle for statehood had only two
more years to run. Within two months of the Marler trial,
Stevens was on his way back to Washington to help fight it.
____
[From the Anchorage Daily News, Aug. 10, 1994]
Seeking Statehood--Stevens Bent Rules To Bring Alaska Into the Union
(By David Whitney)
Washington.--When a brash young federal prosecutor named
Ted Stevens arrived in Washington in June 1956 to take a job
as assistant to Interior Secretary Douglas McKay, the
prospects for Alaska statehood seemed no brighter than they
had for at least a decade.
The battle had been going on since 1943 and had at least
once seemed about to pay off. That was in 1950, when the U.S.
House passed a bill to bring Alaska into the United States.
President Harry Truman, a Democrat, supported the bill but it
died in the Senate.
Two years later, Republicans captured Congress and the
White House. The Republican Party opposed statehood, partly
out of fears that Alaska would elect Democrats to Congress.
The Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, saw Alaska
as too large and sparsely populated to be economically self-
sufficient as a state. Eisenhower also worried that statehood
would hamstring the military's strategy for defending Alaska
against an invasion by the Soviet Union.
The U.S. plan was to fight a delaying action in Alaska,
gradually abandoning the hinterlands of the territory, if
necessary, to an invading Soviet army. Eisenhower thought
that strategy would be harder to pull off if Alaska became a
state, because more people and politicians would have to be
dealt with as abandonment proceeded.
The only idea that had much support in Washington was to
divide Alaska, carving out its most populated areas for
statehood and keeping the rest as a federal territory. That
idea had little support in Alaska, particularly among rural
Natives, who complained that they would be disenfranchised.
Within a couple of weeks after Stevens' arrival, however,
the statehood movement got a considerable boost. McKay
resigned to run for the U.S. Senate in Oregon and his
replacement was Fred Seaton, a statehood advocate. McKay was
not personally opposed to statehood but had never pushed for
it, either, according to Claus M. Naske, a history professor
at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Seaton was a close friend of Fairbanks Daily News-Miner
publisher C.W. Snedden, one of the territory's leading
negotiators in that phase of the statehood battle.
``The day after Seaton took office, he asked Snedden if he
knew any Alaskan that could come to Washington to work on
statehood,'' Naske said.
``Snedden told him that person was already working for him
as his assistant,'' Naske said. ``That person was Ted
Stevens.''
As a young federal staffer, Stevens was no power broker.
But he quickly became an aggressive soldier in the statehood
movement, earning the nickname of ``Mr. Statehood'' at the
Interior Department.
``Ted probably spent more time with Secretary Seaton than
any of us,'' said Roger Ernst, who was Seaton's assistant
secretary for public land management.
``He did all the work on statehood,'' Ernst said. ``He
wrote 90 percent of all the speeches. Statehood was his main
project.''
focus on statehood
Stevens discussed his work on statehood in an interview
with a researcher at the Eisenhower library in October 1977,
He made clear that he was willing to bend the rules and
manipulate the press to keep Alaska statehood on the
administration's agenda.
``We set Ike up quite often at press conferences by
planting questions about Alaska statehood,'' Stevens said in
the interview. ``We never let a press conference go by
without getting someone to try to ask him about statehood.''
Eisenhower's problem, Stevens said, was the he ``took the
position that land up there was very sparsely populated and
very much an open invitation to invasion.''
``I think he honestly believed that we had special
vulnerability and also special significance as far as
military strategy was concerned,'' Stevens said.
The Soviet threat to Alaska drew the top echelons of the
Pentagon into the statehood debate.
Jack Stempler, who was then a top lawyer at the Defense
Department, said Eisenhower relied heavily on the views of
Gen. Nathan Twining, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff who had served in Alaska.
``Eisenhower wanted to make sure that there was adequate
military for Alaska to protect itself.'' said Stempler, who
is now retired, ``And also, he wanted to assure himself that
it would be economically viable. Without a military payroll,
he had questions about whether it could be economically
viable.''
Two years earlier, in March 1954, Eisenhower had drawn a
line on a map where he thought the state should end, with the
areas north and west of the Porcupine, Yukon and Kuskokwim
river remaining in federal hands.
``He said, `Everything up there has got to be federal
because the state can't protect it,''' Stevens said.
```There's a chance we're going to have terrorism; we've got
a potential invasion up there. We've got to have federal
powers up there.'''
With Seaton actively pressing for statehood, a compromise
was fashioned to bring the entire territory into the union
but with special federal protections for the sparsely
populated northern and western regions that so worried
Eisenhower.
Stempler said that he, Stevens and Twining then set about
to define where the final version of the line should be
drawn. Much of that work occurred in a room at Walter Reed
Army Hospital, where Seaton was being treated for back
problems.
``I remember sitting in Seaton's hospital room on Sunday
mornings with Twining and Stevens talking about this,'' said
Stempler. ``Maps were taped to the walls. We discussed what
wilderness areas would be hard for a young state to handle.
The line was negotiated and after that, statehood moved
forward.''
The line became known as the PYK Line. From the northeast
corner of the territory, it followed the Porcupine, Yukon and
Kuskokwim rivers to the Bering Sea, then went south and east
to clip off the lower half of the Alaska Peninsula and the
Aleutian Islands.
The PYK line became the basis for Section 10 of the
statehood act, which Stevens wrote. The land north and west
of the line was included in the new state, but Section 10
gave the president emergency powers to take direct federal
control of those areas, which include Prudhoe Bay and the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Section 10 was a key to statehood.
``It's still in the law but it's never been exercised,''
Stevens said. ``Now that the problem with Russia is gone,
it's surplusage. But it is a special law that only applies to
Alaska.''
With the PYK Line settled, Stevens worked with Snedden,
Anchorage Times publisher Bob Atwood and the Alaska Statehood
Committee to lobby for statehood.
bending the rules
By 1956, Alaskans had held a convention in Fairbanks to
adopt a constitution for the state they hoped to become. And
they had elected three Democrats to go to Washington as
unofficial delegates to Congress. Ernest Gruening and William
Egan were Alaska's U.S. ``senators,'' and Ralph Rivers was
its U.S. ``representative.''
Stevens hired Atwood's daughter, Marilyn Atwood, to help
him at the Interior Department. Together they drew up cards
on members of Congress.
``I had made a study on each member of the Senate and this
goes on now into '57, '58--whether they were Rotarians or
Kiwanians or Catholics or Baptists and veterans or loggers,
the whole thing,'' Stevens said in the 1977 interview.
``And we'd assigned these Alaskans to go talk to individual
members of the Senate and split them down on the basis of
people that had something in common with them,'' he said.
``We were violating the law . . . we were lobbying from the
executive branch, and there's been a statute against that for
a long time,'' Stevens said. ``We more or less, I would say,
masterminded the House and Senate attack from the executive
branch.''
