[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 126 (Friday, September 24, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11398-S11420]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          EDUCATION IN AMERICA

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I always enjoy having the opportunity to 
discuss education policies with my friend from New Hampshire. As usual, 
he has been very eloquent in terms of the positions which he has 
advanced. I would like to bring a few points to the attention of the 
membership, though, on items he has raised to try to clarify some of 
these issues and questions.
  One was the issue of flexibility, whether there is sufficient kinds 
of flexibility at the local level to permit the education of the 
children in various communities across the country.
  I have Speaker Hastert's statement he put out at the time the 
President signed the Ed-Flex legislation. At that time, the Speaker 
said: ``Ed-Flex''--which passed the House and Senate-- ``ensures our 
schools have the flexibility they need to make good on the promise to 
help each child reach their full potential.'' The release goes on and 
indicates he believes now there is the kind of flexibility the Senator 
from New Hampshire talks about being extremely important. It seems the 
Speaker, at least, and many others, believed, with the passage of that 
act, the local communities had the flexibility they needed.
  I think that was certainly the purpose of the legislation. I am glad 
the Speaker certainly has supported the President's concept in having 
that kind of flexibility.
  Secondly, there was some talk about the funding of the IDEA. I want 
to recall for the Members that we did have an opportunity earlier this 
year to have full funding of IDEA for the next 10 years. The Senator 
from New Hampshire has mentioned the importance of us in Congress to 
meet the responsibilities to those children who are participating in 
that program.
  The fact is, earlier this year, on March 25, 1999, I offered an 
amendment that would provide full funding for IDEA over the next 10 
years, and also the funding for the class size reduction initiative--
that we would provide full funding for those two items. It would have 
taken one-fifth of the tax cut. With one-fifth of the tax cut, we could 
have funded all of the IDEA programs for a period of 10 years. That was 
a party-line vote, including the vote of the Senator from New Hampshire 
who voted against it. That is real money. That isn't speeches on the 
floor of the Senate. That is real money.

  We would have welcomed the opportunity to have worked with him and 
others in this body to take some of that money, the $780 billion that 
was going to be used for tax cuts, and use the money that would be 
necessary for the funding of the IDEA, but that was voted out. We are 
not giving up on that.
  So for those who share my belief--I know our colleague, Senator 
Harkin, is a great leader on that issue; and it has broad, bipartisan 
support in terms of fashioning that legislation. We will continue to 
fight for increased funding

[[Page S11399]]

for the IDEA. It certainly is preferred to fund that than have the kind 
of tax breaks that have been suggested in the Republican proposal. But 
on that date, it was the sense of the Republican leadership and the 
Republican Party that the tax breaks were more important than funding 
the IDEA. That, I believe, was wrong.
  Finally, I say, I hope in our discussion and debate on education that 
we can understand a very basic and fundamental concept; and that is, we 
should not be pitting children against each other. We want to have 
better teachers. We want smaller classes. We want improved reading 
skills. We want after-school programs. We want safe buildings. We want 
those conditions for children who are in the IDEA programs, and we want 
those conditions for children in the Title I programs, and we want 
those conditions for children in the high-achievement programs.
  Let us not begin to pit one group of children against another. That 
is why we support the kind of coordinated program, in terms of both 
program and resources, so all children can move along together to take 
advantage of the real opportunities that are out there. That is what 
basically underlines the reason for Senator Daschle's Sense-of-the-
Senate Resolution.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment of the Senate's 
time to say why I believe this amendment, this Sense of the Senate, is 
so important at this time.
  You can ask: Why are we taking time in the Senate on a Friday 
afternoon to put the Senate on record in urging my colleagues, in the 
remaining days, to provide the resources that will be necessary to 
fully fund the President's requests on education and to not see these 
dramatic cuts which have been indicated with the 17-percent reduction 
in the allocation of funds for the appropriations for education?
  Families across this country ought to be concerned. We are hopeful 
that we are giving that signal to the American families. What we are 
going to do in the next 4 weeks is going to be of the greatest 
importance and significance in terms of whether we are going to be 
enhancing or diminishing the quality of education for children in this 
country.
  I would like to see education be the No. 1 appropriations . I wish we 
had a binding resolution that said: Before we deal with any other 
appropriations, we are going to deal with the education appropriations. 
That ought to be the No. 1 appropriations.
  I daresay, if you ask the American people, sure, they may say 
national security and defense, that may be in there; but they are going 
to say national security and defense, and they are going to say 
education. But what has been the record?
  Here is the record. In 1994, under the Republican leadership, the day 
they captured the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United 
States, they didn't even wait until the appropriations legislation came 
up. They put a rescission program request into the Congress that 
effectively said money that had been appropriated, signed by the 
President, would be rescinded. They asked for a rescission of $1.7 
billion below enacted in 1995. That was one of the first actions taken 
by the Republican leadership.

  In 1996, the House appropriations bill had a $3.9 billion request for 
education below what was actually agreed to in 1995; in 1997, $3.1 
billion below the President's request.
  It was in 1995 that the Republican Party introduced a resolution to 
abolish the Department of Education--abolish the Department of 
Education. That gives us some idea about what their views are in terms 
of any kind of partnership between the Federal Government and the 
States and local communities. They wanted to abolish it.
  I think most parents in this country want to have someone at that 
Cabinet table every time the Cabinet meets who is going to say: Mr. 
President, what about education? That is what the Secretary of 
Education is supposed to do. That is why he is there. Every time there 
is a debate on national domestic issues, any time there is a debate on 
priorities, that Secretary of Education is there saying: What are we 
doing about educating and enhancing the education of our children?
  Republicans wanted to forbid that Secretary to come into the room. 
They wanted to deny him access to the President of the United States. 
What possible sense does that make?
  We ask why the Daschle amendment is being brought up now. So we can 
garner the support of the American people and say we are not going to 
get rolled on this issue, not without a fight. This President isn't 
going to get rolled on it. All we have to do is look at where the 
priorities have been on the education issue.
  We want the funding for education as the first appropriations. We 
challenge the Republican leadership in the next Congress to bring it 
out as No. 1, not as the last one. And the last one, here in 1998, is 
only $200 million below the President's request; 1999, $2 billion--the 
House bill. The House bill, according to Mr. Obey, is $2.8 billion 
below the President's.
  We have to ask ourselves, what is happening across the country on 
education? I will tell my colleagues what is happening. We have 400,000 
new students--400,000 new students who are going to classrooms in 
America now. We have 200,000 teachers who taught last year who have 
given up and retired from teaching, and only 100,000 have been 
replaced. One would think the effort contained in the President's 
program of trying to find qualified individuals to teach ought to be 
something that is pretty important, wouldn't they? Sure, they would. 
Not the Republican appropriators, not the Republicans. They cut that 
almost in half.
  We have to ask ourselves, what are they possibly thinking about? 
Sure, these are numbers, but they are a pretty good indicator. What we 
are saying is--talking about numbers--that just because of $1 billion 
or $2 billion, it is not going to necessarily solve all the education 
problems we have in our country, but it is a pretty clear indication 
about what a nation's priorities are.
  That is what the appropriations process is about--what are our 
Nation's priorities. What are parents going to say and what should they 
say, when every single time they see those reductions? Now we are 
seeing it again with these actions that have been taken in the House of 
Representatives.
  We are going to resist those. We are saying it not only because we 
see what is happening with the growth of the various numbers of 
students and the decline of the numbers of teachers, but we know a 
whole host of other things.
  Most Americans understand we want our children to have the kind of 
skills that are going to be necessary for them to play a role in 
getting a decent job and providing for their families for the next 
century.

  I will not take the time today, but maybe later I will have the time 
to discuss the various studies which show that only 20 percent of the 
graduates now entering the job market have the kind of skills that 60 
percent of those students are going to need, not 5 years from now, but 
1 year from now--a year from now. That is what is happening out in the 
job market. That is what is happening in this new economy.
  President Clinton understands that. He has funding in this so we can 
have continuing, ongoing training and skills for the young people of 
this country, so they will be able to be part of the economy. This 
Republican Appropriations Committee guts that particular provision and 
effectively wipes it out.
  I will mention one final item. We heard from our good leader about 
the importance of reading. There isn't a teacher across this country 
who doesn't know the significance and the importance of reading. Yet we 
find here in the United States that we are still challenged in terms of 
having our children reach acceptable levels that are going to be 
necessary for the improvement of their education and their academic 
achievement.
  I am not taking the time to go through the various assessments and 
the progress that has been made, although progress has been made. It 
has been small, perceptible, but we are on the road to enhancing the 
number of children who are going to be able to read satisfactorily to 
be able to grow in terms of their own future education.
  What has happened to the reading programs--the reading programs that 
depend upon volunteers, that depend

[[Page S11400]]

upon local contributions, that depend upon people within the community 
to be a part of these programs where we get such a bang for the buck in 
terms of the scarce resources we put in on the reading for excellence 
programs that are taking place and are oversubscribed in States around 
the country--they are effectively slashed with this budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. I will have more to say on this on 
Monday. I thank the leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, I 
am to be recognized
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator 
from Massachusetts for a powerful statement and for his analysis of the 
current education budget and our circumstances here.
  He has laid out what the ramifications are. People ought to know that 
rhetoric and reality could not be further apart as we listen to our 
Republican colleagues talk about education. The rhetoric all year long 
has been: Education is important; education is going to get the 
priority it deserves. The reality is, we are now 1 week away from the 
end of the fiscal year and we have yet to pass an education bill. We 
have yet to make decisions about what we are going to do on education 
next year. The decisions we are making--they are making, let me clarify 
that--that they are making on education are devastating, absolutely 
devastating.
  I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, what is his analysis of a $1.5 
to $2 billion cut in the President's budget this year? I ask the 
Senator from Massachusetts, what would his advice be to the President 
of the United States if he were to get an education budget $2 billion 
below his request?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I would expect that budget would be vetoed and hope that 
it would be. I think all of us have every expectation that it will be.
  This President, from the very beginning of his administration, has 
set a series of priorities and he has expressed those. In more recent 
times, he has talked about the importance of Medicare, Social Security, 
a prescription drug benefit, and targeted tax cuts for needs. He has 
been very clear about his priorities. But there has not been a higher 
priority for this President than the issue of education, and he has 
been strongly committed to it. I have every expectation this 
legislation will not pass, nor should it pass.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will ask the Senator from Massachusetts another 
question, if I may. He mentioned that one of the most important issues 
we are facing is the fact that we are dealing with 400,000 new 
students. We are dealing with the fact that we will have a shortfall, 
perhaps, in the next few years of 2 million teachers. Yet we see a 
Republican budget that eliminates the ability for us to help schools 
deal with class size by absolutely cutting the very programs that allow 
us to reduce class size and improve the student-teacher ratio. I ask 
the Senator, what do we do with a budget, or what will be the 
ramifications of a budget, that fails to recognize the demand for new 
teachers, the extraordinary explosion of new students, and the 
overcrowding of schools from South Dakota to Massachusetts? What is the 
message this Congress is sending with those facts?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, it basically says to not just the Nation, but to 
the students that education really isn't so important. If a student 
goes into a crowded classroom, uses old books, or goes into a classroom 
that is leaking, or where there are no recreational programs; if a 
student goes into these kinds of settings where no music or art is 
available, we are sending a very powerful message to those children. We 
are saying your education doesn't really count; it doesn't really 
matter because it doesn't matter to us to try and provide you with the 
kind of classroom, the kind of teachers, the kind of athletic 
facilities, and other after-school programs that you deserve. We say 
our children are the future, which they are. Children understand, 
children are perceptive, and they know when they are getting a second-
rate deal. That is what they would be getting if the Republican 
education funding proposal were to pass.
  Let me finally, in answering this question, mention for the Record 
what the President actually said yesterday. I will put the full 
statement in the Record. He said:

       If the Republicans send me a bill that doesn't live up to 
     our national commitment to education, I won't hesitate to 
     veto it. If it undermines our efforts to hire quality 
     teachers, to reduce class size, or to increase accountability 
     in our public schools, I will veto it.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the President's radio 
address in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.

    Radio Address of the President to the Nation, September 18, 1999

       The President: Good morning. This month millions of 
     students across America are beginning the last school 
     semester of the 20th century. Today I want to talk about our 
     obligation to give them the education they deserve to succeed 
     in the new century--for more than ever, in this information 
     age, education is the key to individual opportunity and our 
     share of prosperity.
       That's why, even though we've worked hard to cut spending 
     to balance the budget, we've also nearly doubled our 
     investment in education and training. Many people said we 
     couldn't do it, but we proved them wrong.
       Today, we have the longest peacetime expansion in our 
     history. After years and years of deficits, we now have 
     budget surpluses for years ahead. More people have a chance 
     to realize the American dream than ever before. More children 
     have the chance to realize their full potential than ever 
     before. We've laid a foundation to preserve our prosperity 
     for future generations.
       Now, as the budget deadline rapidly approaches this year, 
     we face many of the same tough choices again. And once again, 
     I think the answer is clear: To build a strong nation in the 
     new century, we must continue to invest in our future. That 
     means we must strengthen Social Security, secure and 
     modernize Medicare, pay off the national debt in 15 years, 
     making America debt-free for the first time since 1835. And 
     once again, it means we must invest in education, not 
     sacrifice it.
       Months ago now, I sent Congress a responsible budget--to 
     maintain our fiscal discipline and honor our commitment to 
     our children's education. So far, the Republicans in Congress 
     haven't put forward a budget of their own. In fact, they're 
     so busy trying to figure out how to pay for their 
     irresponsible tax plan that they're in serious danger of not 
     meeting their obligation to finish the budget by the end of 
     the budget year. Even worse, they're preparing to pay for 
     their own pet projects at the expense of our children's 
     education.
       We know now that the Republicans' risky tax cut would force 
     us to slash vital funding for education by as much as 50 
     percent over the next 10 years. But what many people don't 
     know is that next year alone, the Republican plan would cut 
     the bill that funds education by nearly 20 percent.
       Now, if carried out, this plan would lead to some of the 
     worst cuts in education in our history. More than 5,000 
     teachers, hired as part of my Class Size Initiative, could be 
     laid off. Fifty thousand students could be turned away from 
     after-school and summer school programs. More than 2 million 
     of our poorest students in our poorest communities would have 
     a smaller chance of success in school and in the workplaces 
     of the future.
       These aren't just numbers on a balance sheet, they're vital 
     investments in our children and our future. In a time when 
     education is our top priority, Republicans in Congress are 
     making it their lowest priority. So let me be clear: If the 
     Republicans send me a bill that doesn't live up to our 
     national commitment to education, I won't hesitate to veto 
     it. If it undermines our efforts to hire high-quality 
     teachers to reduce class size or to increase accountability 
     in our public schools, I will veto it. If it fails to 
     strengthen Head Start, after-school and summer school 
     programs, I'll veto it. If it underfunds mentoring or college 
     scholarship programs, I will veto it.
       If it sends me a bill that turns its back on our children 
     and their future, I'll send them back to the drawing board. I 
     won't let Congress push through a budget that's paid for at 
     the expense of our children and our future prosperity.
       So, again, I ask Congress to put partisanship aside and 
     send me a bill that puts our children's education first. 
     Let's use the last school semester of the 21st century to 
     prepare our children and our nation for excellence in the 
     21st century.
       Thanks for listening.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Those were the standards that were insisted upon when we 
extended the SEA program, which are having an effect and reflecting 
higher achievements. They are the smaller classes where the most 
comprehensive study of any education program was done, smaller classes 
in the State of Tennessee, the STARS Program. We should universally 
recognize the important academic achievement of those children who 
started out with a smaller class size in grades 1 through 3, and about 
the importance of higher quality teachers, which was at the heart of 
the Higher Education Extension Act that we passed 2 years ago. He

[[Page S11401]]

said he would veto it. I welcome the fact.
  The President continues:

       If it fails to strengthen Head Start, after-school, or 
     summer school programs, I will veto it. And if it underfunds 
     mentoring or college scholarship programs, I will veto it.

  It looks like this bill has about 8 vetoes coming up.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate the Senator's answer. I appreciate his 
putting that statement in the Record.
  I think the message is clear. We have a unanimous consent request we 
will be making momentarily. First, let me just say this bill will not 
be signed into law so long as we have the necessary votes to sustain 
that veto when it comes to the floor.
  I am happy to yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from South Dakota. Of course, I join 
him in his tribute to our colleague from the State of Massachusetts. 
Senator Kennedy has been a leader on education as long as he has served 
in the Senate. His speech about the demands of education in the 21st 
century and how we in Congress have failed to meet those obligations, I 
think, will become part of the permanent record of this body, and they 
should inspire us.
  My question to the Senator from South Dakota is, if you go across 
America--any pollster, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise--and ask 
American families what is the No. 1 priority, they say the first 
priority in their lives is education--over and over and over again. It 
is almost a reflex response from American families.
  I ask the Senator from South Dakota the following: How can this be 
the first priority of American families and the dead-last priority in 
this Congress? The Senator from South Dakota eloquently spoke earlier 
about the use of this budget for schools as an ``ATM machine.'' For 
months, we have seen appropriations subcommittee after subcommittee 
pulling billions of dollars out of the education budget for a variety 
of uses. Some of them are very good. But I question whether any of them 
meet the level of importance of education to the people of America and 
to the families.
  I ask the Senator how we can find ourselves in these predicaments 
where the speeches say education is a first priority, the people say 
education is a first priority, and this Senate, this Congress makes it 
dead last in the priority list.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I think the Senator asks an excellent question. The 
answer is they are not listening. They are not listening. When you 
propose a tax cut of the magnitude they proposed, gutting education by 
50 percent--a tax cut the American people have said they don't want, 
they don't care about--and then take money they do care about and pay 
for that tax cut, it is an amazing thing to me. That is the most 
startling aspect of all of this.
  What they care about is how educated their children are going to be, 
they care about what kind of a classroom they are going to have, they 
care about what kind of a school the children are going to walk into, 
they care about whether there is an afterschool program, they care 
about whether schools are safe, they care about whether or not they are 
going to have good teachers, and they care about whether or not they 
are going to be able to go to college. That is what they care about, 
and they tell us that in the polls.
  So it is baffling to many of us why what we care about doesn't seem 
to be reflected in the laundry list of deep cuts, if not eliminations, 
of the very programs that do exactly what the American people care 
about.

