[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 151 (Wednesday, October 21, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12810-S12839]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had hoped to make this floor statement 
in advance of the vote, but I could not be here yesterday. So, I have 
asked for time this morning to state my reasons for voting against the 
omnibus appropriations bill. And I do so with a conflict of my own 
views because I think this bill provides very substantial funding for 
very many important projects. However, I decided to vote against the 
bill because of the change from regular order and existing procedures 
in the appropriations process. The Constitution gives the authority to 
100 Members of the Senate and 435 Members of the House, but as the 
appropriations process went forward the final decisions were made by 
only four Members.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. I would like 
to hear the Senator, if we could have order in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague, Senator Ashcroft, for asking for 
order. I would like to hear myself and am having some difficulty.
  As I was saying, Mr. President, notwithstanding the fact that this 
bill contains funding for many, many vital programs for America, I 
decided on balance to vote against it because it made such drastic 
changes in existing procedure where the Constitution gives to the 
Congress the authority to appropriate, 435 Members in the House and 100 
Members in the Senate, and as the arrangements were finally worked out, 
critical decisions were made excluding the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, excluding the chairmen of the relevant 
subcommittees such as myself, with only the Speaker, the leader of the 
Democrats in the House, our distinguished majority leader, and the 
minority leader in the Senate. I think that is very, very problemsome.
  During the time allotted to me this morning I intend to summarize my 
views.
  Starting first with the accomplishments, it does provide for $83.3 
billion

[[Page S12811]]

in discretionary spending for the subcommittee which I chair which has 
jurisdiction over three major departments--the Department of Education, 
the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of 
Labor. There were some very important appropriations items included, 
such as a $2 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health. My 
distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, the ranking member, and I 
worked very closely on this bill with our staffs, and I learned a long 
time ago that if you want to get something done in the Congress and the 
Senate, you have to cross party lines to do it.
  We added $2 billion to $13.6 billion in the National Institutes of 
Health budget, with a vision for the 21st century of conquering cancer, 
which takes the lives of 44,000 women a year from breast cancer, and 
the lives of many men from prostate cancer, conquering Alzheimer's, 
arthritis and Parkinson's. We appropriated $1.1 billion for LIHEAP, 
which is home energy assistance going principally to the poor, 
significantly to elderly people who only have the option of either 
heating or eating. We have $2.5 billion for substance abuse. We have 
appropriated $156 million to protect women from violence, an increase 
of $21 million over last year.
  For education programs, the total budget is $32.9 billion, an 
increase of $3.5 billion over last year. For student aid, so vital for 
American competitiveness worldwide and to improve quality of life for 
individuals, we have $9.3 billion, an increase of $369 million over 
last year, and for Head Start a total of $4.6 billion, an increase of 
$313 million. We have increased special education program funding to 
$5.1 billion, and we have put up some $1.2 billion for classroom size 
reduction, an objective I agree with, although we didn't get there the 
right way procedurally.
  The bill further provides for $1.7 billion for job training, very 
important; $1.3 billion for the Job Corps, $1.4 billion for dislocated 
workers, $564 million for mine safety, $871 million for summer youth 
jobs, a program which the House of Representatives had tried to totally 
eliminate.
  And why in the face of these important expenditures did I vote 
against the bill? Because this bill never came to the Senate floor from 
the subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education 
Appropriations. My staff and I worked on an expedited basis in August 
so that on our second day back, September 1, the subcommittee could 
vote it out. The full committee voted it out on September 3, but it 
never came up on the Senate floor. And similarly, the House of 
Representatives took only a small portion of the Labor, Health and 
Human Services and Education bill up.
  As a result, when we did not follow the regular order and the 
customary process, we did not follow the constitutional direction and 
the direction which the Senate has adhered to for so many years. This 
was, I think, to the detriment of the bill, although so many important 
items have been funded, there could have been, I think, a better 
allocation had the people really responsible been involved throughout.
  When the chairman of the subcommittee is excluded from the final 
negotiations and the chairman of the full appropriations committee is 
excluded, you lose the impact and the experience of the people who have 
worked most closely on the bill.
  I would illustrate this point by noting what happened on October 9. 
The President had a press conference in the Rose Garden severely 
criticizing the Republican Congress on education, and I was asked to 
provide part of the response in a subsequent press conference. I did so 
by pointing out that the House-Senate conference had provided more 
money on education than the President had requested in his February 
budget. We had $31.8 billion, contrasted with the President's request 
for $31.2 billion, meaning that we put up $600 million more than the 
President asked for. Not unexpectedly, with the President's bully 
pulpit, his message carried the day and the congressional response was 
lost in the shuffle.
  Then we had the issue of reducing average classroom size by hiring 
teachers, where the President had requested $1.2 billion. What was not 
ever understood publicly was that those funds were to be provided by 
moneys from the tobacco settlement. However, there never was a tobacco 
settlement. The President and his administration never provided any 
alternative source of funding. Senator Harkin, my distinguished ranking 
member, and I and the rest of our subcommittee understood that, so we 
found $300 million for title I, which could have been used for reducing 
classroom size for next year. This was substantially more than that 
which could have been expended, and that, too, was lost in the shuffle.
  What I think is especially disconcerting is the fact that when we 
Republicans control both the Senate and the House, we should have been 
able to come to terms in September before the fiscal year ended and 
submitted bills to the White House, to the President, in regular order 
where the President would either have to sign them or veto them. Had we 
done this in regular order, I think, with the public debate focusing on 
the education issue, for example, the chances were excellent the 
President would not veto it when it would be understood the Congress 
had provided more than he had requested and that we had complied with 
much of his initiative classroom size reduction.
  But, when those bills were not presented until October and the only 
other option is closing up the Government, then the leverage is all 
with the President, and the Congress cannot really perform its 
appropriation and legislative function.
  The bills were not presented in September because of very strong 
disagreements on so many substantive matters which should have been 
handled by the authorizing committees. There was endless debate on 
whether there would be student testing, endless debate on organ 
transplants, endless debate on ergonomics--and we Republicans should 
have concluded those matters. We should have excluded the legislation, 
by and large, although realistically you can never exclude it all. And 
while we should not legislate on appropriations bills, some of that is 
necessarily done, but should not be done in a quantity to defeat our 
process of presenting these bills.
  In the conference we had on October 9, with representatives from the 
Office of Management and Budget, I raised the question about a 
disagreement in priorities of some $330 million out of the $32 billion 
bill--a relatively small part, about one percent. Was the President 
going to veto our bill over that amount of money, because of those 
differences in priorities? The Office of Management and Budget 
representatives said they did not know. I replied if they did not know, 
they ought not to be in the process, that we ought to be legislating.
  It would have been a very different outcome had we presented these 
bills to the President in September and had we focused on precisely 
what the Congress had done and where the areas of disagreement were, 
and on the fact that at that stage we had provided more money than the 
President had requested by $600 million, and that we had taken care of 
the issue on reduction of classroom size.
  We live in a society with many, many different views. What has been 
the strength of the institutions of the American Government has been 
the procedures which we have established for more than 200 years. Those 
procedures are for the subcommittee to report, the full committee to 
report, the matter to come to the floor of the Senate, for 100 Senators 
to be able to debate and offer amendments--and that was not done. And 
that was not done in the House. We did not have an actual House-Senate 
conference on our bill, although we met informally. The product is not 
what should have been done. We do not live in an oligarchy under the 
constitutional doctrine which governs our society.
  But, where you have these decisions made on $500 billion in 
expenditures and many, many substantive issues at the very last minute, 
it is an oligarchy. Mr. President, 535 of us have surrendered our power 
and our authority to a group of 4, and that is not the way the American 
Government is supposed to run. That has given disproportionate power, 
enormously disproportionate power, to the President because of the 
experience we had at the end of 1995 and the beginning of 1996 when the 
Government was closed and the Congress got the blame.
  What I have seen in the time I have been here is when there is blame, 
you

[[Page S12812]]

can usually divide it 50/50, right down the middle, half to the 
Congress and half to the administration. If there is partisan blame, 
you can divide it right down the middle, half to the Republicans and 
half to the Democrats. I think the failure to follow regular order and 
our established procedures, the constitutional mandate and what we have 
developed as a matter of congressional practice, is very, very, very 
serious. I think it warrants a very, very strong protest vote, which I 
have cast.
  I was interested to hear the comments of the distinguished senior 
Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who yesterday made a speech 
and, in more graphic terms than mine, called this a Frankenstein bill--
it did not have a mother and a father--and said he was going to vote 
for it. A few minutes ago Senator Byrd approached me on the floor and 
said he decided to vote against it. I asked him why. He said he had 
persuaded himself. He went home last night, thought about his speech, 
decided he was right. He decided he was right on the Frankenstein part; 
he was wrong on the part to vote for the bill.
  I said I was delighted to hear that because of the high regard I have 
for Senator Byrd, also the high regard I have for Senator Santorum, who 
is presiding at the moment, my colleague from Pennsylvania, who also 
voted against this bill. We discussed it and he did not quite have the 
oligarchy in mind, but he agreed with the principle that the 535 of us 
ought not to cede our power to 4.
  It is not easy to get to the U.S. Senate. It is not easy to stay 
here. There is a lot of hard work that goes into what we have done. For 
example, Senator Santorum and I represent 12 million people and, in 
chairing the subcommittee on this $83 billion bill, I have given very, 
very serious consideration to all of these issues and I join him in 
thinking they should have been legislated in regular order.
  I, again, compliment my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, for 
his diligence and his work and his outstanding staff, Marsha Simon and 
Ellen Murray. My staff is second to none, with Mark Laisch, Jennifer 
Stiefel, Jack Chow, Mary Dietrich, Jim Sourwine. Most of all, 
``Senator'' Bettilou Taylor--she is technically the clerk--who 
commented to me that she did not like my negative vote. Here she comes 
back on the floor. She heard her name mentioned. She thought it might 
have been interpreted that I was not for education and health care. I 
think my record is strong enough that my negative vote as a protest to 
the procedure will be understood in light of all the work we did on 
these education allocations and health care allocations. And Dan 
Renberg, who is my deputy chief of staff and legislative director, who 
is extraordinary in working with Bettilou in handling some 1,300 
requests which come to our office, and about five times that many phone 
calls, and David Urban, my distinguished chief of staff, who also helps 
in making these legislative arrangements.
  So, it is with mixed emotions that I vote no because procedures and 
format are still the most important; that we follow regular order 
because we don t know about the quality of the next oligarchy of four 
which may seek control of the appropriations process.
  I now ask unanimous consent that my full statements on the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


         omnibus appropriations bill: problems with the process

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I want to express my strong objections to 
the procedures which were followed on the omnibus appropriations bill, 
which contains the text of eight individual appropriations and 
authorizing provisions totaling nearly $500 billion in spending.
  The importance of this legislation stems from our Constitution, which 
provides in Article I, section 9 that, ``no money shall be drawn from 
the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.''
  The regular order is for the 435 House members and the 100 Senators 
to consider the appropriations bills in sequence with floor action, 
conference reconciliation and then final action by each body before 
presentation to the President. This process, too, stems from the 
Constitutional directive in Article I, section 7 that a bill which has 
passed the House and Senate shall be presented to the President, who 
may sign it into law, or veto the bill and return it accordingly to the 
Congress for their reconsideration.
  This year, the final stages and key negotiations were carried on by 
only 4 elected members: the Majority Leader and Minority Leader in the 
Senate and the Speaker and Minority Leader of the Democrats in the 
House, with the participation of White House representatives.
  I chair the Appropriations Subcommittee which has jurisdiction for 
the bill funding the Department of Labor, Department of Health and 
Human Services and the Department of Education. Our bill did not reach 
the Senate floor for consideration by the full Senate. And, except for 
a small portion, our bill did not receive consideration by the full 
House of Representatives. Thus, the Senate could never formally convene 
a full-fledged conference with the House on the Labor, HHS, Education 
bill. Recognizing that our bill would be wrapped into an omnibus 
spending bill, we held informal conferences involving the House and 
Senate Chairmen and ranking minority members, but we were not present 
when the final, key decisions were made.
  In an early conference session on our bill, representatives of the 
Office of Management and Budget raised questions about approximately 
$330 million of the $32 billion designated for education programs in 
our bill. I asked these Administration officials whether that 
differnce, slightly more than 1 percent of the total, would produce a 
veto. The OMB representatives responded that they did not know the 
answer to my question. I then said if the difference would not produce 
a veto, then the matter really ought to be left to the House and Senate 
negotiators, who would reach their own conclusions as to the 
appropriate figures to be presented in the bill to the President.

  With the Republicans in control of both the House and Senate, it is 
my strongly held view that we had a responsibility to conclude the 
appropriations bills in September before the end of the fiscal year for 
presentation to the President. That agreement was not reached because 
of many pending military ancillary issues such as school testing, organ 
transplants, ergonomics, etc. Had we finished Congressional action on 
the appropriations bill on Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education, in September, for example, we could have then presented it 
to the President for his signature or veto with the issues 
crystallized. It is entirely possible that the President would not have 
vetoed the bill.
  However, when the bills were not ready for final consideration until 
October, the White House emerged with the most leverage because a 
failure to agree meant the government would shut down.
  On Friday, October 9, the President held an afternoon news conference 
in the Rose Garden criticizing the Republican Congress on education 
funding. I was asked to give a part of the Republican reply in a 
Capitol press conference, which I did, pointing out that the House-
Senate subcommittee conferees had approved $31.8 billion for Fiscal 
Year 1999 discretionary education spending, which was $600 million over 
the President's budget request of $31.2 billion.
  As expected with the force of the bully pulpit, the President carried 
the day in the media arena with no Congressional reply receiving any 
significant attention.
  On the subject of adding teachers to reduce classroom size, earlier 
this year the President proposed paying for that $1.2 billion with 
proceeds from the tobacco settlement. Of course, there was no tobacco 
settlement legislation enacted and the Administration had no fallback 
proposal to cover the attendant shortfall in funding.
  Notwithstanding the absence of a tobacco settlement, my ranking 
member, Senator Harkin, and I had worked through the figures and 
allocated $300 million in additional federal funds for title one which 
could be used for school districts to hire new teachers and reduce the 
average number of children assigned to each classroom teacher. We were 
advised the budgetary outlays

[[Page S12813]]

would be $50 million in the first year, which was more than enough for 
the first year's funding and could be afforded within the existing 
Subcommittee allocation.
  Again, all of that was lost in the last minute shuffle with the 
President criticizing the Congress without a factual foundation.
  Had these issues on education, for example, been handled in a timely 
fashion in September with presentment of a Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education appropriations bill to the President, he would 
have had to articulate his views in a public forum to justify a veto. 
The result likely would have been entirely different.
  It is my hope that we will not repeat this year's process. I firmly 
believe that if the people of America are given the opportunity to 
understand precisely what is happening, they will demand that we follow 
regular order in the appropriations process as set forth in the 
Constitution and the long-established practices of congressional 
legislative action.


   fiscal year 1999 labor, health and human services, and education 
                           appropriations act

  Mr. President, this has been an unusual year for the Labor, Health 
and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee. While 
both the House and Senate subcommittees reported bills out of the full 
committee, neither House ever had the opportunity to fully debate its 
merits. I believe that a bill which constitutes the single largest 
investment in improving the health, educational standing and economic 
well-being of our nation, and in one way or another, affects the lives 
of every man, woman and child in this country should have had the 
opportunity to be fully debated by all 100 Senators.
  The subcommittee received over 1,300 requests from colleagues seeking 
more funding, report language and special earmarks. We weighed each of 
those requests very carefully, and wherever possible we accommodated 
our colleagues.
  I want to extend my sincerest appreciation to Senator Harkin and his 
staff, Marsha Simon and Ellen Murray for their role in this effort. I 
also want to extend my thanks to each of the members of the 
subcommittee for their cooperation.


                                OVERVIEW

  The Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill totals $291.9 billion of 
which $83.3 billion is for discretionary spending for FY'99 and an 
additional $6.1 billion has been provided for education programs for 
FY'2000. The discretionary spending represents an increase of $8.9 
billion over the FY'98 approriations level.


                               HIGHLIGHTS

  This bill provides $10.8 billion for the Department of Labor. It 
contains $871 million for summer youth, $1.7 billion to provide much-
needed job training and work experience for youth, including $871 
million for summer employment and training programs that offer work 
experience and academic enrichment to economically disadvantaged youth.
  The bill also contains $1.3 billion for Job Corps training; $1.4 
billion to assist dislocated workers; and $564 million for the Mine 
Safety and Occupational Safety and Health Administrations to help 
safeguard the health and safety of workers.


                        COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS

  There is perhaps no better example of the direct effect this bill has 
on the needy than the community health centers program. This bill 
contains $925 million for this program, an increase of $117 million 
over the fiscal 1998 level. Funds are used to provide comprehensive 
primary care services to the medically indigent in underserved rural 
and urban areas, including the homeless, migrants and those living in 
public housing.


            CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC)

  This bill includes $2.5 billion to maintain critical disease control 
and prevention activities carried out by the CDC. While we have made 
great strides in eradicating disease and illnesses that once plagued 
society, we cannot overlook some of the serious public health threats 
that remain, including hepatitis, tuberculosis, HIV infection, and lead 
poisoning.


                     NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

  I thank all of my colleagues agree that few federal activities affect 
the lives of as many Americans as our investment in medical research. 
And few investments have such far-reaching effects on this nation's 
academic and economic standing throughout the world.
  In my view, the National Institutes of Health represents the crown 
jewel of the Federal Government. For millions of cancer and heart 
disease survivors, it is the tap root of new drugs and surgical 
techniques that have added new years to life. It is in the frontline of 
new vaccines that save the lives of children who would have been 
considered hopeless cases only a few decades ago. And for the millions 
of baby boomers who are shouldering their way into old age, it offers 
the only source of hope against the devastating effects of Alzheimer's 
disease, arthritis, and Parkinson's.

  Last year, many of my colleagues voted in favor of doubling research 
funding over the next 5 years. Earlier this year, I made a commitment 
to do all that I could to achieve that goal. The bill before the Senate 
includes $15.6 billion for NIH, an increase of $2 billion over last 
year's appropriation. That puts us squarely on the path to doubling 
NIH. More importantly, it signals a recognition that the progress we 
achieved in the past is not self-sustaining. Science is not an 
overnight proposition. What we do today will determine the life-saving 
breakthroughs of tomorrow.
  This bill supports research across a wide array of diseases and 
afflictions, from breast and prostate cancer to diabetes and stroke.


                                hiv/aids

  I want to note the fact that this legislation also includes nearly 
$3.8 billion for AIDS research, prevention and services. This includes 
$1.4 billion for Ryan White Programs that provide comprehensive care, 
early intervention and emergency services to those afflicted with AIDS. 
The bill also includes $657 million for AIDS prevention activities 
supported by CDC.


                             women's health

  Women's health continues to be a high priority under this bill. In 
addition to supporting expanded research on cancers affecting women, 
this bill contains another $159 million for breast and cervical cancer 
screening, as well as $15.5 million to advance the women's health 
initiative, including $3 million for a campaign to educate young adults 
about how to prevent osteoporosis.


                        bioterrorism initiative

  The 1995 nerve gas attack on the city of Tokyo killed 12 people and 
hospitalized thousands. This incident added a new and frightening 
word:--bioterrorism.
  Earlier this year, the administration submitted an amended budget 
request for activities intended to counter bioterrorism. Should the 
President deem this an emergency, the bill would provide $154.7 million 
to combat this growing threat.


                            substance abuse

  One of the most serious threats to the fabric of our society is 
substance abuse. The problem is no longer confined to inner cities, but 
has spread to every community in our country. To combat this threat, 
the bill contains $2.5 billion for substance abuse prevention and 
treatment, an increase of $213 million over the administration's budget 
request.


                            family planning

  For family planning activities, the bill recommends $215 million to 
support primary health care services at more than 4,000 clinics 
nationwide. This amount represents an increase of $12.1 million over 
the 1998 appropriation. Over 85 percent of family planning clients are 
women at or below 150 percent of the poverty level and these additional 
funds will help to ensure that these low-income women have access to 
quality health services.


                         adolescent family life

  The bill recommends $17.7 million, an increase of $13 million more 
than the amount recommended by the President for the only federal 
program focused directly on the issue of adolescent sexuality, 
pregnancy and parenting.


                               head start

  To enable all children to develop and function at their highest 
potential, the bill includes $4.6 billion for the Head Start Program, 
an increase of $313 million over last year's appropriation.

[[Page S12814]]

This brings us closer to the goal of enrolling one million children in 
Head Start by the year 2002.


                         violence against women

  The bill includes $156 million to support the programs authorized by 
the Violence Against Women Act. This is an increase of $21 million for 
programs to provide assistance to women who have been victims of abuse 
and to initiate and expand prevention programs to begin to reduce the 
number of women who are forced to confront the horrors of abuse. 
Included is: $88.8 million for battered women's shelters; $45 million 
for rape prevention; $15 million for runaway youth prevention; $6 
million for domestic violence community demonstrations; and $1.2 
million for the domestic violence hotline.


                                 liheap

  The bill maintains the $1.1 billion appropriated for the upcoming 
winter's Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). In 
addition, the recommendation provides an advance appropriation of $1.1 
billion for the 1999/2000 LIHEAP Winter Program. The bill also provides 
additional emergency appropriations of $300 million. LIHEAP is a key 
program for low income families in Pennsylvania and other cold weather 
States in the northeast. This funding supports grants to States to 
deliver critical assistance to low income households to help families 
meet higher energy costs.


                             aging programs

  For programs serving the elderly, the bill before the Senate 
recommends $2.1 billion, an increase of $105 million over the 
fiscal year 1998 appropriation. Included is: $440.2 million for the 
Community Service Employment Program which will provide more part-time 
employment opportunities for the low-income elderly; $300.3 million 
more for supportive services and senior centers; $486.4 million more 
for congregate and home-delivered nutrition services; and $173.9 
million more for the National Senior Volunteer Corps.


                               education

  To enhance this nation's investment in education, the bill before the 
Senate contains $32.9 billion in discretionary education funds for the 
1999/2000 school year, an increase of $3.5 billion over last year's 
funding level. Specifically, the Goals 2000 Programs is funded at $491 
million to promote education reform initiatives and $698.1 million for 
the technology programs.


                            education reform

  For programs to educate disadvantaged children, the bill recommends 
nearly $8.4 billion, $345 million more than the amount appropriated in 
fiscal year 1998. These funds will provide services to approximately 7 
million school children. The bill also includes $135 million for the 
Even Start Program, an increase of $20 million over the 
administration's request to provide educational services to low-income 
children and their families.


                               impact aid

  For impact aid programs, the bill includes $864 million, an increase 
of $168 million over the budget request. Included in the 
recommendations is: $50 million for payments for children with 
disabilities; $704 million for basic support payments; and $28 million 
for payments for federal property.


                          bilingual education

  The bill provides $380 million to assist in the education of 
immigrant and limited-english proficient students. This recommendation 
is an increase of $26 million over the 1998 appropriation and will 
provide instructional services to approximately 60,000 children. Within 
the funds provided, $50 million has been included for professional 
development to improve teacher training programs.


                           special education

  One of the largest increases recommended in this bill is the $5.1 
billion for the special education programs to help local education 
agencies meet the requirement that all children with disabilities have 
access to a free, appropriate public education, and all infants and 
toddlers with disabilities have access to early intervention services. 
The amount recommended will serve an estimated 4.95 million children at 
a cost of $662 per child.


                         class size initiative

  The bill contains $1.2 billion to reduce class size in order to 
improve academic achievement and reduce discipline problems. These 
funds will be distributed among local educational agencies based on a 
formula that reflects both their relative number of children in low-
income families and school enrollments. These funds would provide local 
school districts with the flexibility to hire more teachers and improve 
professional development for existing teachers.