The lobbying campaign also targeted newspapers.
``We planted editorials in weeklies and dailies and
newspapers in the district of people we thought were opposed
to us or states where they were opposed to us so that
suddenly they were thinking twice about opposing us,''
Stevens said.
The long campaign for statehood paid off in 1958, when
Congress passed a bill admitting Alaska to the Union.
Eisenhower signed the act on July 7, 1958.
The act authorized the new state to select 103.5 million
acres of ``vacant and unappropriated public domain'' to
develop an economy.
Three years later, in the last days of the Eisenhower
administration, when Stevens was the Interior Department's
top lawyer, he wrote the public land order creating what is
now the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The signing of that
order was Seaton's last official act.
ANWR was created in an effort to end a much more sweeping
land order that had withdrawn the whole of Alaska's Arctic
during World War II, Stevens said.
``It was a great goal of people, particularly at Interior,
who were quite interested in a gas field (near Barrow) at the
time,'' Stevens said.
The withdrawal was supported by the state, according to
Phil Holdsworth, Alaska's first commissioner of natural
resources.
What Alaska got out of the deal was the lifting of the
federal ban on state land selections in a large middle
section of the North Slope bordered by the 9 million-acre
arctic refuge to the east and the Naval Petroleum Reserve to
the west.
That midsection contained a then-obscure landmark called
Prudhoe Bay. Ten years later, it would become the site of the
biggest oil strike in North American history and the
foundation of Alaska's economy.
Now, as Prudhoe Bay reserves decline, the oil industry
insists that the best hope for keeping up oil production in
Alaska is the coastal plain of the refuge that Stevens helped
create.
The 1980 Alaska Lands Act requires a vote of Congress to
open it to oil drilling and, so far, environmental opposition
has prevented that from happening. But Stevens maintains the
creation of the refuge was--at the time, at least--a small
price to pay for opening Prudhoe Bay and much of the rest of
the North Slope to oil exploration. The land order he wrote
more than 30 years ago contained no legal barriers to
drilling, he insists.
``The order specifically allowed oil and gas exploration in
the arctic range subject to stipulations to protect fish and
wildlife,'' Stevens said. ``I think it was a very good
deal.''
[From the Anchorage Daily News, Aug. 11, 1994]
Penchant for Politics--Rule Change Enabled Hickel to Appoint Stevens to
Senate
(By David Whitney)
Washington.--Ted Stevens says he had no clue he would
become Alaska's next U.S. senator when E.L. ``Bob'' Bartlett
died in 1968.
In fact, Stevens may have been the politician least likely
to replace the popular Democratic incumbent.
After completing a four-year stint with the Eisenhower
administration, where he rose to be top lawyer at the
Interior Department, Stevens had packed up his wife, Ann, and
their five small children and headed for Anchorage in 1961.
He opened a law practice representing, among other clients,
oil companies seeking to drill on state leases. He also did
legal work for the state's two largest newspapers--The
Anchorage Times and the Anchorage Daily News.
And, less than a year after leaving Washington, Stevens got
into politics.
In 1962, he ran against U.S. Sen. Ernest Gruening and lost
to the Democrat by a 3-2 margin.
He ran for the state House in 1964, won, and won again in
1966, the same year Wally Hickel was elected to his first
term as governor. Stevens served as House majority leader in
1967 and 1968.
Stevens ran again for Gruening's seat in 1968, just months
before Bartlett's death, but this time he didn't even make it
into the general election. He lost the primary to Anchorage
banker Elmer Rasmuson. On the Democratic side of the ballot,
Mike Gravel beat Gruening, then did the same thing to
Rasmuson in the general election.
What seemed pretty well-established by the time Bartlett
died in December 1966 was that the cigar-smoking Stevens
didn't have much of a statewide following.
In his book on Bartlett, University of Alaska history
professor Claus M, Naske said Bartlett had been having heart
trouble long before he was hospitalized in Cleveland in
November 1968. Until his heart surgery, however, it appears
that Bartlett's declining health was little-known in Alaska.
Nonetheless, Republican leaders in the state legislature
were aware that both of the state's U.S. senators--Bartlett
and Gruening--were getting along in years and they wanted to
make sure Hickel could pick a fellow Republican as successor.
At the time, state law required the governor to appoint
someone of the imcumbent's party. Republican lawmakers, who
for the first time since statehood held a majority in both
houses of the legislature and also had a Republican governor,
set out to change the law in early 1967.
The sponsor of the legislation was Senate Majority Leader
John Butrovich. He said in a recent interview that he had no
idea that the change in the appointments law would be used so
soon.
He said he was aware that Bartlett had health problems but
he never suspected how serious they were.
``When he passed away, it sure was a surprise to me,''
Butrovich said.
The legislation quickly moved to the House, where Stevens
was in charge of the agenda. But Stevens says he doesn't
remember much about it and certainly didn't expect to be its
first beneficiary. The new rule took effect in mid-1967.
``I had no inkling that I would be appointed should there
be a vacancy.'' Stevens said. ``I had no reason to believe we
would have a vacancy. I considered Bartlett's health to be
robust.''
Anchorage lawyer Joe Josephson, who worked in Bartlett's
Senate offices between 1957 and 1960, said he can understand
how Alaskans could have been ignorant about Bartlett's
health.
``My general impression was that he had a lot of ailments
but it never affected his performance,'' Josephson said.
``It's fair to say that I doubt he sent out bulletins on his
condition. He would not have been very forthcoming about
health problems.''
Indeed, an Associated Press report of Bartlett's death at
the time made no mention of persistent health problems.
Had the law not been changed, the most likely prospect to
fill Bartlett's seat would have been Edgar Paul Boyko, a
Democrat whom Hickel had appointed attorney general.
Boyko still thinks about the Republicans' maneuvering.
``I don't think it was aimed at me personally,'' Boyko said
recently, ``It was aimed at heading the Democrats off at the
pass. But Stevens had no reason to think that he would have
been Hicken's first choice, either.''
hickel's quandary
Bartlett's death on Dec. 11, 1968, set off an immediate
scramble for a replacement. Among the strongest contenders
were Elmer Rasmuson and Hickel's longtime friend Carl Brady.
Stevens' name, though mentioned, was not prominent on
anyone's list--except Hickel's.
Hickel was in Washington at the Shoreham Hotel on Dec. 11,
awaiting President-elect Richard Nixon's announcement of a
slate of Cabinet nominations--including Hickel's for
Secretary of the Interior.
``I was handed a note that Bartlett had died,'' Hickel
recalls. ``I went over to (Nixon) and he mentioned that he
knew Ted.
``Nixon said `Wally, what are you going to do?''' Hickel
said, ``I told him the people I had in mind. There was
Rasmuson, Brady and Stevens.
``The president looked at me and said, `Wally, do you have
the courage to appoint Ted?''' Hickel said.