  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield again. I ask the Senator this: 
This country has seen, unfortunately, episodes of violence in schools. 
It is a national tragedy. Columbine High School transfixed America as 
we focused on safety in schools. We considered a juvenile justice bill 
on the floor of the Senate and passed it, thanks to the vote of Vice 
President Gore, which would move us forward toward making our society 
and our schools safer. It died hopelessly in the House. We are still 
waiting for any indication of life on this bill.
  Is it not true that if the Republican budget cuts go through on 
education, we will not only be cutting the money for schools to use for 
safe and drug-free schools, but we also will be dramatically reducing 
afterschool program opportunities? We don't live in a society any 
longer of Ozzie and Harriet and the Brady Bunch. Kids get off school at 
3 o'clock and nobody is home. Are they going to be supervised? Are they 
going to have a meaningful experience?
  The President wanted 1.4 million more students in America to have an 
afterschool program. Across the State of Illinois--and I bet in South 
Dakota--that is an immensely popular idea. It is my understanding that 
the Republican House bill on education would cut existing afterschool 
programs and turn 50,000 kids loose at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, with 
no supervision, no opportunity for doing homework or learning a new 
skill, or learning to use a musical instrument. How can we, on one 
hand, beat our breasts about what happens at Columbine High School, and 
then turn around in the budget and eliminate the resources needed so 
that kids can have a better and safer experience in school?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, that is exactly the question millions of 
Americans have to be asking once they analyze their budget. I can't 
tell you the number of times that law enforcement officials, teachers, 
and parents have come to me and said: Look. We all know the most 
vulnerable time for students is when they leave school. The most 
vulnerable time statistically--the time when most damage may be done 
and when most violations of law occur--is that period between 2 and 8 
in the evening.
  Obviously, we need as a society to come up with ways to effectively 
engage students and young people during that time when both parents may 
be working, during that time when the schools are closed.
  What do our Republican colleagues do? Under the current framework, 
they would have to reduce the availability of programs for exactly that 
purpose. Again, it shows rhetoric and reality are so far apart.
  The real sad tragedy is that the students are going to feel the brunt 
of this. Once we lose a student, it is hard to get him or her back. I 
don't know who but someone once said, ``It is much easier to build a 
child than to repair an adult.''
  We are going to be doing a lot of reparation and very little building 
with this kind of a budget. We need to be building kids and not 
repairing adults. This is not a budget to build children.
  That is why we are fighting as hard as we are, and that is why we 
will continue to fight until we get those numbers turned around.
  I know that our colleagues are prepared to offer an amendment, the 
Senators from Virginia.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to support Senator Daschle's 
amendment on education.
  We were forced to forage for funds for the VA-HUD bill. The spending 
caps have put us in a terrible position, we have had to pit one group 
against another, and one of the biggest losers in this battle has been 
education.
  There are three important things we need to do to get behind our 
kids, our teachers and our parents: 100,000 new teachers and 
counselors; technology in the classroom; and afterschool programs.
  One of the best things we can do for our kids is to get 100,000 new 
teachers in the classroom. Smaller classes means that kids will get 
better supervision.
  This is important for all kids, not just the ones that get into 
trouble; all children need help, some children just need extra help.
  We want to make schools safe places without making them Fortress 
America. We need to support our teachers by hiring 100,000 new nurses 
and by hiring social workers and counselors. 100,000 new nurses in 
schools will promote early detection of warning signs.
  I just visited a school where 75 percent of the children there were 
on medication. The nurse is oftentimes the first line of defense for 
when kids need extra help. Some of the frustration from kids stems from 
medical problems. Without nurses in the schools, these unnoticed 
medical conditions can lead to truancy and trouble. We need the experts 
in the schools who can deal with conflict resolution.
  We also need structured after-school activities for kids that 
involves community based programs. We need to support our parents and 
make sure parents have the flexibility in the workplace to spend time 
with their children

[[Page S11402]]

after school. They need leave time. By the way, they also need a 
patients bill of rights that provides access to medical insurance for 
people that don't have it.
  And we also need technology in the classrooms; computers in the 
schools, training for our teachers and our students so they are 
prepared to cross the digital divide and are ready for the 21st 
century. I look forward to fighting for you and getting behind our 
kids, our parents and our schools.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on January 6 of this year, the Majority 
Leader stood on the Senate Floor and told us that education would be a 
high priority for the Senate. This is what he said:

       Education is going to be a central issue this year. 
     Democrats say it is important and it will be a high priority. 
     Republicans say it will be a high priority.

  I don't think the Republican Leadership can make that claim today.
  We are now less than five legislative days--and that's counting 
Mondays and Fridays--before the end of the fiscal year, and there is 
one education bill that must be enacted--the education appropriations 
bill.
  Yet, despite proclamations that education would be a top priority, 
the Senate has been working on all but one of the thirteen 
appropriations bills. The only one left--the one that is now dead 
last--is the education bill. Mr. President, this is the wrong priority.
  Despite a valiant effort by the Chairman of the subcommittee--Senator 
Specter--the education appropriations bill has not even been written. 
Senator Specter has fought every day to move the bill. He tried in 
June, July, August, September. He tried last week.
  And, if that isn't bad enough, the leadership has robbed the 
education bill to pay for the others. As a result, we are looking at 
deep cuts in all of the programs funded by the Labor, Health and Human 
Services and Education appropriations bill.
  Not only is education dead last on the calendar, education is dead 
last for resources. Our subcommittee started with an allocation 
substantially below a freeze from last year. Now, it is even worse.
  Last week, the leadership staged a raid on education. They took 
another $7.276 billion in budget authority and $4.969 billion in 
outlays from education and other essential priorities in the bill.
  So now, our subcommittee allocation is $15.5 billion below a freeze. 
That means we are faced with cutting education programs a whopping 17%.
  What does a 17% cut mean? It means that 5,246 of the new teachers we 
hired to reduce class size will be fired. A 17% cut means that 142,000 
students will be cut from the Head Start program. This cut means 2.1 
million children will lose the extra help they receive from the Title I 
program to master the basics of reading and math. That is where we 
currently stand in the Senate.
  Yesterday, the House education appropriations subcommittee passed the 
FY 2000 bill. The news for education is not good. Under the House bill, 
U.S. schools will receive less money next year than last by $200 
million. The bill falls $1.4 billion short of the President's budget 
request for the activities funded by the Department of Education and 
provides $500 million less for Head Start.
  The bill eliminates funding for the initiative to reduce class size 
so 30,000 will get pink slips next spring.
  The bill cut funding for education technology; froze funding for the 
Title I reading and math program and terminated the School to Work 
program.
  In addition, the bill cut, from current levels, funding for vital job 
training programs by $700 million because unemployment is low. Training 
programs do not only help workers when they lose a job but also help 
workers upgrade and improve their job skills to compete in the 
international marketplace.
  The gap between the rich and poor continues to grow and the key to 
reducing this disparity is to help workers improve their job skills. 
And yet, the House bill slashes funds to help workers upgrade their 
skills as we enter the new millenium.
  Last week, the Assistant Majority Leader said we should not be 
increasing funding for education. He was making a hypothetical 
statement about the education appropriations bill.
  The picture is becoming clear. The record is replete with statements 
from the other side talking about education as a priority. We now find 
those words are not even worth the paper on which they are written. The 
House has cut education, and the Assistant Majority Leader has 
concurred.
  The Republican leadership found $16 billion for the Pentagon. That's 
$4 billion more than DOD even asked for! And they found real money.
  But when it comes to education, we get platitudes and promises. The 
children of America deserve better.
  That's why we are offering this Sense of the Senate resolution. 17% 
cuts are unacceptable. Such cuts will savage our schools
  We must have significant new investments in education. There are more 
children in our public schools than at any time in our history and we 
must not turn our backs on them.
  We must keep our promise to help local school reduce class size. We 
must help keep our children safe by significantly increasing our 
investment in after school programs. We must increase our investments 
in IDEA and the Title I reading and math program. And we must help 
modernize our nation's crumbling schools. This resolution makes it 
clear that education will be a priority not just in words, but in deed.
  Actions by the Republican majority in Congress directly contradict 
the priorities of the American people. It is time to free the education 
spending bill and make the necessary investments in education.
  I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to listen to the 
American people. Let us not get into another protracted battle over the 
education budget. I urge adoption of the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the two 
Senators from Virginia have an issue they would like to raise. Then I 
would like to, on behalf of Senator Bond, with Senator Mikulski, 
proceed with a managers' amendment.
  First, we would like to hear from the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Senator Robb and I 
have joined on an amendment. The Senator will introduce the amendment. 
I would like to address it. I think to show courtesy it is first on 
Senator Robb's watch, and then I will follow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 1791

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the decline in 
  funding for aeronautics research and development should be reversed)

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia (Mr. ROBB), for himself, Mr. 
     Warner, and Mr. DeWine, proposes an amendment numbered 1791.

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING AERONAUTICS RESEARCH.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) Every aircraft worldwide uses and benefits from NASA 
     technology.
       (2) Aeronautical research has fostered the establishment of 
     a safe, affordable air transportation system that is second 
     to none.
       (3) Fundamental research in aeronautics is not being 
     supported anywhere in the country outside of NASA.
       (4) The Department of Transportation predicts that air 
     traffic will triple over the next twenty years, exacerbating 
     current noise and safety problems at already overcrowded 
     airports. New aeronautics advancements need to be developed 
     if costs are to be contained and the safety and quality of 
     our air infrastructure is to be improved.
       (5) Our military would not dominate the skies without 
     robust investments in aeronautics research and development.
       (6) Technology transferred from NASA aeronautics research 
     to the commercial sector has created billions of dollars in 
     economic growth.
       (7) The American aeronautics industry is the top 
     contributor to the U.S. balance of trade, with a net 
     contribution of more than $41 billion in 1998.

[[Page S11403]]

       (8) Less than ten years ago, American airplane producers 
     controlled over 70% of the global market for commercial 
     aviation.
       (9) America's dominance in the world's civil aviation 
     market is being challenged by foreign companies like Airbus, 
     which now has approximately 50% of the world's civil aviation 
     market, and is aiming to capture 70%.
       (10) The rise of foreign competition in the global civil 
     aviation market has coincided with decreases in NASA's 
     aeronautics research budget and a corresponding increase in 
     European investment.
       (11) NASA's aeronautics laboratories have the research 
     facilities, including wind tunnels, and technical expertise 
     to conduct the cutting-edge scientific inquiry needed to 
     advance state-of-the-art military and civil aircraft.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the United States should increase its commitment to 
     aeronautics research funding.

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished senior Senator 
for remarks. He has important questions. I will pick up with my remarks 
as soon as he last concluded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, last week the Senate Appropriations Committee 
completed action on the appropriations bill for a number of Federal 
agencies including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I 
commend Senator Bond and Senator Stevens for their efforts to support 
the full request for NASA in the midst of extreme budget pressures. The 
NASA funding in the Senate bill will face a stiff challenge in the 
conference with the House, however. I want to take this occasion to 
reflect on the importance of investment in research and development in 
the NASA budget to civilian and military aeronautics.
  The aerospace industry in the United States has undergone a dramatic 
transition in the last ten years. In 1986, 70 percent of the sales of 
this industry were to the government, primarily for the defense market. 
Less than 30 percent of the business base of the industry consisted of 
commercial products. At that time, Federal research and development 
supporting aerospace technology was largely funded by the Defense 
Department.
  Today, the situation has reversed. The defense portion of U.S. 
aerospace business is at 29 percent, and the defense share continues to 
shrink. Although Federal funding for military-unique hardware will 
always be needed in the interests of national security, non-defense 
research from agencies such as NASA is growing in importance to the 
industry. Nearly 70 percent of aerospace sales are in the commercial 
arena, and 41 percent of aerospace production in this country is for 
export.
  As we grow increasingly concerned about monthly trade balance 
figures, the importance of these aerospace exports for our national 
economy grows. The aerospace industry was responsible for $59 billion 
in exports and $22 billion in imports in 1997. This resulted in a 
positive trade balance of $37 billion--the single biggest trade balance 
of any sector in the entire American economy. In 1998, our exports grew 
to $64 billion in equipment with total imports of $23 billion. The 
industry trade surplus of $41 billion has widened the gap between the 
aerospace industry and all other sectors. Make no mistake; we are 
competing in an aggressive global marketplace. Technological leadership 
is absolutely essential if the U.S. aerospace industry is to continue 
successfully competing in an increasingly complex and sophisticated 
world economy.
  Some long-term trends for the health of the aerospace industry are 
troubling, however. There has been a dramatic reduction in Federal 
aerospace R&D funding. During the Carter administration, we invested 18 
percent of our R&D funding in the U.S. aerospace community. That amount 
increased to 21 percent during the Reagan years. Today, it is only 8 
percent and declining.
  The reductions have been even more severe in certain specific areas. 
The aeronautics budget in NASA has declined from $920 million in fiscal 
year 1998 to $620 million in the request for fiscal year 2000, a 
reduction of almost a third over just three years! Reducing research 
and development funding for this vital industry runs counter to all of 
our historical economic experience.
  We are experiencing a time of tremendous economic expansion in our 
country, but we seem to have forgotten the tremendous role R&D plays in 
sustaining this growth. Alan Greenspan recently testified that rapid 
technological change has made a significant contribution and is a major 
force in this expansion. We cannot, and as long as I am a Member of the 
United States Senate, we will not forget this!
  In 1804, the venerable president from Virginia, Thomas Jefferson, 
with the full support of Congress, set in motion the first official 
exploration of our new frontier. He boldly sanctioned the Lewis & Clark 
expedition not only to map the new territories of the United States, 
but also to satisfy an American passion for discovery--the same passion 
that has led our country to be the leader among nations. That first 
step paved the way for today's exploration of the solar system, the 
continued exploration of communication technologies, and the future 
exploration of the planet Mars.
  The very year the United States landed a man on the moon, the 
Department of Defense had begun to work on a new technological concept 
that is now coming into its own. I speak of the Internet that is 
transforming the structure of our economic life. The technological 
wonders that support our national security and fuel our economic growth 
were not invented overnight. We must be prepared to weather the slow 
and often tedious process of design and development of products and 
systems necessary to bring them to maturity.
  It is no different in aeronautics. I am concerned that without a 
national strategy for aeronautics R&D investment, we will gradually 
lose the technological edge of which we are so proud and which is key 
to our competitiveness in the global economy and our security as a 
nation. We should not delude ourselves; America will lose its 
preeminence in aeronautics unless we adequately fund aeronautics 
research at NASA.

  For instance, the Appropriations Committee in the House recently cut 
the NASA budget so severely that it will cause a major employment 
problem and will devastate advanced technology programs so carefully 
planned for implementation. The House reduced NASA numbers by $1 
billion in order to pay for more housing and veteran programs. I 
appreciate the position facing the Appropriators, but to halt some 30-
science programs in their tracks and halt vital research in the 
aeronautics area is nothing short of foolhardy. I applaud the recent 
action of the Senate Appropriation's Subcommittee in reversing this 
House action and urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to insure the 
Senate position prevails in the coming conference.
  Programs such as those at NASA cannot be turned off and on like a 
light switch. It takes time to realize the fruits of our labors. We 
must not so cavalierly cancel programs and efforts just as they are 
beginning. A reduction of the magnitude proposed by the House will 
devastate both research in astronautics and aeronautics in this 
country.
  In my travels through Virginia over the recess, I was made aware of 
the real effect of reductions in the NASA aeronautics R&D budget 
proposed by the House of Representatives. I visited the NASA facility 
in Langley, Virginia that leads the nation in aeronautical research and 
aviation safety technology. It has led this nation in aeronautical 
breakthroughs from the development of the super critical wing used on 
many commercial aircraft flying today, to the development of a new 
collision-avoidance aircraft system for the FAA. This is the center 
that gave us the magnificent leaders of our Manned Space Program like 
Dr. Bob Gilruth, Dr. Chris Kraft, Dr. Max Faget, and many others who 
left Langley to lead our Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. NASA 
Langley has exemplified a passion for excellence from its earliest days 
when it conducted research to produce safe, more efficient and 
technically superior aircraft for both the military and commercial 
markets.
  Given that 70 percent of NASA Langley programs are funded through the 
NASA aeronautics budget, the future of this national resource is in 
doubt unless Congress and the Administration can find ways to reverse 
the severe reductions to this part of our national R&D effort.