                              student aid

  For student aid programs, the bill provides $9.3 billion, an increase 
of $369 million over the 1998 appropriation. Pell Grants, the 
cornerstone of student financial aid, have been increased by $125 for a 
maximum grant of $3,125. The Supplemental Educational Opportunity 
Grants Program has also been increased to $619 million, the Work Study 
Program is funded at $870 million and the Perkins Loans Program is 
funded at $130 million.


                           reading excellence

  The bill also provides $260 million for a child literacy initiative. 
The committee has provided these funds on an advanced funded basis. 
This will give the authorizing committees adequate time to work out the 
specifics of this new program.


                            school violence

  The bill provides $165 million for a new initiative to address the 
violent behavior of students. Included is $40 million to assist schools 
in identifying and addressing the mental health needs of children and 
preventing aggressive behaviors, $90 million to support activities that 
promote safe learning environments, and $35 million for competitive 
grants to recruit, train and employ school safety coordinators.
  Finally, the bill provides $184 million for the National Labor 
Relations Board, $9.8 million over the FY '98 appropriation.


                               conclusion

  Again, I want to thank Senator Harkin and all of the other members of 
the subcommittee for their help in crafting this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 30 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAMS. Will the Senator from Missouri yield for an unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the 
Senator from Missouri I be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, We are very fortunate, Will Rogers once 
observed, that we've never gotten all the Government we've paid for. 
For most of this century, Mr. Rogers' words have stood the test of 
time. Unfortunately, I fear that with this omnibus appropriations bill, 
this 3,000-page, 40-pound, 2 foot high, $500 billion monster, we will 
be getting all the Government we have paid for and then some.
  This omnibus legislation reflects the Federal budget process at its 
worst. This package was not the result of democratic votes, open 
discussion, and legislators reflecting the will of the people. With 
little debate and lots of backroom deals, 8 of the 13 annual 
appropriations bills have been tossed into one enormous heap of 
spending. This is wrong.
  Who has read this pile of programs and pork? Not a single Senator 
has.
  We didn't get a peek at a summary of this Government colossus until 
Monday afternoon, just 2 days ago. We won't see it in the Congressional 
Record until after the vote.
  The truth of the matter is, no one knows what is in this colossal 
creation, and no one claims to be its father. It is said that victory 
has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan. This forsaken 
monstrosity, which no one claims, nor has anyone read, deserved defeat 
today. We don't know much, but here is some of what we do know about 
this measure.
  The Social Security trust fund has been raided for spending more on 
the programs and pork in this bill. Billions of dollars will be added 
to the national debt that our children will one day have to pay.
  This legislation also breaks the much-heralded Balanced Budget 
Agreement.
  And finally, we know that taxes, which are at record high levels, 
will

[[Page S12815]]

not be cut. Washington thinks it needs the people s money more than the 
people need it.
  When I came to the Senate in 1995, at the same time that the new 
Republican majority assumed control of Congress, I hoped that Congress 
would downsize the Federal Government and return money and power to the 
American people. After 40 years of Democratic control of one or both 
Houses, it was finally time for Congress to uphold its responsibility, 
to minimize the Federal Government's intrusion into our citizens' lives 
and pocketbooks, to lower taxes and to reduce the size of Government.
  Unfortunately, President Clinton remains the chief obstacle to lower 
taxes and smaller Government, despite his claim in the 1996 State of 
the Union Address that ``the era of big Government is over.'' That 
famous line from President Clinton is about as accurate as his 
pronouncement in January of 1998 that he wanted to save ``every penny 
of any surplus'' to preserve the Social Security system. Both are 
intentionally misleading and factually wrong.
  But Congress also shares the blame. The 105th Congress has been 
either unable or unwilling to cut spending, has been, at best, 
reluctant to fight for tax cuts, and has now cut a budget deal that 
guarantees that Bill Clinton's vision of a costly and intrusive Federal 
Government survives for at least one more year.
  The cost of the Federal Government is so staggering that numbers 
alone do not convey its enormity. We are spending more money today than 
our Founding Fathers ever thought possible. As Stephen Moore of the 
Cato Institute has indicated:

       Adjusted for inflation, the . . . [Federal] spending total 
     of $7.5 trillion for 1998-2002 is more money than America 
     spent to fight both world wars, the Civil War and the 
     Revolutionary War [combined]. In fact, in today's dollars, it 
     is more money than the U.S. Government spent on everything 
     from 1787 to 1960.

  In the fiscal year 1999 alone, the Federal Government will spend more 
than the entire Federal Government spent from our founding until 1920.
  Without taking into account the $21 billion in new emergency spending 
contained in this omnibus legislation, the Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that Federal spending has increased $205 billion over the 
last 4 years. By comparison, in the previous 4 years, Federal spending 
increased only $192 billion.
  Last year, the Congress passed, and the President signed, the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. There was much rejoicing, celebration and 
self-congratulations surrounding the passage of the bill, 
congratulations from the Halls of Congress and down Pennsylvania Avenue 
to the White House. The backers of the bill proclaimed fiscal 
discipline was being imposed on Washington.
  Mr. President, I did not join in that celebration, nor share in 
Washington's enthusiasm. The 1997 budget deal spent too much, provided 
too little tax relief and was unenforceable. The bill contained no 
meaningful enforcement provisions, nothing to guarantee that future 
Congresses and administrations would limit spending or require the 
budget caps to be strictly enforced.
  As a matter of fact, I proposed an amendment to impose the spending 
controls on the balanced budget agreement, and that amendment to that 
agreement was defeated. As a result, we have seen just today that the 
balanced budget agreement has been broken. Now promises made one year 
are ignored the next. Promises made last year for a balanced budget are 
ignored this year. This omnibus bill we have voted on today confirms my 
worst fears: It breaks the budget limits set just 1 year ago, spends 
the budget surpluses instead of saving it for Social Security, and 
keeps more money in Washington without returning it to the rightful 
owners--the families that work day and night to earn it.
  Mr. President, Americans are working longer than ever before to pay 
their taxes. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, the average 
American now works until May 10 to pay Federal, State and local taxes. 
In a typical workweek, the average American works until late Tuesday 
afternoon just to pay taxes. And the tax burden is getting worse, not 
better.
  For the past 5 consecutive years, the growth in personal tax payments 
has outstripped that of wages and salaries. Americans deserve better 
than this tax burden and better than a spending bill for which no one 
is accountable.
  America needs a real tax cut. The Federal Government has collected 
more taxes than the year before every year since 1983. We have been on 
an ascending, accelerating juggernaut of tax collections, and that 
means that the American people have not had a true tax cut in 15 years, 
while Washington has increased taxes twice in this decade, in 1990 and 
1993. Those two tax hikes will take a combined $600 billion extra from 
the American people over the next 5 years.
  It reminds me a bit of President Reagan's telling definition of a 
taxpayer. Reagan defined the taxpayer as ``someone who works for the 
Federal Government but doesn't have to take a Civil Service exam.''
  During the debate on the Senate budget resolution last April, a 
number of fiscally conservative Senators and I announced that we were 
prepared to vote against the resolution because it planned to spend too 
much and cut taxes too little--only $30 billion over 5 years, or a 
whopping $1.83 per month in tax relief for every person in the country. 
We asked instead for a meaningful tax cut and the elimination of the 
marriage penalty which unfairly burdens 21 million couples simply 
because they are married.
  In response to our concerns, the Senate leadership pledged to support 
the larger of the tax cuts contained in either the House- or Senate-
passed budget resolution. The leadership also agreed to make repeal of 
the marriage penalty the Senate's top tax priority.
  After the House adopted its budget resolution last May, the budget 
resolution process screeched to a halt. Why? The House budget 
resolution recommended cutting taxes $101 billion over 5 years. Given 
the agreement we had with the leadership, the Senate was to have pushed 
the House proposal. Unfortunately, many Senators would have rather seen 
the budget resolution die than have Congress pass even modest tax 
relief, equal about 1 percent of the revenue the Federal Government is 
projected to collect over the next 5 years.
  For the first time since the process was established in 1974, 
Congress failed to produce a budget resolution and killed any chance 
for meaningful tax or spending cuts this year.
  This unwillingness to cut taxes comes during a period in which we 
anticipate over $500 billion in surpluses over the next 5 years.
  This unwillingness comes from President Clinton's misleading 
political promise to ``protect'' the surplus for Social Security. In 
his 1998 State of the Union Address, President Clinton proposed 
reserving, in his words, ``100 percent of the surplus--that's every 
penny of any surplus--for Social Security.''
  Well, promises made, promises broken. The mantra here in Washington 
lives on: ``You send it, we spend it.''
  Despite President Clinton's promise not to use the Social Security 
for anything but Social Security, the Administration has raided Social 
Security to fund a series of new spending initiatives--paid for by the 
same surplus he is purporting to save for Social Security.
  While the 1997 balanced budget agreement limits discretionary 
spending through fiscal year 2002, this new spending has overridden 
these discretionary spending caps, shrinking the budget surplus and 
consuming money that could be used to ``save'' Social Security.
  It took Congress and the White House only 1 year to breach the budget 
caps--1 year to break the promises made to the American people.
  The Washington Post reported on Tuesday, October 20, that 
congressional aides have confessed that the omnibus bill not only 
contains $20.9 billion in ``emergency'' spending, but also busts the 
caps by another $7 billion in nonemergency discretionary spending. That 
is $7 billion in broken promises--$7 billion in spending that under the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 should not be allowed to occur.
  It is not surprising that the President found a way around the 
spending limits so quickly. As I have said on many occasions, taxes and 
spending are the only things in Washington more addictive than 
nicotine. In fact, this

[[Page S12816]]

bad habit of resorting to bogus ``emergency'' spending to circumvent 
the discretionary caps resembles the behavior of an addict trying to 
rationalize his inability to stay sober.
  Since 1991, Congress has passed $53.7 billion in emergency spending; 
that is excluding Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Unfortunately, the 
President's ``emergency'' spending requests do not meet any emergency 
other than his inability to get all he wants to spend. There are no 
eleventh hour developments that have made Social Security solvency a 
secondary concern.
  The President is proposing that the equivalent of at least 24 percent 
of this year's surplus be spent on a Bosnia deployment that is now 4 
years old, Government computer repairs--we have known about these 
needs--increased embassy security, and a variety of other initiatives.
  Now, many of these requests constitute real and important funding 
issues. But emergencies? Mr. President, the well-being of our elderly 
is too important for half-truths and doublespeak. Nothing but the 
President's unwillingness has prevented the Administration from 
offering $21 billion in emergency spending reductions out of the 
Federal Government's $1.7 trillion budget.
  In other words, the President could have offered to reduce spending 
elsewhere to accommodate his emergencies. But apparently the President 
would rather see our seniors' Social Security checks shipped overseas 
in the form of foreign aid or squandered on more Washington bureaucrats 
than find savings amounting to less than 1 percent of the Federal 
budget.
  Mr. President, as I am sure you know, the Congressional Budget Office 
projects the Federal Government will run a $137 billion on-budget 
deficit over the next 5 years--fiscal years 1999 to 2003. In other 
words, 21 percent of the $657 billion Social Security surplus over that 
period will be used to finance non-Social Security spending. Yet, the 
administration is strangely silent about this matter.
  If the administration sincerely opposes using the surplus for 
anything but Social Security, it should call upon Congress--as I have--
to reduce projected spending by $137 billion over the next 5 years in 
order to eliminate the on budget deficit. Of course, the President will 
not do this. He prefers to block tax cuts by scaremongering vulnerable 
older Americans on Social Security, while spending all the money he can 
through budget loopholes--like the designation of his needs or desires 
as ``emergencies.''
  Mr. President, we are here today almost 3 weeks into the 1999 fiscal 
year. We voted on the omnibus appropriations package, one which I voted 
against, that will fund the Federal Government for the next 11 months. 
This omnibus bill contains eight complete appropriations bills; but it 
also contains increased funding for the other five appropriations bills 
that have either been signed by the President or await his signature. 
Every single one of the 13 appropriations bills was affected by the 
bill we passed today. It even increases spending in the bills already 
signed into law by the President. Several of the appropriations bills 
included in this humongous monstrosity were never even considered by 
the Senate--not at all, not even for 1 day.
  Again, this massive pile of programs and pork, weighing 40 pounds, 
standing 2 feet high, over 3,000 pages long, was not available until 
mid-day yesterday. Then there was just one copy in the Cloakroom for 
all offices to share. This bill is so huge that the Congressional 
Record could not even print the bill until this morning, to be 
available after the Senate vote.
  Although the President and congressional leaders announced they had 
reached an agreement last Thursday, a rough summary was not even 
available until Monday. We do not know everything that is in this bill. 
I do not know half of what is in this bill, and not a single Senator 
does, including the leadership and the appropriators.
  There is something wrong when Congress passes one bill, one huge 
bill, that spends so much--all 13 appropriations bills are affected, 
even those already signed by the President--and there is only one copy 
to be shared. We should be held responsible for the decisions that we 
make--decisions to spend the people's money, to spend the Social 
Security surplus, to increase the debt that will be owed by our 
children and grandchildren.
  Who is responsible here? Who can be accountable when they do not know 
for what they are accountable? Today, it feels like I was asked to be 
nothing more than a rubber stamp for a deal made by a handful of 
individuals who assume they had the power to speak for all of us.
  I know what the press reports say, and what the Appropriations 
Committee says, and what the President has said, but the bottom line is 
this: This legislation has not been scored by CBO, the Congressional 
Budget Office. Nor has the Office of Management and Budget determined 
that all of the emergency spending requests will be categorized as 
budgetary ``emergencies.'' Of course, with no office getting a copy of 
the bill before it was voted on, and with some 3,000 pages to review, 
weighing about 40 pounds, such an analysis was impossible.
  So where does this leave the country? Congress has rejected calls for 
tax relief and has just passed a $500 billion omnibus spending bill 
that will cut the surplus and boost the size and the intrusiveness of 
Government.
  The President says he wants to save Social Security, yet his every 
action has been designed to save a catchy campaign slogan --``Save 
Social Security First''--while he spends the Social Security surplus on 
new initiatives. The Government continues to grow, and a tax cut is 
nowhere in sight. Yes, I fear we may soon get all the Government we 
have paid for--and then some. But then Congress does not even know what 
we have just paid for. And we do not know what we have just passed.
  We can do better, and we must do better. Our resolve must stiffen. 
The people of this country deserve better service from us, and we must 
provide it. It is with that in mind that I object to the passage of 
this measure today.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I also rise this morning to discuss my opposition to 
the omnibus appropriations legislation that was before us this morning.
  While I realize many of my colleagues would have preferred not to 
return for this vote, there are a number of us who believed that a vote 
was essential on a bill that appropriates a third of our spending 
priorities for fiscal year 1999. To shirk our responsibility to the 
taxpayers, to hide behind an unrecorded vote, was unconceivable.

  I feel strongly that we are elected to represent the American people 
and to take care of the Nation's business. The people expect us to be 
responsible. They expect us to be accountable. They expect us to be 
here and do our job. In other words, when it is time to cast a vote of 
this magnitude, they expect us to be here, to stand up and to be 
counted.
  The omnibus appropriation legislation includes $500 billion in 
funding for many essential Government programs and functions. It 
represents 8 out of 13 appropriations bills, or two-thirds of this 
year's entire appropriations work, one-third of our entire annual 
Federal spending. It is by far the most important piece of legislation 
we have before us this year.
  This monster bill consists of more than 4,000 pages. We can hardly 
lift it, much less take time to review it before the vote. I venture to 
say that most Members of the Senate still have no idea what is in it. 
Even Evelyn Wood herself could not have made it through this volume in 
the few short hours we had to digest it. It would take days to get 
through it, but we are only allowed to review it in the Chamber, with 
no copies available for the individual review that is necessary. I 
don't believe they are available yet.
  Just to approve it, we were told, and everyone would be free to go 
home and campaign. One Democratic House Member was quoted as saying, 
``We would be better off not knowing what is in the bill.'' He said, 
``Ignorance is bliss.'' Even the House appropriations chairman called 
this an ``ominous'' spending bill.
  Shame on Congress. If that is truly what my colleagues really 
believe, and if they really do think so little of the

[[Page S12817]]

taxpayers whose dollars fund every program, every agency, and every 
piece of pork tucked so carefully into this bill, I say to them, 
perhaps you have been in Washington too long. This is not how I look 
upon my own responsibilities to my Minnesota constituents and my 
constitutional duty to the Nation. The people of Minnesota didn't send 
me here to rubber stamp anything, and certainly not this bill.
  What disgusts me most is the process that produced this omnibus 
appropriations legislation. The entire negotiations were secretive, 
arbitrary, conducted behind closed doors by only a handful of 
congressional leaders and White House staff. The special interests were 
well represented at that table, but the taxpayers clearly were not. 
Again, the special interests were well represented at the table, but 
the taxpayers clearly were not.
  Is this the best deal we could get with this President? I guess it 
is. President Clinton was intent on spending more money, money from the 
surplus, money that he said, in fact, should be saved for Social 
Security. But President Clinton's thoughts on spending Social Security 
money must have been more important than evidently saving Social 
Security.
  As soon as the bill emerged from that protective cloak, it was thrown 
at us and we were told to agree to it. No process of floor 
consideration, no debate, no amendments, no votes. I have to wonder 
whether this is truly a democracy. This isn't the way we do business in 
this great democracy. It is true Congress has behaved this way before 
and the secretive goings-on are nothing new. But this does not make it 
right.
  As early at 1988, President Reagan stood up and asked Congress to 
change this practice. It is wrong because it destroys our democracy. It 
undermines our political institution of government through 
representation. It is wrong because it allows just a few to make policy 
without careful deliberation and to spend hundreds of billions of 
taxpayers' hard-earned money without the taxpayers being duly 
represented. We must stop this practice now.
  Early in March, I reluctantly voted for the fiscal year 1999 budget 
resolution in the Budget Committee. I did so to help facilitate the 
process and offer a chance to improve the budget plan as it moved to 
the Senate floor. I later again voted for the budget resolution based 
on a breakthrough agreement reached with the Senate leadership.
  Under this agreement, our leadership would pursue the larger tax 
relief number of either the Senate or House, and it would make the 
repeal of the marriage penalty our top priority. They committed to a 
tax bill this year protected by reconciliation legislation.
  Unfortunately, these commitments were never honored. What did we end 
up with instead? Tax increases, not tax relief. More spending, not 
leaner, more efficient Government. And again we faced a President who 
threatened to veto a Government shutdown if we even dared to send him 
tax relief for the American people. President Clinton called Americans 
``selfish'' if they want some of their surplus money back, their extra 
tax dollars.
  Republicans have joined Democrats and the President to raise the 
higher spending levels added in the negotiations. It is beyond belief 
that, facing the first budget surplus in a quarter of a century, that 
this Congress could have joined with the President to produce this bill 
in this election year.
  I have argued repeatedly before this Chamber that the surplus is 
generated directly by increased individual income tax payments and it 
has little--little--to do with Government policy. In other words, the 
credit for the surplus does not go to the President, to the Senate, or 
to the House, but the surplus goes to the productivity of the American 
business and the American worker.
  Outside the money earmarked for Social Security, we owe it to the 
taxpayers to return at least some of that surplus to them. That would 
have been the moral and it would have been the fair thing to do.
  I also warned repeatedly that if we don't return at least a portion 
of the surplus to the taxpayers, and soon, that Washington will spend 
it all, leaving nothing for tax relief or the vitally important task of 
preserving Social Security.
  The omnibus appropriations legislation proves my point dramatically. 
This bill is nothing but a continuation of President Clinton's tax-and-
spend policies. Again, the President's own words, ``Save Social 
Security first,'' and I guess what he really meant was, ``Let me spend 
the Social Security surplus first,'' and make sure that the taxpayer 
does not get their hands on the surplus.
  Despite the rhetoric about fiscal discipline, Washington has broken 
the spending caps by using the budget surplus. The spending bill 
exceeds the caps by at least $20 billion, and the only reason there is 
any surplus still on the table is that Washington evidently ran out of 
time to spend it.
  To mask its budget maneuvering, Washington has covered its tracks 
with budget gimmicks, including $4 billion in Social Security ``forward 
funding'' into the year 2000. How are we going to adapt this to lower 
spending next year? Will we keep on forward funding into the future, 
shrinking and shirking our budget responsibilities?
  Another dishonest accounting measure was to label this additional 
spending as ``emergency spending'' in order to justify the breaking of 
the spending caps. Instead of fencing off the budget surplus to save 
Social Security first, as it claims it is doing, Washington has spent 
an additional $22 billion of the budget surplus--a third of the 
surplus--to fund non-Social Security programs--again, nearly one-third 
of the 1998 budget surplus. This is Washington hypocrisy of the highest 
degree.
  In the past few months, I heard so much demagoguery in the Chamber 
about saving Social Security, and we have heard the President pledge 
repeatedly to the public that he wanted to use every penny of the 
surplus for Social Security. But to date, the administration is still 
denying they have, in fact, used the budget surplus. It appears this 
administration has a very unique way of interpreting the truth or 
admitting the obvious.
  Few of the ``emergency spending'' items in this bill are truly 
emergency related. Many of these dollars could have been added early on 
in the appropriations process. But the maneuvering allowed the 
President to spend more, and I know President Clinton's biggest 
disappointment in this budget is he wasn't able to spend even more. The 
Y2K problem is not new. The need for Bosnia troops funds and the 
readiness funds is also not new. These should have been funded earlier. 
They should have been funded through the normal budget and 
appropriations process. But that allowed them to spend more of the 
regular budget so they could come back and dig deeper into the surplus 
to spend more money.
  I only wish this Congress and the President could be as creative in 
finding ways to reduce taxes, cut spending and make the Government more 
efficient as they are in finding new and creative ways of spending 
money, especially the surplus, and making this Government even bigger.
  It is ironic that my Republican colleagues are scared to death of 
using the budget surplus for tax relief, despite the fact that it is 
the taxpayers' money in the first place, but don't mind at all in 
helping the Democrats to spend it.
  This bill is a Christmas tree that is loaded not with ornaments but 
with plenty of pork projects and backdoor spending. Here is one 
example: The bill includes $1 billion for global warming, a 26-percent 
increase from last year's funding level. The Senate and the House had 
previously rejected this level of funding--rejected it--but somehow 
somebody managed to just sneak it back into the bill. Yet the President 
hasn't even sent us the global warming treaty. So this funding 
basically just mocks the Hagel-Byrd resolution that we passed last 
year.
  There are some good provisions that I support and worked hard to have 
included in this bill. There are many good things in here, such as the 
desperately needed relief for farmers, IMF funding, and 100 percent 
healthcare cost deductions.