``And I said, `I want to do what is right,''' Hickel said.
``Carl Brady was a close friend of mine. I had known Rasmuson
for many, many years. But Ted Stevens was a survivor, in my
opinion.''
Once the tenacious Stevens was in office, Hickel was
convinced, no candidate would be able to unseat him.
Stevens insists he was unaware any of this was going on.
He said he and Ann were in Mazatlan, on the first real
vacation they had taken since they were married in 1952.
``We got a collect telegram,'' he said. ``It said `Call
Hickel.'''
Stevens said he telephoned Juneau and learned of Bartlett's
death. ``Hickel told me that he wanted me to come back and
talk to him about taking Bartlett's place.''
On the way back from Mexico, Stevens stopped in Seattle for
a meeting with Hickel about the Senate seat, setting off
speculation that he might be a candidate for the job. But
news reports at the time said Stevens was more likely to go
to Washington to work with Hickel at the Interior Department
than to join the U.S. Senate.
Stevens put that speculation to rest when he flew into
Anchorage the next day. Stevens said the only way he would
return to Washington would be as U.S. senator.
Stevens' oldest child, Susan Covich, remembers her father
and mother gathering the children in their Anchorage home
about this time to discuss the possibility of moving to the
capital. Covich was 15.
``It was definitely a family discussion as to whether we
would go,'' she said.
Covich, now a computer tutor at a North Kenai elementary
school, said the discussion came as a surprise to her
because, after her father's primary defeat in August, ``there
was some talk of him stepping out of politics for a while.''
Stevens seemed like a long shot for the Senate job.
Interior Republicans were supporting Butrovich for the
appointment. And, when Robert A. Davenny, chairman of the
state Republican Party, called a meeting of the state central
committee to recommend names for the seat, Stevens at first
didn't make the list.
The central committee ultimately sent Hickel a more
expansive list of 10 people for the seat. Stevens' name had
been added, along with two members of the ultra-conservative
John Birch Society.
Within a couple of days, Hickel had narrowed his choice to
Brady and Stevens. His problem, he said, was that sometime
before he had promised Brady to appoint him to any vacancy.
Hickel summoned both men to his Anchorage home Dec. 23 to
talk about the seat. By the time they arrived, Brady had
already concluded that Hickel really wanted Stevens and that
he should bow out.
``My wife and I decided that, why would we want to be back
in Washington if the governor didn't want me there?'' Brady
said. ``I agreed to withdraw if Hickel would appoint
Stevens.''
``There's no question Hickel did the right thing,'' said
Brady, who went on to make a fortune as operator of Era
Aviation. ``Ted is more popular with Democrats and
Republicans. He is well-loved by everybody. I am more
conservative.''
Stevens said he was stunned by Brady's decision.
``I was really very humbled,'' Stevens said. ``I told Carl
that he had a commitment from Hickel, that he could have held
Hickel to it, and I think Hickel would have stayed with it.''
Sitting in Hickel's home Dec. 23, just minutes after the
governor announced Stevens' appointment, Stevens pulled a
dollar bill from his wallet.
Stevens signed his name to one end and handed it to Brady
to sign the other. Stevens tore the bill in two, giving Brady
the half with Stevens' signature.
``I said, `If you ever need help, and you really want my
help from in or out of the Senate, send that to me.'''
Stevens said. ``I've never received the other half.''
But, in 1978, when Hickel was running in the gubernatorial
primary against Republican incumbent Jay Hammond, Brady came
close to cashing in his half of the dollar bill.
``I wanted him to support Hickel in the primary,'' Brady
said. ``Ted refused. He said he couldn't oppose a Republican
incumbent.''
By Senate tradition, members don't take sides in contested
state primary elections.
``I said that I'd never called in my half of the tab,''
Brady said. ```What if I did that?' And he said, `My friend,
I'd have to resign from the Senate.'''
Stevens doesn't remember the incident but, whether he was
serious or not about leaving the Senate, that was that. Brady
dropped the matter. Stevens didn't support anybody in the
primary, and Hickel lost.
[From the Anchorage Daily News, Aug. 12, 1994]
Bitter Battle--No Love Lost Between Stevens, Gravel
(By David Whitney)
Washington.--One of the biggest influences on the Senate
career of Ted Stevens was Mike Gravel, and not a moment of
their 12-year relationship was pleasant.
Years after Gravel, a maverick Democratic senator, was
unseated by Republican newcomer Frank Murkowski in 1980,
Stevens still seems haunted by the man.
They fought over just about every Alaska issue that came up
before Congress.
They disagreed over extending the U.S. territorial limit
200 miles out to sea--the catalyst for the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976, which gave Alaskans
a dominant voice in the management of commercial fishing in
federal waters off the Alaska coast.
They fought over the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act. They feuded over the 1973 Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Authorization Act. And--most famously and bitterly--they
fought over the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act of 1980.
Gravel thinks the animosity resulted from the 1968
election, which he won by defeating incumbent Ernest Gruening
in the Democratic primary and then beating Anchorage banker
Elmer Rasmuson in the November general election.
Stevens had lost to Rasmuson in the Republican primary.
Gravel, who now lives in California, thinks Stevens blamed
him for attracting Democrats who, Stevens felt, would
otherwise have crossed over and helped him beat Rasmuson in
the primary.
Stevens saw Gravel as a grandstander and himself as the
pragmatic workhorse willing to cut the best deals he could
for the state--even when the best deal was not popular in
Alaska.
Year by year, the feud worsened.
It reached its pinnacle in the congressional battle over
ANILCA, finally enacted in August 1980.
President Jimmy Carter had made the lands act his top
environmental priority. The final bill placed 104.3 million
acres of the state under federal protection, more than
doubling the size of the nation's park and refuge system and
nearly tripling the amount of land set aside as wilderness in
the country.
Gravel wanted to prevent any bill from passing, while
Stevens believed stonewalling would only make things worse.
compromise battle
In October 1978, with the Carter administration threatening
to use presidential authority to lock up Alaska lands from
state selection until a lands act was law, such a deal seemed
at hand. It involved turning about 96 million acres of
federal lands in the state into national parks, refuges and
preserves.
With environmentalists arguing for protection of even more
lands, Stevens warned that the compromise was about as good a
deal as the state was likely to get. Under pressure from
state interests, Gravel indicated he would not block its
passage.
But in the closing hours of the 1978 session, Gravel
suddenly made new demands. Among other things, he wanted
better access to oil drilling and mining sites and a ban on
any future taking of Alaska lands. Gravel's 11th-hour appeal
killed the compromise.
``You've got yourself in a big battle now, buddy,'' Stevens
screamed at Gravel on the Senate floor. Stevens said the
collapse would delay the transfer of 100 million acres of
federal lands still owed to the state and Natives under the
1958 Alaska Statehood Act and the 1971 Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act.
``You carry that burden,'' Stevens told Gravel.