[[Page S11404]]

  This nation's leadership in aerospace is not an accident of history, 
Mr. President. It was made possible by dedicated leaders who looked 
beyond the present and dreamed of the future that could be. People like 
those at Langley and throughout NASA. We must not forsake this global 
leadership in aeronautics technology. We must work together to balance 
critical priorities and provide the leadership, sacrifice, and enduring 
commitment to technology, research, and most of all learning. We must 
continue to fund a robust R&D program through these agencies.
  Let me close, Mr. President, with a final thought. As Chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, I am keenly aware of the challenges our 
military forces face as they attempt to maintain our security in the 
face of ever declining resources. Part of the strategy of our 
leadership at the Department of Defense is to save resources by buying 
commercial aerospace products wherever possible. This dependence on the 
commercial marketplace is increasing dramatically. Because of this 
there is an increasing security dimension to the R&D we accomplish at 
NASA. This is yet another reason to insure that the effort is funded 
properly.
  Mr. President, my concern is as follows.
  This very important appropriations bill which I will support contains 
the basic funding for NASA. My concern is that within the NASA budget 
there is a growing decline and emphasis on research and development 
funds for aerospace. I say marshal the aerospace industry as it relates 
to civil aircraft and military aircraft. Frankly, the rush to get to 
space, the rush to develop the space station--I must say components of 
that are being made in my State--concern me greatly as I see the 
following.
  Some long-term trends for the health of the aerospace industry are 
troubling.
  There has been a dramatic reduction in Federal aerospace R&D funding.
  During the Carter administration, we invested 18 percent of our R&D 
funding in the U.S. aerospace community. That amount increased to 21 
percent during the years under President Ronald Reagan. Today, that 
category of R&D is only 8 percent and continuing to decline. The funds 
are being siphoned off into the space program.
  This Chamber will be in recess probably in several hours. Seventy-
plus percent of my colleagues are going to depend on civil aviation to 
transport themselves back to their home districts and their States for 
continuation of the business in the Senate. I am among them.
  I visited Langley Research Center just a short time ago. There I saw 
a test bed of a program which the technicians told me--these are not 
politicians, these are trained technicians--Senator, if we can continue 
our funding, we are going to come up with the software and the hardware 
which, hopefully, can reduce by over 50 percent the accidents that 
planes experience every day in either the landing or the take-off 
phases. Therein is the high risk in aviation. That same research and 
development can be applied to our military aircraft. It is common to 
both aircraft. It is a very small amount of money.
  Fortunately, I received the assurance from the NASA Administrator 
when he visited my office a few days ago that the program will stay 
intact.
  I cited other programs in here, such as noise reduction. More and 
more the airports are growing around the highly populated areas, and 
noise becomes a problem. At National Airport it is a very significant 
problem.
  Again, a relatively small amount of money can make a difference in 
years to come--a small amount in comparison to the enormous sums of 
money going towards the space station and other related infrastructure. 
We will get to space someday. But in the meantime, we cannot turn our 
backs on civil aviation.
  Our exports on civil aviation products--largely airplanes--is one of 
the biggest, positive factors in our ever-declining balance of trade. 
It is a major offset.
  I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague in offering this 
amendment. It has been my intention, frankly, to go for a cut--a 
specific cut.
  But I have been in consultation with the distinguished Senator from 
Maryland, the distinguished Senator from Missouri, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, and the chairman of the committee, Mr. Stevens.
  First, they made a heroic effort to get more money back into these 
accounts. They are being watchful of the same problems that concern me.

  So I decided to withdraw my amendment which would have gone to 
specific cuts to fund what I believe would be an adequate amount.
  I am now going to join my distinguished colleague, Mr. Robb, in 
another approach on this.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, thank you. I thank my distinguished senior 
colleague from Virginia.
  Mr. President, I wanted to take a minute or two to discuss the item 
that my senior Senator has just alluded to, which, in my judgment, is 
critical.
  I begin by saying that it is an area of research and development that 
is of enormous importance to every American who lives by an airport, 
every American who is concerned with our Nation's defense, and every 
American who flies on a regular basis, as all of our colleagues do. 
That issue is aeronautics research and development.
  Since the time of the Wright Brothers, American's commitment to 
aeronautics research and development has brought extraordinary returns 
on our Nation's military superiority and the rise in affordable 
passenger air travel. Both can be attributed directly to our 
investments in aeronautical research.
  In addition, aerospace products are America's top manufactured export 
commodity and are the top contributors to the positive side of the U.S. 
balance of trade.
  Air traffic is predicted to triple over the next 20 years. As our 
skies become more crowded and our airports noisier, aeronautics 
research continues to grow in importance. If we are to improve the 
safety, efficiency, and performance of our air travel system, we are 
going to need to develop new aeronautics, new aeronautics concepts, and 
new aeronautics designs and technologies that can better respond to the 
growing demands of our aeronautics infrastructure.
  In addition, America's aerospace industry is facing a fierce 
challenge from the European consortium, Airbus which has now captured 
over 50 percent of the world market that American airplane products and 
producers once dominated.

  At a time when there is a clear need for new investments in this 
field and near unanimous support in our country for new investments in 
basic research, it is troubling that our commitment to aeronautics 
research has been waning. Funding for aeronautics research was cut by 
$151 million from 1998 to 1999, and this year the President proposed to 
cut it by an additional $150 million. That is a 30-percent reduction in 
just 2 years.
  Even more worrisome is the fact that the House cut an additional $1 
billion out of NASA's budget, placing the future of NASA aeronautics 
research and critical facilities such as NASA's Langley Research Center 
in great danger. For more than 80 years, the Langley Research Center in 
Hampton, VA, has been at the forefront of aeronautics research and 
pioneered innovations that are present in every plane in the air today, 
innovations that have affected and are important to every plane that 
flies today. Its facilities are one of a kind. If this center were 
closed, the United States would lose its most valuable resource for 
improving aircraft safety and performance.
  Senator Warner and I have worked closely with Senators Bond and 
Mikulski over the past few months to strengthen our commitment to 
aeronautics research. I am grateful to both of them that they have 
restored many of the severe cuts that were proposed by the House. I am 
still disappointed, however, that more money has not been set aside for 
aeronautics research. We have reached an understanding with the 
chairman and ranking member that further increases will be considered 
in conference.
  With that, I am very pleased to join the distinguished senior Senator 
from Virginia in offering this amendment. It is my understanding it has 
been agreed to on both sides. I note that the distinguished chairman of 
the committee,

[[Page S11405]]

the senior Senator from Alaska, probably spends more time in the air 
than any other Senator in this body.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. 
Senator Robb is correct; we have a great interest in this amendment. I 
have had some personal conversations with the Administrator of NASA, 
Dan Goldin, about this very subject. I am delighted that the two 
Senators from Virginia have brought it to the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I think the comments by both Senators from Virginia 
are, indeed, meritorious. I think our side is prepared to accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I do believe it is important that we emphasize the 
critical nature of this research. It is critical not only to the 
present but to the future of aviation, and not just commercial aviation 
but general aviation in many ways.
  With the support of the Senator from Maryland, on behalf of Senator 
Bond, I am happy to accept this amendment, and I ask it be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1791) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


            UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--AMENDMENT NO. 1790

  Mr. STEVENS. On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent the 
pending amendment be withdrawn and the text of amendment No. 1790 be 
submitted at the desk in the form of a Senate resolution and placed on 
the calendar. I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Lott be 
recognized to offer a similar sense-of-the-Senate resolution and it be 
placed on the calendar.
  I further ask unanimous consent that at 3:30 p.m. on Monday the 
Senate resume both resolutions concurrently, there be 1 hour of debate 
on each resolution to be equally divided between the two leaders, and a 
vote occur on or in relation to the Lott resolution at 5:30, to be 
followed immediately thereafter by a vote on or in relation to the 
Daschle resolution, and that all of the previous occur without any 
intervening action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 1792 Through 1802, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. On behalf of Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski, I send a 
package of amendments to the desk and ask for their immediate 
consideration en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, these items have been cleared on both 
sides and are not controversial and include the following items:
  An amendment on behalf of Senator Feinstein requiring EPA to form a 
study and plan related to leaking underground storage tanks;
  A Smith amendment extending the comment period by 90 days for the EPA 
proposed rulemaking related to total maximum daily loads;
  A Breaux amendment extending for 1 year the Coastal Wetlands 
Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act, otherwise known as the 
Breaux Act;
  A Chafee amendment with numerous cosponsors funding the Montreal 
Protocol Fund within EPA's budget, through an across-the-board cut to 
EPA accounts;
  A Gramm of Texas amendment relating to the funding of the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight;
  A Dodd-Bennett amendment related to funding of local governments for 
Y2K conversion costs;
  A Bond-Lautenberg technical correction to section 430;
  A Bond amendment addressing HUD staffing levels;
  A Hutchison amendment on storm water studies;
  A Coverdell amendment regarding housing for private school teachers;
  Finally, an amendment dealing with EPA pesticide tolerance fees, 
included on behalf of Senator Craig, which has been cleared by the 
Agriculture Committee on both sides.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we concur with the managers' amendment 
as presented by the Senator from Alaska and are prepared to accept it.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent those amendments 
be agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be 
considered en bloc, agreed to en bloc, and appropriately numbered.
  The amendments agreed to en bloc are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1792

   (Purpose: To improve the regulation of underground storage tanks)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS.

       Not later than May 1, 2000, in administering the 
     underground storage tank program under subtitle I of the 
     Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.), the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     develop a plan (including cost estimates)--
       (1) to identify underground storage tanks that are not in 
     compliance with subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.) (including regulations);
       (2) to identify underground storage tanks in temporary 
     closure;
       (3) to determine the ownership of underground storage tanks 
     described in paragraphs (1) and (2);
       (4) to determine the plans of owners and operators of 
     underground storage tanks described in paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     to bring the underground storage tanks into compliance or out 
     of temporary closure; and
       (5) in a case in which the owner of an underground storage 
     tank described in paragraph (1) or (2) cannot be identified--
       (A) to bring the underground storage tank into compliance; 
     or
       (B) to permanently close the underground storage tank.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment to 
require the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a plan by May 1, 
2000 for bringing all underground storage tanks into compliance with 
federal safety requirements.
  Why do we need this amendment?
  Leaking underground storage tanks are the leading source of 
groundwater contamination and petroleum is the most common substance 
leaking out. Most of the 825,000 regulated underground tanks in this 
country store petroleum products, from the local gas station on your 
neighborhood corner to the industrial complex using a large motor 
fleet.
  I am offering this amendment to make underground storage tanks safe 
as a way to stop the contamination of drinking water by the gasoline 
additive MTBE.
  What is MTBE? MTBE is methyl tertiary butyl ether, a gasoline 
additive. It is used by most refiners to make oxygenated or 
reformulated gasoline. It is the oxygenate of choice by refiners who 
sell gasoline in areas that need clean-burning gasoline to meet or 
maintain clean air standards. The major way MTBE gets into groundwater 
is from defective underground tanks storing petroleum products.
  What's Wrong with MTBE?
  Unlike other components of gasoline, MTBE does not biodegrade; it has 
a taste like terpentine and smells like paint thinner; it gravels 
quickly; it is expensive to cleanup ($1 million per well in 
California). MTBE is carcinogenic in animals and according to U.S. EPA, 
``has a human carcinogenic hazard potential.'' Dr. John Froines, a 
distinguished UCLA scientist, testified at a California EPA hearing on 
February 23, 1999 as follows:

       We in our (University of California) report have concluded 
     the cancer evidence in animals is relevant to humans. There 
     are `acute effects in occupationally exposed workers 
     including headaches, dizziness, nausea, eye and respiratory 
     irritation, vomiting, sensation of spaciness or 
     disorientation and burning of the nose and throat.

  MTBE exposure was associated with excess cancers in rats and mice, 
therefore, multi-species,'' and he cited ``multiple endpoints, 
lymphoma, leukemia testicular cancer, liver and kidney. All four of the 
tumor sites observed in animals may be predictive of human cancer 
risk.''
  Where is MTBE?
  The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory studied underground tank 
sites in California and concluded that ``a minimum estimate of the 
number of MTBE-impacted sites in California is greater than 10,000.'' 
The Association of California Water Agencies has also found MTBE at 
over 10,000 sites and in many of the state's surface water reservoirs. 
Because of widespread contamination, California Governor Gray

[[Page S11406]]

Davis ordered a phaseout of MTBE by December 31, 2002. A major 
University of California study has called for a phaseout. A top-level, 
EPA ``Blue Ribbon'' panel of experts in July recommended reducing the 
use of MTBE.
  Nationally, while there is no comprehensive study, we do know that 
MTBE has been found in drinking water in many states, including Maine, 
Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, Kansas, New York, New Jersey, Georgia, 
Alabama, Colorado, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Delaware, and Arizona. 
A U.S. EPA-funded study by the University of Massachusetts found MTBE 
in 251 of 422 public wells in 19 states.

  Are Tanks Safe?
  On December 22, 1998, all underground storage tanks had to meet 
federal safety requirements. EPA has said that tanks that do not meet 
standards can be placed into temporary closure until December 22, 1999 
at which point they must be upgraded or permanently closed. Under the 
law, noncomplying tanks can be fined $11,000 per day per violation. The 
safety requirements address tank integrity, design, installation; leak 
detection, spill and overfill control. Tank owners had ten years to 
meet the deadline.
  Here are the facts:
  1. Many tanks are still unsafe: Many underground tanks containing 
gasoline still out of compliance with federal safety regulations. In 
the country, around 165,000 tanks (20 percent of the total) are out of 
compliance, according to EPA. In my state, approximately 1,900 (3 
percent) are not safe.
  2. Many tanks are sitting empty, in temporary closure--74,250 in the 
country (9 percent) and 10,430 (10 percent) in California. These tanks 
are just sitting there in limbo. EPA considers the tanks that are in 
temporary closure to be ``in compliance'' for now and this is one way 
tank owners ``met the deadline'' for compliance. These tanks' ultimate 
use needs to be determined. Someone needs to decide whether to close 
them permanently or upgrade them.
  3. EPA has funds to act. The Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund has 
$1.6 billion in it. This bill appropriates $71.6 million, the 
President's request. The fund is financed by a 0.1 cent per gallon 
motor fuels tax which began in 1987, that generates about $150 million 
a year. The American motorist is paying this tax and in doing so, 
expects it to be used for the purposes authorized.
  4. Even new tanks are not safe. A July 1999 study by the Santa Clara 
Valley Water district of its groundwater supplies found that even with 
the new upgrades, required by federal law by December 22, 1998, the new 
systems are not preventing MTBE contamination. The study, entitled 
``Investigation of MTBE Occurrence Associated with Operating UST 
Systems,'' concluded, of 28 sites in Santa Clara county that have new 
or upgraded tank systems, the majority of which have not had previous 
gasoline contamination, 13 have evidence of MTBE in groundwater because 
of improper installation, operation or maintenance. The study says, 
``These data indicate that MTBE may be present in ground water at 
approximately 50 percent of the UST facilities that meet 1998 upgrade 
requirements within Santa Clara County.'' Officials were clear: 
``Immediate improvements are warranted.'' To me this says, enforce the 
law.
  Similarly, in testimony in the House of Representatives on May 6, 
1999 officials of the Natural Resources Defense Council made this 
important point:
  ``. . . if gasoline contains oxygenates, future gasoline tank leaks 
involving MTBE appear inevitable. Even new tanks will eventually fail 
through material aging, operator error and accident.''
  5. Contamination growing, unknown?
  As I mentioned, California has had 10,000 groundwater sites impacted, 
as documented by the Lawrence Livermore study. Many of the state's 
reservoirs and surface waters have been impacted. At South Lake Tahoe, 
20 percent of the water supply has been eliminated; $2 million has been 
spent to address it. MTBE is less than 1,000 feet from the lake. Santa 
Monica lost 75 percent of its groundwater supply because of MTBE. Their 
water system has been decimated and they will spend up to $150 million 
to clean up.

  In a disturbing August 16 story, the New York Times reported last 
year, the state of New York compiled a ``public list'' of 1,500 MTBE 
contaminated sites, but the actual number on an ``internal list'' is 
closer to 7,000 sites, more than three times that reported. So this 
suggests that we really do not know the extent of MTBE contamination.


                           time to fix tanks

  EPA and the states should take steps to make tanks safe. This 
amendment merely says, come up with a plan: identify the tanks, their 
owners, their status and bring the tank into compliance or close it. 
Enforce the law.
  EPA reported last week they ``have no information from their 
regions'' on enforcement actions, that there is no formal schedule or 
official framework for finding out what enforcement actions are being 
taken in (1) EPA regional offices or (2) in the states. We could obtain 
no national list, for example, of enforcement cases, citations, 
administrative orders or fines.
  Today I did receive some information for region 9, the EPA region in 
which California is located. In this region, since the December 22, 
1998 deadline, of 71,686 underground storage tanks, 80 have been 
inspected. Twenty-three citations have been issued. These actions, 
according to EPA, are ``informal enforcement,'' not ``formal 
enforcement.'' The citations are like a traffic ticket and usually give 
owners 30 days to comply. It appears that the ``formal'' enforcement 
mechanism, levying the $11,000 per violation fine, is not being used.
  I also received an EPA memo signed by Sammy Ng, of the Office of 
Underground Storage Tanks, dated April 13, 1999, which says:

       At the end of the first half of FY 99, states and regions 
     have reported over 385,000 confirmed releases. States, 
     regions and responsible parties initiated cleanups at 84 
     percent of these sites and completed cleanups at about 54 
     percent of the sites. . . . the data do not necessarily 
     reflect the full extent of current compliance with the 1998 
     requirements.  . . .

  While this is helpful--and disturbing information--it still does not 
tell us what is happening to make these tanks safe for storing 
petroleum products.
  This amendment is quite modest, in my view. It merely says to EPA, do 
your job. We have a strong law. Tank owners had a deadline. Leaking 
tanks are contaminating drinking water. Take steps to make tanks safe.
  The public needs assurance that EPA and the states are enforcing the 
law, stopping leaks, and protecting our drinking water.
  I am pleased that this important amendment has been accepted.