  Frankly, some of the provisions and funding will help my own state of 
Minnesota. But the reckless process and irresponsible spending 
overshadows these good provisions. It was against my conscience to vote 
for this legislation.
  Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed by the inability of our own 
Republican leadership to keep its promise to working Americans. I am

[[Page S12818]]

also deeply troubled that the Republican Party seems to have lost its 
courage to stand up to our principles. I expect compromises have to be 
made, but not compromises so heavily weighted in one direction, 
allowing heavy handed arm twisting, black mailing tactics of this White 
House to succeed.
  When I first ran for Congress six years ago, I was very proud to be a 
Republican because we believed in our vision of a government that works 
for the people, and we believed government should be limited to only 
that amount needed for necessary services. The Democratic Party, on the 
other hand, has long believed that people should work for the 
government--or, at the very least, that the government has a right to 
spend every penny it can take from working Americans. Basically, 
Washington doesn't believe Americans are smart enough to take care of 
themselves. I don't know many Americans who believe they need 
Washington to hold their hand in spending their money or taking care of 
their families.
  That is exactly why the American taxpayers ushered in an era of 
Republican congressional leadership in 1994--a new majority that 
pledged to provide fiscal discipline, individual freedom, personal 
responsibility, and prosperity for all people.
  What changes have this new majority made four years after the 1994 
Republican revolution? Well, the distinctions between the two political 
parties have all but disappeared; the taxes on working Americans are at 
an all-time high; the government is getting bigger, not smaller; 
federal spending has increased from $1.5 trillion in 1994 to $1.76 
trillion today; and the national debt has grown from $4.9 trillion to 
$5.7 trillion, an $810 billion increase.
  Mr. President, these are the differences for which this Republican-
led Congress can take its share of the credit, or more honestly the 
blame!
  Republicans failed not because our efforts have lost the support of 
the people, but because our party has lost its backbone. It has lost 
the courage to make a stand on principle and not abandon its moral 
compass at the first sign of resistance.
  Mr. President, each time Congress makes a promise to the taxpayers--
as it did in promising significant tax relief this year--and then 
deserts them, Congress comforts itself by saying it will come back next 
year and enact an even larger tax cut. I view this as an insult that 
flies in the face of Reality! This is self-deceiving at best. If we do 
not take a stand today, what is going to happen to make us more 
courageous a year from now? Besides, each year we wait, the government 
takes an ever-greater bite of the earnings of working Americans and the 
government gets bigger and becomes harder to trim in the future.
  Mr. President, another big mistake we made that helped create the 
mess we find ourselves in today is that we failed to pass the ``good 
government'' legislation I proposed in 1997. I have repeatedly asked 
our leaders to honor the commitment they made during consideration of 
last year's disaster relief legislation to bring up legislation that 
provides an automatic CR at last year's funding level for remaining 
appropriations pending at end of the session. This would keep pressure 
on appropriators to complete their business and keep all of us in the 
process--not just a select few. It would also keep us free from 
political blackmail: ``If you do not give me this, then I will shut 
down the government and blame you for being heartless and 
ineffective.'' It happened before, and Republicans were afraid it could 
happen again, and the recklessness of this White House for political 
purposes is a reality. Had we such a process in effect this year that 
would not allow the government to shut down, we would have completed 
the business of the nation on September 30, and not been forced back 
here to vote on October 20. This path, not the path we are currently 
on, would have been the responsible path to take.
  Mr. President, I therefore was forced to cast a ``no'' vote on this 
legislation because I am deeply disappointed in this business-as-usual 
attitude, and deeply disgusted with the process the pork-laden, 
backdoor spending, and the budget gimmicks. Americans deserve better. 
And let us put Congress and this President on notice, we will use every 
Senate rule available not to let this happen again next year.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, unless less than 48 hours ago, only a few 
in this body had actually seen this nearly 4,000-page, 40-pound, non-
amendable, budget-busting legislation that provides over half-a-
trillion dollars to fund 10 Cabinet-level federal departments for the 
fiscal year that started 21 days ago. The bill exceeds the budget 
ceiling by $20 billion for what is euphemistically called emergency 
spending, much of which is really everyday, garden-variety, pork-barrel 
appropriations. The bill is loaded with locality-specific, special 
interest, pork-barrel spending projects, which are paid for by robbing 
billions from the budget surplus.
  I cannot in good conscience support a bill that makes a mockery of 
the Congress' role in fiscal matters. This bill is a betrayal of our 
responsibility to spend the taxpayers' dollars wisely and enact laws 
and policies that reflect the best interests of all Americans, rather 
than the special interests of a few.
  Most offensive and disturbing to me is the misallocation of more than 
$9 billion in so-called emergency defense funding in the bill. The 
decision to spend only slightly more than $1 billion on military 
readiness, when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and each of 
the Service Chiefs testified just last month about an impending 
readiness crisis, is a fundamental abandonment of the men and women who 
serve in our Armed Forces.
  I recently released a comprehensive report on the state of military 
readiness that includes a lengthy compilation of material provided by 
the Chiefs detailing the myriad of problems the Armed Forces are facing 
as a result of inadequate resources to support the missions their 
civilian leaders have assigned them. In these documents and in their 
testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee just last month, the 
Chiefs were unambiguous in pressing for additional funding to address 
several serious concerns.
  Restoring military retirement benefits was the Chiefs' principal 
concern, and I and others introduced legislation to do so. The Chiefs 
cited the need to increase military pay for the 25,000 military 
families on food stamps. They asked for money to provide incentives to 
attract and retain qualified people in military service. They talked 
about the dire need for more training and maintenance funds.
  Mr. President, the Chiefs are the highest ranking military officers 
in our nation. Their sole mission is to ensure that our Armed Forces 
can fight and win any future conflict. They are the ones whom we should 
heed when we are told how to avert a crisis in military readiness.
  So what did the Congress decide to do to address the Chiefs' 
concerns? We put over $9 billion in so-called emergency defense funding 
in this bill. But we allocated only $1.1 billion to the Chiefs' 
priorities, and spent the other $8 billion on other programs that, 
while important, will not reverse the declining readiness trend in our 
military.
  We did nothing to address the Chiefs' number-one concern--restoring 
military retirement benefits for 20-year veterans to a full 50 percent 
of their highest three salary years. General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Congress very clearly that fixing 
the military retirement system is his top recommendation for restoring 
the readiness of our armed forces:

       The most critical element of both current and future 
     readiness is the men and women we are privileged to have 
     serving in uniform today. Our people are more important than 
     hardware.

  I concur whole-heartedly with the Chairman's remarks. Army Chief of 
Staff General Reimer has written to me that:

       . . . the retirement package we have offered our soldiers 
     entering the Army since 1986 is inadequate. Having lost 25 
     percent of its lifetime value as a result of the 1980's 
     reforms, military retirement is no longer our number one 
     retention tool. Our soldiers and families deserve better. We 
     need to send them a strong signal that we haven't forgotten 
     them.

  Mr. President, we did nothing to address this clearly stated, number-
one concern.

[[Page S12819]]

  Instead, we bought three Gulfstream executive passenger jets, bought 
helicopters for the Colombian anti-drug effort, and padded the budget 
to pay for burying utilities at Keesler Air Force Base. We gave another 
$210 million of defense money to the Coast Guard to pay for its drug 
interdiction mission.
  We did give the Services $200 million for military health care, but 
that's less than a quarter of what's needed to ensure military 
personnel and their families receive the care they need. And we took 
care of other legitimate emergency costs, like ongoing operations in 
Bosnia and embassy security. But on the whole, the Congress ignored the 
clear warnings of our highest ranking military leaders and, once again, 
let their parochial priorities take precedence.
  Obviously, the waste in this bill does not stop with defense 
spending.
  Here is just a sampling of the egregious pork-barrel spending in this 
bill:
  $250,000 to an Illinois firm to research caffeinated chewing gum;
  $750,000 for grasshopper research in Alaska;
  $1 million for peanut quality research in Georgia;
  $1.1 million for manure handling and disposal in Starkville, 
Mississippi;
  $5 million for a new International Law Enforcement Academy in 
Roswell, New Mexico;
  $1 million for Kings College in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, for 
commercialization of pulverization technologies;
  $250,000 for Hawaii Volcanoes Observatory;
  $1.2 million for a C&O Canal visitors center in Cumberland, Maryland;
  $250,000 for a lettuce geneticist in Salinas, California;
  $500,000 for the U.S. Plant Stress and Water Conservation Lab in 
Lubbock, Texas;
  $162,000 for research on peach tree short life in South Carolina;
  $200,000 for research on turkey carnovirus in Indiana;
  $64,000 for urban pest research in Georgia;
  $100,000 for vidalia onion research in Georgia;
  An additional $2.5 million for the Office of Cosmetics and Color; and
  $200,000 for a grant to the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation 
Commission.
  And there is much more wasteful spending in this 4,000-page document. 
I have here 52 pages of items that I have found in this bill that meet 
one or more of the criteria that I and others, such as Citizens Against 
Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, and other well-known 
pork-watchers have used for many years. I have no idea yet of the total 
amount of pork on this list, but I am sure it is in the billions of 
dollars.
  Some of these earmarked projects may well prove meritorious and 
deserving of the priority given them in this bill. The problem is that 
none of these provisions went through the appropriate merit-based 
selection process, which is necessary to determine whether they are 
more or less a priority than thousands of other projects that are not 
funded in this bill. In addition, some of these provisions were never 
included in either the House or Senate version of any regular 
appropriations bill. They were simply added, behind closed doors, to 
this massive, nonamendable omnibus bill.
  Mr. President, we are wasting the people's money when we fund these 
dubious proposals. We undermine the faith of our constituents--the 
taxpayers--when we continue the practice of earmarking and 
inappropriately designating funding for projects based on political 
interests rather than national priority and necessity. Unfortunately, 
that has occurred here. This bill is a shameful example of why the 
American public has become cynical and skeptical of government.
  We seem to have forgotten that all these programs, whether 
meritorious or not, must be paid for. Designating spending as an 
``emergency'' doesn't make it free; it still has to be paid for. And 
the Congress, blessed with the first budget surplus since 1969, has 
been unable to resist the temptation to dip into that $70 billion 
surplus and spend it on pork.
  The President declares we must save Social Security first. Members of 
Congress declare we must save Social Security first. Yet, we spend 
billions from the surplus on everything but Social Security. We don't 
save Social Security. We don't pay down the debt. We don't return to 
taxpayers a little of their hard-earned money. But we can spend a 
little more on pork. I guess we can never have too much of that, Mr. 
President, surplus or no surplus.
  Mr. President, we have lost track of our priorities. I am 
disheartened that Congress found the time and money to finance any 
number of pet projects, yet we failed to address the needs of over 
7,000 children and families whose lives have been devastated by 
hemophilia-related AIDS, in part because of the government's failure to 
implement the appropriate safety precautions for the nation's blood 
supply in the 1980's. This is simply shameful.

  Mr. President, we are supposed to follow a process in Congress for 
considering important legislation--a process that relies on openness, 
fairness, and public input. If we had adhered to that process in 
crafting this bill, many of these egregious provisions might have been 
eliminated and our priorities might have been compatible with the 
public's priorities.
  The process by which this bill was created is deplorable. 
Negotiations were conducted behind closed doors, out of sight of the 
public as well as the vast majority of Members of Congress. Decisions 
were made, and then reversed without notice.
  A case in point, Mr. President, is a provision to clarify the status 
of auctioned spectrum licenses if the purchaser declares bankruptcy. At 
5:00 p.m. on Monday, just a few hours before the Omnibus Appropriations 
bill was filed in the House, I was told that this provision was 
included in the legislation. Yesterday morning, it had been dropped 
from the bill.
  In addition, only after the bill was filed did I learn that several 
provisions which are clearly within the jurisdiction of the Commerce 
Committee, which I chair, were included in the bill. I know other 
authorizing chairmen share my frustration at never having been 
consulted or even advised about these matters.
  Let me point to one example of an appropriation exceeding the amount 
authorized for a program. The Senate authorized $192 million for the 
Advanced Technology Program of the Commerce Department; the House 
approved $180 million. Yet this bill appropriates $203.5 million for 
the program. What is the purpose of authorizing funding levels, when 
the appropriators simply ignore it and alone decide how much money to 
appropriate?
  Mr. President, I learned yesterday that the bill does not include a 
cost cap on the international space station, as I had earlier been 
assured--a cost cap that was included in the NASA reauthorization bill 
that was reported from the Commerce Committee and passed by the Senate. 
And I learned that the bill includes a provision for a $20 million, 
taxpayer-funded buyback of three boats to limit domestic competition in 
the fishing trade off Alaska--legislation that the Commerce Committee 
had not yet sent to the Senate.
  Mr. President, speaking about the authorizing legislation in this 
bill, one of the greatest failures of the omnibus bill is its rejection 
of comprehensive legislation to improve aviation competition, safety, 
and security. Critical aviation programs were due to be reauthorized 
this year, and the Commerce Committee duly reported the Federal 
Aviation Administration Reauthorization bill to the Senate. It passed 
the Senate last month, on an overwhelming vote of 92 to 1.
  In this bill, we had an opportunity to stimulate much-needed 
competition in the aviation industry and enact a host of other critical 
improvements in aviation policy. Frankly, because of the influence of 
the major airlines and other secondary interests, the legislation was 
blocked. But what we did see fit to do is place a hold on activities of 
the Department of Transportation to address anti-competitive behavior 
in the airline industry. Major airlines won; competition and consumers 
lost.
  Mr. President, I am very disappointed to report that the major 
airlines have succeeded in dealing yet another setback to the nation's 
consumers. As many of my colleagues are aware, the major airlines were 
able to scuttle the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization 
bill that passed the Senate last month by a vote of 92 to one. Some of 
the biggest players in

[[Page S12820]]

the industry fought against it because the bill contained numerous 
provisions that would have enhanced airline competition, promoted new 
entry, and benefitted consumers. That is why the reauthorization bill 
was reduced to a mere six-month extension of the airport grant program.
  To add insult to injury, the major carriers have now succeeded in 
hampering efforts by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to curtail 
illegal competitive behavior industry. Regrettably, the omnibus 
appropriations bill includes provisions that would needlessly delay the 
issuance of pro-consumer airline competition guidelines that have been 
proposed by the DOT. Once again, the major airlines have gotten their 
way in Congress when it comes to protecting their turf. Not satisfied 
with maintaining the status quo, these carriers have forced us to take 
a step backwards.
  Last April, the DOT took the commendable step of proposing guidelines 
to curb unfair and anti-competitive pricing behavior in the airline 
industry. It didn't take long, however, for the major airlines to begin 
attacking the DOT for having the audacity to address this issue.
  The DOT has already been taking its time reviewing public comments on 
its proposed guidelines, which I admit may be in need of improvement. 
The added delay provided in the omnibus budget bill only serves to 
aggravate the existing situation. The airlines readily admit that this 
extended delay gives them more time to kill the competition guidelines 
outright. That has been the airlines' goal from the start.
  Shortly after the DOT proposed its guidelines, the Aviation 
Subcommittee held a hearing on airline competition, and the main focus 
was these guidelines. The DOT presented very compelling evidence that 
there have been instances of predatory behavior. But the major airlines 
merely shrug when confronted with very specific examples of a major 
carrier's driving a new entrant out of a market by irrationally cutting 
prices and increasing capacity.
  Even though such conduct makes sense only if predatory behavior is 
the standard, the major airlines insist that they only respond in 
normal ways to new entrants.
  Clearly, the DOT's effort to address this sort of behavior was too 
much for the major carriers to accept. They were able to exert enough 
influence on the budget negotiation process to put the competition 
guidelines on hold. The carriers were successful, despite that fact 
that no such provision passed either Chamber of Congress.
  With respect to airline competition policy, as well as many other 
matters in the omnibus bill, this situation represents the triumph of 
special interests over the public interest. The losers here are not 
just the new airlines, but the consumers.
  Despite this setback, I want to assure everyone that I will continue 
my fight for full and fair airline competition. Whether because of 
predatory behavior, or artificial barriers to entry such as slots and 
perimeter rules, the traveling public has yet to realize fully the 
benefits of deregulation. Fortunately, Congress will have an 
opportunity to take action again soon when the authorization for the 
Airport Improvement Program expires at the end of next March.
  Mr. President, we must not let the major airlines dictate the terms 
of competition in their own industry. I am determined to see Congress 
do better by consumers next time.
  Mr. President, I am also deeply disturbed that the House leadership 
has killed aviation competition legislation this session of Congress. 
Congress' record shows that it has done nothing to ensure a vibrant, 
competitive airline industry. Instead, the negotiators eliminated 
competition provisions such as new slot exemptions at capacity 
controlled airports, as well as efforts to loosen the perimeter rule at 
Reagan National Airport. Legislation to manage the environmental 
effects of flights over national parks also fell by the wayside because 
of this approach. Obviously the agenda of some is only to protect the 
big airlines against competition. Let's be clear, the big airlines have 
won. Consumers lost. That is a record about which nobody should be 
proud.
  Most of my Senate colleagues know that the Commerce Committee worked 
hard this year to develop a bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation 
Administration and the programs it oversees. Following a bipartisan, 
inclusive, and constructive process, we developed a package that among 
other things would authorize important airport construction grants. The 
legislation would institute a host of safety and security enhancements. 
It would provide the necessary spending to add more air traffic 
controllers in a congested system, and to make sure that the critical 
air traffic control systems are equipped to deal with the year 2000 
problem. And, the bill would have established a widely-endorsed system 
for managing the environmental consequences of commercial air tour 
flights over national parks.
  One of the key elements of the Senate FAA bill was the aviation 
competition title. It would have modestly enhanced the capacity at the 
four slot-controlled airports in the country--LaGuardia and JFK in New 
York, Chicago O'Hare, and Reagan National. The new entrant, low fare 
carriers have been effectively shut out of these key markets, which are 
critical to sustaining a healthy network and giving consumers new low 
cost choices.

  Service to underserved markets in the country would have greatly 
benefited under the Senate bill. Rural America has suffered the most 
from the effects of hub dominance and the lack of airline competition. 
My colleagues from the Dakotas can tell you firsthand about the 
crippling effects of the recent Northwest Airline strike, for instance. 
Northwest dominates their region. When it shut down, they were 
literally cut off from the rest of the country. This is unconscionable.
  There are other, clear ``pockets of pain,'' according to the 
Department of Transportation and the General Accounting Office. These 
include communities in the Appalachian Region, such as Knoxville, 
Tennessee; communities in the southeast, such as Jackson, Mississippi; 
Des Moines, Iowa, in the midwest; Rochester, Syracuse and Albany in 
upstate New York. The citizens of these communities will continue to 
suffer from having to pay exorbitant air fares without any real kind of 
relief that could have been provided with the FAA bill's promotion of 
additional airline competition on existing routes, and additional 
access for these underserved communities in key business markets such 
as Washington and New York.
  There are two reasons why the FAA reauthorization bill failed in the 
105th Congress, along with its provisions to enhance competition in the 
domestic airline industry. The first reason is the utter intransigence 
on the part of the major airlines, and the unmitigated gall that they 
exhibit in defending the anti-competitive status quo. Their motives are 
dictated solely by increasing their profits with no concern for the 
free market. It's about blatant anti-competitiveness. At the same time 
that they herald industry consolidation and hoard capacity at their 
hubs, they continue to thwart efforts to respond to these changing 
dynamics in the industry.
  Parochial interests on the part of members of Congress constitute the 
second reason that this bill failed.
  Specifically, House lawmakers from Illinois and Virginia have taken 
down the entire FAA bill because of a few noise complaints from their 
districts. We have done everything possible to accommodate their 
constituents' noise concerns. We have minimized the impact of new 
flights by spreading them out so that there are only one or two new 
flights per hour. We have increased their noise mitigation funding. 
Further, the FAA continues to enforce Congressional aircraft noise 
requirements that have brought noise levels down in their neighborhoods 
significantly over the last decade.
  Notwithstanding, these Members refused even to come to the table to 
acknowledge legitimate interests. Let us not forget, the FAA bill was 
approved freestanding by the Senate on a vote of 92 to one. However, 
the House refused to even conference with the Senate on the bill.
  This is not an insignificant issue. As I noted earlier, just ask the 
people of North and South Dakota who were effectively paralyzed because 
of one airline. Competition is the principle upon which our free market 
economy is based. It is a complete, utter and

[[Page S12821]]

wholesale abrogation of our responsibilities, not only to kill pro-
competition and pro-consumer provisions of the FAA bill, but to stop 
any addressing of the issue by the proper authorities. The omnibus 
appropriations bill blocks pro-consumer airline competition guidelines, 
which were recently proposed by the Department of Transportation.
  During these six months we will seize the momentum we developed this 
year to enact aviation competition legislation. We will also be 
examining additional pro-competition issues. It is too important to our 
country, to consumers and to the principles of our free market economy 
to look the other way.
  Mr. President, as we work over the next six months to finish the job 
of reauthorizing federal aviation programs, I intend to use all means 
at my disposal to rectify this situation.
  Mr. President, even today, there is confusion about what is in the 
bill and what is not, because the only copy that was available Tuesday 
to all Republican Senators was scattered in pieces around the 
Republican Cloakroom. There are no copies of this bill available to the 
public and only a few copies available in the Capitol. Most of what the 
public knows about this bill comes from media reports and the rumor 
mill. Members of Congress are only slightly better informed about the 
details of this bill, and we have had no opportunity to carefully 
review it.
  And even if a Senator discovers that there is something in this bill 
that is highly objectionable to him, he cannot amend the bill. He can 
only vote for or against the entire package. It is all or nothing--take 
it or leave it. We are all held hostage to a process that protects 
pork-barrel spending at the expense of good policy.
  Well, I, for one, will leave it. That is why I voted against the 
wanton fiscal irresponsibility this legislation represents.
  Mr. President, we cannot continue to do business this way. We have an 
established process and we should follow it. I intend to work with 
like-minded Senators to develop needed reforms in that process to 
ensure that the Congress cannot so easily sidestep the checks and 
balances that are so clearly necessary to control wasteful spending and 
ensure responsible legislating, and that were intended by the 
Constitution.
  Mr. President, I do want to take a moment to talk about some of the 
programs and provisions in this bill that are meritorious and which, in 
other circumstances, would have received my full support and my vote.
  For example, the bill blocks the use of taxpayer-funded needle 
exchange programs for drug addicts, institutes new reforms to ensure 
accountability and market-based response measures within the 
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and extends important tax 
provisions, such as the work opportunity and research and development 
tax credit. Also, the bill contains $18 billion to replenish the 
International Monetary Funds depleted resources, which is critical to 
restoring confidence and economic stability in the global economy.
  This bill funds many important programs directly benefitting American 
families and providing critical assistance to our children, including 
Child Care Block grants and Head Start. It increases funding for the 
Department of Education to almost $33 billion, including $8 billion for 
disadvantaged children and over $5 billion for children with special 
needs, but not at the expense of local control. The bill sends $1.1 
billion directly to local classrooms ensuring schools have the 
flexibility to determine how to meet the unique educational needs of 
their students instead of Washington bureaucrats, and it prohibits 
federally funded national tests, leaving that decision to state and 
local authorities.
  I am also pleased to see inclusion of the Internet Tax Freedom bill, 
introduced as S. 442, in the omnibus appropriations bill. This limited 
moratorium reflects the need for careful thought and analysis of the 
implications for taxing electronic commerce, and the proper roles for 
local, state and federal government in taxing the Internet. Present 
federal law neither authorizes, imposes, nor ratifies any excise, 
sales, or domain name registration tax on Internet use for electronic 
interstate commerce, and only one fee for the Intellectual 
Infrastructure Fund. I am confident that this moratorium will allow 
Congress to move forward in developing a national strategy for 
advancing electronic commerce and appropriate taxation of the Internet.
  I am pleased to see that the provisions concerning Amtrak generally 
maintain the integrity of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act and 
continue the mandate for Amtrak to operate free of taxpayer subsidies 
by 2002. The bill also provides funding, though limited, directly to 
the Amtrak Reform Council instead of channeling such funds through the 
Secretary of Transportation. These are good decisions, ones which I 
support.
  Also contained in this omnibus bill is legislation to increase the 
number of H-1B visas for skilled foreign professionals who wish to work 
temporarily in the United States in jobs unfilled by American workers. 
I cosponsored the original Senate legislation to raise the existing cap 
on H-1B visas. The provisions in this bill will allow dynamic American 
companies and research labs to hire more skilled foreign professionals. 
At the same time, we have incorporated safeguards to protect American 
workers and provide substantial funding to educate and train Americans 
to fill the lucrative high-tech jobs that are available across our 
country. American companies, American workers, and the American 
consumer will all benefit as a result.
  The provisions I have just mentioned, and many others, are good for 
the American people. In fact, if these and many of the other policies 
and programs contained in the Omnibus Appropriations bill had been 
proposed and considered in the established process, I would have voted 
for them. Unfortunately, because the Congress has abandoned the normal 
process of legislating, my vote against this Omnibus Appropriations 
bill may also be construed, albeit wrongly, as a vote against these 
meritorious provisions. My vote against this precedent-setting 
legislation should be recognized for what it was--a vote against 
wasting taxpayer dollars and failing to ensure the readiness of our 
Armed Forces.
  Responsible spending is the cornerstone of good governance. I look 
forward to the day when we can go before the American people with a 
budget that is both fiscally responsible and ends the practice of 
earmarking funds in the appropriations process.
  Mr. President, those of my colleagues who support this legislation 
will say of us who oppose it that we are not practical politicians, 
that we ask for the impossible--legislation that is free of compromise, 
that we would let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That is a false 
charge, and it fails utterly as a defense of a legislative process that 
everyone agrees is terribly, terribly flawed.
  We do not ask that a Republican majority produce legislation that 
reflects in every detail our priorities and dismisses completely the 
views of the President and the minority. We ask only that, on balance, 
any legislation--and surely legislation of this magnitude--reflect the 
principles upon which our majority was elected. We ask only that the 
Congress complete its work when it is supposed to complete it work, and 
in a manner that ensures fairness, openness, and inclusions. We ask 
only that we adhere to a little truth in advertising.
  When we say we are going to save Social Security first, we ask only 
that we make some attempt to do so. When we call something an 
emergency, we should be able to say it with a straight face. When we 
promise to restore the resources necessary to provide for the common 
defense, we must pay just a little attention to the concerns of the 
military. When we promise to return to the people some percentage of 
the money they have sent to Washington, we ask only that we rank that 
pledge somewhat higher on our list of priorities than the usual 
cornucopia of parochial spending.
  Those who voted against the omnibus appropriations bill would not let 
the perfect be the enemy of the good. We simply oppose letting back-
room negotiations, business as usual, and pork-barrel politics be the 
enemy of principle.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The clerk will call the roll to 
determine the presence of a quorum.