Stevens wasn't alone in blasting Gravel.
Sen. John Durkin, a New Hampshire Democrat who was one of
the Senate's leading environmentalists, attacked Gravel for
killing the compromise.
``The people of Alaska should know that this compromise
foundered on two words,'' Durkin said. ``Those two words are
Mike Gravel.''
Later, when reporters asked him about Gravel's action,
Stevens said that ``my mistake was in trusting him.''
Gravel responded by accusing Stevens of ``being prepared to
sell out too much.'' He returned to Alaska bent on convincing
voters that Stevens should not be returned to office in the
1978 elections.
According to news accounts at the time, Gravel pumped
$24,000 of his own campaign money into the coffers of
Stevens' 1978 Democratic challenger, Anchorage electrical
contractor Don Hobbs. The money supported advertisements
telling Alaskans that a vote for Ted Stevens was a vote for
compromise. A vote for Hobbs was a vote to fight.
The ads barely dented Stevens, who was easily re-elected.
crash kills wife
But Gravel's action in killing the compromise meant a
continued congressional battle over the lands act. And that
meant more money was needed for the lobbying activities of
Citizens for the Management of Alaska Lands, the state's
leading organization battling environmentalists over the
bill.
The group scheduled a fund-raiser for Dec. 4, 1978, in
Anchorage.
Stevens was in Juneau that day for the second inauguration
of Gov. Jay Hammond. To make the fund-raiser after the
inauguration, Stevens, his wife, Ann, and five others boarded
a private Learjet for the trip to Anchorage.
The plane hit gusty crosswinds and flipped on approach to
Anchorage International Airport. Stevens and Tony Motley, the
head of the citizen group, were the only survivors of the
crash.
Ann's death devastated Stevens.
Testifying before a House panel on the lands act two months
later, at the beginning of the 1979 legislative debate, the
grieving senator made statements widely interpreted as
accusing Gravel of killing his wife.
Stevens said the flight wouldn't have been necessary if
Gravel had kept his word and supported the compromise.
``As I am sure you realize,'' Stevens somberly told the
House Interior Committee, ``the solution of the issue means
more to me than it did before.''
``I don't want to get personal about it, but I think, if
that bill had passed, I might have a wife sitting at home
when I get home tonight, too,'' Stevens said.
Those remarks appear in newspaper accounts but not in the
printed transcript of the House hearing. They were most
likely excised by Stevens' aides, although no one interviewed
for this story could recall who might have done so. Aides to
senators often rewrite parts of hearing transcripts to make
their bosses look better.
Stevens now says his remarks were misinterpreted.
``People said I accused him of killing Ann,'' Stevens said.
``I was just stating a fact. We would not have gone on that
plane if it were not the fact that we had to raise money. But
I don't think he killed her.''
Gravel said he interpreted Stevens' remarks as accusing him
of Ann's death. He also said he now doesn't think Stevens
meant it to come out that way.
``I think when things didn't go well, he focused his anger
on me,'' Gravel said. ``It was a ridiculous accusation. It
was a product of the trauma of the accident. It had to be the
trauma. He is not an unstable person.''
By this time, Alaskans were wondering if the intensifying
hostilities between Stevens and Gravel would undermine their
interests.
Hammond and several other government officials convened a
``unity meeting'' in 1979 to urge the two senators to present
a common front.
The open hostilities subsided. But Gravel, facing re-
election in 1980, continued to fight any lands act while
Stevens worked with Senate and House leaders to craft the
best deal he could.
The final deal that cleared Congress, as Stevens predicted,
locked up more land than the 1978 compromise.
The 1978 deal would have protected 96 million acres,
putting 50 million acres of that into wilderness off-limits
to any form of development. The final bill protected 104.3
million acres, of which nearly 58 million acres was
wilderness.
According to Steve Silver, who worked on the lands act for
Stevens, the difference between the two versions was more
than just the additional 8 million acres of land.
The 1978 compromise, said Silver, ``had smaller parks and
refuges, more carve-outs for mining and larger preserves
where hunting was allowed,'' he said.
But Gravel said he also objected to the final version of
the lands act because it contained an automatic $40 million
annual appropriation for logging in the Tongass National
Forest. He opposed the subsidy on principle and predicted,
correctly as it turned out, that the provision would make
subsidized logging in the forest a continuing controversy.
Gravel's objections made no difference, however. The lands
act was approved Nov. 12 in a lame-duck congressional session
just eight days after Murkowski defeated Gravel's bid for re-
election.
Gravel said he has no regrets about trying to stop the bill
in the hope that a less restrictive version would be approved
in 1981, when Ronald Reagan would be president and the Senate
would be controlled by Republicans.
``Had we delayed, I thought we could bring about a more
balanced bill,'' Gravel said.
Stevens also voted no on the bill. Even though he had
helped work it into its final form, he thought it was still
too restrictive.
Even today, Stevens winces at the mention of Gravel's name.
He began a series of interviews for this profile saying that
he didn't want to talk about Gravel. Although he reluctantly
answered a few questions, he did so in terse responses and
never spoke kindly of his old foe.
But incidents recounted by friends and former aides of
Stevens indicate his feelings have slowly softened.
Tim McKeever, Stevens' top aide in 1980, said he was at
Stevens' home that November watching election returns showing
Murkowski defeating Gravel.
``I remember Stevens saying, `I wonder how his kids must
feel,''' McKeever said, ``My impression is that Stevens felt
genuine concern about what Gravel's family must be feeling.''
The second incident was in 1985, at a surprise birthday
party for Ron Birch, a former Stevens aide who now is a
Washington, D.C., lawyer and lobbyist.
Birch said Gravel was at the party when Stevens arrived.
``Stevens came up to me and said that it is time to stop
this,'' Birch said, ``And then he went over and shook Mike's
hand.''
Stevens remembers that event but said it didn't clear the
air.
``It was a gesture on my part that has never been repeated
by Gravel,'' Stevens said.
Gravel is sorry now he didn't reciprocate.
``It's always been a personal regret to me'' Gravel said.
``It's unfortunate because he is a very good person. We just
got off on the wrong foot.''
[From the Anchorage Dailey News, Aug. 13, 1994]
Stevens' Priorities Change After Marriage, Birth of Daughter
(By David Whitney)
Washington.--The death of his first wife, in 1978, began a
difficult transition to a new life for Sen. Ted Stevens.
As he grieved, he came to regret all the years he had
worked around the clock, leaving Ann at home to take care of
their five children.
``I was busy trying to earn a living, working hard no
matter where it was and what we did,'' Stevens said, ``And
the time when I came to the Senate--my God, what a period.
``We were constantly on the move, plus it was hard to
campaign. One year I was away from home 50 weekends * * *
going to Alaska, going to make speeches, raising money,'' he
said, ``I spent a lot of time away from my family.''