                           amendment no. 1793

 (Purpose: To extend the comment period for proposed rules related to 
                          the Clean Water Act)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:
       ``The comment period on the proposed rules related to 
     section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act published at 64 Federal 
     Register 46012 and 46058 (August 23, 1999) shall be extended 
     from October 22, 1999, for a period of no less than 90 
     additional calendar days.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1794

       Section 4(a) of the Act of August 9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 
     777(c(a)), is amended in the second sentence by striking of 
     ``1999'' and inserting ``2000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1795

 (Purpose: To restore funding for the Montreal Protocol Fund, with an 
                                offset)

       On page 78, line 20, strike ``$1,885,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,897,000,000''.
       On page 78, line 21, before the colon, insert the 
     following: ``, and of which not less than $12,000,000 shall 
     be derived from pro rata transfers of amounts made available 
     under each other heading under the heading ``Environmental 
     Protection Agency'' and shall be available for the Montreal 
     Protocol Fund''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1796

   (Purpose: To provide sufficient FY 2000 funding for the Office of 
 Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight to ensure adequate oversight of 
                   government sponsored enterprises)

       On page 45, line 9, strike ``$16,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof, ``$19,493,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1797

       At the appropriation place under the heading Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency, insert: ``For expenses related 
     to Year 2000 conversion costs for counties and local 
     governments, $100,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2001: Provided, That the Director of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency shall carry out a Year 
     2000 conversion local government emergency grant and loan 
     program for the purpose of providing emergency funds through 
     grants or loans of not to exceed $1,000,000 for each country 
     and local government that is facing Year 2000 conversion 
     failures after January 1, 2000 that could adversely affect 
     public

[[Page S11407]]

     health and safety: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available to a county or local government under this 
     provision, 50 percent shall be a grant and 50 percent shall 
     be a loan which shall be repaid to the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency at the prime rate within five years of the 
     loan: Provided further, That none of the funds provided under 
     this heading may be transferred to any county or local 
     government until fifteen days after the Director of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency has submitted to the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Senate 
     Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, the 
     House Committee on Science, and the House Committee on 
     Government Reform a proposed allocation and plan for that 
     county or local government to achieve Year 2000 compliance 
     for systems directly related to public health and safety 
     programs: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent that an official budget request 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     provided under the heading ``Funds Appropriated to the 
     President'' in Title III of Division B of the Omnibus 
     Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (Public Law 105-277), $100,000,000 are rescinded''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1798

(Purpose: Technical correction to provision on the prohibition on funds 
                        being used for lobbying)

       On page 113, line 14, strike out ``in any way tends'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof: ``is designed''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1799

 (Purpose: Prohibition on HUD reducing staffing at state and local HUD 
                                offices)

       On page 44, insert before the period on line 10 the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That the Secretary may not 
     reduce the staffing level at any Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development state or local office''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1800

(Purpose: To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
 Agency to submit to the Senate a report on certain matters of concern 
              before promulgating stormwater regulations)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. PROMULGATION OF STORMWATER REGULATIONS.

       (a) Stormwater Regulations.--The Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall not promulgate Phase II 
     stormwater regulations until the Administrator submits to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report containing--
       (1) an in-depth impact analysis on the effect the final 
     regulations will have on urban, suburban, and rural local 
     governments subject to the regulations, including an estimate 
     of--
       (A) the costs of complying with the 6 minimum control 
     measures described in the regulations; and
       (B) the costs resulting from the lowering of the 
     construction threshold from 5 acres to 1 acre;
       (2) an explanation of the rationale of the Administrator 
     for lowering the construction site threshold from 5 acres to 
     1 acre, including--
       (A) an explanation, in light of recent court decisions, of 
     why a 1-acre measure is any less arbitrarily determined than 
     a 5-acre measure; and
       (B) all qualitative information used in determining an acre 
     threshold for a construction site;
       (3) documentation demonstrating that stormwater runoff is 
     generally a problem in communities with populations of 50,000 
     to 100,000 (including an explanation of why the coverage of 
     the regulation is based on a census-determined population 
     instead of a water quality threshold);
       (4) information that supports the position of the 
     Administrator that the Phase II stormwater program should be 
     administered as part of the National Pollutant Discharge 
     Elimination System under section 402 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342); and
       (b) Phase I Regulations.--No later than 120 days after 
     enactment of this Act, the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall submit to the Senate Environment and Public Works 
     Committee a report containing--
       (1) a detailed explanation of the impact, if any, that the 
     Phase I program has had in improving water quality in the 
     United States (including a description of specific measures 
     that have been successful and those that have been 
     unsuccessful).
       (c) Federal Register.--The reports described in subsections 
     (a) and (b) shall be published in the Federal Register for 
     public comment.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1801

(Purpose: To provide that any assistance made available to teachers in 
purchasing HUD owned housing in economically distressed areas does not 
discriminate between private and public elementary and secondary school 
    teachers and thus provides assistance to both on an equal basis)

       On page 38, line three, insert before the period the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That no amounts made 
     available to provide housing assistance with respect to the 
     purchase of any single family real property owned by the 
     Secretary or the Federal Housing Administration may 
     discriminate between public and private elementary and 
     secondary school teachers'';
       On page 40, line two, insert before the period the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That no amounts made 
     available to provide housing assistance with respect to the 
     purchase of any single family real property owned by the 
     Secretary or the Federal Housing Administration may 
     discriminate between public and private elementary and 
     secondary school teachers''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1802

  (Purpose: To delay promulgation of regulations of the Environmental 
  Protection Agency requiring the payment of pesticide tolerance fees)

       On page 113, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 4  . PESTICIDE TOLERANCE FEES.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act shall be used to promulgate a final regulation to 
     implement changes in the payment of pesticide tolerance 
     processing fees as proposed at 64 Fed. Reg. 31040, or any 
     similar proposals. The Environmental Protection Agency may 
     proceed with the development of such a rule.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                  budget committee scoring of s. 1596

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1596, the 
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and 
independent agencies appropriations bill for 2000.
  This bill provides new budget authority of $93.6 billion and new 
outlays of $55.5 billion to finance the programs of the Departments of 
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, NASA, and other independent agencies.
  I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for producing a bill 
that complies with the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. This is one of 
the most difficult bills to manage with its varied programs and 
challenging allocation, but I think the bill meets most of the demands 
made of it while not exceeding its budget and is a strong candidate for 
enactment. So I commend my friend, the chairman, for his efforts and 
leadership.
  When outlays from prior-year BA and other adjustments are taken into 
account, the bill totals $91.3 billion in BA and $103.8 billion in 
outlays. The total bill is under the Senate subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation for budget authority and outlays.
  I ask Members of the Senate to refrain from offering amendments which 
would cause the subcommittee to exceed its budget allocation and urge 
the speedy adoption of this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

   S. 1596, VA-HUD APPROPRIATIONS, 2000--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-
                              REPORTED BILL
               [Fiscal year 2000, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   General
                                   purpose   Crime   Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget authority..............    69,619  .......    21,713     91,332
  Outlays.......................    82,291  .......    21,496    103,787
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority..............    69,633  .......    21,713     91,346
  Outlays.......................    82,545  .......    21,496    104,041
1999 Enacted:
  Budget authority..............    71,045  .......    21,885     92,930
  Outlays.......................    80,376  .......    21,570    101,946
President's request:
  Budget authority..............    72,055  .......    21,713     93,768
  Outlays.......................    82,538  .......    21,496    104,034
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority..............    71,632  .......    21,713     93,345
  Outlays.......................    82,031  .......    21,496    103,527
 
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority..............       -14  .......  .........       -14
  Outlays.......................      -254  .......  .........      -254
1999 Enacted:
  Budget authority..............    -1,426  .......      -172     -1,598
  Outlays.......................     1,915  .......       -74      1,841
President's request:
  Budget authority..............    -2,436  .......  .........    -2,436
  Outlays.......................      -247  .......  .........      -247
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority..............    -2,013  .......  .........    -2,013
  Outlays.......................       260  .......  .........       260
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.


[[Page S11408]]

 North 27th Street Center for Children and Youth, Project Jericho, and 
                  the Missouri River Ecology Institute

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I realize that this year Senators Bond and 
Mikulski are facing a challenging appropriations season with tight 
budgetary constraints. However, I wanted to bring to their attention 
three projects which I think are particularly important to Nebraska, 
projects that I believe will directly benefit many of our Nebraska 
citizens.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I know that you have worked hard on a number of 
projects, and I would appreciate it if you could describe your requests 
in greater detail?
  Mr. KERREY. Yes, it would be my pleasure. On March 31, 1999, I 
requested that $1.5 million be appropriated within the CDBG program's 
Economic Development Initiative for the North 27th Street Center for 
Children and Youth in Lincoln, NE. The Center is being developed by 
Cedars Youth Services, Inc. at the request of the City of Lincoln. The 
Federal dollars would be used by Cedars to develop, operate, and 
implement a program for the collaborative provision of services by 
several organizations through a design that will allow participants to 
avoid having to negotiate the administration and service delivery 
practices of the various organizations. In other words, it is an effort 
to develop a ``one-stop'' service center for youth programs.
  In addition, during March 1999, I also requested $750,000 or Project 
Jericho in Omaha, NE to be used by Family Housing Advisory Services for 
the ongoing administration and operation of Project Jericho. Project 
Jericho assists individuals, couples, and families who qualify for 
Section 8 assistance to locate safe affordable housing in the Omaha 
area. Financial management and mobility counseling are provided to help 
participants who want to find rental properties in neighborhoods with 
less than 35 percent minority population. Project Jericho is now one of 
the top recognized mobility programs in the country.
  Finally, I requested that $120,000 be provided from the Environmental 
Programs and Management Account of the EPA, to the Fontenelle Forest 
Association for the Missouri River Ecology Institute (MREI). Fontenelle 
Forest would use the funds to continue MREI, which provides an 
intensive, six week summertime experience in field-based natural 
science for teenagers (primarily students entering the 10th grade). 
MREI services as a leadership development initiative for students with 
a strong interest in the environment, and includes activities to help 
prepare them for future careers in this field.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have noted the importance of these 
projects and I will do my best to include these projects when the 
conference committee meets on this bill, if adequate funding is 
available.
  Mr. BOND. I certainly understand the concerns of the Senator from 
Nebraska and we will review these requests prior to conference.
  Mr. KERREY. I appreciate the consideration and the help of the 
distinguished Senators from Missouri and Maryland. They have always 
been very supportive of the needs of Nebraska and I appreciate that.


                   economic development in wisconsin

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for their 
good efforts and sense of fairness in putting together the VA-HUD 
Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. We all agree that this year's 
attempts to stay within the spending caps has forced us all to make 
some tough choices and to work that much harder to reach consensus and 
complete our appropriations work in a timely and responsible manner. 
Senators Bond and Mikulski are to be commended for their hard work.
  I would ask for a clarification on a point of concern for my 
constituents in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. As you know, the VA-HUD bill 
contains funds in support of several important economic development 
initiatives in Wisconsin, including both the Metcalfe Neighborhood and 
Menomonee Valley Redevelopment projects in Milwaukee. I am pleased that 
the Committee has expressed support for both projects, but would simply 
ask if the Chairman and Ranking Member would have any objection to 
shifting the amount of funds distributed between these projects during 
the conference negotiations. In other words, would you have any 
objection to shifting funds designated for the Menomonee Valley project 
to the Metcalfe Neighborhood project? I ask for this clarification in 
order to allow the City of Milwaukee the flexibility to reallocate the 
funds provided in keeping with its economic development needs and 
timeframes for project completion.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I would have no objection to shifting funds between the 
Milwaukee projects if the Senator from Wisconsin, on behalf of his 
constituents from Milwaukee, makes such a request during our work in 
the conference.
  Mr. BOND. I concur with my Ranking Member and would be happy to work 
with the Senator from Wisconsin to ensure that his constituents' needs 
are met.


                                  clem

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to ask the distinguished managers 
of the bill if they would consider a request I have concerning the 
conference. Knowing the great difficulty they faced in reporting a bill 
that would not exceed this year's stringent budget caps, I was not too 
surprised to see that they were not able to provide funding for New 
York University's Center for Cognition, Learning, Emotion, and Memory, 
or CLEM, in the bill. However, I do hope that funding for CLEM can be 
found in conference. CLEM can help educators, physicians and other 
health care givers, policymakers, and the general public by enhancing 
our understanding of normal brain development as well as the many 
disabilities, disorders, and diseases that erode our ability to learn 
and think, to remember, and to emote appropriately.
  CLEM focuses on research and training in the fundamental 
neurobiological mechanisms that underlie learning and memory--the 
acquisition and storage of information in the nervous system. Current 
studies by the faculty at NYU are determining why fear can facilitate 
memory; how memory can be enhanced; what conditions facilitate long-
term and short-term memory; and where in the brain all these memories 
are processed and stored. The Center for Cognition, Learning, Emotion 
and Memory will draw on the University's strengths in the fields of 
neural science, biology, chemistry, psychology, computer science, and 
linguistics to push the frontiers of our understanding of how the brain 
develops, functions, malfunctions, matures, and ages. NYU researchers 
bring substantial strength in psychological testing, computational 
sophistication, advanced tissues staining and electrical problems, and 
humane animal conditions. These core facilities are well regarded by 
their peers and together have been awarded a total of $7 million from 
federal agencies and private foundations for their research. Also, the 
University is presently recruiting additional faculty in other areas of 
memory and learning specialization. As a major training institute, the 
Center will help prepare the next generation of interdisciplinary brain 
scientists.
  I believe that the work of this Center is an appropriate focus for 
the Department of Veterans Affairs because research into how cognition 
and emotion interact can have applicability to other diverse areas of 
interest. For example, in understanding maladaptive responses and 
emotional disorders, researchers are better able to understand and 
treat phobias, panic attacks, and post-traumatic stress disorders. In 
addition, research into the learning process as it relates to attention 
and retention will lead to insights on mental losses and the decay of 
memory. Similarly, research at the center could prove most valuable to 
the EPA in its efforts to learn about and prevent the effects of toxic 
substances on man and animals.
  Mr. President, funding for New York University in this bill would be 
entirely appropriate under VA, EPW, or as an item in the EDI account. 
It would be money well spent. I ask the distinguished managers if they 
will consider providing $1 million for NYU.
  Mr. BOND. I will certainly keep the request from the Senator from New 
York in mind when we go to conference.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I too will remember the request from my colleague from 
New York when the bill gets to conference.

[[Page S11409]]

     national center for science literacy education and technology

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished managers 
of the bill would consider a request of mine? As they are aware, in 
previous years NASA has provided funds to the American Museum of 
Natural History to support the National Center for Science Literacy 
Education and Technology. The Museum reaches literally millions of 
children and families, schools and community groups each year through 
science education and exhibition, curriculum development and innovative 
educational technology. Now the Museum is unveiling a unique new 
resource for educating the nation about the wonders of the universe and 
our own planet Earth, the Rose Center. It will include a new state-of-
the-art Hayden Planetarium, the Colman Hall of the Universe, and the 
Gottesman Hall of Planet Earth. The centerpiece of the new Center is a 
90-foot-in-diameter sphere situated in a cubic glass-walled enclosure; 
and in the upper half of this sphere the Museum will be housing the 
most technologically advanced sky theater in the world with a map of 
the universe created by the Museum's National Center for Science 
Literacy and Technology in partnership with NASA: The Digital Galaxy 
Mapping Project.
  While the National Center has received strong NASA-based support, the 
Museum has raised the funds, almost $100 million, for the Rose Center 
and these cutting-edge Halls of the Universe and Planet Earth through 
non-federal State, City, private and foundation support.
  The Center is already working with innumerable schools in New York 
and beyond to develop more effective science education curriculum 
materials, as well as partnering with leading colleges and universities 
on critical research, education and training initiatives. They are now 
proposing to further expand the role of NASA and the Center with the 
goal of educating an ever broader segment of the American public. 
Through the Center's Education Materials Lab Project the Museum and 
NASA will develop additional curriculum modules from the prototypes 
created in the first phase of the NASA-Center agreement, based on and 
utilizing the unique investments and facilities of the Museum. There 
will be a major investment in a science visualization project that will 
highlight NASA developments and activities, from progress in the space 
station to new astronomical discoveries.
  As you can see, Mr. President, the potential of the National Center 
at the Museum is boundless. However, a continuing and expanded federal 
partnership for science education and educational technology is 
important and appropriate there, given the role they play and the 
millions they reach.
  I realize the constraints the subcommittee was under in writing a 
bill that would meet budget requirements. I simply ask that when the 
bill goes to conference the managers remember my original request that 
the NASA budget include a FY2000 appropriation of $5 million to further 
expand the reach of this important National Center, develop and improve 
educational materials and educational technology for schools, children 
and families, and to enhance the Museum's instrumentation and 
laboratory facilities that will contribute to these education, training 
and research objectives. The House Bill contains $3 million. I hope 
that sum can be increased to $5 million.
  Mr. BOND. I will certainly keep the request by the distinguished 
Senator from New York in mind when we go to conference.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I too will remember this request for the American 
Museum of Natural History when we get to conference.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank both my distinguished colleagues for their 
cooperation.


                      national science foundation

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I see the report encourages the National 
Science Foundation to ``strengthen its activities with respect to 
international cooperation in research and education.''
  Mr. BOND. Yes, that's right. That sort of cooperation is good for 
science and good for education right here at home. The National Science 
Board is going to examine that issue, and I look forward to seeing 
their recommendations.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The Chairman may be aware that as part of last year's 
Higher Education Act, working with thirteen of our colleagues, I was 
able to get a program in East Asian Science, Engineering, and 
Technology authorized at NSF. This new program, which is a successor to 
a program at the Defense Department, will teach American scientists and 
engineers about East Asian languages, technological developments, 
management techniques, and research institutions. It will improve our 
understanding of East Asian research and train a cadre of American 
researchers who can effectively cooperative with their East Asian 
counterparts.
  Mr. BOND. That does sound like the sort of activity we'd like to 
encourage at NSF.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Well, unfortunately the program was authorized too late 
in the year to make it into the President's budget request for FY 2000. 
But NSF, including the top leadership is quite enthusiastic about the 
program. They've had a day-long workshop to help design the program, 
and I understand may even release the report from that workshop soon. 
My point is I think that they could be ready to get the program started 
this coming fiscal year.
  Would the Chairman agree that to the extent there is some 
discretionary money available at NSF in FY 2000 and that NSF's 
leadership believes they have a solid program plan, they can and should 
begin the East Asian Science, Engineering, and Technology program in FY 
2000? Moreover, that NSF should budget for the program in FY 2001 and 
beyond? I think that would be consistent with your interest in seeing 
more international cooperation in science and engineering.
  Mr. BOND. I will be open to NSF's plans once they are developed. If 
the National Science Board and NSF support funding the program in FY 
2000, I will review it as part of their operating plan and future NSF 
budget proposals.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If I could just briefly add my thoughts. The East Asian 
Science, Engineering, and Technology program does indeed sound like 
something NSF should get started on this coming fiscal year, provided 
they're ready, and then include it in the President's request for FY 
2001.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member.