[[Page S12822]]

  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I voted today for the omnibus 
appropriations bill that was pending before the Senate, in large part 
because, very frankly, of my great doubt that delaying what already has 
been an utterly abominable legislative process would, at this late 
point, improve the nature of the final product.
  It should be abundantly clear to us all, to even the most casual 
observers, that the first and most fundamental mistake made by this 
105th Congress was the unwillingness, or perhaps the inability, of the 
Republican leadership to craft a budget resolution acceptable to a 
majority of Members of both parties. But, amazingly, the Republican 
leadership was then unable or unwilling to put together a budget 
resolution that could even muster the majority support of its own 
party. As a result, for the very first time since the current Budget 
Act was enacted, Congress was forced to proceed on with the 13 separate 
appropriations bills without the benefit of the direction of a budget 
resolution at all.
  In fairness, this body did pass its own version of a budget 
resolution, and much of the difficulty in reaching an agreement with 
the other body lies with the radical faction in the House, which was 
unwilling to support any measure unless it called for huge tax 
reductions funded out of a naked raid on the Social Security surplus. 
There were a few Members of this body as well who indicated they could 
not vote for a final resolution unless a tax cut/Social Security 
plunder plan was involved. So, April 15, the deadline for passage of a 
budget resolution, came and it went, and in the end no agreement was 
reached between the Senate and the other body and no serious effort at 
bipartisanship, frankly, was ever attempted. The budget process that 
has ensued, and we have witnessed its culmination today, is certainly a 
case of the Republican leadership having to reap what it sowed.
  Without the discipline of a budget resolution, this Congress then 
proceeded to make an utter mockery of the appropriations process.
  Rather than deliberate debate and careful consideration of the 13 
separate appropriations bills needed to run the Federal Government, we 
wound up with an omnibus appropriations bill weighing some 40 pounds 
and going on for 3,825 pages as it compressed 8 of the appropriations 
bills, a supplemental appropriations bill, and miscellaneous matters 
all into one ill-considered mess. The bill we have had before us today 
is a consequence of massive, massive legislative mismanagement.
  All this is not to say that the legislation that was before this body 
today did not have some redeeming strengths. There will be no Federal 
Government shutdown, and as the American people rightfully celebrate 
the first balanced unified Federal budget in 30 years, the omnibus bill 
does stay within the previously agreed upon budget caps. Thanks to 
President Clinton and his earlier veto, this legislation does provide 
for significant assistance for farmers and ranchers suffering through 
an economic crisis throughout much of rural America and, again, thanks 
to the President's tenacity, this bill will provide for the hiring of 
additional teachers and the expansion of some key educational programs, 
such as Head Start.
  But even here, the omnibus bill is not as good as it ought to have 
been. The agricultural provisions failed to address the underlying 
problem of inadequate market prices for livestock and grain by 
neglecting to raise the marketing loan rates, and by eliminating price 
reporting and country of origin meat labeling, it does next to nothing 
for livestock producers.
  The educational provisions are inadequate in several areas, but most 
noticeably, the Republican leadership refused to permit a Federal-
State-local partnership which would have allowed the cost of school 
construction and renovation bonds to have been significantly reduced 
for local taxpayers.
  To this Senator, it is simply outrageous for some on the far 
political right to claim, as they have, that this commonsense provision 
would have amounted to some sort of ``federalization'' of education. 
Clearly, the decisions as to whether to build or renovate a school 
would have remained at the local level, where such decisions belong, 
and the bulk of funding for such construction would likewise have 
remained appropriately enough with local taxpayers.
  Mr. President, it is not federalization for the Federal Government to 
help local citizens reduce the cost of their education decisions, 
decisions that they make at the local level, by partially writing down 
interest rates on the bonds which these school districts would then 
have to issue.
  There are some who are referring, with some justification, to the 
105th Congress as the worst that has ever met in this Capitol Building. 
I don't know if that is true, but the mismanagement of this 
legislation, coupled with the refusal of the majority leader to even 
allow meaningful debate and progress on such issues as managed health 
care reform, campaign finance reform, and modernization of financial 
services, among others, ought to be a source of shame for this 
institution.
  Again, Mr. President, while some have voted against the omnibus bill 
as a protest gesture, motivated by any number of concerns, I wanted to 
do the responsible thing, and I voted to pass this faulty but, frankly, 
at this point in time very necessary legislation. It is my hope, 
however, that never again will Congress proceed without a budget 
resolution and without an opportunity to debate and deliberate on 
individual appropriations bills in a timely manner.


                      Federal Vacancies Reform Act

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased that the essentials of S. 
2176 have been incorporated into the Omnibus Appropriations bill, H.R. 
4328. I appreciate the work of my colleagues, Senator Byrd in 
particular, in seeing that this bill becomes law.
  Mr. President, I wish to address the changes that have been made to 
S. 2176 since it was reported out of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. The legislative history of the bill is largely described in 
the Committee report, S. Rep. 105-250. However, this is the opportunity 
to discuss the subsequent changes made in the bill.
  The term ``first assistant to the office'' is incorporated into 5 
U.S.C. Sec. 3345(a)(1), rather than ``first assistant to the officer.'' 
This change is made to ``depersonalize'' the first assistant. Questions 
have arisen concerning who might be the vacant officer's first 
assistant if the acting officer dies or if the acting officer resigns 
while a permanent nomination is pending. The term ``first assistant to 
the officer'' has been part of the Vacancies Act since 1868, however, 
and the change in wording is not intended to alter case law on the 
meaning of the term ``first assistant.''
  A third category of ``acting officer'' is now permitted apart from 
first assistants and presidentially designated persons who have already 
received Senate-confirmation to hold another office. The President (and 
only the President) may also direct an officer or employee of the 
executive agency in which the vacancy arises to be the acting officer 
if that officer or employee served in that agency for 90 days preceding 
the vacancy caused by the departure of the prior Senate-confirmed 
officer and, the officer or employee has been paid at a rate at least 
equal to a GS-15. Concerns had been raised that, particularly early in 
a presidential administration, there will sometimes be vacancies in 
first assistant positions, and that there will not be a large number of 
Senate-confirmed officers in the government. In addition, concerns were 
raised about designating too many Senate-confirmed persons from other 
offices to serve as acting officers in additional positions.
  The 180 day period in Sec.  3345(b) governing the length of service 
prior to the onset of the vacancy that the first assistant must satisfy 
to be eligible to serve as the acting officer is reduced to 90 days. 
Under Sec.  3345(b)(1), the revised reference to Sec.  3345(a)(1) means 
that this subsection applies only when the acting officer is the first 
assistant, and not when the acting officer is designated by the 
President pursuant to Sec. Sec. 3345(a)(2) or 3345(a)(3). The 90 day 
service requirement is inapplicable to a first assistant who has 
already received

[[Page S12823]]

Senate confirmation to serve in that position.
  New Sec. 3345(c) was added to address the special case of an 
executive department (not executive agency) officer who serves not at 
the pleasure of the President, but under a fixed term, and without a 
holdover provision that governs acting service in that office following 
expiration of the fixed term. In that situation, without passing 
judgment on the constitutionality of fixed term appointees within 
executive departments, if the person whose term expires is renominated 
without a break in service, that already Senate-confirmed officer may 
continue to serve in the position subject to the time limits contained 
in Sec.  3346 until the Senate confirms or rejects that person's 
renomination, notwithstanding the adjournment of the Senate sine die. 
The subsection does not apply until the incumbent officeholder is 
renominated, or when a person other than the previously appointed 
officeholder is nominated.
  In Sec.  3346(a), an exception is added for ``sickness,'' a narrower 
category than ``unable to perform the functions and duties of the 
office.'' If the Senate-confirmed officer cannot serve because he is 
sick for more than 210 days, the acting officer may continue to serve 
during the sickness, and no nominee need be submitted to the Senate to 
avoid the vacant office provisions of Sec.  3348. The office is not 
vacant if the Senate-confirmed officer is sick, and he may reclaim the 
office even after 210 days if he is no longer ill. However, the 210 day 
limit will apply if the Senate-confirmed officer is unable to perform 
the functions and duties of the office for other reasons. For instance, 
the Doolin court stated that the current language of the Vacancies Act 
does not apply when the officer is fired, and for similar reasons, it 
might not apply when the officer is in jail if he does not resign. To 
make the law cover all situations when the officer cannot perform his 
duties, the ``unable to perform the functions and duties of the 
office'' language was selected. Sickness is the only exception to the 
210 day limit, since in other circumstances when the officer is unable 
to perform the functions and duties of the office, there is no reason 
to allow the officer to reclaim his duties sometime after 210 days.
  The 150 day period adopted in the Governmental Affairs Committee was 
lengthened to 210 days in each place it appeared in Sec.  3346 as an 
accommodation to the Administration in light of the increased time the 
vetting process now consumes.
  The amendment's striking of ``in the case of a rejection or 
withdrawal'' in Sec. 3346(b)(2) is to ensure that an acting officer can 
serve for 210 days if a second nomination is made of a person whose 
first nomination was returned by the Senate.
  The phrase ``applicable to'' is replaced by ``the exclusive means for 
temporarily authorizing an acting official to perform the functions and 
duties of'' in Sec.  3347(a) to ensure that the Vacancies Act provides 
the sole means by which temporary officers may be appointed unless 
contrary statutory language as set forth by this legislation creates an 
explicit exception.
  The phrase ``statutorily vested in that agency head'' is added to 
Sec.  3347(b) to clarify that so-called ``vesting and delegation'' 
statutes that permit the agency head to delegate functions and duties 
to subordinates in the department whose positions lack defined 
statutory duties apart from assisting the agency head do not permit the 
agency head to appoint acting officials. Thus, the organic statutes of 
the Cabinet departments do not qualify as a statutory exception to this 
legislation's exclusivity in governing the appointment of temporary 
officers.
  Changes were made to Sec.  3348(b) to provide that the vacant office 
provisions of the legislation apply not only when an acting officer has 
served more than 210 days without a nomination for the office having 
been submitted to the Senate, but also prior to the 210 days after the 
vacancy occurs unless an officer of employee performs the functions of 
the vacant office in accordance with Sec. Sec.  3345, 3346, and 3347 of 
this legislation.
  The tolling period provided in Sec. 3348(c) when the 210th day falls 
on a day on which the Senate is not in session is extended from the 
first day that the Senate is next in session and receiving nominations 
to the second such day.
  The changes clarify Sec.  3348(d) to provide that actions taken by 
persons not acting under Sec. Sec.  3345, 3346, or 3347 or as provided 
by Sec.  3348(b) of any function of a vacant office to which Sec. Sec.  
3346, 3347, 3348, 3349, 3349a, 3349b, and 3349c apply shall have no 
force or effect.
  Added to the list of positions in Sec. 3348(e) that are not subject 
to the vacant office provisions are any chief financial officer 
appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, since the head of the agency should not be permitted to execute 
the functions of such an official. The amendment also adds to the same 
list any other positions with duties that statutory provisions prohibit 
the agency head from performing.
  The Comptroller General's duties under Sec.  3349(b) are now to be 
performed ``immediately'' upon his or her determining that the 210 day 
period has been exceeded.
  Section 3349b is changed to preserve all statutory holdover 
provisions in independent establishments, not merely those independent 
establishments headed by a single officer.
  The list of excluded officers contained in Sec.  3349c is expanded to 
include any judge appointed by the President by and with the advice of 
the Senate to an Article I court. This includes the Court of Federal 
Claims, but this exclusion does not apply to administrative law judges, 
since they are not appointed by the President by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate. The list is also expanded to include members 
of the Surface Transportation Board, which, like the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, is denominated an ``independent establishment'' 
despite its location in an Executive department.
  New Sec.  3349d addresses the situation when the 210 day service 
period for an acting officer expires without a nominee having been 
submitted to the Senate, and the 211th day occurs during a Senate 
recess or adjournment of more than 15 days. Rather than wait until the 
Senate reconvenes to avoid the vacant office provisions of Sec.  3348 
from taking effect, the President may submit to the Senate a written 
notification of intent to nominate a permanent officer for a particular 
office after the recess or adjournment. At that point, an acting 
officer qualified to serve as such by this law may begin to serve as 
the acting officer for that particular position. So long as the 
President actually submits the nomination of the person so designated 
in the written notification for that particular office within two days 
of the Senate's reconvening, the actions of the acting officer are 
valid from the date the acting officer begins service and so long as 
the nomination is pending. However, if the President does not actually 
nominate the person who was the subject of the written notification for 
the particular subject designated in the written notification within 
two days of the reconvening of the Senate, then the notification 
considered a nomination that permitted the acting officer's service 
shall be treated after the second day the Senate reconvenes as a 
withdrawn nomination is treated under this legislation.
  The effective date of this portion of the bill is 30 days after the 
date of its enactment. For any vacant office as of the date of 
enactment, the time limitations under Sec.  3346 apply as if the office 
became vacant as of the effective date of this section.
  If the President nominates a person after the effective date of this 
section for an office to which that person had been nominated before 
the effective date, that second nomination will be treated as a first 
nomination under this section.
  All other changes are intended to be purely technical.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the United States Constitution contains two 
options providing for the appointment of the principal officers of our 
federal government. First, the Appointments Clause, found in Article 
II, section 2, clause 2, states that the President ``shall nominate, 
and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint'' 
such officers. Alternatively, should the Senate not be in session, 
Article II, section 2, clause 3, authorizes the President to 
unilaterally ``fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess 
of the Senate,'' subject only

[[Page S12824]]

to the proviso that the recess appointment expires at the end of the 
next session of Congress.
  As the Supreme Court pointedly observed in the 1997 case of Edmond v. 
United States, ``the Appointments Clause of Article II is more than a 
matter of `etiquette or protocol'; it is among the significant 
structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme.''
  With enactment of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, an 
important step will have been taken toward securing the Senate's 
constitutional responsibility to render its advice and consent on 
presidential nominations. It is my hope that this legislation, which 
makes several substantive changes to the current Vacancies Act, will 
protect this vital constitutional ``safeguard'' by bringing to an end a 
quarter century of obfuscation, bureaucratic intransigence, and 
outright circumvention
  Mr. President, because I am an original sponsor of the Federal 
Vacancies Reform Act, and because the Act as it is being enacted 
differs somewhat from the bill reported to the Senate by the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs on July 15, 1998, (S. Rpt. 105-250), I wish to 
offer my perspective on the Act's application, time limitations, 
exclusivity and exceptions, enforcement, reporting requirements, and 
effective date and application to current vacancies.


                              Application

  Section 3345 states that the provisions of the Act will apply to any 
officer in any executive agency, other than the General Accounting 
Office, if that officer's appointment is made by the President, subject 
to the advice and consent of the Senate. Unlike current law, this 
change will make clear that the Vacancies Act, as amended by this 
legislation, applies to all executive branch officers whose appointment 
requires Senate confirmation, except for those officers described in 
Section 3349c.
  Section 3345 applies when an officer dies, resigns, or is otherwise 
unable to perform the functions and duties of the office (the latter 
provision covers, inter alia, sickness or absence, which are listed in 
current law, or expiration of a term of office). Should one of these 
situations arise, the officer's position may then be filled temporarily 
by either: (1) the first assistant to the vacant office; (2) an 
executive officer who has been confirmed by the Senate for his current 
position; or (3) a career civil servant, paid at or above the GS-15 
rate, who has served in the agency for at least 90 of the past 365 
days. However, a person may not serve as an acting officer if: (1)(a) 
he is not the first assistant, or (b) he has been the first assistant 
for less than 90 of the past 365 days, and has not been confirmed for 
the position; and (2), the President nominates him to fill the vacant 
office.


                            Time Limitation

  Section 3346 places a strict time limit of 210 days upon how long an 
acting officer may serve. As the language of this section make 
abundantly clear, the time limit begins on the day the position becomes 
vacant, and not on any other date. The precise language that was used 
in the Act will correct the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of 
Appeals in Doolin Security Savings Bank v. Office of Thrift 
Supervision, 139 F.3rd 203 (D.C. Cir. 1998). If, however, the President 
forwards to the Senate a first or second nomination to fill the vacant 
office, the acting official may continue to serve until 210 days after 
the nomination is rejected by the Senate, withdrawn, or returned to the 
President by the Senate.
  With respect to this time limitation, section 3349d further provides 
that the vacant office may be temporarily filled beyond the 210-day 
time limit if, during a recess or adjournment of greater than 15 days, 
the President formally notifies the Senate of his intention to nominate 
a specified person for the vacant position, and, in fact, does submit 
to the Senate the nomination within two days of the end of the recess 
or adjournment. Should the President, for whatever reason, fail to 
forward the nomination, then any action taken by the acting official 
shall have no legal force or effect, nor shall that action be ratified. 
Moreover, such failure would render the position vacant as of the 
second day following the Senate's return.
  Finally, on the issue of time, the Act, unlike current law, 
appropriately recognizes the difficulties faced by a new President 
following his initial inauguration. To address that situation, section 
3349a provides that, with respect to any advice-and-consent position 
which becomes vacant during the first 60 days of the new President's 
term, the 210 day time limitation shall not begin until 90 days after 
the inauguration date, or 90 days after the date of the vacancy, 
whichever is later. Effectively, then, this provision will give a new 
President up to 300 days to forward nominations to the Senate.


                       Exclusivity and Exceptions

  Mr. President, turning now to the question of the exclusivity of the 
Act, I think it is a fair assessment of this entire issue to say that 
the matter of exclusivity is the bedrock point on which the executive 
and legislative branches have historically differed. Indeed, it is very 
likely that we would not be here today were it not for the differing 
interpretations as to the exclusivity of the Vacancies Act. And, 
without opening old wounds, suffice it to say that the problems that 
have heretofore been brought to the attention of Congress were not the 
fault of any one President, any one Attorney General, and certainly not 
the fault of any one political party. Accordingly, it is my fervent 
hope that the language of the Act will, once and for all, end this 
decades-long disagreement.
  As the language of Section 3347 makes clear, unless other statutory 
provisions exist which explicitly authorize the temporary filling of 
vacancies in executive positions requiring Senate confirmation, or 
unless such provisions are enacted in the future, Sections 3345-3349d 
are to be the exclusive statutory means for filling vacant advice-and-
consent positions in the executive branch.
  Moreover, in an effort to squarely address past problems, the Act 
specifically prohibits the use of general, ``housekeeping'' statutes as 
a basis for circumventing the Vacancies Act. Provisions such as, but 
not limited to, 28 U.S.C. 509 and 510, which vest all functions of the 
Department of Justice in the Attorney General and allow the Attorney 
General to delegate responsibility for carrying out those functions, 
shall not be construed as providing an alternative means of filling 
vacancies.
  Finally, Section 3349b makes clear that the Vacancies Act, as now 
amended, does not affect statutory holdover provisions. Nor does the 
Act, as explained in Section 3349c, apply to members of independent, 
multiple-member boards or commissions, to commissioners of the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, to members of the Surface Transportation 
Board, or to any judge of any court constituted pursuant to Article I 
of the Constitution.


                              Enforcement

  Mr. President, with enactment of this legislation, the Vacancies Act 
will, for the first time ever, contain an effective enforcement 
mechanism. As spelled out in Section 3348, failure to comply with 
Sections 3345, 3346, or 3347 shall result in a vacant office remaining 
vacant, and no-one, other than the agency head, may perform the 
functions or duties that are assigned by statute or regulation to that 
office exclusively. An action taken by an acting official who is not in 
compliance with Sections 3345, 3346, or 3347 shall have no force or 
effect and may not be subsequently ratified.
  For those who are concerned with this provision, I would point out 
that, while this is an effective, and admittedly tough enforcement 
mechanism, it is not so stringent that it will result in governmental 
paralysis. On the contrary, not only is the head of the agency 
authorized to carry out the most essential functions of an office 
forced to remain vacant due to noncompliance, but the language of the 
legislation is crafted in such a way as to allow for the filling of a 
vacant office once the President submits a nomination to the Senate. In 
that respect, then, the enforcement mechanism should not be considered, 
nor is it intended to be, a form of punishment, but, rather, a means of 
providing incentive for the timely submission of nominations.


                         Reporting Requirement

  Because one of the keys to exacting compliance with the Vacancies Act 
is full and complete disclosure of information regarding vacant 
positions, Section 3349 establishes a provision for the regular 
reporting of information.

[[Page S12825]]

 Under this section, the head of each executive branch agency shall, at 
the appropriate time, submit to the Comptroller General and to each 
House of Congress the following information: Notification of any 
vacancy in an office subject to the Vacancies Act; the name of the 
person serving in an acting capacity and the date such service began; 
the name of any person nominated for the vacant position and the date 
such nomination was submitted to the Senate; and the date the 
nomination was withdrawn, rejected by the Senate or returned by the 
Senate. If the Comptroller General, once he has received the relevant 
information, determines that an individual is serving in an acting 
capacity beyond the 210-day time limitation in violation of the 
Vacancies Act, the Comptroller General is required to notify the 
Senate, the House of Representatives, various committees of the two 
Houses, the Office of Personnel Management and the President.
  Mr. President, although these may seem to be rather routine 
procedures, in this case they are vitally important, because one of the 
great difficulties in crafting this legislation has been the absence of 
reliable information. However, with these reporting requirements, the 
Congress and the executive branch will be in a far better position to 
objectively evaluate the operation of the Vacancies Act, and, should 
this issue require further review, will be prepared to discuss the 
matter based on reliable data.


          Effective Date and Application to Current Vacancies

  Finally, let me address the matter of the Act's effective date and 
application. First, as the legislation makes clear, the Act will take 
effect 30 days after the date of enactment. Next, the Act, and all of 
its provisions, will fully apply to any position which becomes vacant 
after the effective date. Third, with respect to those positions that 
are vacant on the effective date, or those positions which are being 
filled by an acting official on the effective date, only the time 
limitations of section 3346 shall apply. None of the other provisions 
of the Act (including, but not limited to, the length of service 
requirements contained in section 3345), shall apply to those 
individuals currently serving in an acting capacity. Lastly, the Act 
makes clear that, notwithstanding the fact that an individual may have 
previously been nominated, the next nomination of that individual will 
be treated as a first nomination for purposes of the Vacancies Act, as 
amended.
  Mr. President, that concludes my remarks on the meaning and intent of 
the various provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. 
However, I would like to take a moment to extend my congratulations and 
my sincere gratitude to Senator Thompson, the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs, for all the time and effort he 
has put into this endeavor. I also wish to thank the Democratic members 
of the committee--in particular Senators Glenn, Levin, Lieberman and 
Durbin--for their willingness to see this legislation through to 
completion. It was not an easy task, and I commend them all for their 
hard work. Despite the difficulties, though, I hope they will agree 
that securing the rights of the Senate, and thus the integrity of the 
U.S. Constitution, is a task that bears doing no matter how demanding 
it may be.