In December 1980, Stevens married Catherine Bittner
Chandler, the lawyer daughter of a prominent Alaska family.
Catherine's roots, like Ann's, were solidly Democratic and
liberal. Lily, his sixth child, was born the following
summer.
Lily's birth reinvigorated Stevens, who was then 57.
``It was wonderful,'' Stevens said. ``Not many people have
the privilege of being a father at that age.''
``I've talked to a lot of fathers who have children later
in life, who have had two families,'' Catherine said. ``I
think Ted is no different than almost any that I have talked
to.
``The first time, you really have to be busy going to the
office, and you don't really think about it when you're young
and making your career,'' she said. ``When they have a child
later, it's, `What's this precious little thing?' It's really
exciting for them. It's not that it wasn't exciting in the
beginning. It's just that they were dedicated to making a
living.''
Stevens' children from his first marriage are adults now,
most with their own families.
Susan Covich, his oldest daughter, is 40. She's married,
has children of her own and is a computer tutor for students
at North Star Elementary School in North Kenai. Elizabeth
Stevens, 39, works with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
in Colorado. Walter Stevens is a multimedia management
specialist in Arizona. Ted Stevens, Jr., 37, just completed
law school in California, and is awaiting results of the July
bar examination. Ben Stevens, 35, is a fishing vessel captain
living in Anchorage.
Susan and Ben said in interviews they remember their father
being gone a lot when they were children. Many weekends, a
baby sitter would move into their house while Stevens and his
wife were off in Alaska. But they said they don't have any
regrets.
``I remember Dad working hard during the week and playing
hard on the weekends,'' said Covich.
She said her father was especially busy in 1971, her senior
year in high school. Stevens was working long hours on the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and on trans-Alaska
pipeline legislation.
``We didn't get much of a chance to see him,'' Covich said.
But still, she said, her father made time for important
family events, including her high school graduation.
Ben was 9 when his parents moved the family to Washington.
He said he never felt neglected during his father's frequent
absences.
``He was dedicated to his job,'' Ben said. ``As we grow
older, we realize this.''
He said his father has ``mellowed'' since Lily's birth, and
dotes on his youngest child.
``He is not as strict as he used to be,'' Ben said. ``He
ran a regimented family when we were younger.''
``It is fortunate that he gets a chance to do what he
thinks he should have done (with us).''
Stevens' new family in 1981 came just as he reached the
pinnacle of his power in the Senate.
costly defeat
In 1975, Stevens was elected chairman of the Republican
Senatorial Campaign Committee, which raised money to elect
Republicans to the chamber. Republicans were worried that
voters would savage the party in the 1976 elections because
of the Watergate scandal and the resignation of President
Richard Nixon in August 1974.
But, when all the votes were tabulated, Senate Republicans
had held their ground with 38 seats. Two months later,
Stevens was unanimously elected Republican whip, or assistant
leader--the party's second-highest post in the Senate.
In 1980, Republicans riding on the coattails of Ronald
Reagan won control of the Senate for the first time since
1954, and Stevens was elevated from minority whip to majority
whip. The job gave him considerable influence over the
Senate's agenda, a large office suite in the Capitol and a
chauffeured car.
In 1984, Stevens ran for majority leader, the top job in
the Senate. He lost to Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., by three votes.
Dole was seen as more likely to run the Senate
independently from the Reagan White House, according to
newspaper reports at the time.
But Stevens thinks power politics was partly to blame for
his defeat. He said some Republicans on whom he had counted
instead voted for Dole because the Kansan's election meant
new committee positions for them.
Stevens was devastated by the loss. He had had to give up
the job of whip to run, and the Dole victory ended his 10-
year climb up the leadership ladder.
But the defeat improved the personal side of Stevens' life.
For the eight years he was whip, he had arrived early to open
the Senate and stayed late to close it.
``Now I can take Lily (then 3) to school in the morning and
maybe even pick her up at night sometimes,'' Stevens said
after the vote. ``It's not all bad.''
The aftermath of that defeat has led to some of the best
years in Stevens' public life, he said in a recent interview.
In 1985, Dole appointed Stevens chairman of a Senate group
created to observe arms-control negotiations in Geneva. With
most of the pressing Alaska issues already resolved, the
appointment gave Stevens the chance to travel frequently with
Catherine and Lily.
``We flew Alaska salmon over to Geneva and had parties for
the Russians,'' he said. ``First they came alone, then they
came with their wives. Before we were through they were
walking around the lake with us and we were talking to them
on Sunday afternoon. Those were good days.''
financial problems
But the private side of Stevens' life was anything but
comfortable. He was in deep money trouble.
In 1979, three years after helping shepherd the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act through Congress,
Stevens and nine partners invested in the industry the act
was intended to stimulate. They built a $2 million crab boat
and christened it the ``Lady Ann,'' in honor of Stevens'
first wife.
Stevens said at the time that his work on the Magnuson Act
was no ethical bar to investing in the fishery, adding that
``I'd like to be accused of being the only senator that owns
a fleet of fishing boats.''
The investors included Catherine's brother, William
Bittner, and Ron Birch, a former Stevens aide who had formed
a law partnership with Bittner.
Birch said in a recent interview that each investor put up
$20,000 to secure a bank note. Cash calls came later for
equipment and supplies, he said.
By the time Lady Ann hit the water, the crab industry was
on the rocks, and investors in the vessel were facing
payments on a debt with interest rates soaring to 21 percent,
Birch said.
Stevens' partners were lawyers and businessmen making more
money than he did as a senator. They could handle the strain,
but Stevens said he had trouble making his payments.
But the bigger burden, Stevens said, was Catherine's
investment in an Arizona cattle ranch.
Neither would go into much detail but Catherine said her
investment in the 39,000-acre ranch ran into problems with
the Internal Revenue Service.
``We had a big tax bill,'' Catherine said. ``We had been
hassling with them over depreciation schedules and various
things like that. The problem is that if you owe back taxes,
with the interest, it was enough money. I don't even remember
how much money it was.''
In December 1986 the couple sold their suburban Maryland
house to pay off debts and rented a home in Washington, D.C.
``Those were bad days,'' Stevens said. ``Those were the
tough times.''
Frustrated by his own financial predicament and facing
another re-election campaign in 1990, Stevens seemed
discouraged.
In an interview in 1988, he complained about how much he
had given up for a public-service career. He said he
considered the 1990 election ``pivotal'' for him and the
state.
``Politics is a very fickle thing,'' he said. ``I see this
election as determining whether the state wants someone with
great seniority.
``I just want people to understand the commitment I'm
making if I stay on,'' he said. ``This is a period I could go
out and make $1 million a year without any question.''
Then, in March 1989, it seemed Stevens might not be a
candidate for re-election.