                            Barry University

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we would like to engage the Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, in a brief colloquy regarding Barry 
University in Miami Shores, Florida. Through the outstanding leadership 
of sister Jeanne O'Laughlin, Barry has had a strong history of 
addressing important Miami community issues like urbanization, ethnic 
diversity, community development and cultural understanding. Many of 
Barry's students are first-generation college students and ethnic 
minorities. Recently the University announced the planning of an 
Intercultural Community Center that is designed to promote necessary 
neighborhood and small business revitalization. The new facility will 
also be a hub for ongoing workforce development and service learning 
literacy training for the local community.
  Mr. MACK. Given the merits of the project, we were disappointed that 
Barry University was not included in the legislation before us that 
allocates funds to the ``Economic Development Initiatives'' for such 
purposes. Barry University's proposal meets the criteria established by 
the Subcommittee in terms of serving low-income populations. Our hope 
is that this project can be re-considered during final deliberations on 
the bill. Specifically, we would request that favorable language be 
included in this bill directing the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development to spend a minimum of 1.5 million dollars from the Economic 
Development Initiative fund to finance this important program that 
promotes economic and social revitalization. We would appreciate the 
Senator's support, along with the Chairman's in the funding of the 
Barry University Intercultural Community Center in the Conference 
Report.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senators from Florida for bringing this 
issue to

[[Page S11410]]

my attention. I will be pleased to review the proposed project at $1.5 
million and will give it every consideration during conference 
deliberations.
  Mr. BOND. I concur with my good friend from Maryland, and we will 
make every effort to consider the merits and funding requests of the 
Barry University project in conference.


                  bayard wastewater treatment facility

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking 
Member for their fine and fair work on this appropriations bill. I 
acknowledge how difficult their job is and fully appreciate their 
efforts.
  I understand the tight budget situation the committee finds itself in 
and the many requests the Chairman and Ranking Member face for water 
and wastewater funding from the EPA's State and Tribal Assistance Grant 
Program. Unfortunately, the committee could not find sufficient funding 
for a critical wastewater treatment project in Bayard, New Mexico. This 
community, along with the Village of Santa Clara and the Fort Bayard 
State Hospital, face a loss of their wastewater treatment plant. Three 
years from now, the Cobre copper mine will no longer accept wastewater 
from these communities and an alternative must be found. If not, these 
communities will essentially return to the days of the outhouse.
  May I ask the Chairman if he is aware of the critical wastewater 
situation facing the citizens of Bayard and Santa Clara?
  Mr. BOND. Yes, I appreciate the Senator from New Mexico informing me 
of the situation in Bayard and the citizens' need for a new wastewater 
treatment facility.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The estimated cost of the new wastewater treatment 
plant is almost $3 million. Is the Ranking Member aware that Mayor 
Kelly and the city council in Bayard are working very hard to obtain 
partial funding for the new plant from all available local, state and 
federal sources?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I commend the Mayor and citizens of Bayard for their 
efforts to seek funding from all available sources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I'd like to continue to work with the Chairman and 
Ranking Member as this appropriations bill moves forward to see if 
there isn't some way to provide a grant from EPA's State and Tribal 
Assistance Grant Program to help fund a portion of the cost of the 
wastewater treatment plant in Bayard.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator can be assured we will give the project our 
full consideration in conference.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate knowing of the Senator from New Mexico's 
interest in the Bayard project.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senators for their consideration.


                        NOx SIP call

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise at this time to engage in a 
colloquy with the Subcommittee Chairman, the Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. President, I am concerned about what I feel is an apparent 
inconsistency and inequity created by two separate and conflicting 
actions that occurred last spring. One was EPA issuing a final rule 
implementing a consent decree under section 126 of the Clean Air Act 
that is triggered in essence by EPA not approving the NOx 
SIP call revisions of 22 states and the District of Columbia by 
November 30, 1999. The other was by the United States Court of Appeals 
for the D.C. Circuit in issuing an order staying the requirement 
imposed in EPA's 1998 NOx SIP Call for these jurisdictions 
to submit the SIP revisions just mentioned for EPA approval.
  Caught in the middle of these two events are electric utilities and 
industrial sources who fear that now the trigger will be sprung this 
coming November 30, even though the states are no longer required to 
make those SIP revisions because of the stay, and even though EPA will 
have nothing before it to approve or disapprove.
  Prior to this, EPA maintained a close link between the NOx 
SIP Call and the section 126 rule, as evidenced by the consent decree. 
I believe a parallel stay would be appropriate in the circumstances. 
EPA should not be moving forward with its NOx regulations 
until the litigation is complete and those affected are given more 
certainty and clarity as to what is required under the law.
  A stay is very much needed, especially in light of EPA's most recent 
comments suggesting that it may reverse its earlier interpretation of 
the Clean Air Act regarding State discretion in dealing with interstate 
ozone transport problems. The effect of such a reversal would be to 
force businesses to comply with EPA's federal emission controls under 
Section 126 without regard to NOx SIP Call rule and State 
input.
  The proposed reversal is creating tremendous confusion for the 
businesses and the States. Under EPA's proposed new position, 
businesses could incur substantial costs in meeting the EPA-imposed 
section 126 emission controls before allowing the States to use their 
discretion in the SIP process to address air quality problems, less 
stringent controls or through controls on other facilities altogether.
  Indeed, the fact that these businesses almost certainly will have 
sunk significant costs into compliance with the EPA-imposed controls 
before States we required to submit their emission control plans in 
response to the NOX SIP Call rule would result in 
impermissible pressure on their States to forfeit their discretion and 
instead simply conform their SIPs to EPA section 126 controls.
  The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that not only do the States and 
business community not know what EPA is doing, EPA doesn't know what it 
is doing. This is hardly a desirable regulatory posture for what 
clearly is promising to be a very costly and burdensome regulation.
  Let's be clear what the law is and what it requires, before rather 
than after the EPA writes and enforces its rules. I think that is a 
reasonable expectation and a reasonable requirement that the EPA should 
be able to meet.
  Mr. Chairman, would you agree with me that the EPA should find a 
reasonable way to avoid triggering the 126 process while the courts 
deliberate and we have a better understanding of what the law requires 
states and businesses to do to be in compliance?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the Senator bringing 
this to the Senate's attention. I agree that this matter should be 
resolved swiftly. I would encourage and expect the EPA to, over the 
next several months, find a way that is fair to all sides. In addition, 
I would expect that any remedy would ensure that the States maintain 
control and input in addressing air pollution problems through the SIP 
process. I would be happy to work with the Senator from Alabama to 
ensure that EPA is fully responsive to these legitimate problems.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the gentleman from Missouri yield?
  Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the gentlemen from Alabama and Missouri 
know, I have had concerns regarding the impact of the NOX 
SIP Call for states throughout the Midwest, including my own. I would 
agree that recent actions taken by the EPA and Northeastern states 
creates confusion for both industries and states governments alike. I, 
too, strongly encourage the EPA to work with all parties, and I look 
forward to finding a fair and equitable solution to improve our air 
quality in an economically and environmentally sound way.


                     study on hydraulic fracturing

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the need to 
collect good scientific data upon which the Environmental Protection 
Agency can establish appropriate regulations to protect human health 
and the environment.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator from Alabama raises a good point. In order for 
the EPA to protect people and the environment, the agency must have 
access to good scientific data.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Has the Subcommittee from time to time, directed the 
EPA to fund studies related to pending regulations when there is a 
need?
  Mr. BOND. Yes, this Subcommittee has occasionally directed the EPA to 
gather additional scientific data relevant to their regulatory duties.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to make the Senator aware of a situation 
in my own state of Alabama where the EPA is being forced by a court 
order to promulgate regulations regarding an activity called hydraulic 
fracturing.

[[Page S11411]]

  Alabama is the second largest producer of coal bed methane in the 
country. The production of this clean burning fuel from coal beds has 
only recently become economically viable and offers a way to capture 
methane from coal beds which might otherwise be vented into the 
atmosphere during normal coal mining operations. As you know, methane 
is thought to be a potent contributor of the so-called ``greenhouse'' 
effect and has been shown to contribute the formation of ground level 
ozone. However, the production of methane for fuel use helps to reduce 
air emissions and improves our balance of trade by contributing to our 
overall domestic gas production. Increased production of coal bed 
methane should be encouraged.
  One of the procedures needed to produce methane from coal beds is the 
use of hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing essentially involves 
the placing of water and sand down a well bore at high pressure to 
create microscopic fractures in the coal beds which allow methane gas 
to escape. Following this procedure, over 90 percent of the water and 
sand propping agent is pumped out of the well and disposed in 
compliance with all State and Federal laws. There has never been a 
documented case of underground water contamination resulting from this 
procedure.
  The EPA never intended to regulate this procedure. However, in 1995 a 
lawsuit was filed against the EPA claiming that the hydraulic 
fracturing in Alabama should be regulated through the Underground 
Injection Control program established by the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
The EPA argued that hydraulic fracturing did not fit in the context of 
the Underground Injection Program, that the State of Alabama already 
regulated the process and that the procedure itself posed little risk 
to underground drinking water sources or the environment. In 1997, the 
11th Circuit Court of Appeals made a technical ruling that hydraulic 
fracturing does in fact, constitute underground injection because it 
does involve the placement of fluids underground. Following the court 
ruling, the EPA implied that it might support a technical change to the 
Safe Drinking Water Act to exempt hydraulic fracturing from the 
Underground Injection program. However, efforts to get this technical 
correction passed into law were upset by the EPA who called for more 
time to study the issue. Unfortunately, the EPA has still not developed 
the scientific data to determine whether or not there is even a need 
for federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing at all.
  It is no wonder that the EPA has not dedicated many resources to this 
issue. No where in the nation has there been even a single case of 
groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing operations despite 
the dramatic increase in the use of this procedure over the last 15 
years. In fact, based upon the data which is currently available, I 
believe that federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing operations may 
be an ineffective use of both federal and state resources. However, 
there is a need to be certain that hydraulic fracturing does not pose a 
threat to underground sources or drinking water and more scientific 
study must be completed.
  The Geological Survey of Alabama, working in conjunction with Alabama 
universities, has already initiated study on the environmental impacts 
of hydraulic fracturing operations. Because of the work which the 
Geological Survey has already begun, it would make an ideal institution 
to carry out additional studies on the impact of hydraulic fracturing 
and could contribute a great deal to the body of scientific data needed 
by the EPA. The Geological Survey has proposed an 18 month study, using 
$175,000 of federal funds through an EPA grant, to carefully examine 
the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing operations. I would 
ask that the Senator from Missouri work to include language in the VA/
HUD Appropriations Conference report that would direct the EPA to make 
this important grant.
  Mr. BOND. In my own State of Missouri, production of coal bed methane 
has recently been started at several sites. I understand that hydraulic 
fracturing has been used at each of these sites to stimulate the flow 
of methane. I agree with the Senator from Alabama that the EPA should 
seek out the best scientific data and should seek to provide assistance 
to the Geological Survey of Alabama to study the impact this procedure 
could have on underground sources of drinking water.


                        atlanta va construction

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to discuss with the Ranking 
Member of the VA/HUD Appropriations Committee the documented need for 
funding of the Atlanta Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center for funds 
to renovate and modernize patient wards. The Atlanta VA construction 
project was rated 5th on the Department of Veterans Affairs Fiscal Year 
2000 Priority Medical Construction Project Report. This project was 
listed as 12th last year and with the increasing need was moved to the 
top 5 by the Office of Management and Budget. On September 8, 1999, I 
was pleased to support the Senate's passage of S. 1076, the Veterans' 
Benefits Act of 1999, which authorized $12.4 million for the renovation 
critical to caring for our veterans. The need for this project will not 
go away. I believe that this project should receive at least $2 million 
in initial design and planning for FY 2000 to pave the way for later 
full funding. Included in this start-up money would be asbestos testing 
that needs no further delays for environmental safety.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I understand the Senator's concerns and push his to 
obtain this needed renovation for VA patient care. I also want to thank 
the Senator for his responsible approach to phasing in this project in 
light of serious budget concerns. While serious budget constraints 
prevent the acceptance of this request in the FY 2000 appropriations 
bill, it is the Appropriations Committee's hope and expectation that 
this worthy project will be fully funded in the President's FY 2001 
budget submission.
  Mr. CLELAND. I want to thank the Ranking Member for her comments and 
acknowledge her efforts to redeem the promises to our veterans.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The VA/HUD Appropriations Committee will give every 
consideration to funding the completion of the Atlanta VA renovation 
project in the FY 2001 budget process.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Ranking Member and the Chairman for their 
leadership during these challenging times of budget constraints and the 
changing health care environment for caring for this Nation's veterans. 
Your support of the Atlanta VA Medical Center renovation is a visible 
reminder to our veterans that we do care and appreciate their 
sacrifices for this country.


                         VA cemetery in atlanta

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I want to thank the ranking member of the 
VA/HUD appropriations subcommittee for her diligence and dedication to 
the veterans of this country and for the hard work she and her staff 
have done this year. We are all aware of the sacrifices that our 
veterans have made to our Nation in times of war. Now, in time of peace 
we must not forget those sacrifices. Since 1980, I have been working to 
establish a new national cemetery in metropolitan Atlanta based on a 
documented need for such a facility.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator for his kind words of support. I am 
fully aware of the critical need for cemeteries to accommodate our 
veterans population. I am aware of the Senator from Georgia's dedicated 
efforts to construct a cemetery which dates back to his tenure as head 
of the Veterans Administration.
  Mr. CLELAND. The Senator from Maryland is correct. Georgia currently 
has two cemeteries, the Andersonville National Historic Cemetery and 
the Marietta National Cemetery. Unfortunately, the Marietta cemetery 
has been full since 1970. As the senator knows legislation which I 
sponsored, S. 695, passed the Senate. This legislation would authorize 
the VA Secretary to establish national cemeteries in Atlanta, Georgia; 
southwestern Pennsylvania; Miami, Florida; Detroit, Michigan; and 
Sacramento, California.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am certainly aware of my colleague's work on this 
important issue and applaud the Senator's efforts.
  Mr. CLELAND. Is it the understanding of the ranking member, that 
should funds be available in FY2000 to begin planning for a new round 
of national cemeteries that the authorized national cemetery in Atlanta 
will be included in the FY2000 budget?

[[Page S11412]]

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Certainly, should the funding be available, they could 
be used for future cemetery construction projects.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the ranking member for including such language 
endorsing the construction of a new national veterans cemetery in the 
Metropolitan Atlanta area. Again, I appreciate the help of the Senator 
from Maryland and the subcommittee on this issue, which is so vital to 
the veterans of Georgia.


                           minnesota projects

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the 
distinguished Ranking Member of the VA/HUD Appropriations Committee in 
a brief colloquy regarding two important projects which I believe 
deserve support.
  Mr. President, over the past years there has been an alarming 
increase in the need for adolescent treatment programs. The Mash-ka-
wisen facility in Sawyer, MN, has recognized this need and therefore 
proposes the construction of a culturally specific treatment program 
designed for adolescents. The presence of an eighteen-bed adolescent 
treatment center will serve American Indian adolescents from throughout 
the Bemidji Indian Health Service Area, which includes the states of 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. For the past twenty years, the 
existing center in Sawyer, MN, has served American Indians in need of 
alcohol and drug treatment with a culturally specific recovery program. 
As a result of their commitment, the Center has a national reputation, 
as well as one of the very highest treatment success rates in the 
nation. The Minnesota Indian Primary Regional Treatment Center has 
requested $2 million to fund the construction of their adolescent 
treatment facility.
  I also wish to call your attention to the request of $1.7 million by 
Northeast Ventures Corporation of Northern Minnesota. During the last 
15 years, Northeastern Minnesota has experienced severe economic 
losses. Since 1989, Northeast Ventures has provided capital support for 
micro enterprises in the region. In addition to the assistance that 
Northeast Ventures has provided, its not for profit affiliate, the 
Northeast Entrepreneur Fund, has been providing financial and technical 
support services to unemployed and underemployed men and women in 
Northeastern Minnesota. In reaction to the special economic needs of 
the Iron Range, a second not for profit affiliate, Iron Range Ventures, 
works specifically to provide investments in the Iron Range. Together 
these organizations have helped to provide the region with assistance 
that has led to gradual economic recovery and diversification. A HUD 
Special Purpose Grant will make it possible for this organization and 
its not for profit affiliates to provide additional support to existing 
and emerging businesses in the region. $850,000 will support the 
expanded and enhanced delivery of services and capital to small 
businesses and the remaining $850,000 will support increased investment 
in the Iron Range area of northeastern Minnesota.
  I am aware of the difficult financial constraints under which the VA/
HUD Appropriations Subcommittee worked this year, and I appreciate the 
Ranking Member's willingness to engage in a colloquy on these important 
projects. So I would simply ask my colleague from Maryland if she 
agrees with the importance of including these two projects in the VA/
HUD appropriations bill and is willing to work towards earmarking $2 
million for the Mash-ka-wisen treatment facility and $1.7 million for 
Northeast Ventures Corporation?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, 
for his continued vigorous support for these projects. First let me say 
that I appreciate his acknowledgment of the difficult funding 
constraints under which the committee was working this year. I agree 
with my colleague that these two projects will serve a valuable role in 
their communities, both Indian Country, and Northeastern Minnesota. For 
that reason, I will give the Minnesota Indian Primary Residential 
Treatment Center and the Northeast Ventures Corporation every 
consideration during the conference deliberations.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for her commitment to seek funding 
for these projects for the next year. I am grateful for her continued 
support and to know she will support these projects in the upcoming 
conference committee.