                Women's Health Cancer Rights Act of 1998

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President I rise today to applaud this body for 
passing perhaps one of the most critical pieces of legislation this 
Congress. Today, before the Senate, in the omnibus appropriations bill, 
is the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998, or more 
appropriately, Janet's Law.
  Mr. President, I first began the fight to pass this critical 
legislation on January 30, 1997 when I introduced this legislation 
along with Senator Diane Feinstein, Senator Olympia Snowe, Senators 
Hollings, Moynihan, Domenici, Faircloth, Moseley-Braun, Biden, Inouye, 
Murkowski, Dodd, Kerrey, Hatch, Gregg, Smith, and Ford.
  We faced an uphill fight, but we were persistent. We never gave up.
  We couldn't--Mr. President, there was too much at stake. We took on 
this fight for the women of America--our mothers and daughters, sisters 
and wives, grandmothers and friends. We took on this fight because it 
was critical to the health of every woman in America.
  Today, there are 2.6 million women living with breast cancer. In 1998 
alone, more than 184,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer 
and, tragically, 44,000 women will die of this dreaded disease. Breast 
cancer is still the most common form of cancer in women; every 3 
minutes another woman is diagnosed and every 11 minutes another woman 
dies of breast cancer.
  I want to tell you, Mr. President, about one of those women, because 
the battle against breast cancer is not about statistics--it's about 
real women who are in the fight of their lives. Janet Franquet, a young 
woman, just 31 years old, from my home state of New York was recently 
denied reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy.
  Janet Franquet was diagnosed with an extremely aggressive form of 
breast cancer on December 11, 1997. Mrs. Franquet required a mastectomy 
and a very intricate, involved reconstruction of the breast following 
her mastectomy. The wound site required her surgeon to perform a very 
extensive procedure, medically necessary due to the considerable wound 
site after the removal of her breast.
  Mrs. Franquet's insurance provider, the National Organization of 
Industrial Trade Unions (NOITU) Insurance Trust Fund refused to cover 
the reconstruction of Mrs. Franquet's breast. Imagine the shock and 
horror of being told by your HMO that surgery following the removal of 
your breast is cosmetic. That is outrageous.
  In fact, when the surgeon performing the reconstruction asked about 
coverage, the Medical Director of the insurance company told Mrs. 
Franquet's doctor that breast reconstruction was considered cosmetic 
surgery, and he would have to deny coverage.
  So, Mr. President, I decided that I would give Mrs. Franquet's 
insurance company a call. When I spoke with the Medical Director for 
the insurance company, he told me that ``replacement of a breast is not 
medically necessary and not covered under the plan. This is not a 
bodily function and therefore can not and should not be replaced.''
  Mrs. Franquet and her family, were left to pay for the procedure out 
of their own pocket. The procedure cost approximately $16,500. Luckily, 
her doctor, Dr. Todd Wider, agreed to forgo payment for this life 
saving surgery. But recently, the insurance fund agreed to pay for the 
surgery--only after a lengthy appeal before the Board of Directors with 
lawyers and doctors testifying as to the medical necessity of the 
surgery.
  I ask you, Mr. President, how many other Janet Franquets are out 
there? Will they be lucky enough to have a Dr. Wider to take care of 
them, or will they be forced to forgo this lifesaving surgery so that 
insurance companies can cut costs and save money?
  That is why, Mr. President, I began this fight in the Senate and made 
it my crusade every day, at every opportunity. The D'Amato legislation 
which we will enact into law today makes critically important changes 
in how breast cancer patients receive medical care.
  This important reform legislation will significantly change the way 
insurance companies provide coverage for women diagnosed with breast 
cancer. This new law will ensure that breast cancer patients will have 
access to reconstructive surgery following mastectomies. Too many women 
have been denied reconstructive surgery following mastectomies because 
insurers have deemed the procedure cosmetic and not medically 
necessary. It is absolutely unacceptable and wrong that many insurers 
have decided that this essential surgery is ``cosmetic.''
  I know that there are going to be those who say let the marketplace 
work, let free competition work. Well, that is simply naive. To say 
that by insisting on a minimum standard, insisting on basic commonsense 
minimums we are interfering with the free market system is 
preposterous. For the government to not live up to its most basic duty 
of protecting its citizenry, that is what is wrong.
  There exists a very basic relationship between a doctor and a patient 
that no Member of Congress and no insurance bean counter can ever 
understand.

[[Page S12826]]

That bond is so basic and so sacred that it is only the physician who 
is treating their patient who can truly understand it. It is only that 
physician who can truly determine the best course of action for their 
patient and knows how to save their life. Congress has a duty to 
protect that bond and ensure that the physician is able to practice 
medicine.
  This legislation is crucial not only for the women of New York, where 
breast cancer ranks among the top in the Nation, but for the entire 
country as well. Our families have been ravaged by this horrible 
disease. Our grandmothers, mothers and daughters, sisters and wives, 
children and friends have been afflicted at rates that are unexplained 
and far too high.
  We must continue to work together, on a bipartisan basis, to find a 
cure for breast cancer. But until a cure is found, we must ensure that 
women receive the treatment they deserve. This legislation protects 
women and the families and friends of women who have been diagnosed 
with breast cancer.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be recognized 
as Janet's Law, after Janet Franquet, the woman who was the inspiration 
for this bill and who in fact serves as a heroine to many women who 
were denied reconstructive surgery prior to her. Thanks largely to Mrs. 
Franquet's efforts and determination in this issue, no woman will ever 
be denied reconstructive surgery again. Janet's case has served as an 
inspiration for me to keep fighting in the war against breast cancer 
and should be an inspiration to every Member of Congress.
  I thank all my colleagues for helping me pass this critical 
legislation, and I thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
chairman Stevens and the majority leader, Senator Lott for their hard 
work in ensuring the protection of American women who have been 
afflicted with breast cancer.


                The Need to Track Former TANF Recipients

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, I would like to call attention 
to a small but very important issue that was not addressed in the 
appropriations bill that was considered today. In short, Congress has 
not provided the necessary funding to HHS to track what happens to 
families who have been dropped from the welfare caseloads.
  Back in April when the Senate passed the budget resolution, it 
included an amendment that I offered directing HHS to determine whether 
former welfare recipients are achieving ``economic self-sufficiency'' 
once they stop receiving benefits. But a budget resolution was never 
adopted by Congress. I ask all my colleagues, why don't we want to know 
what is happening to families after they leave welfare? Are we afraid 
of what we might find?
  So many of my colleagues keep talking about the success of reform, 
citing the dramatic drop in the number of caseloads. But I ask you, do 
we know where those families are? Are they better off? Have they 
achieved economic self-sufficiency? Or are they more deeply enmeshed in 
poverty? Why are we not interested in finding answers to these 
questions? As policy makers it is our duty and our responsibility to 
make sure that the policies we enact for the good of the people 
actually are doing good for the people. But if we don't go and find out 
how they are actually affecting families, how will we know? We need to 
put in place the means to address these very critical questions, and 
directing HHS to set up a means of evaluating what happens to families 
is the most common sense way to approach this issue.
  Evaluation is one of the key ingredients in good policy making and it 
does not take a degree in political science to realize what anyone with 
good common sense knows: if we want to try something new, we need to 
assess how that new program works. Now when Congress enacted welfare 
reform, the goals as I understood them were to move people off of 
welfare and dependency and into jobs and economic self-sufficiency. The 
dropping number of caseloads implies that we have met only part of the 
first goal--moving families off of welfare. But eliminating dependency 
and achieving economic self-sufficiency through a job that supports a 
family are effects that can only be determined over a longer period of 
time. As policy makers--regardless of ideological stripe--it is our 
role to ensure that the programs that Congress enacts to provide for 
American families' well-being are effective and produce the goals we 
intended them to. We need to know what is happening with the families 
who are affected by the new reform, whether it is in fact effectively 
helping low income mothers and their children build a path to economic 
self-sufficiency.
  What we do know, what everyone knows is that the caseloads have 
dropped dramatically--1.3 million families have left welfare since 
August of 1996 alone, that is 4.5 million total recipients including 
mothers and their children. But what that number tells us is only a 
snapshot of the broader picture.
  I want to take a moment to talk about this number and what it tells 
us. First of all, we have to recognize how naive it is to assume that 
all 1.3 million of those families are finding jobs and moving towards a 
life of economic self-sufficiency, because that number only tells us 
about families that have been dropped from the caseload--and families 
drop from the caseloads for many different reasons. A family may lose 
their benefits due to sanctions, or they may leave welfare on their 
own, for many reasons which we do not know. Even more troubling is that 
although the number of families receiving welfare has declined, 
indicators of poverty have not shown a similar or equal rate of 
decline, which means that many families who are eligible for assistance 
are not even applying.
  Even among families where the parent has found a job--because without 
it they would not be receiving any assistance--we know very little. We 
do not know how long those jobs are lasting or whether they are the 
kind of jobs that will put families on a path to economic self-
sufficiency. Just because a parent finds a job does not mean that the 
family is no longer poor. Getting a job that pays a family wage, that 
enables a mother to provide a life for her children that lifts them all 
out of poverty does not happen overnight. We need to know what happens 
to families 6 months, 12 months, even a couple of years down the road. 
And we do not know that.
  No one seems to know, even those members of Congress who keep 
trumpeting the ``victory'' of welfare reform. Just a few weeks ago, in 
the Conference Committee for the Higher Ed. bill, I asked my colleagues 
if they knew of any research demonstrating that these 1.3 million 
families had indeed achieved economic self-sufficiency and no one had 
an answer for me. No one! Let me just say that accepting a very narrow 
measure of what has happened to 1.3 million families is no victory in 
my book.
  Each family is more than a number, more than another tally mark to be 
added to that statistic of 1.3 million caseloads. Adding up that tally 
does not answer critical questions. Questions like why did that family 
stop receiving benefits? Was it due to an increased income from the 
mother's job? If yes, then what kind of wages is that mother now 
making? Does she have a job that is going to enable her to continue to 
provide for her family, or will the next crisis of a sick child, a 
broken down car, or some other unforeseen problem push her back to 
needing assistance? We have very little information about the 
situations of these 1.3 million families. We are in the dark because we 
turned off the lights.
  Now, let me back up a minute and provide my colleagues with some 
background on this issue of asking the necessary questions about the 
impact of welfare reform. Requiring states to evaluate the impact of 
new welfare policies is not new. Not at all. In fact, prior to enacting 
the 1996 reform, all states that applied for a waiver to try an 
experiment with their AFDC program--and 43 out of 50 states had been 
granted waivers by 1996--were required under the regulations of the 
waiver to hire an outside contractor to evaluate the impact of their 
new program. For example, in Minnesota, two of the primary criteria for 
evaluating the programs were whether the program ``helped families 
increased their income and self-sufficiency'' and ``supported families' 
movement toward self-support.''

  But when Congress enacted TANF, states were no longer required to 
continue those evaluations. In fact, 24

[[Page S12827]]

states stopped the evaluation process altogether, and only 19 have 
applied for funds to continue those evaluations. That means that over 
half of the states ended their project evaluations when Congress 
dropped the requirement to assess the impact of reform.
  Of course these projects that I have just mentioned are not the only 
evaluations of the new reform. When states begin to apply to HHS for 
the $1 billion in bonus money for successfully moving families into 
self-sufficiency, they will be required to report on the status of both 
current and former recipients. Then, HHS will have some information 
about what is happening. But that information will not be available 
until at least the Fall of 1999.
  Last year Congress considered this issue important, since we 
specifically earmarked $5 million in the FY98 Labor-HHS appropriations 
for HHS to give to states interested in doing their own tracking 
studies. And just a few weeks ago, HHS announced it had awarded grants 
to 13 state and county projects to track ``leavers''--those who have 
been dropped from the caseloads due to increased earnings or sanctions, 
and those who have not even applied for assistance even though they are 
eligible. This is an example of responsible policy making, and I will 
be very interested in the outcomes of these evaluations. But in a 
year's time, these 13 projects will be cut off at the knees. These 
projects will be unable to complete their planned evaluations because 
they will not have the necessary funds. Why? Because Congress has 
failed to appropriate similar funds for FY99. I ask you again, what are 
we afraid of?
  We do have some information, but it is not very helpful. You might 
not want to know about it, but I'm going to talk about it anyway, 
because I want to illustrate that what information we do have is very, 
very limited.
  Recently released reports give us some idea of what is happening, but 
there are huge holes in what we do know. The good news is that many 
states--31 according to the National Conference of State Legislatures--
are conducting various types of tracking studies on their own. The bad 
news is that these studies are wildly diverse in terms of who they 
track, how long they track recipients, and when their reports will be 
available to the public.
  Let me just give you a snapshot of what this kind of tracking system 
looks like. The studies run the gamut from those examining all closed 
cases, to only sanctioned cases, to cases closed due to increased 
earnings, to families diverted from ever applying for assistance. And 
the time frames of the studies range from 6 months to five years and 
everything in between.
  But the really frustrating thing about what appears to be a potential 
wealth of data is that there is no central clearinghouse for it. As I 
mentioned before, HHS received a special $5 million appropriation for 
FY98 to fund some tracking studies. But the funds were only to provide 
help to states to do their own tracking. It did not provide funds so 
that HHS could act as a central location for analyzing the results of 
these studies. So, while I was glad that Congress committed necessary 
resources to studying what happens to families after they leave 
welfare, that is only part of the job. We need an efficient means of 
analyzing the information that we do collect, and directing HHS to 
serve as a central clearinghouse would have been the best way of doing 
that.
  There are other problems with this scatter-shot approach to tracking. 
One of them is that it does not allow us to trace what happens to 
families that get sanctioned. Do they get caught up in a ``churning'' 
cycle, getting sent to the end of the line, deepening the hardship of 
an already poor family? One study in Iowa of families that had been 
sanctioned found that only 30% were working 30 hours a week or more and 
almost half of them had experienced a dramatic decrease in their income 
(over $380 per month).
  From several studies, in New Jersey, Iowa, and Tennessee, it seems 
that many families who are being dropped from welfare due to sanctions 
are turning to other family members for assistance. A study in New 
Jersey showed that almost 50% of the families that were sanctioned and 
lost their benefits turned to family for aid; in Tennessee, 71% sought 
help from other family members. While I understand the intent of 
welfare reform was to decrease families' dependency on welfare, I do 
not think--and I am confident that my colleagues agree--that it was 
Congress's intent to shift the burden of assistance to other low income 
families who are just keeping their own heads above water.
  Families that get sanctioned are at least within the state's data 
base and are easier to track. The groups that we really know very 
little about are those families in need who never even make it onto the 
official welfare roles. Many families are discouraged from even 
applying for aid or get diverted by receiving a lump sum of 2 or 3 
months of benefits. In New York City--in Brooklyn and Queens--the 
primary goal of city welfare offices, according to its official manual, 
is to discourage families from even applying for assistance by 
encouraging them to get a job or depend on relatives.
  While this may initially save the state money and reduce its 
caseloads, shifting the need of mothers and their children to other 
family members spreads individual resources more thinly and risks 
expanding the number of families in poverty. More disturbing is that 
this phenomenon does not appear to be only happening in New York. I 
think this is a very troubling trend that seems to be attached to these 
groups, one that I want to bring to my colleagues' attention because I 
think it will have greater implications for all low-income working 
families.
  As I have mentioned, very little research looks at the long term 
impact of reform, and most of the studies I have mentioned above are 
short-term studies. But a program in Oregon is often cited as one to 
emulate. I would like to take a moment here to tell my colleagues about 
this particular program, because I think this case shows us the 
importance of getting more information than just the number of 
recipients dropped from the caseloads.
  Unlike other welfare to work programs that focused on recipients just 
getting a job--any job--the Portland program provided really strong 
support services to help families find a ``good'' job, a full-time job 
that paid above minimum wage, included medical benefits and the 
potential for advancement. The way that the Portland program did this 
was to take a ``mixed services'' approach. And what that translates 
into is what I would think would be a good job search program for 
anyone, whether they were on welfare or not.
  First, staff assessed the skills and interests of recipients, and 
then they worked closely with individual recipients to help them plan a 
strategy for getting what they needed to find a good job. Those folks 
that needed educational or vocational training were sent to do that. 
Training also included programs that helped parents who needed some 
life skills training to improve their employability. And as recipients 
were participating in these programs, program staff worked closely with 
local companies and employers to match recipients with good jobs where 
they would succeed.
  For many families, this approach worked to get them jobs that did pay 
higher than the minimum wage at the time ($4.15), and many were still 
at their jobs at the end of two years. But, there is a finer point that 
needs to be made about what appears to be good news in this study. The 
jobs that parents got were higher than minimum wage, but they were 
still only $6 an hour at the most. Well, that just isn't enough for a 
family of three--a mother and two children, which is what the average 
family on welfare consists of--to make ends meet. And the bigger 
downside is that although many families were able to leave welfare, 40% 
of families were still receiving cash assistance at the end of two 
years.
  Even if we were to be optimistic about the potential for these $6 an 
hour jobs to translate into job advancement and greater earnings, what 
about the other 40% who still needed cash assistance? We cannot be 
celebrating welfare reform as a ``success'' when so many former 
recipients have jobs that only move them to just beyond the eligibility 
line for cash assistance but do not set them on that path to economic 
self-security. And, probably more importantly, we need to know more 
about the specific barriers that keep those 40% of families from 
getting a ``good job'' too. We just cannot walk away from them.

[[Page S12828]]

  As I mentioned, the program in Portland is unusual compared to other 
welfare-to-work programs. On the other end of the spectrum are programs 
like Wisconsin Works, better known as W-2. With the W-2 program, the 
basic premise is that parents will not get cash assistance unless they 
are working. This kind of program moves parents into the work force 
very quickly, because they need that cash assistance. But what a recent 
study of Milwaukee families found was that even though parents are 
getting jobs quickly, 6 months later three quarters of them were no 
longer employed. And of those parents who did get jobs, only 14% were 
getting paid full time wages. That means that less than 2 out of 10 
families had a parent who was working full time.
  This is very disturbing information. What is happening to these 
families who are getting pushed into the work force so quickly that 
they are not given the opportunity or the training to find jobs that 
are more likely to translate into sustained, full-time employment. 
Based on this study, it is very clear to me that we as policy makers 
definitely need to know about how other ``work first'' approaches are 
affecting families. When less than 2 out of 10 families has a parent 
bringing home a full time wage, there are a lot of families who are not 
making ends meet, and that is not a success in my book.
  Looking at the administrative side, we know that since the caseloads 
have dropped dramatically, states have more funds available to provide 
support services to families trying to find jobs. However, the 1.3 
million drop in caseloads is only a drop in the number of families 
receiving cash assistance; many of those families are still receiving 
other support services such as subsidized child care, transportation, 
housing and medical care. When the labor market hits a downturn--which 
is the direction it appears to be heading--and many families are forced 
to return for cash assistance, what will happen to the states' ability 
to provide these support services necessary to put those mothers back 
in the workforce? There is much uncertainty about the future and we are 
doing little to reduce it.
  Even those of my colleagues who supported the 1996 welfare reform 
bill must recognize Congress's important responsibility of finding out 
what is happening to those 1.3 million families who have been dropped 
from the roles. Reform is not a one-shot deal. Real reform involves 
long term oversight to insure that policies benefit all parties: states 
and poor mothers and their children.
  I have always said, the true test of welfare reform will come in the 
austere economic times, when many more families will need it most. Will 
we wait until folks are again in dire straits before we begin to gather 
information about how to correct the programs that we have just 
reformed? Are we really going to allow ourselves to be so short-
sighted? Or will we recognize that our responsibility to enact good 
policies that protect our most vulnerable populations such as poor 
mothers and their children is intrinsic to our duty as good and 
effective policy makers. Not until we are sure that this reform has 
accomplished all of its goals-- eliminating dependency and helping 
families to establish and maintain economic self-sufficiency--can we 
truly claim that this reform is good and sound policy for all.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern for 
some of the provisions in the omnibus measure that we have passed 
today. I voted for this bill because I believe that there are some very 
good provisions in it, and, on balance, I think it serves the American 
people well. It re-energizes our national drug control effort. It tries 
to boost the morale and readiness of our armed forces, rather than 
continuing the dangerous trend toward a hollow military. It helps 
protect citizens' second amendment rights. It prohibits Federal funding 
of needle exchanges. The bill retains language blocking Members of 
Congress, judges and members of the Federal executive service from 
receiving a cost-of-living increase. There is a one-year moratorium on 
Department of Education-sponsored national testing. I voted for this 
bill because I have been assured that we have stayed within the budget 
caps.
  I am concerned, however, about the integrity of the budget and 
appropriations process and the classification of emergency spending 
that has prevailed in this omnibus measure. Other Senators have spoken 
here on the Senate floor about the dereliction of congressional duty in 
failing to pass 13 individual spending bills during this year's session 
of the Senate. Instead, because of partisan politics, we are here 
passing a massive spending bill that rolls eight appropriations bills 
into one large catch-all bill, which also includes dozens of extraneous 
matters. If that is not bad enough, we have also included ``emergency'' 
spending to the tune of more than $20 billion.
  This spending is considered outside of the budget and therefore not 
subject to the budget caps. What this means, however, is that this $20 
billion comes directly out of the budget surplus. It is sometimes 
necessary to appropriate funds for emergencies like hurricanes, floods 
or other natural disasters. I am disappointed, however, that we have 
appropriated billions of dollars for things that can hardly be 
considered emergencies. Our troops have been in Bosnia for three 
years--is this a surprise? The Year 2000 problem? With foresight, we 
could have planned for this through the regular appropriations process 
rather than designating it as an emergency. So instead of making room 
for these spending priorities, the President has declared them 
emergencies and instead of imposing fiscal discipline, he--and we--have 
used the surplus that the President demanded be saved for Social 
Security to pay for them.
  As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I think it should be our 
first priority next year to examine how we classify emergency spending. 
No longer should the Congress--or the President--be allowed to spend 
our budget surplus for matters that should be paid for through the 
regular appropriations process. Second, I would like to reiterate my 
support for Senator Domenici's biennial budgeting bill. It is at times 
like this that the need for biennial budgeting becomes even clearer.
  Mr. President, as I said, this bill, though far from perfect, will 
work more good than mischief. There are real problems with this bill 
and the process that created it; however, we must sometimes accept that 
our system of government divides power between Congress and the 
President. The President's priorities differ from most of our 
priorities. In these circumstances, compromise must rule the day.
  Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I look 
forward to meeting our budgeting challenges when we return next year. I 
hope that we are able to continue on the course that we set last year 
when we enacted tight discretionary spending caps and charted a course 
toward a $1.5 trillion surplus. While I am concerned about the process 
that got us here today, I remain hopeful that we will take the 
necessary steps next year to keep us on our course toward fiscal 
responsibility and continued prosperity.


                    charitable giving incentive act

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, among the provisions included in 
the tax package we voted on today is a provision of great importance to 
the charitable giving community: an extension of the enhanced deduction 
for contributions of publicly-traded stock to private foundations. 
Although extending this deduction benefits many and is a useful tool 
for providing funds for charitable purposes, this deduction alone is 
not enough.
  In this era of ever-tightening fiscal constraints, we have asked our 
communities to do more and more for those less fortunate. Charitable 
organizations in our communities have become an integral part of the 
safety net for the poor and homeless and significant sources of 
assistance for education, health care, child development and the arts.
  To meet the increasing deficit in unmet social needs, the government 
cannot merely expect the private sector to fill the gap, but must 
provide the leadership for the use of private sector resources through 
changes in the Tax Code. One source of untapped resources for 
charitable purposes is the contribution of closely held corporate 
stock. Under current law, the tax cost of contributing closely held 
stock to a charity or foundation is prohibitive, and it