President George Bush's nomination of John Tower to be
secretary of Defense was rejected by the Senate, and the
White House went searching for a less-controversial candidate
who would be easy to confirm. Stevens' name was among those
floated for the job.
Sean O'Keefe, then Stevens' top military aide, said he
thinks Stevens was seriously considered.
According to O'Keefe; who later became Navy secretary under
Bush, the White House called the morning of March 10--the day
the nomination was to be announced--wondering where Stevens
could be reached, if needed.
Less than an hour before the announcement, Stevens was in
his office anxiously contemplating his options.
Alaskans had repeatedly elected him to be their senator,
Stevens told a reporter that morning. That was not something
that could be easily dismissed.
``I have a real feeling about the presidency,'' Stevens
later said. ``If the president asks you to do something, if
it's within your power, I think you should do it. I never
faced that problem.''
In the end, he never had to. The Defense Department job
went to former Wyoming Rep. Dick Cheney, who had served in
the U.S. House with Bush.
Stevens' reaction was to dismiss the episode as a flash in
the pan. He said he doesn't think Bush ever seriously
considered him because he had backed Bob Dole--not Bush--in
the 1988 Republican primary.
``Bush personally asked me for my support. I told him that
Dole has been very generous to me and that I intend to
support Dole,'' Stevens said. ``Presidents don't forget
things like that.''
Bush wouldn't comment on how seriously he considered
Stevens for the job. The ex-president is writing a book and
``he's keeping his powder dry on this one,'' figures aide Jim
McGrath. ``I don't think he wants to scoop himself.''
finding the balance
Today, at 70, Stevens seems more at peace. He travels to
the state about 10 times a year, staying when time allows at
his Girdwood chalet--his official residence. Though he still
maintains a rigorous schedule in Washington, he takes time to
drive Lily and her schoolmates to soccer games.
But he's as political as ever. He's already said he plans
to run for re-election in 1996. And, on the Senate floor, he
is as tenacious as ever, doing everything he can to keep
federal money flowing north.
Thanks to the dying gift of one of his first friends in
Alaska, his own money problems seem to be behind him.
That friend was former Fairbanks Daily News-Miner publisher
C.W. Snedden, who died in 1989.
Snedden willed Stevens one of his most cherished
possessions--a 55-foot motor yacht called the Lorichuck.
Unable to afford the vessel's moorage fees in Seattle and in
need of cash himself, Stevens put the vessel up for sale at
an asking price of $650,000.
It is not clear how much the vessel actually fetched. But a
Seattle boat broker said about the time the yacht was sold
that he knew of a pending $420,000 offer. Stevens said he and
Catherine used the proceeds to pay off bills and buy the
house they had been renting.
Stevens described Snedden's bequest as ``one of those great
testimonials to friendship.''
``He had personal knowledge of my personal finances over
the years,'' Stevens said in a 1989 interview. ``It was a
gesture to help me stay in the Senate.''
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
rural health
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, New York State is best known for its
large metropolitan areas; however, there are nearly 3.1 million rural
residents in the State. The rural population in New York is larger than
the population of 21 States. In many rural areas of New York, the
existing health care delivery system is inadequate, inappropriate, or
generally unavailable.
Rural communities of New York State and the Nation are experiencing
serious challenges in attracting and retaining health care providers
and health care services. Hospitals and primary care facilities
continue to close. Communities are concerned about the availability of
emergency medical services [EMS]. Physicians are retiring and some are
leaving the rural areas which only adds to the health professional
shortage problem.
In recognizing the needs of rural areas, the Federal Government has
supported initiatives to assist States and local communities in meeting
their health care needs. New York State is one of seven States that
receive grants under the Essential Access Community Hospital [EACH] and
the Rural Primary Care Hospital [RPCH] program. These grants help
develop rural health networks by linking at least one full service
hospital [EACH] and one or more limited service hospitals [RPCH's].
However, even before the Federal program was initiated in 1989, New
York State supported the development of rural health networks.
Currently, New York's rural health network initiative supports four
rural health network demonstration sites--Upper Hudson (Adirondack
Rural Health Network), Chenango Health Network, Northern New York Rural
Health Care Alliance, Southern Tier Healthcare System--and has been
working with a number of other rural provider groups to develop
additional integrated networks of health care providers. Specifically,
the State of New York is helping networks to coordinate and integrate
services in three major service categories: (a) hospital services; (b)
primary care services; and (c) emergency medical services. These
services must be integrated both within each category and among the
categories.
The rural health amendments offered by Senator Daschle and other
members of the rural coalition will certainly assist rural areas in New
York. Providers in underserved rural Counties such as Jefferson, Essex,
Yates, and Cortland would be eligible to apply for the following:
Funding for the development of health care plans and networks; bonus
payments under Medicare for primary care physicians and nonphysician
practitioners practicing in rural areas; tax incentives for health care
providers who locate in rural areas; more generous expensing for
medical equipment used to provide primary care services in rural areas;
additional funding for the National Health Service Corp.
All rural areas, some 44 counties in New York State, would benefit
from the following provision: Grants for the development of rural
telemedicine; rural emergency medical services [EMS] program grants;
higher payments for small rural Medicare dependent hospitals; Medicare
rural health transition grants for rural hospitals to modify the extent
and type of services they provide; the rural based managed care program
to increase the number of rural managed care plans.
Indeed, this is a significant step toward expanding our capacity to
delivery health care services in rural communities.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2569 to Amendment No. 2560
(Purpose: To clarify the grounds for the nonrenewal or termination of a
health plan in the event of the nonpayment of premiums)
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Mr. Mitchell] *proposes an
amendment numbered 2569 to amendment No. 2560.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 1432, strike lines 21 through 24, and insert the
following:
SEC. 10135. PROVISIONS REGARDING NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUMS.
(a) In General.--A health plan may terminate coverage if
amounts owed to the plan for a month with respect to an
individual or an individual's family members have not been
fully paid for a time period established under State law, or
in the absence of such a law, a period of not less than 60
days, and the heath plan has made reasonable attempts to
collect such amounts.
(b) Notice.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, a health plan may terminate coverage for nonpayment of
premiums under subsection (a) only after providing notice of
amounts overdue (in a form and manner and at such times as
prescribed by the appropriate certifying authority).
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, under the legislation which I
introduced, a sponsor of a standard health plan has the authority to
terminate an insurance policy for nonpayment of premiums. That is an
authority which currently exists and is administered under State law
with respect to insurance policies.
Under the legislation, if 95 percent of coverage is obtained by the
year 2000, then no employer requirement with respect to participation
in the cost of insurance would be required, and the status as I have
just described it would be permanent thereafter.
So under the amendment, for at least a period of 7 years, and then
depending upon what occurred thereafter, possibly permanently a company
would retain existing legal rights to terminate a policy for nonpayment
of premiums.