          Surface Acoustic Wave--Mercury Vapor Sensor Research

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I seek recognition today along with my 
colleague, Senator Collins, to draw to the Chairman's attention our 
request for funding within the budget for the Environmental Protection 
Agency to defray some of the costs of researching and developing an 
effective new technology for monitoring mercury vapor emissions.
  As we know, mercury is one of the most toxic substances in our 
environment and one of most common air pollutants and, unfortunately, 
remains largely unregulated, causing great neurologic damage if 
ingested by humans. This is why I have cosponsored a bill, S. 673, that 
will go a long way towards developing a much needed solution to the 
problem of mercury emissions in our environment.
  I am advised that researchers in Maine and in Maryland are teaming 
together to research and develop a new, environmentally beneficial 
technology for tracking mercury vapor emissions. I am hopeful that in 
Conference, the distinguished Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member, 
Senator Mikulski, will look again at the proposal and to consider 
designating it for funding within the appropriate budget account.
  Ms. COLLINS. I want to join my colleague, Senator Snowe, and 
reiterate my support for this important proposal. If funding is made 
available, the Sensor Research/University of Maryland team will examine 
mercury emissions from several combustion sources and will compare a 
new family of mercury vapor sensors to state-of-the-art continuous 
monitoring devices in order to determine the efficacy and fidelity of 
the newer technology. I understand that these new ``Surface Acoustic 
Wave'' senors offer the promise of low cost/extremely-high reliability 
monitoring that can better determine the origin of and transport 
mechanisms involving this family of pollutants.
  I thank the Chairman for his consideration of this proposal and ask 
that he and Senator Mikulski make this a top priority in Conference.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the work done by my colleagues from Maine 
on this mercury sensor proposal, which would utilize the tremendous 
research tools of the University of Maryland at College Park. While we 
are laboring under difficult budget constraints, I remain hopeful that 
we will be able to jumpstart this valuable scientific evaluation 
process. I look forward to working with Chairman Bond on this issue in 
Conference.
  Mr. BOND. I am grateful to my colleagues from Maine and to my good 
friend, Senator Mikulski, for their input on the Surface Acoustic Wave 
sensor proposal, which could be a real step forward in protecting our 
environment. I will be glad to continue working with my colleagues on 
identifying potential areas for funding as we proceed to Conference.


                     The Atlanta Watershed Project

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few remarks 
about the Regional Atlanta Watershed restoration program and, with the 
help of the Chairman of the VA HUD Appropriation Subcommittee, to 
clarify the use of EPA funds. It is my understanding that these funds 
can be made available for studies to address serious combined sewer 
overflow problems.
  Mr. BOND. The Senior Senator from Georgia is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. It is also my understanding that there are serious 
problems in the Atlanta Region with sewer and overflow facilities and 
that work is required as part of a $250 million complex settlement that 
the City of Atlanta negotiated with the Environmental Protection Agency 
and the Department of Justice due to unpermitted releases from Combined 
Sewer Overflow (CSO) facilities.
  It is my understanding that the Atlanta Region faces an aging 
infrastructure and rapid growth and that the City of Atlanta has 
committed $1 billion in local funds to go directly to the combined 
sewer system and other watershed restoration initiatives.
  It is my understanding as well that the House of Representatives has 
recommended that $1 million be appropriated for this project, and I ask 
that

[[Page S11413]]

the Chairman give every possible consideration to this amount during 
Conference considerations. Also, I would ask that fair and appropriate 
consideration be given to an even greater sum.
  Mr. BOND. I understand the difficulties the Atlanta Region faces due 
to an aging infrastructure and a rapidly growing population, and I 
commend Senator Coverdell's advocacy and commitment on its behalf.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Chairman for his consideration and look 
forward to working with him on this project.


                  SWIFT BUILDING IN MOULTRIE, GEORGIA

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today in hopes of engaging the 
Chairman, Senator Bond, and Ranking Member, Senator Mikulski in a 
colloquy regarding a project of extreme concern and importance to me, 
specifically the Swift Building in Moultrie, Georgia.
  Mr. BOND. I am glad to discuss this matter with Senator Cleland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I, too, welcome this discussion with my colleague.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank my distinguished colleagues. The Swift Building 
is located in Moultrie, Georgia, an area that faces a poverty rate well 
above the national average. I was horrified to see the current state of 
this building. the building is not only completely dilapidated and 
partially torn down, but also contains major friable asbestos 
contamination as well as traces of cadmium and celenium--all of which 
present serious health risks to the residents of the surrounding 
community. Senator Mikulski, you were kind enough to take the time to 
review this project with me. Would you agree that the Swift Building 
presents this community with a serious problem--one that needs and 
deserves immediate attention.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I strongly agree with my colleague. I was also startled 
by the graphic nature of the state of this building. Not only does this 
building present severe health concerns to local residents, but what 
makes this building even more disconcerting is the fact that it is 
located right beside U.S. highway 319, which, as I understand, is the 
main thoroughfare running directly into the center of Moultrie.
  Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is correct. The building with its major 
friable asbestos is not only located right along this major highway, 
but the exposure to this migratory hazard has been further exacerbated 
by the partial destruction of this building. As I mentioned earlier, 
the Swift Building is located in a severely economically depressed 
area, so without federal assistance the health and economic 
consequences it presents will remain unaddressed. As you know, the 
Administration has stated its strong opposition to the exclusion of 
funding for the Redevelopment of Abandoned Building Program. The 
purpose of this new program is to address the blight caused by 
abandoned apartment buildings, single family homes, warehouses, office 
buildings and commercial centers. I believe that the Swift Building 
provides an ideal example of the type of project well suited for this 
program. Although I was greatly disappointed that I was unable to have 
my amendment accepted to obtain this critical funding, I will be glad 
to withdraw my amendment if I can get the assurances of the Chairman 
and Ranking Member that if funding is provided for the Redevelopment of 
Abandoned Buildings during conference with the House, this project will 
be given high priority.
  Mr. BOND. I appreciate the Senator's cooperation and understand his 
concern about this project. Rest assured that when we reach conference 
with the House, we will give this project strong consideration for 
funding.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I also pledge to work to seek funding for this critical 
project during conference with the House.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the distinguished Chair and Ranking member for 
their time and assistance in this matter.


                            the swift plant

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise to request that the Chairman of 
the Senate Appropriation Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent 
Agencies help me to clarify the use of appropriated funds under the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is my understanding 
that certain discretionary funds are available for projects.
  Mr. BOND. The Senior Senator from Georgia is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. The Town of Moultrie, Georgia, founded in 1856, has 
served as an agricultural center for surrounding farms and related 
industry. Unlike many small towns, Moultrie has managed to avoid 
population losses, which is mostly attributable to its livable, high 
quality residential neighborhoods, historical county seat and active 
community development efforts. It is my understanding that Moultrie is 
seeking to promote revitalization and economic development that will 
raise the standard of living of town residents whose per capita income 
level is only 75% of the country's and 56% of the state's level.
  In doing so Moultrie faces two key economic development issues. 
First, is the need to revitalize its downtown to retain retail 
businesses and attract new retail businesses. Second is the need for 
attractive industrial and business sites to retain existing, as well as 
draw new businesses and industry.
  It is also my understanding that Moultrie's downtown economic 
development is stymied by an obsolescent industrial and commercial 
district located between the central historic Courthouse Square and the 
main entry to the town from Interstate 75. This is a brownfields 
district typical of smaller, older towns. It contains vacant and under-
utilized land and buildings along a railroad, and substandard housing 
interspersed within a grid of city streets. The most visible problem in 
the district is the former Swift Plant, once one of the largest pork 
processing plants in the south. Today its largest building is partially 
demolished and the site contains documented soil and groundwater 
contamination. The 250 acre brownfield district in which the Swift 
Plant is located, has other contaminated properties and yields little 
tax revenue. No new businesses have located within the district in many 
years, and many of the existing businesses are considering relocating 
due to the area's low level of development.
  It is my understanding that Moultrie has developed an economic 
redevelopment initiative to revitalize Moultrie's brownfields district 
and strengthen the city economy, and they have requested federal 
funding to proceed. Central to this plan is the complete demolition of 
the Swift Plant.
  Mr. Chairman, based on what criteria do you consider projects such as 
this?
  Mr. BOND. Strong community support, the creation of public/private 
partnerships and a financial commitment by the local entities are 
criteria that I believe illustrate a project's importance and 
vialbility.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Chairman for his assistance and look 
forward to working with him on this important matter.


                          state veterans homes

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership of Senator Bond 
and Senator Mikulski on this appropriations bill. I know that this has 
been a very difficult process, and I appreciate their efforts.
  I would like to bring to the attention of the United States Senate a 
situation that is of great concern to me: long-term care for our 
veterans. In my state of Utah, we have a nursing home that is owned and 
operated by the State of Utah. This nursing home was certified by the 
Department of Veterans' Affairs and received monthly per diem payments, 
which comprise nearly half of the nursing home's budget.
  Although the nursing home was certified in January, it did not see a 
single per diem payment from the Department of Veterans' Affairs until 
June. The payment for February and March also arrived in June; payment 
for April and May came in late June. The June payment was supposedly 
sent by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, but it still has not been 
received. Payment of per diem for July and August was received in 
September.
  I understand that other veterans homes around the country have 
similarly suffered from delayed and sporadic per diem payments.
  To me, this is a fairly clear picture that the administration of per 
diem payments needs to be improved. I cannot believe that each and 
every payment for nine months is being deliberately held up because the 
veterans home is guilty of some unnamed compliance problem. In fact, 
the VA itself has advised me that this is not the case at least with 
respect to the Utah veterans home.

[[Page S11414]]

  Let me be clear that I do not intend that deficient veterans homes 
are let off the hook. We expect accountability. I urge the VA not only 
to enforce applicable standards, but also to assist state veterans 
homes to meet these standards for care of our veterans.
  But, I hope that the VA will give attention to designing a better 
system of payments so that state veterans homes can more effectively 
manage their resources and, therefore, provide better and more 
consistent care for our veterans.
  Mr. BOND. I agree that the Department of Veterans Affairs should 
never put the State veterans homes in a fiscally vulnerable position 
and, therefore, possibly compromise the quality of care for our 
veterans. I have several veterans nursing homes in my State in 
Missouri, and I believe that they deserve prompt per diem payments.
  However, I also do not wish to hinder the VA from enforcing 
applicable standards for care in these state veterans homes. Does the 
Senator from Utah agree?
  Mr. HATCH. Absolutely. The VA should certify homes as it has always 
done. Homes that are seriously deficient should be decertified. 
Technical assistance should be offered to homes having difficulty.
  But, I would hope that proper quality control by the VA could be done 
in such a way so as not to unnecessarily disrupt the flow of payments 
to the home. Does the distinguished Senator from Missouri agree that a 
state veterans home cannot be effectively managed if the federal funds 
that are promised come in a haphazard manner?
  Mr. BOND. Yes, I do. I recognize that irregular payment or per diem 
can complicate the remediation of existing problems as well as possibly 
cause others. Does the Senator from Utah agree that the VA should have 
some leverage in order to get prompt action to correct deficiencies in 
patient care or safety?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes. I agree that withholding per diem can be an 
appropriate action if the VA has previously notified the state veterans 
home that there are specific problems. The homes should have an 
opportunity to correct those problems so as not to miss a scheduled 
payment.
  I also believe that if a state veterans home is recalcitrant in 
making improvements where necessary, either for substantive patient 
care or for administrative purposes, the VA should decertify the home. 
If violations are serious enough to withhold payments for a prolonged 
period of time, they are serious enough to warrant decertification.
  I hope, however, that my colleagues will agree that state veterans 
homes cannot be effectively managed if the federal government is so 
unreliable in making these per diem payments. In the absence of any 
substantive quality issues, state veterans homes should be able to 
expect prompt payment. It is a promise we have made, and it is 
necessary that we keep it to maintain consistent and high quality of 
care for our veterans. That, I believe, is the goal we all share.
  Mr. President, in deference to the members of the Senate Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, I will not offer my amendment to require the 
Veterans' Administration to pay the per diem it owes to fully certified 
state veterans homes.
  However, I want the record to show that this amendment is cosponsored 
by Senator Crapo, Senator Snowe, Senator Collins, and Senator Craig. It 
has the support of the National Association of State Veterans Homes and 
the American Legion.
  Mr. President, for too long, state veterans homes have been getting 
that age-old promise from the federal government that the check is in 
the mail.
  In my home state of Utah, the Utah State Veterans Nursing Home has 
experienced tremendous difficulties in receiving per diem payments from 
the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Utah veterans home was 
certified in January 1999. But it did not see a single payment from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs until June 1999--six months.
  Now, I ask my colleagues: what business can go without payment for 
six months without having to cut corners or stiff its own creditors? 
How are these veterans homes supposed to provide quality care if they 
do not know from month to month what their operating budget will be? 
How are they going to pay their personnel, their food service 
providers, linen services, and so on. How are they going to pay for 
routine repairs on the plant? The VA simply has to find a way to get 
these payments out on time.
  In Utah's situation, the per diem payment for April and May came in 
late June. The payment for June still has not been received. The July 
and August payments were received in September.
  Let me be clear about this point. The Department of Veterans Affairs 
was not withholding those funds because of quality of care or 
compliance problems in the Utah veterans' nursing home or because of 
the lack of funds.
  On the contrary, the VA was forthright in saying that the paperwork 
got lost on somebody's desk. Now, I can understand that, and I 
certainly want to say that I appreciate getting an honest explanation 
for this. I have lost things, and I am sure all Senators have lost 
things from time to time.
  My problem, however, is that this clearly was not a one-time 
occurrence. These late payments have become the rule not the exception, 
and the Utah veterans home has not been the only victim. I understand 
that veterans nursing homes all over the country have had to suffer 
these late per diem payments and that veterans homes in Oregon and 
Maine, for example, have had similar difficulties. As a veterans 
nursing home operator in Maine put it, ``It is something that we have 
learned to live with.''
  Mr. President, maintaining a quality nursing care facility is a 
difficult enough job as it is without the federal government imposing 
the additional burden of not getting the funds out to these state 
veterans homes on time.

  Our veterans homes should not have to ``learn to live with it.'' If 
the federal government has taken on this responsibility, then it needs 
to deliver. If the VA cannot fulfill this obligation under existing 
law, then it should report to the Veterans' Affairs Committees of the 
Senate and House and seek assistance to do so.
  These state veterans homes are simply too critical a component in our 
effort to care for America's elderly veterans. By giving these state 
veterans homes short shrift, we give our veterans short shrift. I know 
that this is not what the VA intends.
  It has been argued that the VA needs the authority to withhold per 
diem payments as leverage for corrective action taken by homes that may 
have compliance problems.
  Mr. President, I absolutely agree that the VA should enforce the 
applicable quality standards for these veterans homes. I modified my 
amendment to address this concern. Deficiencies that affect patient 
care and safety should be promptly corrected, and my amendment allows 
the VA to withhold per diem payments is such deficiencies have been 
identified and the home is notified about them in writing prior to the 
due date of the expected payment. This would provide the home the 
opportunity to act on the deficiencies so as not to miss a payment.
  Additionally, I believe that serious and ongoing deficiencies warrant 
decertification. No state veterans home that is not certified should 
receive payments.
  But, Mr. President, neither we here in the Senate, nor the VA, should 
forget that the effective management of these veterans facilities needs 
reliable funding. We cannot expect the best quality of care for our 
veterans if the state veterans home is receiving only sporadic per diem 
payments. The haphazard manner in which the VA has made per diem 
payments has itself become a cause for concern about quality in these 
homes.
  I trust that the VA, given the impetus of this amendment, will take 
steps to improve this payment process and get the per diem payments out 
on time.
  Moreover, I urge my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs' Committee to 
take a serious look at this issue.


                   upper midwest aerospace consortium

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, about four years ago I hosted NASA 
Director Dan Goldin at the University of North Dakota where he met with 
representatives from universities in Montana, North and South Dakota, 
Idaho and Wyoming. We felt it was important to meet with Mr. Goldin to 
explore ways in which NASA satellite data could be

[[Page S11415]]

helpful to the public in a region which has always seemed so far 
removed from the activities of NASA.
  Over the course of these four years, I believe NASA has been very 
impressed with the innovations of this group, called the Upper Midwest 
Aerospace Consortium. UMAC's primary focus has been to make NASA data 
useful to the public, particularly farmers, ranchers, resource 
managers, educators, and small businesses. For example, noxious weed 
detection through the NASA satellite data has had an astounding effect 
on eradicating and stemming the spread of noxious weeds on cattle 
rangelands; wheat farmers have planned their fertilizer applications to 
optimize their crop yields; and teachers and teacher-educators have 
prepared geographic information systems that bring modern spatial 
technologies to rural classrooms.
  All of these innovations and uses have been the result of three 
grants that UMAC has won competitively through NASA's peer review 
process. The organization has now proven its value in a region where 
NASA's presence had previously been nearly nonexistent. It has reached 
the juncture where it must achieve the stability that only a long-term 
commitment by NASA can ensure.
  Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Maryland and Ranking 
Minority Member of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee is well 
acquainted with the value of NASA's presence in her own state. Now we 
in the upper Midwest have developed the nucleus for NASA to create a 
center which would support and advance NASA activities in our region.
  The report accompanying this bill contains language urging NASA to 
consider creating a permanent center in the upper Midwest. While it is 
difficult to find funds in this bill for this purpose, I would urge the 
Senate to provide $1 million during conference on the bill toward the 
establishment of UMAC as a permanent entity to continue its work with 
NASA and the public.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from North Dakota is absolutely correct in 
his observation about the need for NASA to share the value of its data 
and its expertise with all Americans. The states represented in UMAC 
are the most distant from any existing NASA Center, so the idea of 
strengthening this organization for long-term service to this region is 
justified, and I pledge to work to achieve this goal during Conference.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the support of the Senator from Maryland for 
the Upper Great Plains Aerospace Consortium and I thank her for her 
comments.


                     tubman african american museum

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today in hopes of engaging the 
Ranking Member, Senator Mikulski, in a discussion about a project of 
great importance to me and the citizens of Macon, Georgia, specifically 
the Tubman African American Museum.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am glad to discuss this matter with my colleague.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the distinguished ranking Member. The Tubman 
African American Museum, located in Macon was founded in 1981. The 
Museum is dedicated to educating people about all aspects of African 
American art, history, and culture. In addition to its permanent and 
visiting art exhibits, the museum hosts concerts, plays, celebrity 
storytelling and frequent lectures by well-known authors. The benefits 
from these programs and others is not only to enhance the cultural 
opportunities for local residents, but also to showcase the 
significance of the social, cultural, and historical influence of 
African American culture on our society. I strongly support the Tubman 
African American Museum and believe that it strongly contributes to the 
education and understanding of both local citizens and visitors to the 
Macon area. This museum also has the strong support of the local 
community in Macon as well as prominent leaders in Georgia, including 
former Governor Zell Miller, Senator Sam Nunn, Macon's Mayor Jack Ellis 
and Macon's former Mayor Jim Marshall.
  The amendment that I have filed before the Senate would provide $2 
million for the purposes of relocating and expanding the Tubman African 
American Museum. The proposed new facility is estimated to cost $15 
million. The City of Macon and Bibb County have proven their commitment 
and support for this project by already providing $775,000 for the 
project's feasibility study and to purchase property in downtown Macon, 
the selected site for this project. Senator Mikulski, I recognize the 
budget constraints that you and Senator Bond are facing in trying to 
consider many valuable projects that deserve funding. With this 
recognition, I will be glad to withdraw my amendment. I simply ask that 
should additional funding become available during conference with the 
House, I would greatly appreciate this project be given strong 
consideration for funding.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank Senator Cleland for his cooperation and assure 
him that during conference with the House, this project will be given 
every consideration for funding.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the distinguished Ranking Member.