[[Page S12829]]

discourages families and owners from disposing of their businesses in 
this manner.
  Earlier this year, I was joined by Senators Feinstein, Wyden, Baucus, 
and Gorton in introducing legislation that would provide an incentive 
to business owners to use their corporate wealth for charitable causes. 
S. 1412, the Charitable Giving Incentive Act of 1998, would permit a 
closely-held business to transfer its assets into a 501(c)(3) 
charitable organization without paying the 35 percent corporate level 
tax. Thus, the recipient charity would receive the full benefit of the 
gift. Identical legislation has also been introduced in the House by 
Representatives Dunn, Furse, Nethercutt, Hooley, Paul, and Smith of 
Oregon.
  In addition to this bipartisan congressional support, we have 
garnered support from the charitable community. It is my intention to 
reintroduce this legislation in the 106th Congress, and I look forward 
to working with the Finance Committee Chairman Roth, Ranking Member 
Moynihan and my Senate colleagues to legislate changes that will make 
it easier for the citizens of this country to give to charitable 
causes.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from 
organizations supporting the legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  October 9, 1998.
     Senator William Roth,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       The undersigned organizations are all tax exempt 501(c)(3) 
     charitable entities, or representatives thereof, whose 
     efforts are dependent upon the charitable giving of concerned 
     individuals. With the needs of our communities growing, and 
     in some cases the financial support from government agencies 
     diminishing, many endeavors are increasingly reliant upon a 
     core group of concerned, consistent, and active givers. It is 
     important to encourage and reward the selfless sharing by 
     this group and to expand its membership.
       Accordingly, we support legislation that has been 
     introduced in this Congress to provide tax incentives for the 
     donation of significant amounts of closely-held stock. H.R. 
     3029 and S. 1412, the Charitable Giving Incentive Act, would 
     permit the tax-free liquidation of a closely-held corporation 
     into a charity if at least 80 percent of the stock of the 
     corporation were donated to a 501(c)(3) organization upon the 
     death of a donor. Thus, the 35 percent corporate tax that 
     would otherwise be paid is not imposed: all of the value of 
     the contribution would go to charitable purposes. This is the 
     same tax result as would occur if the business had been held 
     in non-corporate form.
       The current disincentive for substantial contributions of 
     closely-held stock should be corrected at the earliest 
     opportunity. We believe such a change would encourage 
     additional transfers to charity because the donors will see 
     more of the benefit going to the charity and not to taxes. We 
     hope that appropriate tax incentives will encourage more 
     families to devote significant portions of their businesses, 
     and their wealth, to charitable purposes.
       As a key member of Congress, we urge your active support 
     for this effort to expand charitable giving by individuals 
     and businesses. The needs are great. While government cannot 
     do it all, it can provide leadership for others to do more by 
     removing current impediments. Your support and assistance are 
     needed. Thank you for your favorable consideration of this 
     request.
           Sincerely,
       Council on Foundations; Council of Jewish Federations; The 
     Children's Foundation; The National Federation of Nonprofits; 
     and The National Community Action Foundation.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I voted against the 
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999. One of the principal reasons why I voted against the 
bill is that it does not include two critically important provisions of 
the Smith amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill 
that passed the Senate on July 21, 1998, by a vote of 69-31. The Smith 
amendment provided major protections of the rights of law-abiding gun 
owners under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States.
  As passed by the Senate last July, the Smith amendment included three 
major provisions. First, the Smith amendment prohibited the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation from charging a user fee or ``gun tax'' for the 
so-called Brady handgun National Instant Check System (NICS) that will 
go into effect later this year. Second, the Smith amendment required 
the ``immediate destruction'' of all records related to gun purchasers 
who are determined by the system to be legally entitled to buy a gun. 
Third, the Smith amendment created a private cause of action on the 
part of any individual gun purchaser who is the victim of a violation 
of either or both of the first two provisions of the amendment.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, only the first provision of the Smith 
amendment remains intact in the final version of the omnibus 
appropriations bill. Although I am pleased that the FBI's gun tax 
scheme is now dead, I am deeply disappointed that those who negotiated 
this bill with the administration have ignored the legislatively 
expressed will of 69 United States Senators by rendering all but 
meaningless the second, and eliminating altogether the third, 
provisions of the Smith amendment.
  The omnibus appropriations bill replaces the Smith amendment's 
requirement for the ``immediate destruction'' of records on law-abiding 
gun owners with one that only requires ``destruction'' of such records. 
Thus, the bill leaves open to question just how long the FBI may 
lawfully retain such records.
  Although the omnibus appropriations bill does not include the Smith 
amendment's language explicitly creating a private cause of action, I 
believe that the bill retains an implied cause of action. Assuming that 
the courts will interpret the new law in a manner that gives full 
effect to legislative intent, judges will recognize such an implied 
cause of action on the part of gun owners to sue in Federal court in 
order to protect their rights under the Smith amendment.
  Mr. President, early in the 106th Congress next year, I will be 
introducing legislation encompassing all of the protections of the 
Smith amendment for which 69 Senators voted last July.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I voted in favor of the omnibus 
appropriations bill this morning, but I did so with some reluctance. 
While I am marginally pleased with this bill's contribution to 
education and defense, my primary concern is the $20.9 billion in 
emergency spending included in this bill that further jeopardizes the 
Social Security trust fund.
  In July, the Congressional Budget Office predicted the Federal 
Government will run a $63 billion surplus in 1998 if the Social 
Security trust fund is included in the budget calculations. We still 
run a $41 billion deficit, however, if the surplus in the Social 
Security trust fund is excluded. The Federal Government will not run a 
surplus without the inclusion of the Social Security trust fund until 
2002, when CBO expects a $1 billion surplus. By 2008, the surplus will 
rise to $64 billion, without counting the Social Security trust fund.
  However, the omnibus appropriations package includes $20.9 billion in 
emergency spending--spending outside of the caps established in last 
year's balanced budget agreement, spending that is not paid for with 
offsets in other government programs.
  So how are we paying for $20.9 billion in emergency spending? We're 
using money from the surplus--a surplus that doesn't exist yet unless 
we include the Social Security trust fund in our calculations.
  I am dismayed by this outcome, especially when I recall the way we 
started this year. The President urged Congress to ``Save Social 
Security First'' during his State of the Union Address in January. In 
late April, the President again stated, ``I will resist any proposals 
that would squander the budget surplus, whether on new spending 
programs or new tax cuts until Social Security is strengthened for the 
long-term.''
  Apparently, the President is ignoring his own advice. During 
negotiations over the appropriations package, the President pushed for 
$20 billion in so-called emergency spending. He did not propose to 
offset this spending with cuts in other Government programs. In fact, 
by categorizing his spending requests as ``emergencies,'' he plans to 
spend a large part of the surplus he himself designated for saving 
Social Security in January.
  Frankly, I question the legitimacy of the ``emergencies'' identified 
by the President--the year 2000 computer problem, military 
responsibilities in Bosnia, and the decennial census.

[[Page S12830]]

These so-called emergencies have been on the radar screen for years. 
Unfortunately, the President failed to place a priority on these 
challenges when he gave Congress his budget in February.
  Now we have several ``emergencies'' for which the President is 
willing to dip into the surplus he deemed sacred in January--a surplus 
that does not exist unless we tap into the Social Security trust fund.
  Unfortunately, Congress capitulated to the President's inconsistent 
demands and policies. Today we approved a spending package that dips 
into the surplus that should be used to reform Social Security--a 
surplus that only exists with the current, but temporary, surplus in 
the Social Security trust fund.

  Social Security reform is expected to top next year's congressional 
agenda. Unfortunately, this spending package starts us off on the wrong 
foot.
  The President is willing to stick to his commitment to ``Save Social 
Security First'' when he wants to deny taxpayers tax relief. However, 
the surplus appears to be fair game when we are unwilling to make the 
tough choices needed to fund reprogramming government computers for the 
Year 2000, our continued military presence in Bosnia, or a 
responsibility as old as the Constitution--the decennial census.
  Finally, I would like to stress my sincere hope that Congress and the 
President will engage in a constructive and honest debate over how to 
reform the Social Security system next year. We can't politicize this 
issue--our children and grandchildren depend on an honest and 
bipartisan reform of a system that will not meet its obligations for 
the next generation of retirees.
  After declaring Social Security a priority during the State of the 
Union Address, the White House fell silent--invoking the famous pledge 
only when politically expedient. After President Clinton's speech, a 
number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have made tough 
choices and released Social Security reform packages. The White House 
must engage in this process. We do need to save Social Security first.
  While I admit that I do not approve of the manner in which the 
emergency spending was added to this bill, I am pleased that it 
provides a much needed additional $7.5 billion for the Department of 
Defense to ensure the readiness of our nation's armed forces, to tackle 
the Y2K problem and sets aside funding for a ballistic missile defense. 
After 14 straight years of declining defense spending, the readiness of 
U.S. Armed Forces is clearly at risk.
  By 2003, active duty military personnel strength will decline almost 
in half from 2.2 million to 1.36 million, the number of active Army 
divisions will drop from 18 to 10, the number of Navy ships will drop 
from 569 to 346, and the number of Air Force fighter wings will be 
decreased from 25 to 13.
  At the same time, we are spending more of our defense resources on 
peacekeeping missions and our military personnel are spending more and 
more time on overseas deployments and less time training. If this trend 
continues it is unlikely the U.S. armed forces will not be the 
preeminent military force they were during the gulf war.
  Unless we take action now to modernize our weapons systems, aircraft, 
and ships, other nations may catch up to the U.S. technologically, 
placing our military personnel at greater risk and eroding the tactical 
advantages they enjoy on the battlefield today. We must work to ensure 
that our fighter planes, tanks, submarines, and missiles are the best 
in the world.
  This bill provides $1.1 billion to fund urgent readiness shortfalls 
in the services, such as flying hours, spare parts, depot maintenance, 
personnel recruiting and retention initiatives.
  One billion is also set aside for a strategic anti-ballistic missile 
defense system. I'm pleased that appropriators recognized this priority 
as rogue states aggressively pursue the acquisition of nuclear and 
chemical weapons technology. It is disappointing that the efforts of my 
colleague Senator Cochran to pass legislation to establish a National 
Missile Defense system has failed two times this year by a margin of 
only one vote.
  Not surprisingly, education was another issue the White House 
demagogued in this process for political purposes. This is a debate I 
personally welcome. This year's spending negotiations drew a bright 
line between the President and Republicans. The amount of money was 
never an issue. In fact, our budget agreement matched dollar-for-dollar 
the President's request for education spending. The debate was not 
about money--but about who gets to spend it.
  Some Republican priorities were clearly represented in the omnibus 
package. This bill includees a $32.7 billion investment in our 
children's education; $91 million more than the President requested for 
disadvantaged students and $500 million more than the President thought 
we should spend on special education. And this bill includes $1.2 
billion for school districts to hire new teachers.
  This last program, providing new teachers for our nation's schools 
provided a real opportunity to debate the fundamentally different 
approach Republicans and Democrats have toward our nation's schools. 
Who do you trust with our children's education? Bureaucrats in 
Washington DC? Or those who know our children by name--their parents, 
teachers, and locally elected school board members.
  Through this process it was clear that the President simply wanted to 
repeat the pattern of more top down control from Washington DC, new 
rules and regulations, more bureaucrats and more paperwork meaning that 
less money reaches our nation's classrooms.
  According to the House Education at the Crossroads report, we already 
have some 760 Federal education programs, requiring over 48.6 million 
hours worth of paperwork per year. Both the House and Senate recognize 
that we simply cannot continue to add to that burden. Earlier this year 
both bodies approved measures which would radically change the way 
education funs are spent. The House approved the Dollars to the 
Classroom Act on September 18, 1998 and the Senate approved my block 
grant approach earlier this year on the Coverdell education savings 
account bill. Both proposals support the same philosophical approach, 
education decisions should be made by those closest to our children--
their parents, teachers and locally elected school board members--not 
Washington, DC bureaucrats.
  This new initiative to hire teachers represents a first step toward 
trusting local decisions regarding our children's education. 
Republicans were responsible for making sure that 100% of this new 
money would be spent by our local school districts not by Federal or 
State bureaucrats. Schools will be able to hire teachers for any grade, 
no matter where the need is and schools may hire special education 
teachers; neither would have been possible under the President's 
prescriptive proposal.
  Importantly, few rules and regulations will accompany this new money. 
The President wanted to add this money to a program that already has 
171 pages of ``non-regulatory guidance'' from the Federal Government. 
With the Federal Government providing only 6 percent of the funding for 
our local schools, and 50 percent of the regulation and paperwork--it 
was important that we not add to that burden. Republicans insisted that 
this new money be funneled through an existing block grant program.
  In a 1997 State of Education speech, Secretary Riley said, ``* * * we 
should not cloud our children's future with silly arguments about 
Federal Government intrusion.''
  But that is exactly what this debate was and is about--and it 
couldn't be more important. It will again be the focus of debate next 
year as Congress works to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act.
  I will continue to work in the 106th Congress to save Social Security 
and to restore authority over our children's education to those who are 
closest to our children--their parents, teachers, principals, and 
locally elected school board members.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I expressed yesterday my abhorrence of the 
process that produced this behemoth Omnibus Bill. I said, however, that 
I would vote for it, because it contained some good things for the 
Nation. That is true, but I just could not do it. I cannot support such 
a twisting of constitutional intent and of the legislative process. 
Therefore, I voted no, so that I can sleep more peacefully tonight.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, earlier today, we passed an Omnibus 
Appropriations bill that expressed important

[[Page S12831]]

Congressional intent regarding the education of American children. By 
passing legislation to reduce class size in public schools, we are 
doing something concrete, common-sense, and effective to improve the 
quality of education across America. I am very proud of this Congress 
today.
  But although there has been plenty of attention this last week 
devoted to the issue of class size reduction through helping local 
school districts to hire qualified teachers, I feel we are in danger of 
overlooking the true significance of the policy and funding we have 
passed here today.
  By making this investment, which we will be increasing over the next 
several years, we are sending an important message to every community 
in this nation. The message is ``we have been listening. We have heard 
you. You've been saying that class size reduction is important because 
it makes a tangible difference in real-world public schools.''
  This new law will not solve every problem in every school in America; 
that is not the appropriate federal role. Local communities make the 
decisions that improve local schools. The federal role is to support 
local decisions. I want people to know that Congress is finally 
listening; this place is starting to ring with your voice. This class 
size effort will help jump-start discussions in every local community 
and every state legislature--where the class size decisions that affect 
all schools will be made. And, this appropriations bill puts us all on 
the road to doing something tangible to helping the students in 
America's schools.
  Some in Congress have made the argument: ``who do you trust to make 
decisions regarding the education of your children, your local 
educators and school boards, or some faceless bureaucrat in Washington, 
D.C.?''
  For 5 years, I was a school board member in the Shoreline School 
District. I saw first-hand how every decision gets made in a school 
district, including how many teachers get hired, and what the budget 
will be for supplies, and what changes will be made to the bus 
schedule. And in those years and all the years since, I have heard 
local citizens say about the laws that affect their schools that they 
want their government to learn how to listen to the people it 
represents.
  I have not heard people say that the government should walk away from 
its responsibilities, to support the children in public schools across 
America. I have not heard people advocate that the federal government 
should ignore its responsibility to prevent unfair treatment, or that 
it should ignore national priorities.
  I have heard many times, however, parents and other local citizens 
ask very loudly for government to set goals, to get us on the right 
path, to do what works, to streamline its efforts, and to invest in 
common-sense solutions.
  At the top of this list is class size reduction. Class size is 
common-sense, and it does work.
  The research shows it:
  A 1989 study of the Tennessee STAR program, which compared the 
performance of students in grades K-3 in small and regular-sized 
classes, found that students in small classes (13 to 17 students) 
significantly outperformed other students in math and reading, every 
year, at all grade levels, across all geographic areas.
  A follow-up study of the STAR program in 1995 found that students in 
small classes in grades K-3 continued to outperform their peers at 
least through grade 8, with achievement advantages especially large for 
minority students.
  Other state and local studies have since found that students in 
smaller classes outperform their peers in reading and math, perform as 
well or better than students in magnet or voucher schools, and that 
gains are especially significant among African-American males.
  A 1997 national study by Educational Testing Service found that 
smaller class size raises average achievement for students in fourth- 
and eighth-grade math, especially for low-income students in ``high-
cost'' regions.
  Particularly of note in the 1997 ETS study was the finding that in 
eighth-grade, the achievement effect comes about through the better 
discipline and learning environment smaller class size produces. As 
policy-makers try to make decisions that will affect students in the 
critical years of middle-school, class size makes a difference in terms 
of both behavior and academic achievement.
  In addition, state organizations representing thousands of local 
educators know that hiring more high-qualified teachers to reduce class 
size works:
  Larry Swift, Executive Director Emeritus of the Washington State 
School Directors' Association says it well:

       As we pursue our state's goal of improving learning for all 
     of our students, it becomes increasingly important that all 
     of our resources be used efficiently and effectively. The 
     most valuable resource in today's schools is the people who 
     devote their time and effort to make schools successful--the 
     teachers. Reducing the ratio of students to adults is 
     particularly critical for youngsters with a variety of 
     learning challenges that must be overcome if those students 
     are to meet the new, higher learning standards.

  Kenneth Winkes, with the Washington Association of School Principals 
says:

       It is increasingly evident that students entering our 
     schools have diverse and unique needs which can only be 
     addressed by principals, teachers, and support personnel who 
     are not overwhelmed by crowded classrooms. Rather, educators 
     must be able to devote attention to each student in smaller, 
     more manageable classes.

  Lee Ann Prielipp, President of the Washington Education Association 
says: ``When educators have too many students in a class, it is hard 
for them to give each student the individual attention that students 
need. It is this individual attention that is at the heart of the 
learning process, and it is crucial in helping our students succeed.''
  And, as I've pointed out before, students themselves have thoughts 
about the importance of class size reduction:
  Brooke Bodnar, age 16, recently moved from a school with larger 
classes to Olympia High School, which has smaller classes. She says: 
``. . . with smaller classes I'm learning so much more. Class is going 
so much faster.''
  Jared Stueckle, age 16, a junior at Selah High School, believes that 
education should be a higher priority in funding, and that class size 
is a good investment. Jared says: ``The classes in which the number (of 
students) is lower I generally do better, but in a crowded class, the 
teacher does not give us enough individual attention.''
  Meghan Sullivan, age 15, a 10th grader at Tumwater High School, says: 
``. . . reduction is needed especially at the K-5 grade levels. This is 
the beginning of their education and this is where they form study 
habits and learning skills, so it's more important to get some one-on-
one contact with teachers.''
  Antonella Novi, age 18, a senior at Anacortes High School, says:
  ``Smaller class sizes enrich the learning experience for the student 
and the teaching experience for the teacher.''
  Jaime Oberlander, age 16, a junior at Tumwater High School, says:
  ``I know that I have learned more in smaller classes. I have a 
stronger relationship with the teacher. I am less intimidated to 
participate in class discussions or ask for help when I need it. I also 
receive more feedback from my teacher . . . my teacher can spend more 
time critiquing my work and helping me to learn.''
  The American people have said over and over how important class size 
reduction is to them. When students start school in the fall, parents 
usually ask two questions: ``Who is my child's teacher?'' and ``How 
many students will be in my child's class?'' This is because, next to 
parents and family, the teacher is one of the most important adults in 
every child's life. We want that teacher to be the best-trained, most-
qualified person available. And, we want the number of students in 
class to be manageable, so each student has access to the teacher, and 
the teacher is not reduced to doing ``crowd control.''
  Qualified teachers in small classes can provide students with more 
individualized attention, spend more time on instruction and less on 
discipline and other tasks, cover more material more effectively, and 
work more closely with parents. Today Congress has done something 
significant and important--taken the first step to helping local 
communities increase the number and quality of the teachers in 
America's schools.

[[Page S12832]]

  I want to thank all those who helped this happen, from the President 
and his staff, to Secretary Riley and those who work so diligently, to 
Senator Daschle and our Democratic Leadership in both the Senate and 
the House. I want to particularly thank Senator Harkin, who worked with 
me on a strategy to turn the early defeat of the Administration's 
larger class size proposal into a one-year version, funded through an 
existing program--a clear victory for every student in America. I also 
want to especially thank Senator Ted Kennedy for his stalwart efforts 
to negotiate the final elements of this bill in consultation with me. 
His work is always excellent, here particularly so.
  And I'd like to single out the people who joined me as co-sponsors of 
my bill, the Class Size Reduction and Teacher Quality Improvement Act 
of 1998: Senators Kennedy, Dodd, Daschle, Moseley-Braun, Boxer, Levin, 
Robb, Lieberman, Reed, Lautenberg, Landrieu, Torricelli, Bryan, Kerry, 
Akaka, Glenn, Bingaman, and Mikulski. And I would like to thank Senator 
Russ Feingold who has given so much time and attention to the issue of 
class size reduction, and recognizing local efforts.
  Finally, I would like to thank a few key staff people who worked on 
this issue all year: Marsha Simon, Ellen Murray, and Bettilou Taylor 
from the Appropriations Committee staff and Bev Schroeder with Senator 
Harkin, Joan Huffer with Senator Daschle, and Danica Petroshius with 
Senator Kennedy and Amy Abraham with the Budget Committee. I would also 
like to thank Greg Williamson, Micki Aronson, April Graff, Kennie 
Endelman and Minerva Lopez with my staff.
  As with all things, the class size legislation would not have passed 
without the efforts of many, many people all working with 
determination, willing to make compromises on details and get to the 
important goals.
  On other educational issues, we have also made progress this year. 
The funding levels for adult and family literacy programs have seen 
modest improvement--something I've worked hard for, and something that 
needs more improvement. And children's literacy has seen an important 
first step, in passage and funding for the Reading Excellence Act. 
Reading efforts around the country and in my state should look on this 
national attention to reading as the first step to further support.
  On education technology, we have made such important investments. Not 
only did we fund $75 million for teacher technology training for pre-
service teachers, but this year we passed the Higher Education Act, 
which includes my Teacher Technology Training bill, and we have 
provided another $75 million to fund the partnerships that will make 
the new law possible in every local community.
  On funding for the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, we 
have included the $500 million I asked for in my budget amendment 
earlier this year, and we did not have to jeopardize other educational 
priorities to do it. In addition, by including special education 
teachers in the class size proposal, we have taken important steps to 
helping local communities deal with the important educational needs of 
all students.
  There were also mis-steps in this bill--cuts to our schools that did 
not need to happen, negative language that will stir up unnecessary 
ill-feelings, or funding shifts, such as the one under the Safe and 
Drug-Free Schools program, that should have been done in a way more 
reflective of local expertise. But all in all this is a good bill for 
education, and puts us on the right path.
  The Americans I talk to about education funding usually cannot 
believe that education is really a priority in Congress. After all, 
only 1.8 percent of overall education spending goes to education. This 
is the next great challenge. People want Congress to live up to its 
responsibilities, to look at its priorities, and to listen to people in 
communities across this great nation. This year, we made some important 
investments. Next year, we reauthorize the major K-12 education laws. 
We must look to all of these processes with respect for local 
knowledge, with bipartisanship, and with a steadfast determination to 
making education better for all students.