However, under the legislation, in the event that 95 percent of
coverage is not achieved by the year 2000, and in the further event
that Congress does not act thereafter to remedy that situation, then
beginning in the year 2002 an employer requirement is created under
which employers having 25 or more employees would be required to
participate in the cost of health insurance for employees on a 50-50
cost-sharing basis. Employees of firms with fewer than 25 employees
would be exempt from that requirement.
In order to prevent a situation under those circumstances in which an
employee of a covered firm paid his or her premium but the employer
failed to make the contribution required by law, the legislation is
intended to prohibit termination of a policy in that circumstance; that
is to say, in the event the employee paid his share of the premium and
thought he was covered, but the employer failed to make his required
payment, under which circumstance the concern was that the employee's
policy would be canceled even though the employee had paid his share
and might not even be aware of the employer's lack of contribution.
The language of the proposal which was intended to achieve this
narrow result has been interpreted by some in a way which creates an
ambiguity and which some have suggested prohibits in all circumstances,
at all times, under the legislation, a circumstance in which a policy
could never be canceled for nonpayment of premium.
That is clearly not the intent of the legislation, and this amendment
is intended to resolve any ambiguity in that regard.
The amendment provides that a health plan may terminate coverage if
the premiums are not paid for a time period as established under State
law, and if there is no State law, then a period of 60 days.
Now, I emphasize again, this applies only in the period after the
year 2002 if the employer requirement is triggered and that employer
does not meet the responsibility of the law even though the employee
may have paid his premium or, of course, in the event the employee did
not pay his premium.
Almost all and perhaps all States have grace periods prior to the
cancellation of policies. They generally are in the range of 30 days.
They vary somewhat depending upon the type of policy and the State.
So what this says is in that situation, if a premium is not paid
either by the individual employee or by the employer, the termination
of the policy could occur subject to State law with respect to the
grace period.
In the event that the nonpayment of premium by either the individual
employee or the employer occurred and the State did not have a law
containing a grace period, the grace period would be 60 days.
So, Mr. President, this is an effort to clarify a possible ambiguity
in the manner in which the underlying legislation is interpreted and to
make clear again, first, that for the period between 1995 and 2002, and
perhaps on a permanent basis, depending upon whether the employer
requirement is triggered, insurance companies and other health plan
providers retain their right to terminate policies for nonpayment of
premiums consistent with applicable State law.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, certainly.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, as the majority leader knows, this was a
section that troubled me very greatly. I think it is title X, section
10135. It is my understanding of what the majority leader is saying
that this section, first of all, does not come in until after the year
2000; and second, it applies only if the mandate is triggered and the
employer does not pay his share. Am I correct in this?
Mr. MITCHELL. If the employer does not pay his share or if the
employee does not pay his share.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. My next question is what would happen after the 60
days expired?
Mr. MITCHELL. In the event that the premium remained unpaid and the
plan had made a reasonable attempt to collect and had notified the
employee, the policy would be terminated.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The policy would terminate?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. So there would be no need for someone to sue to gain
payment; the policy would terminate?
Mr. MITCHELL. That is right. The insurer, the insuring party has the
power and authority to terminate the policy as under current law.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the majority leader very much. I think that
is a substantial improvement, and I am very pleased to see it.
So I thank the majority leader.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, that completes my explanation of the
amendment.
I was earlier advised and announced that no recorded vote would be
necessary.
I will be pleased now to yield the floor and permit my colleague from
Oregon to make such remarks as he may wish.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, there will be no vote on this amendment,
and we will be prepared to accept it.
I think a few Members have some things they would like to say, and it
is understandable. I appreciate the majority leader's reasonableness on
this.
All you have to do is stand here on the floor next to the majority
leader, 5 feet away, and listen to the demands on his time: Please vote
by 5 o'clock; I want to be home by 5 p.m.; Do not vote before 6 because
I will not be back. And 100 voices, majority and minority Members, a
cacophony of people talking to him. It is understandable that you
cannot know everything that is in your own bill. You cannot go through
1,400 pages and find every possible permutation.
When he says the bill was intended not to cancel employees if the
employer did not pay the premiums, I realize that in the hearts and
minds of the drafters, that is what they hoped.
It is simply, I think, not unlike the $10,000 penalty we had
yesterday. It slipped into the bill somehow unnoticed.
This slipped into the bill somehow unnoticed. And my hunch is there
are other things in the bill unnoticed that will be unearthed before we
are finished.
I am delighted the majority leader caught the error and was willing
at least to remedy this slight mistake in the bill.
But I say again, I can perfectly understand how it is impossible to
know everything in a bill even when it is your own bill.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. MITCHELL. I am sure the Senator has had the same experience. In
1986, he managed the Tax Reform Act, which was even longer than the
bill that is now before us and which had a lot of arcane provisions
that were hard to understand, some deliberately so and some not.
So I thank the Senator.
Mr. PACKWOOD. I had the advantage that I discovered, in taxation,
most people concede they do not know and do not bother you. In health,
everyone knows what it is about.
Therefore, the majority leader has to put up with a lot more than I
had to put up with.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, we are prepared to proceed to act on the
amendment by voice vote at this point.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for an
observation?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, first of all, let me say personally that
there is no one I respect more than the majority leader, both as a
leader and for the way he conducts himself personally. There is no
fairer or finer advocate than the majority leader.
I say that because I do not want my remarks to be misinterpreted,
because they may be, and they are, somewhat critical of the process we
have engaged in. But we do not pick the process. Events, time, and
other circumstances have thrust it upon us.
I could not help but pick up on the leader's remarks about 1986 and
the tax bill. Probably in my mind the greatest single mistake that I
made--and I have made lots of them in terms of legislation I have voted
for or against--was my vote for that 1986 tax bill. I remember coming
down on the floor with Senator Dodd, my colleague, who I see over here.
We fought like the dickens to keep the IRA's from being knocked out. We
actually had the votes. And then, because of subtle pressure, et
cetera, we lost it.
We should have kept those IRA's. We fought in a bipartisan way. Now,
years later, I have seen some of the Senators who worked assiduously to
defeat us on that became the sponsors and champions of IRA's, working
to reclaim them, to bring them back. I remember that.
I remember provision after provision being worked against. I remember
it was fashionable to get the real estate buys. It was, ``Let's get
`em.'' And, by the way, we did it in a retroactively manner. We talk
about the disaster that we crated with the banks. We helped bring some
of that about because people who had contracts all of the sudden found
the tax rules had changed retroactively. It did not matter that they
had invested their life's savings. It was, after all, these real estate
guys.
I have no problem with saying that prospectively, in the future, we
will not longer allow people to get these shelters. Some of those
shelters were nonproductive.