                             tubman museum

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support of 
the Tubman Museum in Macon, Georgia and, with the help of Chairman Bond 
of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, to clarify the use of 
Community Development Block Grants and the importance of projects such 
as the Tubman African Museum to create an economic development 
opportunity as well as to commemorate an important historical figure 
such as Harriet Tubman.
  It is my understanding that Community Development Block Grants can be 
made available to projects that create jobs, fill community needs, 
eliminate physical or economic distress. Is this correct, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. BOND. The Senior Senator from Georgia is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. It is my understanding that the Tubman African 
American Museum fulfills all of the criteria requirements for such 
grants and have supplied the Chairman with supporting evidence of the 
museum's qualifications.
  Mr. BOND. That is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Today, the Tubman Museum is Georgia's largest African 
American museum and one of Macon's top downtown tourist attractions. In 
just five years, the museum's visitors have increased from less than 
5,000 in 1992 to over 65,000 in 1997.
  It is my understanding that the requested $5.2 million would go 
towards the development of a new museum facility in Macon, Georgia to 
meet the expansion needs and the cultural, educational, social and 
economic needs of the City of Macon.
  It is also my understanding that the Tubman Museum may become a 
Conference issue, and I ask every possible consideration be given to 
the request.
  Mr. BOND. I appreciate Senator Coverdell's dedication and efforts on 
behalf of the Tubman African American Museum and look forward to 
working with him on this project.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Chairman for his consideration and for his 
hard work on the committee.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I introduced an amendment to the 
Fiscal Year 2000 VA-HUD Appropriations bill that would have provided 
the Department of Veterans Affairs with a new flow of non-appropriated 
revenues, thereby benefiting all American veterans who rely on the 
agency's services. This legislation would improve the VA's ability to 
collect insurance costs from third-party providers. Currently, the VA 
collects only about one-third of the money it is owed by private 
insurers through its Medical Care Cost Recovery (MCCR) program. The 
Independent Budget prepared by AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, 
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars explicitly 
calls for Congress to give VA the authority to privatize MCCR. My 
legislation would require the VA to privately contract for these 
collections for a period of three years, during which the VA would 
develop an internal process to improve medical cost recovery.
  Unfortunately, I could not obtain the concurrence of the Chairmen of 
the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee or the Veterans Affairs 
Committee to attach my amendment to this bill. Nonetheless, I will 
continue to fight for this proposal, as I believe it is a potential 
source of considerable revenue for the chronically underfunded VA. 
Senate Veterans Affairs

[[Page S11416]]

Committee Chairman Specter has told me that this is an important 
amendment, and that his committee would give full consideration to my 
free-standing legislation on VA medical cost collection. I look forward 
to working with him, our veterans service organizations, and other 
Members of Congress to require the VA to improve its ineffective and 
delinquent medical cost collection program. Doing so should help us 
move the VA budget closer to the $20 billion target identified by those 
who speak for America's veterans as necessary for sustaining our 
commitment as a nation to care for those who have honorably served her 
in uniform.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank both Senator Bond 
and Senator Mikulski for their hard work on this important legislation 
which provides federal funding for the Departments of Veterans Affairs 
(VA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Independent Agencies. 
However, once again, I find myself in the unpleasant position of 
speaking before my colleagues about unacceptable levels of parochial 
projects in this appropriations bill. Although the total level of pork-
barrel spending in this bill is down from last year's total of $607 
million, this bill still contains nearly $470 million in wasteful, pork 
barrel spending. This is an unacceptable amount of low priority, 
unrequested, wasteful spending.
  The total value of specific earmarks in the Veterans Affairs section 
of this bill is about $80 million, $30 million more than last year.
  Let me review some examples of items included in the bill. An 
especially troublesome expense, neither budgeted for nor requested by 
the Administration for the past eight years, is a provision that 
directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to continue the eight-year-
old demonstration project involving the Clarksburg, West Virginia VAMC 
and the Ruby Memorial Hospital at West Virginia University. Two years 
ago, the VA-HUD appropriations bill contained a plus-up of $2 million 
to the Clarksburg VAMC that ended up on the Administration's line-item 
veto list and that the Administration had concluded was truly wasteful.
  Like the transportation and military construction bills, the VA 
appropriations funding bill is a convenient vehicle to add building 
projects to the President's budget request. For example, the bill adds 
$10 million in funding for a new National Cemetery in Oklahoma City/
Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Although this is a worthy cause, I wonder how many 
other national cemetery projects in other States were passed over to 
ensure that Oklahoma's cemetery received the VA's highest priority. 
Another project added to the bill was $3.9 million to convert 
unfinished space into research laboratories at the ambulatory care 
addition of the Harry S. Truman VAMC in Columbia, Missouri.
  In the area of critical VA grant funding, again, certain projects in 
key members' states received priority billing, including $50 million 
added and made available to replace the boiler plant and construct a 
dietary facility at the Southeastern Veterans Center/Pennsylvania State 
Veterans Home in Spring City, Pennsylvania. Both projects were rejected 
by the Department of Veterans Affairs as wasteful spending of taxpayers 
dollars. Furthermore, the Department told the Committee that the 
responsibility for maintenance, repair, and replacement of boiler power 
plants is the responsibility of the State of Pennsylvania.
  Grant money totaling $14 million is added and made available for 
cemeteries in Bloomfield and Jacksonville, Missouri. Again, I am sure 
that these are two worthwhile cemetery projects, but they push aside 
higher priority cemetery grants, including one in my State of Arizona.
  Earmarks aside--there are many good things about this bill.
  Over the past four years, veterans' health care funding has been 
virtually flat. This funding level has occurred as our veterans 
population is aging and in need of greater long-term health care that 
is often more expensive. Earlier this year, several key veterans 
organizations (the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, Paralyzed 
Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars) reported in the 
``Independent Budget'' that President Clinton's budget is $3 billion 
less than is necessary to maintain current health care services to our 
nation's veterans. Furthermore, the American Legion has also been 
proactive with veterans nationwide and in discussions with me regarding 
the severe inadequacies in veterans health care.
  I was proud when the Senate passed legislation that Senator Wellstone 
and I sponsored earlier this year to add $3 billion in budget authority 
for veterans health care and I felt that we had the commitment of the 
Senate, with a solid vote of 99-0.
  Last week, I wrote to the Chairmen of the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations and VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee to ask that they 
increase critical veterans health care funding that is not contained in 
the President's budget. Unfortunately, the bill as reported only 
included $1.1 billion.
  When the bill was brought to the Senate, I sponsored legislation with 
Senator Byrd that added $600 million and another critical amendment by 
Senator Wellstone that added an additional $1.3 billion to veterans 
health care. Unfortunately, the latter failed to pass. Although Senator 
Byrd's amendment designates additional veterans funding under an 
emergency designation of the Balanced Budget Act, I agree with Chairman 
Stevens' statement that we should find the additional $600 million in 
funding from other than emergency designation. Such funding will prove 
instrumental to ensuring that quality health care is delivered in a 
timely manner in our nation's VA medical care facilities and preventing 
the continued curtailment of essential veterans programs and services.
  As I travel across the country, I am overwhelmed by the concerns of 
veterans regarding the poor health care situation in VA facilities. I 
am happy with the support and leadership that Senator Bond has provided 
in supporting a $1.7 billion plus-up to President Clinton's veterans 
budget and commend him on his efforts. But more remains to be done. And 
I pledge to do everything in my power to correct this injustice in 
veterans health care funding in the future.
  This bill also contains the funding for the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD) which is responsible for many programs vital in 
meeting the housing needs of our nation and for the revitalization and 
development of our communities. The programs administered by HUD help 
our nation's families purchase their homes, assists many low-income 
families obtain affordable housing, combats discrimination in the 
housing market, assists in rehabilitating neighborhoods and helps our 
nation's most vulnerable--the elderly, disabled and disadvantaged have 
access to safe and affordable housing.

  While many of the programs funded in this portion of the bill are 
laudable, I am deeply concerned about the number of earmarks in this 
section of the bill. I will highlight just a few of the more egregious 
violations of the budgetary review process. These include:
  Six pages of earmarks dictating how a large portion of the Community 
Development Block Grant money must be allocated. This is inappropriate 
and a direct violation of the appropriate budgetary process. More 
importantly, it diverts critical funds from many communities which need 
the funding for local development programs but are excluded from the 
funds because of these egregious earmarks.
  For example:
  $1.7 million is earmarked for the Sheldon Jackson College Auditorium 
in Sitka, AK for refurbishing.
  $1 million is set aside for the construction of a fire station 
project in Logan, UT.
  $1.2 million of CDBG funds are earmarked for renovating a gateway to 
historic downtown Madison, MS.
  $1.75 million for the University of Nevada in Reno, NV for the 
Structures Laboratory.
  $1.25 million for the revitalization of the Route 1 corridor.
  $3.5 million for the University of Alaska Fairbanks Museum.
  These are a few of the many earmarks in housing which put aside money 
for specific projects and bypass the open, competitive process of 
selecting the most urgent and worthy projects, thereby limiting the 
funds available to communities around the country who are not fortunate 
enough to reside in a community with a Senator on the Appropriations 
Committee.

[[Page S11417]]

In total, $93.2 million of the $4.8 billion for CDBG is earmarked for 
projects selected for special set-asides.
  Contained in both the bill and the Senate report is an exemption for 
Alaska and Mississippi from the requirement to have a public housing 
resident serving on the board of directors of PHAs for FY 2000.
  Also contained in the bill is a provision preventing Peggy A. Burgin 
from being disqualified on the basis of age from residing at Clark's 
Landing in Groton, VT. While I do not know the specifics of this 
situation, I do know that providing relief to a specific individual is 
no more appropriate than providing funding for a specific project or 
entity.
  This bill also funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which 
provides critical resources to help state, local and tribal communities 
enhance capacity and infrastructure to better address their 
environmental needs. Protection of the environment is among our highest 
responsibilities. I strongly support directing more resources to 
communities that are most in need and facing serious public health and 
safety threats from environmental problems. Unfortunately, after a 
close review of this year's Senate bill and report for EPA programs, I 
find it difficult to believe that we are responding to the most urgent 
and pressing environmental issues. Instead, I am disturbed by the 
continuing trend to focus spending on more parochial interests rather 
than on environmental priorities. In this year's bill and report, I 
found nearly $207 million in unrequested, locality-specific, and low-
priority earmarks.
  There are many environmental needs in communities back in my home 
state of Arizona but these communities will be denied funding as long 
we continue to tolerate egregious earmarking that circumvents a regular 
merit-review process. For example, earmarks are directed in the amount 
of $750,000 for painting and coating compliance enhancement project at 
the Iowa Waste Reduction Center and an extra $200,000 for the 
University of Missouri-Rolla to work with the Army to validate soysmoke 
as a replacement for petroleum fog oil in obscurant smoke used in 
battlefield exercises. While these projects may be important, there is 
no explanation provided as to why the Administration did not prioritize 
them as part of its budget or why these projects rank higher than other 
environmental priorities.
  The subcommittee also saw fit to provide $400,000 for a Sound Program 
Office in Long Island, New York. While this project may have merit, I 
cannot understand why we should spend almost half a million dollars on 
a project which does not appear to be related to an environmental 
issue.
  Furthermore, this bill directs more funding toward universities for 
research or consortia rather than directing resources to local 
communities for environmental protection. For independent agencies such 
as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), this bill 
also includes earmarks of money for locality-specific projects such as 
$3 million for a hands-on science center in Huntsville, Alabama, and 
$14 million for infrastructure needs of the Life Sciences building at 
the University of Missouri-Columbia. For the National Science 
Foundation (NSF), there is $10 million added for the Plant Genome 
Research Program.
  The examples of wasteful spending that I have highlighted are only a 
few of the examples of earmarks and special projects contained in this 
measure. There are many more low-priority, wasteful, and unnecessary 
projects on the extensive list I have compiled. The full list is on my 
website.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to develop a better standard to curb 
our habit of directing hard-earned taxpayer dollars to locality-
specific special interests so that instead, we can serve the national 
interest.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Builders 
Program. Community Builders are providing an important customer 
service, and have been a key component of HUD's outreach efforts in 
rural states like North Dakota. As Mayor Carroll Erickson of Minot 
said: ``Through the Community Builders, HUD has become more accessible 
to communities such as Minot and to rural states like North Dakota. 
This program is very effective and it should be retained.'' Or, as 
Grand Forks Mayor Pat Owens said: ``HUD's increased outreach and 
consultation with non-traditional smaller communities is absolutely the 
right direction.''
  Mr. President, the Community Builders program was part of HUD's 
successful reorganization effort. Community Builders in North Dakota 
provide technical assistance that is absolutely vital to rural 
communities. Those who have used the program have praised it as an 
example of government's ability to provide helpful, efficient customer 
service.
  It would be a shame, Mr. President, for this successful program to be 
terminated even as it is starting to yield results. I urge the 
conferees to strongly support this program. I urge them to enable HUD's 
Community Builders to continue their important work of serving 
America's rural and urban communities.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'd like to take just a few moments to 
express my concern about the funding of the Round II Empowerment Zones. 
I recognize how difficult your job is to balance all the priorities 
within the VA-HUD appropriations bill, but I want to make the managers 
of this legislation aware of how important Empowerment Zones are to 
communities nationwide. While I will continue to seek a bill that will 
enact full funding of the Round II Empowerment Zones, we need to make 
sure there are adequate funds to continue the economic revitalization 
efforts this year.
  Quite simply, the Round II Empowerment Zones and Enterprise 
Communities represent a commitment made by the Congress in the 1997 
Taxpayer Relief Act which approved a second round of competition for 20 
new empowerment zone designations. Congress did not follow through with 
the grant money that complement the tax incentives that have already 
been approved. Without this funding, they will fall short of their 
goals, particularly in their ability to leverage funds.
  The Empowerment Zone program is of special importance to me because 
of my support of the efforts of Virginia's Norfolk-Portsmouth 
Empowerment Zone. Norfolk-Portsmouth took the first step to reclaim 
their community when they won an Enterprise Community designation 
during Round I competition. When Congress approved the Round II 
competition two years ago, Norfolk-Portsmouth won an ``upgrade'' to 
full Empowerment Zone status. This means that Norfolk-Portsmouth has 
more resources to leverage millions in public and private sector 
investments. Continued funding means a more well-prepared workforce to 
complement the tax credits already approved to attract employers. And 
that's just scratching the surface of Norfolk-Portsmouth's potential. 
From May 1995 to June 1999, 60 percent of those completing training are 
employed, with another 16 percent involved in additional training. 
Other cities have shown results just as impressive within its first 
year: for example, in the Columbus Empowerment Zone in Ohio, they have 
so far created or retained 700 jobs in a zone that had a poverty rate 
of about 46 percent. Working with over 15 businesses in Columbus, they 
have already secured about $700 million in private sector commitments.
  This type of investment in Norfolk-Portsmouth and other cities is an 
example of public-private partnerships at their very finest. 
Empowerment Zones work because people in the community--local 
government, the private sector and civic organizations work together to 
create a vision for their community and a strategic plan to achieve it. 
This kind of collaboration, designed and created for the people of the 
community by the people of the community, use public, private and non-
profit funds to create economic and community revitalization.
  Without question, our nation is experiencing good economic times. But 
if we are to include those who are striving mightily to also 
participate in our economic prosperity, the time to do so is now. One 
way we can do this is by supporting the work of the Round II designees.