                     GULF WAR VETERANS ACT OF 1998

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to highlight a provision contained 
within this massive omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 4328, that 
addresses a longstanding debt owed by this nation to the veterans of 
the Persian Gulf War. Title XVI of Division C of this bill contains the 
Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1998. In five short sections, the 
Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1998 lays out a sound, scientific 
process by which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may make a 
determination, based on the recommendations of the National Academy of 
Sciences or other sound scientific or medical evidence, that diseases 
suffered by Gulf War veterans are linked to hazardous materials they 
were exposed to during that conflict. That is, the Secretary now has a 
credible process to determine what diseases should be considered 
service-connected for purposes of providing health care and disability 
compensation to Gulf War veterans.
  This is not some give-away program, but a long overdue recognition 
that Gulf War veterans may be suffering from invisible wartime wounds 
just as real as any left by bullets--wounds to their immune systems, to 
their muscles and joints, or to their internal organs, caused by the 
toxic fog of chemicals, oil well fires, and medications in which they 
were immersed. This nation has a long history of caring for the men and 
women who were wounded in her service, and it is a shame that it took 
over seven years to recognize and honor our commitment to these 
veterans.
  I have seen some news reports that this provision will cost between 
$1 and $6 billion over ten years. I do not know what these estimates 
are based on. The Congressional Budget Office determined that this 
program would cost $40 million over the first five years, and a total 
of $490 million over ten years. That is not an extravagant bill to pay 
for a war that cost the United States over $60 billion for less than 
two months of actual fighting--for a mere 100 hours of actual on-the-
ground combat. Almost 700,000 service personnel were in the Southwest 
Asia theater during the initial phase of the conflict, and over one 
million service personnel have pulled tours of duty in Saudi Arabia and 
Kuwait since 1991. Over 120,000 of these men and women are now on 
Department of Defense or Department of Veterans Affairs Gulf War 
registries, many suffering from multiple debilitating symptoms since 
their service in the Gulf.
  The provisions in this omnibus bill were extracted from S. 2358, a 
bill I introduced with Senator Rockefeller and Senator Specter, the 
Ranking Member and Chairman, respectively, of the Senate Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, on July 27. I am proud of this collaboration, which 
I believe produced a sound as well as needed piece of legislation. 
Although S. 2358 was adopted by the Senate in the closing days of this 
Congress, and after the process of putting together the omnibus 
appropriations bill had begun, no action was taken on it by the House 
of Representatives. Some elements of S. 2358 were included in two 
House-passed bills, H.R. 3980 and H.R. 4110, that were sent to the 
Senate, again, after the process of putting together the omnibus 
appropriations bill had begun. In my opinion, these bills fell far 
short of delivering on our commitment to Gulf War veterans.
  In both H.R. 3980 and H.R. 4110, the National Academy of Sciences was 
directed to conduct a study and to make recommendations to the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding illnesses that might be linked 
to service in the Gulf. But, the Secretary was directed only to make 
recommendations to Congress. The veterans would not receive any 
immediate assistance. It would be up to Congress to make the 
determination of service connection, find the funds to pay for it, and 
convince both Houses of Congress and the President to agree that action 
should be taken. Mr. President, I do not believe that adding this kind 
of delay to the process aids our veterans. We can do better, and we did 
better in S. 2358. Let the Secretary do his job, and if we do not like 
the way he carries out his job, then we can take corrective action.
  Mr. President, I have already noted that these compromise bills 
arrived in the Senate late in this session, after work on the omnibus 
appropriations bill had begun. As the Ranking Member on the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, I had already added S. 2358 to the

[[Page S12833]]

list of legislation to be considered for inclusion in the omnibus 
package. I did this not because I approve of this way of passing 
legislation on an appropriations bill and especially not on a 
monstrosity like this omnibus bill, but because I saw an opportunity to 
do something useful and needed for these veterans. They do not deserve 
any additional delay. And when I saw that the compromise language 
contained only a study, and the possibility of further delay for these 
veterans, I became determined to include the key elements of S. 2358 in 
the omnibus appropriations bill.
  Now, I have been noted for my stubbornness--my friends call it 
tenacity or perseverance, but my opponents call it stubbornness. On 
this matter, I was determined, tenacious, persistent, and, yes, even 
stubborn. As a conferee on the omnibus appropriations bill, I was able 
to defend my position. This section of the omnibus bill was among the 
last issues decided. I sincerely thank my colleagues, Senator Stevens, 
Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Representatives 
Livingston and Obey, the Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of 
the House Appropriations Committee, who supported my efforts to include 
this provision in the final bill. They did this over the objections of 
the Administration. For their leadership and courage in defending the 
interests of Gulf War veterans they merit great praise.
  The veterans of the Gulf War have struggled for seven years to have 
their wartime sacrifices recognized for what they are--the scars of 
battle. I hope that Title XVI of Division C of H.R. 4328 will set this 
process on a track that is both credible and fair, and that will follow 
through on our nation's commitment, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, 
``To take care of him who has borne the battle. . . .''
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I voted for H.R. 4328, the 
omnibus appropriations bill. I believe that on balance, this 
legislation will benefit California.
  This bill is 4,000 pages, 38 pounds, and stands a foot tall. It 
appropriates $500 billion, funds a third of the federal government for 
fiscal year 1999, and includes many pieces of authorizing legislation. 
My staff reviewed the entire bill yesterday. It includes properly 
written legislative bill language as well as many hand written changes 
and amendments. Congressional negotiators, the administration, and many 
staff members have worked for weeks to finalize this legislation today, 
but that work was often done behind closed doors without the full 
review of the Senate.
  I do not believe that this is the way the Congress should do its 
work. Our choice today was to shut down the government or pass this 
bill.
  I want, however, to note that the omnibus bill provides many benefits 
for Californians.


                               education

  This bill funds several education initiatives. It includes $1.2 
billion to hire teachers and reduce elementary class sizes, an effort 
already underway in California. This will mean 3,500 new teachers in 
California. This bill also includes increased funding for Head Start, 
for Education Reform, for bilingual education, for charter schools, for 
educational technology and for student financial assistance.
  California school enrollment is growing at 3 times the national rate. 
We need to build 7 new classrooms a day at 25 students per class just 
to keep up with the growth in student population. We have students in 
closets, in cafeterias, in portables. We have some of the largest class 
sizes in the nation. We have 22,000 teachers on emergency credentials. 
California ranks last in the nation in the percentage of young adults 
with a high school diploma. Our students rank 37th in the country in 
SAT scores.
  The California public school system has gone from one of the best, to 
one of the worse. Mr. President, quite simply, we welcome this 
assistance for the California education system.
  I am disappointed that the bill includes a ``hold harmless'' 
provision for ESEA Title I.
  Title I is the largest federal elementary and secondary education 
program, providing funds to virtually every school district in the 
country to educate disadvantaged children. Title I has often been 
called the ``anchor'' of all elementary and secondary education 
programs since its enactment in 1965. The bill includes $7.8 billion 
for Title I grants to school districts. California received $830 
million last year.
  Unfortunately, the bill includes a 100 percent ``hold harmless'' 
provision under which no school district would receive an allocation 
that is less than its allocation of the previous year. But the effect 
of the hold harmless provision for California, that has had an increase 
in the number of poor children, is not to receive all of the increase 
in funding to which we are entitled, entitled by law. Thankfully, the 
bill does include an ``extra'' $301 million that would provide some 
funds for high-growth states like mine. California could receive as 
much as $60 million out of the $301 million. I believe the dollars 
should go equally to all children in the country based on need.
  I call on my colleagues to join me in working to join in an effort to 
make sure the dollars follow the children.
  This Senator pledges to devote every ounce of energy I can muster to 
help our schools deliver on the promise of opportunity and achievement 
that America's public schools have always represented and I call on my 
colleagues to join me today in this campaign.


                         california environment

  I am pleased that the Omnibus Appropriations bill includes funding 
for a number of important land acquisition projects in California, 
including $2 million for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation 
Area, $1 million for the Santa Rosa Mountains, and $1.5 million for the 
continued acquisition of Bair Island for the Don Edwards San Francisco 
Bay National Wildlife Refuge. While I am pleased that the bill includes 
$1 million for land acquisition in the Lake Tahoe Basin, I would have 
preferred to see the $3 million provided by the Senate Appropriations 
Committee. Lake Tahoe is an important national resource, and we need to 
make it a higher priority if we are to stem the environmental decline 
that is already affecting the area. I intend to work with my colleagues 
to further address the problems of Lake Tahoe in the 106th Congress.

  The Salton Sea bill as approved calls for completion of a plan to 
save the Salton Sea by January 1, 2000. It provides a total of $5 
million in additional funds for biological studies and to conduct 
demonstration projects to clean up the New and Alamo Rivers. These 
funds, along with an additional appropriation for the Bureau of 
Reclamation in a separate section of the bill, provide all the money 
that will be required to prepare a plan and conduct all environmental 
documentation. As a result, Congress and the President will be able 
early in the year 2000 to authorize and appropriate funding for a 
project to save this incredibly valuable resource.


                     transportation infrastructure

  One of the most important sections of the omnibus appropriations bill 
provides funding for our nation's roads, airports, and transit systems. 
This bill will ensure that California's transit systems are more 
efficient and our roads and airports are safer. The bill will improve 
the quality of life of California residents by increasing mobility, 
reducing congestion, and improving the environment.
  The bill provides a total of $73 million for the Los Angeles County 
Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA). This includes $62 million for the 
North Hollywood Red Line extension, $8 million for the Regional Transit 
Alternative Analysis study for the Mid city and Eastside, and $3 
million for the purchase of new clean fuel buses. This funding level 
will allow the MTA to proceed with its restructuring plan as well as 
improve bus service and move towards the competition of two important 
rail links.
  The bill also provides $27 million for the Tasman West Rail Extension 
project. The Tasman West Extension will link the heavily congested 
residential areas of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View with the 
Silicon Valley. The funding in this bill will allow the project to 
continue without interruption and hopefully will permit it to be 
completed ahead of schedule and under budget as is now projected.
  Other important California rail projects funded in this bill are: 
$23.48 million for the Sacramento south corridor extension, $3.5 
million for the San

[[Page S12834]]

Diego Mission Valley and midcoast corridor, $3 million for the 
Oceanside-Escondido light rail project, $1 million for the San 
Bernardino Metrolink project, and $500,000 to upgrade the rail line 
connecting the cities of Riverside and Perris.
  The bill also provides almost $420 million in formula grants to 
California. These grants will fund capital projects and finance 
improvements in equipment and facilities associated with mass 
transportation. This is an increase of more than $40 million from 
Fiscal Year 1998. Included in the formula grants are $171 million for 
Los Angeles, $98.8 million for San Francisco and Oakland, $35 million 
for San Diego, and $26 million for San Jose. The bill also provides 
$6.2 million in grants for the special needs of elderly and disabled 
people in California and $8.2 million for non-urbanized areas of the 
state.
  Another major component of the transportation appropriations bill is 
funding for buses and bus facilities. Again, this is very important for 
California where bus systems play a vital role in the transportation 
infrastructure of our cities. This bill provides more than $30 million 
to 30 cities and transportation authorities throughout the state. While 
I would have preferred to see a higher level of funding for many of 
these projects, the appropriations in this bill will allow local 
communities to begin purchasing badly needed fuel efficient buses and 
improving deteriorating bus facilities.
  I am disappointed that the conference committee reduced funding for 
the Bay Area Rapid Transit extension to the San Francisco Airport to 
$40 million. This is a dramatic cut from the $100.6 requested by the 
Administration and will seriously impair BART's ability to complete the 
project on schedule.
  Project construction for the BART/SFO extension is already underway. 
Contracts for over 90 percent of the construction activity have been 
awarded totaling $607 million. The State of California has recently 
agreed to provide an additional $57 million for the project. It is 
unfortunate that the federal government has failed to demonstrate the 
same level of commitment to this project that has been shown at the 
state and local level.
  I believe that bringing rapid rail transit to the San Francisco 
Airport is of critical importance to continued economic viability of 
the region. I am hopeful that this setback in federal funding will not 
endanger the project and I will work in the 106th Congress to insure 
that additional funds are made available.


                          Securing the Border

  The bill provides $97 million next year for 1,000 additional border 
patrol agents and 140 support personnel at the border, increasing our 
ability to interdict illegal aliens at the heaviest alien traffic areas 
such as the Southwest border. It also provides $21.8 million for 
interior enforcement, providing the badly needed resources for INS to 
work with state and local law enforcement against illegal immigration.
  I am very pleased by the inclusion in the omnibus package of a number 
of measures that will have a direct impact on our efforts to prevent 
illegal narcotics from being transported across the Southwest border. 
These provisions are good news for California.
  I want to thank Senator DeWine and Senator Bob Graham for their many 
months of leadership in this effort, and for their willingness to work 
with me to include provisions that will mean fewer drugs on the streets 
of California.
  The supplemental appropriation portion of this bill will increase 
spending on drug interdiction by a total of $690 million for the 
current fiscal year. Of that total, $90 million is designated 
specifically for enhancements at the Southwest border, which is still, 
without question, ground zero for U.S. drug interdiction efforts. This 
amount includes $80 million for the U.S. Customs Service to purchase 
and deploy non-intrusive inspection technology, such as truck X-rays 
and gamma-imaging for drug interdiction at high-threat seaports and 
land border ports of entry; and $10 million for INS to purchase and 
deploy border barrier and surveillance technology, such as effective 
fences and night-vision scopes.
  These funds will make a real difference on the ground. DEA 
Administrator Tom Constantine recently told me that he estimates that 
one ton of cocaine is smuggled across the Southwest border each and 
every day. The smugglers are growing more sophisticated every year, and 
our agents badly need state-of-the-art technology to counter them, 
which this bill provides.
  In addition, the omnibus package includes the Western Hemisphere Drug 
Elimination Act, of which I was an original cosponsor. This act, which 
authorizes $2.6 billion over the next three years for enhanced drug 
interdiction programs, and requires annual regular reports by ONDCP and 
other drug-fighting agencies on their progress, contains two key 
provisions which will directly impact Southwest border, and which were 
included at my request: authorization of funding for the U.S. Customs 
Service to purchase truck X-rays as part of its 5-year technology plan; 
and authorization of $50 million for developing and purchasing computer 
software and hardware to facilitate direct communication between all 
the agencies that work on drug interdiction at the border.
  Technology offers an important way to fight drug smuggling. Improved 
communication and coordination among our various border enforcement and 
drug interdiction agencies is another. Without effective interagency 
communications systems between Customs, INS, the FBI, DEA, and the 
Border Patrol, our ability to detect drug smugglers and interdict drugs 
at the border is seriously jeopardized. The funds authorized by this 
bill will enhance the effectiveness of all these agencies' interdiction 
efforts. That translates into fewer drugs on our streets.


                         Naturalizing Citizens

  The Omnibus Appropriation provides $171 million for additional 
naturalization services of which $11.6 million will be provided 
specifically for reducing the naturalization backlogs for those 
localities with backlogs of 15 months or longer. For California, San 
Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco along with other counties who 
currently have a backlog of 2 years may receive the funds to help 
expedite naturalization applications.


                            Methamphetamine

  I am very pleased that the Methamphetamine Trafficking Penalty 
Enhancement Act of 1998 was included in this bill. This provision 
increases penalties for methamphetamine trafficking, making them 
roughly equivalent to those for trafficking in crack cocaine. 
Specifically, it lowers the quantity of meth which qualifies for the 
highest level of federal drug penalties from 100 grams to 50 grams, the 
same as for crack. Dealers at this level get a 10 year mandatory 
minimum sentence for a first offense, a 20 year mandatory minimum for a 
second offense, and life for a third offense.
  Similarly, it also lowers the quantity of meth which qualifies the 
next-most serious level of federal drug penalties from 10 grams to 5 
grams. Again, this is the same quantity as is provided for crack. 
Dealers of this amount receive a 5 year mandatory minimum for a first 
offense, and a 10 year mandatory minimum for subsequent offenses.

  This provision originally was part of the Comprehensive 
Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996, which I wrote with Senators Hatch 
and Biden. We were forced to drop this provision to pass the bill by 
unanimous consent that year, and this year it was re-introduced by 
Senator Ashcroft. I am proud to be the first co-sponsor of Sen. 
Ashcroft's bill.
  Two aspects of methamphetamine make the rapid growth in California 
especially troubling.
  First, meth leads to paranoid, violent, and even bizarre behavior by 
hardcore users. I will never forget the report of a New Mexico man, 
high on meth and alcohol, who beheaded his 14-year-old son and threw 
the head out of the window of his van, on a crowded highway.
  Second, meth is cooked in this country in dangerous, clandestine 
labs, which use highly flammable chemicals, blow up in explosions, and 
leave toxic, hazardous waste sites, which require environmental 
cleanup.
  This is not a silver bullet which will solve the problem, but it is 
one more useful step which we can take in this fight.
  I am also pleased that this bill contains several appropriations 
which I

[[Page S12835]]

worked for to combat the spread of methamphetamine: $18.2 million for 
the California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement's anti-methamphetamine 
strategy; $24.5 million to hire 100 new DEA agents to target meth 
trafficking organizations; and $5 million for hazardous waste cleanup 
of lab sites.
  I am disappointed, however, that the conferees did not support the 
Senate's appropriation of $15 million for transfer to the Drug 
Diversion Control Fee Account. The clandestine meth labs operate 
primarily by converting legitimate pharmaceutical products, such as 
pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, into meth. The Drug Diversion Control 
Fee Account supports the DEA's efforts to control the diversion of such 
legitimate pharmaceuticals to illicit use, and we should provide it 
with greater support.


                         justice appropriations

  I am pleased that several programs for which I have worked are fully 
funded in this bill:
  COPS funding 88,000 police officers throughout the country now has 
$1.4 billion provided in this bill to fund another 17,000, reaching the 
President's goal of hiring 100,000 police--and exceeding it by 5 
percent.
  Local Law Enforcement Block Grant continued funding of $523 million 
for this program, which is important to California's cities and 
counties who utilize this funding to supplement COPS funding for non-
personnel law enforcement expenditures.
  $283 million is provided for the Violence Against Women Act, 
increasing support for these programs. I have heard from women's 
organizations in support of funding for battered woman's shelters and 
other support services. California sorely needs these resources.
  The President's budget request of $95 million for at-risk children's 
prevention programs is fully funded, as I requested. With a growing 
adolescent population, California needs continued funding of anti-
truancy, mentoring, and curfew initiatives.
  A total of $40 million is provided in various ways for the successful 
Weed and Seed program. Criminal gang activity is a severe problem in 
many California cities and localities, and many of these California 
gangs spread their criminal activity to other states. I am committed to 
curbing the growth of gangs, and Weed and Seed prevention funds are 
essential to that effort. I have heard from a number of California 
mayors, including Mayor Omar Bradley from Compton, who support the 
program and expanded funding.
  Another $12 million is provided for prevention efforts to combat 
youth gangs, under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.


                   Terrorism and technology programs

  This bill also provides for several programs which were of particular 
interest to me as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Technology, 
Terrorism and Government Information of the Judiciary Committee;

  Extensive funding is provided for a variety of programs to combat 
terrorism and to be prepared to meet the threat which this form of evil 
poses, including: $145 million for the counterterrorism fund, $135 
million for state and local preparedness for the threat of chemical and 
biological weapons, including: personnel protective gear, 
communications equipment, decontamination equipment, training, needs 
assessment, technology development; and bomb technician equipment. It 
also includes: $10 million for the National Critical Infrastructure 
Protection Center, $282 million to the FBI for counter-terrorism and 
foreign counterintelligence investigations.
  $23.4 million is authorized from Justice's asset forfeiture fund to 
support more efficient use of the communications spectrum by law 
enforcement. The need to have adequate spectrum available for law 
enforcement is a particular concern of local law enforcement leaders 
from California. Enabling more efficient use of the available spectrum 
will help to address this concern.


                            crime prevention

  This bill also provides for several California programs to reduce 
crime which I have supported, including:
  State Criminal Alien Assistance Program: I am particularly pleased 
that continued funding of $585 million to reimburse states and 
localities for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens is provided, 
restoring the $50 million which had been cut by the Senate. This is 
particularly important to California, which bears the lion's share of 
the burden of incarcerating criminal aliens. This, however, is still 
not sufficient to meet the costs borne by the states and localities, 
and I will continue to work in the future for this program.
  Delancy Street Foundation/Criminal Justice Council Juvenile Justice 
initiative received $750,000 earmarked for this public-private 
comprehensive effort designed to interrupt the cycle of chronic crime 
and transform a young person's negative cycle to a positive one by 
providing major life-altering interventions at continuous points. This 
program can serve as a model for the rest of the nation in 
simultaneously decreasing juvenile crime and providing new and real 
opportunities for youths.
  Compton's crime problems merit special consideration and treatment. 
According to Mayor Omar Bradley, there are 9,000 suspected gang members 
in Compton, amounting to ten percent of the City's population. 
Compton's homicide rate is nearly 10 times that of similar sized cities 
in the Southeast L.A. area, with more homicides in January alone (14) 
than 23 of the other 27 cities had in all of 1996. Seventy-six percent 
of suspected homicide offenders were under the age of 27. The report 
directs the Justice Department to consider grants to help fight this 
uniquely severe crime problem by upgrading Compton's woefully outdated 
police computer system and by establishing a Compton Youth Intervention 
Center for afterschool programs to serve as a safe haven for 1,000 
youth.
  My colleagues from California, Senator Boxer, and I jointly requested 
this $2 million earmark to support this proven, successful initiative 
that has already helped over 12,000 California police officers better 
understand how they can promote tolerance and reduce prejudice in their 
workplaces and communities. With this additional funding, the Center 
can implement its plan to conduct four-day workshops to train tolerance 
instructors from police Departments from around the country on how to 
control prejudice and hate crimes. These officers will then be able to 
go back to their communities and teach other officers how to combat 
prejudice and bias.
  The overwhelmed 911 emergency response system has prompted cities 
around the nation to experiment with a 311 non-emergency number to 
relieve the burden and improve access to emergency assistance. The 311 
telephone system would allow police departments such as Los Angeles' to 
free officers from the burden of responding to non-emergency 911 calls 
and gives the community an easy-to-remember link to the police, thus 
strengthening community policing. The conference report supports the 
use of funds for non-emergency numbers such as 311.


                            cancer research

  The bill also includes $2.9 billion for the National Cancer 
Institute, a 15 percent increase. Cancer afflicts 1.2 million Americans 
each year. Cancer will kill 1,500 people a day this year. But we 
currently invest less than 2 percent of cancer's health care costs in 
research to find a cure and treatments. NCI can currently only fund 28 
percent of grants, less than one-third approved for funding.
  In the September 25 hearing of the Senate Cancer Coalition, Dr. Allen 
Lichter, President of the American Society for Clinical Oncology said, 
``It often takes several years to get a clinical cancer trial activated 
from the idea stage to the point of involving patients because of 
insufficient funds. For every clinical trial that gets activated, there 
are many worthwhile trials sitting undone.''
  I submit that this is not a vigorous war on cancer, when we are 
funding less than one-third of grants proposed.


                         BREAST RECONSTRUCTION

  I am also pleased that the bill includes language requiring insurance 
plans that cover mastectomies to also cover breast reconstruction and 
prostheses. The language in this bill is taken from S. 249, a bill that 
I introduced with Senator D'Amato on January 30, 1997. One study found 
that 84 percent of patients were denied insurance coverage for 
reconstruction of the removed breast, calling it ``cosmetic.'' Plans 
have arbitrarily denied this very necessary surgery, to make a woman 
whole. Twelve states require coverage

[[Page S12836]]

of breast reconstruction, including my own, but we need a national 
standard. This provision can bring hope and help restore self-esteem to 
thousands of women who lose their breast to breast cancer every year.


                  PROTECTING CHILDREN'S ONLINE PRIVACY

  The Omnibus Appropriations bill requires the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) to take steps to protect children's privacy on the Internet, 
similar to provisions authored by Senator Feinstein in S. 504, the 
Children's Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment bill. 
Specifically, the Omnibus bill directs the FTC to require commercial 
website operators to follow fair information practices in collecting 
and using personal information from children age 12 and under. 
Commercial websites must obtain verifiable parental consent for the 
collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from children. 
States are authorized to enforce the regulations. The bill further 
directs the FTC to provide incentives for self-regulation by operators 
to protect such information. The FTC is required to report to Congress 
on the implementation of the regulations.