Now, why do I say that? Because there were provisions after
provisions that I worked to change, and we did not change them. And
there were some redeeming features in that bill. If you want to knock
out tax relief for wealthy people that is not productive, fine. Do it
prospectively, but do not reach back. That was wrong. But we did it
because we needed the revenue,
And I have to tell you something, we are doing things here in this
bill because we are trying to meet goals and revenue targets. We do not
come close to understanding the import of what we are doing in this
bill.
And in 1986, I am telling you again, I went down in that well, and I
went along with the crowd. I was wrong. And I vowed that when I feel
strongly on a subject from now on, I am not going to keep quiet and I
am not just going to go with the flow.
And, again, there were redeeming aspects to the bill. I remember tax
credits for working people. That is the way that I rationalized it in
my mind. I think that was a good part of the 1986 bill. That really was
good for working poor people.
To my amazement, the leader voted against that tax bill. And I say to
him, it is to his credit. I always said to myself, ``Yeah, Senator
Mitchell voted the other way, and I applaud him. He stood up and he
voted that way. I wish I had.''
Mr. MITCHELL. If the Senator would yield, I thank the Senator for
giving me credit, but I think I better make clear that I voted for it.
Mr. D'AMATO. I always thought you voted the other way. I always gave
you credit for that.
Mr. MITCHELL. I appreciate the fact that for the past 8 years I have
gotten credit for something which I did not do.
Mr. D'AMATO. In my mind, you did. I was always amazed.
Mr. MITCHELL. I thought one thing we better do around here now is
correct the Record as soon as we can.
Mr. D'AMATO. I was upset with myself for not having gone down there
and voted that way. I will not tell you why. I try to do it in my
diary. I hope the diary does not lie.
But, it is one of the two incidents that I have cited in terms of
lack of courage. It was my lack of courage at that time.
Why do I bring this up? Because, it bears upon the leader's amendment
to clarify what was done on page 1432, section 10135, lines 21 through
24. And I understand his clarification.
But I must say, when it comes to an issue, that is as important to
the health and welfare of every American and every family as health
reform, we should not be thrust in a position, any of us, where we are
reading through this voluminous document in this manner.
I do not lay blame upon anyone in this Chamber for our finding
ourselves in this circumstance. But I do think we do ourselves and the
people great harm if we attempt to proceed and enact legislation in
this manner.
And I think the reasons come down to, we find that it is important
politically. I think we do damage to the political process--the
governmental process--if we insist on pursuing this course.
I believe the whole health care issue has been moved forward in a
manner which has already resulted in some substantial improvements,
which has already focused attention on some important issues.
I give the President credit for that. I give Mrs. Clinton credit for
that. We have seen greater cost containment in certain areas. In the
private sector, we have seen hospitals, drug manufacturers, and others
undertake certain actions that probably never would have been taken
were it not for the seriousness of purpose that has arisen around
addressing this important national issue.
But I implore my friends and colleagues in this body, Democrats and
Republicans, to take a step back now and let us see if we cannot
continue the process of narrowing our differences, and attempting to
come up with a bill that will do the job and not one which is driven by
time or by elections; one in which we come together and do the business
of the people the right way.
That is the nature of the calls which I am getting from my
constituents--not lobbyists, but New Yorkers. And by an overwhelming
margin, about 3.1 to 1, the calls that come in are saying, ``Yes, we
know there is a need for health care. Please don't rush to judgment.''
I think this is a rush to judgment.
I yield the floor.
And I thank my distinguished friend and colleague for setting me
straight on his 1986 vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, we are prepared to proceed to have the
amendment adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the
majority leader.
The amendment (No. 2569) was agreed to.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
position on vote 290
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I regret that earlier today a medical
appointment prevented me from voting on an amendment offered by Senator
Daschle which sought to expand access to health care in rural areas.
Representing a rural State like Maine, I am well aware of the special
problems that rural areas face. In fact, the first comprehensive health
care bill I introduced in 1990 included a number of provisions to
address the health care needs of rural areas. My efforts with respect
to health care have routinely included particular focus on the need to
expand quality health care services in Maine and other rural States.
Accordingly, had I been able to vote, I would have joined my other
colleagues in unanimously supporting the Daschle amendment.
federal employees health benefit plan
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the importance
of opening up the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan to all
Americans and to explain what this decision will mean to Federal
employees. I would also like to respond to comments made by the senior
Senator from Alaska who said two things that concern me:
First, that Federal employees get less in the standard benefit
package; and
Second, that they get a supplemental benefit package not available to
others.
Opening up FEHBP is a wise decision. It allows Americans to have
access to the very same choice of health insurance plans that we have,
that the President has, that Federal employees have.
FEHBP enrolls over 9 million employees and their families. It is a
structure that exists everywhere in the country. You can go to
Frederick, MD and there are FEHBP enrollees or you can go to Fairbanks,
AK and there will be FEHBP enrollees. It is a system which is in place
and it works for its enrollees. I am an FEHBP enrollee. I am a Blue
Cross/Blue Shield standard option single only. I like my coverage and I
think that it is only right that Americans have access to the same
health insurance plans.
But while are are opening up FEHBP, I have worked hard to make sure
that we are not taking anything away from the Federal employees. When
concerns were raised during the Labor Committee markup, I worked with
the Federal employee unions to meet those concerns. They said that the
bill treated them differently from other Americans and from what I
could see they were right.
Why was that?
First, coverage might be lost for some Federal employees.
Second, unlike workers in the private sector, Federal employees could
not get a supplemental benefit package to close the gap between what
they get in the standard package. Because the Office of Personnel
Management is not required to offer supplemental plans to Federal
employees, they could end up with less than they have now.
So, I worked with Senator Kennedy in the Labor Committee markup to
resolve these issues. I offered an amendment that was accepted that
achieved the following goals:
First, the Federal employees health benefit program must offer a
supplemental benefit package;
Second, it allows Federal employee organizations to meet and confer
with O.P.M. for these policies and agree upon a contribution toward the
premiums; and
Third, it allows any American covered by a health plan offered by
FEHBP to buy the FEHBP supplemental plan.
This provision leveled the playing field. Federal employees would
have access to supplemental benefit packages that many private sector
employees now have access to and would continue to have access to
through negotiations with their employers.
We needed to correct this situation and this amendment allowed that.
This is the provision that Senator Mitchell agreed to include in his
bill and this is the understanding of the Federal employee unions.
It doesn't mean that the Federal Government will necessarily pay for
the supplemental benefits package for Federal employees. Nor does it
mean that there will be a Federal contribution to non-Federal FEHBP
enrollees who want to purchase a supplemental package.
It simply means that Federal employees, like workers in private
industry, can negotiate with their employers to receive a contribution
toward a supplemental benefit. Federal employees are just being treated
fairly--just like many other Americans.
I hope this clarifies the record. I believe that we should have a
health care system for all Americans--that is accessible, affordable,
rewards people who play by the rules, and lets people choose their own
providers. That is what this provision does. That is why opening up
FEHBP is a good idea.
____________________