[[Page S11418]]

  With some additional appropriation in the VA-HUD bill, the Round II 
designees will have just enough to continue the work they're doing. The 
Administration is fully behind this effort and I understand they will 
be working on this issue with the Chair and Ranking Member.
  I hope the money allotted to Round II Empowerment Zones in the 
Housing and Urban Development budget and approved by the President will 
be restored.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have several concerns about provisions 
in the pending bill, especially the failure to provide any housing 
vouchers and the termination of the community builders program.
  We are all aware of the critical need for housing vouchers for low 
income families. Our nation is experiencing tremendous economic growth 
and expansion, with record low unemployment. Yet it is clear that for 
many families the cost of housing is still out of control.
  In Boston, housing affordability is a problem for many families, and 
it is becoming a problem for businesses as well in their efforts to 
attract and retain employees.
  The Clinton Administration has requested 100,000 new housing vouchers 
in this bill. Such vouchers will not solve the housing crisis, but for 
the families helped, this will go a long way toward stabilizing their 
families and helping them to lift themselves out of poverty to economic 
self-sufficiency. Yet this bill provides not one new voucher.
  We are all aware of the budget constraints under which we are 
operating. Yet it is unacceptable not to find any resources to address 
this unmet need.
  Another issue that deserves higher priority is the Community Builders 
program, which is an important element in making HUD a better, more 
effective, more customer-responsive agency.
  The Community Builders program has helped improve the way HUD works 
and interacts with its customers and clients, the American people.
  These Community Builders are people with impressive experience in the 
housing and community development world. Their expertise helps HUD to 
meet the needs of communities throughout our nation.
  Now, however, after these Community Builders have been hired, and in 
many instances, relocated in order to serve the communities in which 
they are most needed, the pending bill proposes to eliminate funding 
for the program. This step would be a serious waste of the investment 
that has been made in hiring these qualified and talented men and women 
who are willing to share their expertise to improve the way HUD serves 
the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to address both of these issues as the 
conference committee works to reconcile the House and Senate bills. At 
a time when Secretary Cuomo has taken such significant steps to improve 
the management of the agency, we should not undermine programs which 
are meeting important needs and improving the way HUD serves the 
American people.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to address 
an issue of critical importance for the people of my State of Georgia 
and the Nation. It is a matter of personal relevance to me. The issue 
is our treatment of our nation's veterans and particularly their health 
care.
  Upon returning from Vietnam after sustaining my injuries, I was 
introduced to the VA system, where I received quality care from a VA 
hospital. It was then that my awareness of veterans and veterans issues 
took hold. Since then, not only have I been a patient, but I also had 
the honor of serving as the Administrator of the Veterans 
Administration during the Carter Administration.
  This year has seen a welcome and overdue increase in attention to the 
plight of our nation's veterans. I salute the Chairmen and Ranking 
Members of the Appropriations Committee and the VA/HUD Subcommittee for 
their successful efforts to increase funding in this bill for veterans 
health care, and I regret that the Senator from Minnesota's attempts to 
provide an even more adequate boost in such funding were not approved.
  I am particularly proud that earlier this year the Senate passed my 
legislation to establish new national cemeteries not only in Metro 
Atlanta, but also in Pennsylvania, Florida, California, and Michigan--
the areas with the greatest documented need for such facilities. While 
I understand the difficult budgetary constraints which confronted the 
VA/HUD Subcommittee, I believe it is unfortunate that no funding or 
report language consistent with the authorizing legislation for new 
national cemeteries has been included. I have an amendment which would 
seek to correct this shortcoming, at least with respect to the Metro 
Atlanta cemetery.
  I also introduced the Federal Civilian and Uniformed Services Long-
Term Care Insurance Act of 1999. This legislation would provide the 
opportunity for Federal employees, as well as current and retired 
members of the uniformed services, to obtain long-term care insurance 
to assist them with nursing home or other long-term care. Working 
closely with the distinguished Ranking Member of the VA/HUD 
Subcommittee as well as a number of other Senators from both sides of 
the aisle, we are close to having a consensus bill which I hope will 
receive favorable Senate action in this Congress.
  This year has also seen the passage of H.R. 1568, the Veterans 
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act. Included in the 
bill is language from S. 918, the Military Reservists Small Business 
Relief Act, which I co-sponsored. The bill provides financial and 
technical assistance to veteran-owned small businesses through the 
Small Business Administration (SBA). It also offers assistance to 
businesses owned by reservists during and following times of military 
conflict. America's reservists and veterans supported our nation, and 
it is now time for our nation to demonstrate its commitment to them and 
their small businesses.
  We are here today, Mr. President, to debate and approve the VA/HUD 
appropriations budget for fiscal year 2000. It is with a renewed sense 
of hope that I will support this legislation, which will represent the 
first real increase for veterans programs after a five year flat-lined 
budget. The House has already supported the $1.7 billion increase for 
the VA, and with the Senate's earlier action on this bill, we are now 
in agreement with the House position.

  The VA estimates that there are 25.6 million veterans in America. Our 
nation is proud to count within its population 3,400 World War I 
veterans, 5,940,000 World War II veterans, 4,064,000 Korean War 
veterans, 8,113,000 Vietnam War veterans, and 2,223,000 Gulf War 
veterans. My home state of Georgia has a veterans population of 
667,128.
  Department of Veterans Affairs facilities have grown over the years 
from 50 hospitals in 1930 to today's 171 medical centers, 350 
outpatient, community, and outreach clinics and 126 nursing home care 
units.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs has undergone many changes in 
recent years. I appreciate the general direction in which this agency 
is moving to answer the challenges of the new millennium. 
Unfortunately, these changes, exacerbated by under funding, have too 
frequently disrupted the service systems for our veterans. The VA has 
found cost savings and efficiencies in outpatient care, a departure 
from the long-term hospital care of the past. This shift allows the VA 
to reach beyond the normal geographic locations through Telemedicine 
and Telepharmacy to Medicare subvention. I support these proposals to 
move the VA beyond the large hospitals to more rural and small markets 
to provide access to all veterans.
  Despite these new directions, there is still more to be done. As I 
stated, this is the first significant increase in the VA budget in five 
years. The department is seeing a rise in veterans seeking treatment 
because of the recently enacted VA enrollment plan and the aging of our 
veterans population. The VA estimates an increase in total patients to 
3.6 million in 2000, up from 2.7 million in 1997. However, with this 
growing patient load, the VA is currently estimating a reduction in VA 
employment of up to 8,000 employees in the medical system alone. This 
fact was recently brought home to me by announcements of serious 
potential reductions in force at the VA in Augusta if the VA budget is 
not boosted.
  As President Coolidge was quoted as saying, ``The nation which 
forgets its

[[Page S11419]]

defenders will be itself forgotten.'' Simply put, our veterans 
community--who won the two great World Wars of this Century, vanquished 
Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevich, and served honorably and well 
in Korea and Vietnam--needs our support. Our former service members 
should not only be the first in our hearts, but the first in our 
priorities when it comes to keeping the promises of the nation. They 
kept their commitment to us, let us fulfill our promise to them. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no further amendments, the 
question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third reading of 
the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The bill (H.R. 2684), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the Senate insist on its 
amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes 
of the two Houses thereon, and the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Bunning) appointed Mr. Bond, Mr. Burns, 
Mr. Shelby, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Stevens, Ms. 
Mikulski, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Byrd and Mr. 
Inouye conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before we leave the floor, I commend the 
chairman of the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee, Mr. Bond, who put a 
lot of effort into getting this legislation ready to consider on the 
floor, and, as always, the very cooperative spirit and dedication of 
the ranking member, Senator Mikulski from Maryland. The two of them 
make a great team. They were able to move a very large bill with a lot 
of issues that could have been very difficult to deal with. I commend 
them.
  Also, I thank the chairman of the full committee whom we have to call 
the ultimate player. He is chair of the full committee, chairman of the 
Defense Subcommittee, and he fills in on the VA-HUD subcommittee. I am 
sure he is watching the agriculture conference, the energy and water 
conference. A person has to be dexterous to be chairman of the 
committee. I commend Senator Stevens for his willingness to do all of 
that and to be here to help wrap up this bill.
  I thank the committee for their efforts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, would like to express my very 
deep appreciation to the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Stevens, as well as the ranking member, Senator Byrd. On two 
occasions their direct intervention enabled us to move this bill, first 
to add the $7 billion, where we were below last year's funding. We were 
very appreciative because without that we could not have moved this or 
else we would have been in gimmicks and a variety of other things. 
Also, Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd gave us the opportunity to add 
$600 million in veterans funding. Therefore no facility will be closed. 
We will be able to meet the needs of our veterans.
  So I thank the Senator from Alaska as well as the Senator from West 
Virginia, Mr. Byrd, for helping us to move this bill. I also express my 
appreciation to Senator Bond for all his help in moving this bill, the 
consultation with the minority party, the collegial relationships, and 
essentially being able to meet the needs of the American people.
  I thank Senator Bond's staff, Jon Kamarck, Carrie Apostolou, Cheh 
Kim, and Joe Norrell for all their hard work on this bill, and a 
special thanks to my own staff, Paul Carliner, Sean Smith, and Jeannine 
Schroeder.
  I am proud of the bill we passed today because I believe it takes 
care of national interests and national needs. I also believe that this 
bill provides a solid bridge between the old century and the new 
century. In the old century, we saw the ravages of war and the ravages 
of the environment.
  Now we are ready to complete our move from the industrial age to the 
information age, and the programs this bill funds will allow us to do 
that.
  This bill provides an opportunity structure for home ownership and 
wider opportunities for educational advancement. In addition, it will 
allow us to stay the course in technology. Our mission is to honor the 
old century, but move swiftly into the new one.
  The VA-HUD bill is about: meeting our obligations to our veterans, 
serving our core constituencies, creating real opportunity for people, 
and advancing science and technology.
  Perhaps the most important is the need to ensure that we keep the 
promises we made to our veterans. The bill we passed today provides $19 
billion in funding for veterans health care, and the Byrd-Bond-
Mikulski-Stevens amendment provided $600 million in additional funding, 
an increase of $1.7 billion over the President's request. In addition, 
I am pleased that we were able to maintain funding for VA medical 
research at $316 million.
  The VA plays a very important role in medical research for the 
special needs of our veterans, such as geriatrics, Alzheimers, 
Parkinson's and orthopedic research. The entire nation benefits from VA 
medical research--particularly as our population continues to age.
  We also provide full funding to treat Hepatitis C, which is a growing 
problem among the veterans population, particularly for our Vietnam 
Veterans. This bill funds the State Veterans Homes at $90 million. The 
State Homes serve as our long-term care and rehabilitation facilities 
for our veterans. I am also pleased that the bill includes important 
language related to the Ft. Howard VA medical center that will ensure 
quality care during its transition to a mixed-use facility.
  We have also made sure that we take care of our working families by 
funding housing programs that millions depend upon. The bill that we 
brought to the floor yesterday provides $10.8 billion to renew all 
existing section 8 housing vouchers. That means those who have vouchers 
will continue to receive them. I hope that should additional funding 
become available, we will be able to provide additional vouchers. I am 
pleased that we also maintained level funding for other critical core 
HUD programs.
  Funding for housing for the elderly and the disabled has been 
increased by $50 million over last year, with additional funding for 
assisted living and service coordinators within the section 202 
program. Homeless assistance grants are funded at the President's 
request.
  In addition, we have funded drug elimination grants and Youthbuild at 
last year's level, and the Community Development Block Grant Program is 
funded at $4.8 billion.
  I'm pleased that we were able to provide funds for several projects 
in my home state: $750,000 for the Patterson Park Community Development 
Corporation to establish a revolving fund to acquire and rehabilitate 
properties in East Baltimore; $1,250,000 for the University of 
Maryland--Eastern Shore for the development of a Coastal Ecology 
Teaching and Research Center; $1,250,000 for Prince Georges County for 
the revitalization of the Route 1 corridor. In addition, I have 
included report language that directs HUD to continue its efforts to 
bridge the information technology gap in communities through its 
``Neighborhood Networks Initiative.''
  The Neighborhood Networks Initiative brings computers and internet 
access to HUD assisted housing projects in low income communities. This 
will help us to ensure that every American has the ability to cross 
what Bill Gates has called the ``digital divide.'' I have seen the 
results of the Neighborhood Networks Initiative firsthand in Baltimore, 
and I look forward to seeing it in many other communities across the 
country.

  With regard to NASA funding, I was extremely troubled by the House 
version of the bill. The House bill included devastating funding cuts 
to America's space agency, including the

[[Page S11420]]

Goddard Space Flight Center and Wallops Flight Facility. The House bill 
cuts 2,000 jobs at Goddard and Wallops. The Senate bill we pass today 
will save 2,000 jobs at Goddard and Wallops. I fought hard to restore 
funding for NASA, and I am truly pleased that this bill will save those 
jobs. NASA is fully funded in this bill, at $13.5 billion, the same as 
the President's request. Funding for the space shuttle, space station, 
and critical science programs are funded at the President's request.
  National Service is funded at $423 million, a slight reduction from 
last year. I continue to hope that this funding can be increased as we 
move toward conference. National Service has enrolled over 100,000 
members and participants across the country in a wide array of 
community service programs, including: AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve 
America, and the National Senior Service Corps.
  With regard to the EPA, the Subcommittee has provided $7.3 billion in 
total funding. The Subcommittee increased funding for EPA's core 
environmental programs: $825 million for the drinking water state 
revolving fund, and $1.3 billion for the clean water revolving fund, 
including $5 million for sewer upgrades in Cambridge and Salisbury, 
Maryland.
  Taking care of local communities infrastructure needs has always been 
a priority for me and this committee. We also provided $250,000 for a 
Kempton Mine remediation project. Superfund is funded at $1.4 billion, 
down slightly from last year.
  I'm especially pleased that we were able to support the President's 
full request for the Chesapeake Bay Program Office--over $18 million--
for FY 2000. The Chesapeake Bay Program Office is a leader in efforts 
to restore the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem for future generations. We also 
increased funding for the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Program that 
helps our small communities and prevents runoff and pollution.
  FEMA has $1 billion in the disaster relief fund. The bill we pass 
today adds $300 million to the disaster relief fund. This will help 
people in the Eastern United States who are still dealing with the 
horrible aftermath of Hurricane Floyd. That is why I'm glad that this 
bill was passed, and that FEMA will continue to be able to help those 
who are affected by natural disasters. We will await any further 
Administration request for disaster assistance in light of Hurricane 
Floyd.
  The National Science Foundation is funded at $3.9 billion, which is 
$250 million more than fiscal year 1999. This funding level will allow 
us to make critical investments in science and technology into the next 
century. The funding increase for NSF is an important step for 
maintaining our science and technology base.
  Mr. President, I recognize that there may have been certain 
provisions in this bill that members may have disagreed with or 
opposed. I acknowledge their concerns. But I am very pleased that we 
worked together to pass this bill today, and I hope we can resolve any 
outstanding differences as this process continues. I believe the VA/HUD 
bill is good for Maryland, good for America, and good for the American 
people who rely on the programs it funds.
  I thank Senator Bond and my colleagues once again for their support 
for this bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia. Does he seek the floor?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, no Senator in this body exceeds the Senator 
from West Virginia in his appreciation of the work that the Senator 
from Alaska does as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He is an 
outstanding chairman. I am proud to serve with him. He always works 
with me in these matters concerning allocations, and I cannot find the 
words to adequately praise him. He is doing an excellent job. No 
Senator in this body, including the Senator speaking, could ever be a 
better chairman of that committee than Senator Stevens.
  I served with a lot of chairmen of that committee over the years, but 
it is a two-way street. It is a team effort. This Senator contends it 
will always be that, whether I am ranking member or whether I am the 
chairman. I try to give my full cooperation to Senator Stevens. We have 
never had a difference on the committee, not when I was chairman--he 
was not the ranking member at that time, but he has done an excellent 
job. He has seen the need to increase the amount of moneys for 
veterans' health care, and upon several occasions I have talked with 
him about the need to increase the amount. I took the lead, inside the 
committee, in increasing that amount by $1.1 billion. He fully 
supported me. It is the chairman, in the main, who decides how much 
money will be allocated to the various subcommittees. But I believe it 
is my job as ranking member to work with him. If I have any 
differences, I let him know, but I have never had any differences with 
Senator Stevens.
  So I wanted to add my compliments concerning the distinguished 
Senator. I also want to compliment Senator Bond, again, the chairman of 
the VA subcommittee, for the excellent work he has done on that 
subcommittee. I compliment the ranking member, Senator Mikulski, for 
the work she does. When she was chairman of that subcommittee, she was 
one of the best subcommittee chairmen--I don't say chairperson--she was 
one of the best chairmen that we had of any subcommittee.
  I did not want this day to pass without this lowly ranking member 
having an opportunity to say some good words about the people who are 
entitled to commendation. It doesn't make any difference to me whether 
they are Republicans or Democrats. If they are entitled to 
commendation, I give it to them.
  So I applaud you, Mr. Chairman, not only for doing a good job but for 
being the fair and considerate Senator that you are, and also a fair 
and considerate chairman as well. Again, I have to say some good words 
about Senator Bond, Senator Mikulski. They could not be better. They 
could not be more fair. They could not be more considerate.
  They are hamstrung, as you are, Mr. Chairman, by the fact that we do 
not have enough money. I am for raising the caps. I am for telling the 
American people the truth. We need more money. Let's raise those caps. 
I am not a bit backwards about saying I support raising the caps. We 
have to meet the people's needs. I hope we will get around to that. I 
think we are going to have to do that before it is over.
  I thank Senators for their patience for listening, but I wanted to 
get in my two cents' worth of commendations also.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am sure Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond appreciate 
those kind words from the Senator from West Virginia as much as I do. I 
do thank the Senator for his cooperation and willingness to work with 
me as chairman of this committee. It is a distinct honor to follow him 
as chairman.
  We should mention, on our side, the help of Paul Carliner, Jeannine 
Schroeder, and Sean Smith, who worked with Senator Mikulski. This has 
been a very fine working team. Senator Bond, Senator Mikulski, and the 
team of both the majority and minority have worked very hard to meet 
the needs of the agencies and the American people under this bill, 
under some very difficult circumstances in regard to ceilings and 
limits under which they had to live. I, again, emphasize the Budget 
Committee has filed a statement saying this bill is within the budget.

                          ____________________