                           EMPOWERMENT ZONES

  I am also pleased that the bill includes $60 million in social 
services grant funding for a second round of 20 urban and rural 
empowerment zones. The empowerment zone concept has shown great promise 
in promoting economic development in some of our nation's income 
communities. I know of a number of California communities who are 
applying for empowerment zone designation in this latest round, and if 
selected, this funding will enable them to attract business to their 
area and prepare residents for jobs.


                            NEW COURTHOUSES

  The bill includes funding to acquire sites for two new Federal 
courthouses, in San Jose and San Diego. These courthouses are badly 
needed to relieve the pressure of rising criminal, civil, and 
bankruptcy case filings. The bill includes $15.4 million to purchase 
land for the new courthouse in San Diego, and $10.8 million to purchase 
land for the new courthouse in San Jose.
  The Omnibus Appropriations include $36 million for the State of 
California, pursuant to the agreement worked out between the state and 
the federal government to settle California's claim to lands that were 
located in the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve. This funding has been 
a bipartisan priority for California's entire delegation, and I am 
pleased to see that it was included in the final bill.


                         INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

  The international affairs provisions of this omnibus package contain 
a number of important steps forward in stabilizing the global economy 
and combating the scourge of international drug trafficking.
  I am pleased that our colleagues in the House finally saw the wisdom 
of providing the $17.9 billion to the International Monetary Fund that 
the President requested. These funds are among the best investments we 
can ever make. In 1998, we have seen economies across Asia and Latin 
America and in Russia go into virtual free fall. And if there is one 
principle of the global economy today, it is that economic turmoil 
abroad is sure to affect us here at home.
  When the currencies of our trading partners fall through the floor, 
as we have seen repeatedly this year, they are unable to purchase U.S. 
exports. That translates into lost American jobs, as our producers 
discover that there is no one overseas to buy their products. The funds 
we are providing the IMF in this bill, and the additional funds they 
will leverage from other donors, will help to stabilize the economies 
of our trading partners, protecting our export markets from further 
collapse, and saving U.S. jobs. In a state with an export-driven 
economy like California, this is good news. The IMF reforms called for 
in this bill that will ensure greater transparency and more market-
based lending practices are helpful, but the most important news is 
that the IMF's coffers will be replenished, allowing it to provide 
further assistance to vulnerable economies around the world.

  The Foreign Operations Appropriations section of this bill also 
includes an important earmark, which I want to highlight: $75 million 
in economic assistance to Indonesia. I do not think that most Americans 
appreciate the strategic and economic significance of Indonesia, the 
fourth most populous nation in the world. Indonesia's status as the 
political and economic anchor of Southeast Asia make the economic and 
political crisis there that much more serious. The assistance that will 
be provided by this act--as directed by policy language in the bill 
which I authored--will help alleviate the most severe suffering and 
food shortages in Indonesia, while helping to ease the transition to a 
more democratic form of government and the reform of the Indonesian 
economy.
  An important component of restoring social and economic stability to 
Indonesia is ensuring that all Indonesians, including minority ethnic 
groups, are protected and able to participate fully in the society. For 
that reason, I am pleased that the bill includes a provision I offered 
directing the President to assist the Indonesian government and 
appropriate non-governmental organizations in their investigation of 
the brutal violence and rapes against Indonesian Chinese in May of this 
year. In six months we will receive a report from the Administration on 
the findings of these investigations, and the steps taken by the 
Indonesian government to punish the perpetrators of the violence and 
protect Indonesian Chinese from its repetition.


                     state department authorization

  Let me say a word about the State Department Authorization portion of 
this bill, which contains some important progress, but also one major 
disappointment. I am pleased that after nearly four years of back-and-
forth haggling, the State Department reorganization plan--now agreed to 
by the Administration and the Congress--can proceed. It should help to 
streamline our foreign affairs agencies and reduce unnecessary 
duplication of effort. In addition, I am pleased that the bill includes 
a provision I authored which will allow us to increase pressure on 
alien parents who abduct American citizen children from an American 
parent with legal custody by allowing us to deny visas to those who 
support the abducting parent.
  But something very important is missing from this section of the 
bill: authorization to pay off our arrears to the United Nations. 
Unbelievably, the Republican leadership has acceded to the wishes of a 
tiny minority of their caucus, which has insisted on perpetuating an 
artificial link between paying U.N. arrears and international family 
planning assistance. Despite broad agreement on a three year plan to 
pay off our U.N. arrears while the U.N. conducted significant reforms a 
group of hardline House members have chosen to hold these arrears 
hostage to their agenda on a wholly unrelated, essentially domestic 
issue: abortion.
  Under the false impression that by weakening our international family 
planning programs with Mexico City restrictions, they could prevent 
abortions--in fact, they would do the opposite, depriving many women of 
contraceptives and thereby leading to more abortions--these Members 
have insisted on weakening the United States' international reputation 
and the United Nations, causing great harm to our foreign policy 
interests.
  This tactic is utterly irresponsible, and yet, the Republican 
leadership has gone along with it. They will send this bill without 
U.N. arrears, and the President will sign it. Then they will send the 
free standing bill which contains U.N. arrears, but also contains 
Mexico City restrictions, and, as we all know, the President will veto 
it. And although the United States will, by the skin of our teeth, 
avoid losing our vote in the U.N. General Assembly for non-payment of 
arrears--postponing the crisis for one year--we will have to begin this 
effort all over again next year. Our foreign policy interests will be 
placed at further risk, all for the sake of a political point about 
abortion. And though I will vote for this bill, I am deeply distressed 
by the failure to include authorization to pay our U.N. arrears. It is 
a mistake that I believe we will regret.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I voted no on this Omnibus spending bill. 
I did so reluctantly, because most of what I know about it--which is 
contained in the pages about agriculture, education and other areas--I 
like. It is because of the several hundred pages that are a complete 
mystery to me that I vote no.

[[Page S12837]]

  Mr. President, democracy should not work this way. The people send us 
here to deliberate serious matters of public policy and to represent 
their interests and the nation's in the debate. In this case there was 
no debate, and it was not possible to represent anyone's interests 
because it is impossible to know how, if at all, those interests 
comport with a bill whose 3,800 pages were not even published until the 
dark of last night.
  Lest the American people be confused about why it has come to this, 
there is a simple answer. The majority party did not schedule Congress' 
time to do the work the people pay us to do. One of the Congress' most 
basic duties is to decide how the people's money is to be spent. That 
process involves the passage of 13 appropriations bills, of which we 
managed to pass a whopping total of five in several months. The 
majority party found ample time to debate matters of such crashing 
importance as the scourge of human cloning and the name of the airport 
from which most of us are going to flee this scene later today. Let 
there be no mistake about it: The necessity of a $500 billion omnibus 
bill did not arise from grand ideological disputes. It came from a 
failure, plain, simple and unadulterated, to do our jobs because the 
majority party chose to use the Congress' time to do other things.
  As a result, the American people suspect that what has happened over 
the last few days was a back-room deal involving hundreds of billions 
of dollars of their money being spent with no opportunity for their 
input, debate or, for that matter, even for their elected 
representatives to see the final product. Why is that? I submit the 
reason might be that this bill was a back-room deal involving hundreds 
of billions of dollars of their money being spent with no opportunity 
for their input, debate or, for that matter, even for their elected 
representatives to see the final product.
  Later today I intend to participate in a panel discussion featuring 
the senior Senator from New York, who will discuss his new book on 
secrecy and national security. His thesis is that excessive secrecy 
produces suspicion, mistakes and unnecessary costs. I completely agree 
with him. This budget process--which the Senator from New York has 
aptly noted moves us toward something akin to a parliamentary system in 
which decisions are made behind closed doors by a select few--proves 
that the Senator's thesis on secrecy in national security applies 
equally to secrecy in domestic policy. It breeds suspicion, and it 
breeds mistakes. There are few things I can say with certainty about 
this budget, since very few of its several thousand pages were 
available before yesterday, but I can predict one thing with total 
confidence: When the smoke clears and the budget is actually read, 
there are going to be things in it that would never have survived a 
public debate.
  The majority will protest that this last-minute flurry was caused by 
threats of vetoes from the President. I am not overly sympathetic on 
that point, Mr. President. The current occupant of that office has held 
it for six years. His views on appropriations bills are not a mystery 
sprung on the majority party at the last moment. He submitted a budget 
at the beginning of this year outlining what he wanted. He does not 
schedule the Senate's time for debate.
  We cannot go on like this year after year, Mr. President, taking 
money from the pockets of taxpayers and then huddling behind a closed 
door to negotiate among a select few--many of them unelected--how to 
spend it. This is not government of, by and for the people. It is only 
half in jest that I say, sadly, that it is more like government by four 
people.
  As I said, Mr. President, I cast my nay vote reluctantly because I am 
pleased with much of what I know about this bill. I am glad we 
succeeded in convincing the majority of the need to extend a helping 
hand to America's first industry--agriculture--at a time of grave 
crisis. I believe children in school are going to learn more and better 
because we are putting teachers in the classroom. I'm delighted the tax 
portion of this bill includes a provision much like a bill which I have 
introduced which would prevent working families from paying higher 
taxes by allowing them to deduct their child care, child and education 
credits under the Alternative Minimum Tax. This bill also provides a 
much-needed extension of the R&D tax credit and will help the self-
employed, particularly farmers, by accelerating the deductible amount 
of their health insurance costs.
  At the same time, I am very disappointed the livestock price 
reporting provision, which I authored in the Senate, was dropped from 
this package. I do not believe the home health care problems we face 
will be ``solved'' by this bill and we should not be led to believe 
that the agriculture crisis in this country will come to an end as a 
result of this bill. In addition, I firmly believe that the thousands 
of people in this country waiting for organ transplants, will be hurt, 
not helped by further delay in issuing regulations governing organ 
transplant allocations.
  But what I object to the most is not what we know about this bill, 
but what we do not, and can not. You can stir up a lot of mischief in a 
bill that runs over 3,800 pages that no one has read.
  Maybe we can take some comfort in the hope that the 106th Congress 
will do better. We won't be perfect. But perhaps we can get a jump on 
our pursuit of perfection by acting like a democracy, then by doing the 
work we are paid to do.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to speak a few minutes about 
the bill we just passed. I would like to register my personal views 
about both the substance of the bill and the process by which it was 
passed.
  I have very mixed emotions. First, I am very disappointed in a 
process that led to this midnight power play. This bill, as has been 
pointed out by others speaking before me, is almost 4,000 pages long. 
It weighs 40 pounds. It contains about $500 billion in Federal 
spending. I might tell you, Mr. President, that $500 billion is enough 
to pay for the State budget of Montana for 200 years. It was also 
produced within 24 hours' notice of this vote. As a practical matter, 
most offices had no more than a few hours to look at this bill. They 
had no copies of it. They had to go to a central location and wade 
through it with other staff members. There is nobody in this entire 
Congress who knows all of the provisions in this bill; it is that 
massive, and it was written behind closed doors.
  Mr. President, I will admit that it is a with many worthwhile 
projects and programs. For example, it provides assistance for farmers, 
so important to the State of Montana and other farming states. It has 
provisions that help increase our investment in education, again not 
only for the Nation but for my State of Montana. It provides important 
new tools on the war against drugs. And it provides important new 
funding for health care programs. The bill also provides money for the 
International Monetary Fund to help fulfill our obligations as a leader 
in the global community. By doing so, we are strengthening the 
economies on which our export markets depend. Montana has seen wheat 
exports decline by 50 percent, almost entirely because of lack of 
demand in Asia. In addition, one company, U.S. Semitool in Kalispell, 
MT, has had to lay off over 200, again because of a reduction in 
demand.

  By funding the IMF we also fulfilled our role as leader of the world 
community. Like it or not, the United States is the sole remaining 
superpower, and our leadership is essential in resolving international 
crises. By appropriating $18 billion for an IMF credit line, Congress 
is letting the world know that the United States is interested in 
living up to its unique role. Incidentally, it should be noted that the 
United States has never lost one thin dime in the last 50 years that we 
supported funding for the IMF. It is not the big drain that some 
people, unfortunately, believe it is.
  Mr. President, I obviously have serious reservations about the 
process with which this bill reached the Senate floor. That said, I do 
want to commend the efforts of those who made a flawed process better. 
The President's Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, who is departing, was 
outstanding. He will be sorely missed by anyone, who has worked with 
him. I know of no finer public servant than Mr. Bowles.

[[Page S12838]]

  The President's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jack 
Lew, has likewise been a pleasure to work with, as has Larry Stein, the 
President's congressional liaison. There are many others I could name 
in the executive branch with whom I worked--devoted servants tenacious 
in their support for good programs for our country.
  The same applies to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Stevens, and Senator Byrd. Both are tremendous leaders and both 
are tremendous men. The House leadership was also very helpful at 
times, as were the chief persons in the House Appropriations Committee. 
I very much appreciate their efforts, without which we would have faced 
an even more objectionable means of legislating today.
  Mr. President, I am convinced that Americans are less concerned about 
the process we have used to pass this bill than what is actually in it. 
Whether it is highway funding an airport project, I think process is 
less important than outcome, as long as results are delivered. I think 
Tip O'Neill, the former Speaker of the House, said it best: ``all 
politics is local.''
  So, why am I so concerned about the process? Let me explain. 
Ordinarily, bills that go through the Congress arrive through 
committees. They are debated there and, if passed, sent to the floor. 
After being placed on the calendar, the majority leader--some years it 
is a Republican leader, other years it is a Democratic leader--sets the 
agenda and decides which bills to bring up to be debated before the 
Senate. It is generally a collegial agreement between the majority 
leader and the minority leader as to which bills are brought up and 
debated.
  Following debate and passage on the floor, bills go to a conference, 
because the House has gone through a similar procedure. Many of the 
bills that are brought up on the floor under the Senate rules have 
added onto them various amendments. Some amendments are relevant and 
germane to the bill before the Congress but often, under the Senate 
rules, many are not. Regardless, all of those provisions are debated, 
in full view of the public and press. Senators cast their votes yes or 
no--sometimes with recorded votes, sometimes with voice votes--but then 
they go to conference.
  What happens in conference? Generally, the principal members of the 
committee of jurisdiction meet with the principal members of the 
committee of jurisdiction of the House of the bill that passed, because 
they are similar but there are different provisions. There are some 
adjustments the conferees have to make, so they recommend the same bill 
with the same provisions back to both bodies. Both bodies then vote yes 
or no, and, if passed, the President gets one bill. The President can 
sign it, veto it, or pocket veto the bill.
  That is the procedure, and it is basically the procedure our Founding 
Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. They didn't write 
all the rules for the House and the Senate, but they decided there 
should be a House and Senate and the bodies should make their own 
rules. They intended that Congress should operate in the context of 
openness in government and representative democracy in government. That 
was the whole purpose of our Founding Fathers writing the Constitution, 
escaping tyranny from Europe: representative democracy, where the 
people are in charge.
  Mr. President, I am not going to stand up here as a purist and say we 
should follow that lock, stock and barrel. We have to be practical and 
do what works, but we must do so with full respect for the people who 
elected us, the people we have the privilege of serving.
  Unfortunately, something very different than the process I just 
described was used to pass this omnibus appropriations bill. What 
happened, essentially, is that 3,800 pages of legislation--which, by 
and large, contains 8 appropriations bills that did not pass both 
bodies and go to conference, was put in one conference report. This 
legislation did not go to the floor of the House or the Senate, where 
it could be debated and amended. It is legislation, rather, which is in 
this conference report and sent back to the House and Senate 
unamendable--unamendable. I might also mention that roughly half this 
bill is authorizing language that ordinarily goes through the committee 
process.
  So who made the decisions that resulted in this 4,000 page bill? Were 
they the chief people in the committees of jurisdiction? No. Were they 
Democrats, Democratic leadership? Not very often. So, who were they? 
Essentially, the people in the closed room--unavailable to the press, 
to the public, unavailable to other Senators--were top staff in the 
administration and the leadership of the House and Senate, usually 
Republican and to some degree Democratic, which would mean about five 
or six, maybe eight Members of Congress.
  Mr. President, we have 535 Members of Congress, roughly. Eight of 
whom were in the room with the administration officials, hammering this 
bill out. There is so much here, even they do not know what is in it. 
What did the rest of us do? We had little choice but to do the very 
best for our people at home and get on the phone. We called the select 
few in that room, trying to make our views heard, trying to make a 
semblance of a democratic process.
  I spent a lot of time talking to the chief administration officials 
who I know were in the room. To their credit, they listened to me. And 
to their credit, they agreed with a good number of the views that I was 
espousing.
  I did the best I could, given the circumstances we had, and I am 
pleased that those people in the room decided to include some Montana 
provisions, like Canyon Ferry; various land and water conservation 
funds, like money for the purchase of the Royal Teton Ranch right next 
to Yellowstone Park; funding to help the massive Gallatin land 
exchange; the purchase of Lindbergh Lake, for a number of the same 
reasons. There are a lot of provisions in this bill that directly 
affect my State, in addition to broad national policies, such as more 
teachers, more funding for education, and so forth.
  But I believe, Mr. President, that there comes a time when the 
process becomes so corrupted that it undermines and corrupts the 
legislation that is passed.
  Let me give a little personal background here. Several years ago, I 
was involved in writing Montana's State Constitution. I think we are 
the last State in the Nation to rewrite a constitution. There is a very 
important provision in our State's constitution called an open meeting 
law. In Montana's constitution, all public meetings are open to the 
press. The Governor of our State knows all the meetings he has in his 
office will be attended by the press.
  Sure, it causes some problems. Some in State government say, ``Oh, my 
gosh, this is a terrible provision; it cramps our style; it makes it 
difficult for us to do our work.'' Sure, it makes it sometimes 
difficult, but we all know deep down it is for the public good and, as 
with a lot of things that are good, it takes effort, it takes hard 
work. Most of the good things in life take effort and hard work. This 
is one of those. We have an open process in Montana, and we have a much 
higher view in Montana of our public servants. It is very helpful.
  I will relate another personal experience which indicates my resolve 
toward a more open representative process. It occurred a little more 
than 20 years ago, when I was a freshman Member of the House. I had a 
free hour with not much to do, and I said, ``Well, I think I will learn 
something. I will go to a tax conference writing a tax bill,'' by 
Senate conferees, House conferees, Senate Finance Committee, House Ways 
and Means Committee, top folks who are in the conference for a large 
tax bill.
  I asked around, ``Where is this meeting, where are they?'' I got the 
runaround. Nobody could tell me where they really were. I finally went 
to Mike Mansfield, then majority leader of the Senate. I thought, 
``Gee, Senator Mansfield could find out where it is occurring.'' Sure 
enough, his people told me. I went over there. A policeman was standing 
right at the doorway. I said I am a Member. I think he thought I was a 
member of the conference, so he let me in.
  I took a seat in a corner so I could watch and learn a little about 
tax policy and how conferences work. I was there, minding my own 
business listening to Wilbur Mills, chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, and Russell Long, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, 
talking.

[[Page S12839]]

  They were trying to work out this bill. There were a lot of executive 
branch people in the room. Treasury Secretary Bill Simon was in the 
room, along with other executive branch people. I was just sitting 
there about 5 or 10 minutes, and up walked a senior House Member, 
Congressman Burke from Massachusetts. He said, ``Sorry, you can't be 
here.''
  I asked, ``Why? Why can't I be here?''
  He said, ``Well, it's the rules.''
  I said, ``What rule is it?''
  He said, ``Well, it's the Senate rule.''
  I said, ``What Senate rule is it?''
  He said, ``I'm sorry, you just can't be here. Nobody can be here. No 
other Member of the House and Senate can be here. Not even Congressman 
Bill Green can be here.''
  Bill Green, who was then a Member of the House Ways and Means 
Committee who successfully authored the provision on the floor of the 
House to modify the percentage of the oil depletion allowance, even he 
couldn't be in the room. All the people allowed in the room were the 
conferees. It was closed doors and that is it.
  I said to Congressman Burke at the time, ``Look, I'm not going to 
cause a fuss here, but this is wrong. It is just not right that this is 
not open to the public, certainly to Members of the Congress.''
  That afternoon, I stood before the House, along with Congressman Ab 
Mikva, who also did not like that process, and we voiced our 
disagreement and displeasure. Next year, things opened up because it 
was the right thing to do.
  Perhaps I have too much of a personal investment in this, but I do 
believe the people are much better served the more the process is open 
and the more the process is not corrupted as, in my judgment, this 
process is.
  Again, about half of the U.S. Government bills, which did not pass 
the House or the Senate or go through committees in the full light of 
day, which did not pass the floor of the House, some of which were not 
even brought up on the floor of the House or the Senate, were put in 
this huge bill, then sent back to the Senate and the House unamendable. 
No amendments are in order, Mr. President, in this process; none.
  I suppose there is a reason for that because none of us know what is 
in the bill. How can we offer an amendment if we don't know what is in 
the bill? I asked the Parliamentarian not long ago: How much of this is 
authorization, how much is appropriations? He said, ``Senator, we just 
don't know; this huge stack here is too big for us to have gone through 
it by now. We just don't know.''
  As I said, Mr. President, I am in an anxious position here because a 
lot of good is in this bill. But the process, in my view, is wrong. 
That's why I voted no on the bill.
  The provisions that are in this bill I would have worked for in 
separate bills, in separate agriculture bills or Agriculture 
appropriations bills or in other authorizing bills that would 
ordinarily come before the Congress.
  Again, I am not going to be a purist about this, I just want to be 
practical. We have done this 2 years in a row, dumping so much in such 
a very undemocratic way into a huge bill written behind closed doors, 
written by only a few Members of the House and Senate and the 
administration. This process dangerously disenfranchises most Senators, 
House Members and American voters.
  We, as Senators and House Members, don't have an opportunity to go 
back to our people and say, ``What do you think of this provision?'' 
They don't have an opportunity to say to us, ``We don't like what is in 
there, vote this way or that. They are disenfranchised, cut out of the 
process.
  This is not legislation by representative democracy, Mr. President. 
It is legislation by a very few, by oligarchy.
  At a deeper level, what does that do? It further undermines the 
people's confidence or belief in Government. This process does that. It 
confirms some of the worst views a lot of Americans have; namely, oh, 
those guys back there in Washington are just out for themselves; they 
don't care about us.
  Mr. President, we must draw the line. Enough is enough. We all know 
that the more issues are actually fully debated--and I mean debated--
the more the public has a chance then to see what is going on, and they 
themselves get more involved. To the extent we do that, this country 
will be stronger. We know that. We also know that the less the people 
are involved, the less they know what is going on, and the weaker this 
country is going to be.
  Mr. President, we are the world's oldest democracy. We have a form of 
government where the people elect their representatives to do their 
nation's business. We are not a kingdom, we are not a monarchy. And we 
will be the leader in the next century if people are more involved in 
government. And they will be more involved in government the more we, 
as representatives, respect them, respect their views, want their 
views, want them to be able to comment on what we are doing or not 
doing.
  But on the other hand, the more we disrespect people by hiding behind 
closed doors, in the dark of night, the more we will cause a further 
deterioration of our government and weaken the United States role as 
the world leader that we want to be in the next century.
  Finally, Mr. President, let me say that this is a sad moment for me. 
I cast my vote with reservation, fully aware of the good that this bill 
contains. But vote no I must, simply because I think that to vote yes 
would be to cast a vote for exclusivity and against the democratic 
process. I worked very closely with some individuals who made a few of 
this bill's important provisions reality, and I do not want now to be 
voting against their reference. They made a good effort and did a very 
good job, given the situation they were in, given the circumstances 
they faced. They were helpful to those of us who were working for our 
States and had nothing else to do--no alternative--but to try to work 
with this abominable process.
  In closing, Mr. President, I want to say that next year it is 
critically important that we prevent this process from happening again. 
We have done this two years in a row, and each year more and more and 
more is getting dumped into this omnibus conference report process. If 
this trend continues, then within a year or two maybe three-quarters of 
Government is going to be in there; maybe everything is soon going to 
be in there, which means I might as well not report for work until the 
final 3 weeks of the Congress, because that is where it is all done, 
with those few people behind closed doors.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________