[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 86 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6225-S6243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could turn to the military construction 
appropriations conference report, that is a very good bill that passed 
way back in May, I think it was May 18. This important military 
construction conference report passed the Senate under the leadership 
of Senator Conrad Burns, but from the very beginning, it was a bill 
that did have some emergency provisions attached to it. We did have the 
funds for the costs, the money that has been already spent for the 
defense for Kosovo, and some additional funds for costs associated with 
that.
  Over a period now of almost 6 weeks, there has been a process 
underway between the House and the Senate on both sides of the aisle to 
get an agreement on this conference report that included a title II 
that had the emergency funds for the Kosovo situation, for the Colombia 
drug war, and also for emergencies associated with Hurricane Floyd, the 
fires, and other issues.
  During the process of the conference, other issues were added. Some 
issues that were in were taken out. That is the way a conference works. 
I must confess that I didn't get a look at the final product myself 
until this morning. I think we actually had access to it last night. We 
did get access to it. Senators had an opportunity to review that. If 
points of order need to be made, they can be made. But this is for 
military construction and for emergencies. We need to get this done. It 
is already late. There are a lot of people, there are a lot of 
different reasons for how that happened, but here we are. As majority 
leader, I have a responsibility to try to bring it to a conclusion and 
take whatever time that requires.
  I will shortly ask unanimous consent that the military construction 
appropriations conference report come up. I need to inform all Members 
that if the agreement is not agreed to or a similar version to this 
that can--if we cannot come up with something that could be entered 
into by the full Senate, then it would be my intention to call up the 
conference report and Senators McCain and Gramm will ask, as I 
understand it, that it be read. If that is done, it would take some 6 
hours, I am told by the staff, to read the conference report. I still 
hope we can avoid that. If there are problems with the conference 
report, let's talk about it. If points of order are going to be made, 
let's do them. We will have time to understand exactly what is in the 
bill.
  I am sure we will hear from Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd and 
others who are familiar with the details. That is what it is all about. 
I realize it is Friday afternoon, but Members have been told for weeks 
that we would be in session on this Friday and would be having votes.
  This is an important vote. All we can do is try to come up with a way 
that we can have a good debate, but if there is objection to proceeding 
and insistence that it be read, then we will have to do that. After 
that there could be a series of votes on points of order and hopefully 
on final passage.
  I want to outline the situation as it now stands. I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate now proceed to the conference report and it be 
considered as having been read. I further ask unanimous consent that 
following 10 minutes for debate between the two managers, and the 
chairman and ranking member, Senator Gramm be recognized to raise a 
point of order. I further ask unanimous consent Senators Stevens and 
Byrd be immediately recognized to make a motion to waive and, following 
10 minutes equally divided on the motion to waive, the Senate proceed 
to a vote on that motion with or without any intervening action or 
debate. By the way, if we need more time

[[Page S6226]]

for debate, I would be glad to accommodate that.

  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that if the motion to waive is 
agreed to, the Senate proceed to an immediate vote on the conference 
report without any intervening action, motion, or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the conference report before us, I am 
unhappy to say, makes a mockery out of the budget. In fact, if we adopt 
this conference report, I think there is no need that we should ever 
adopt another budget.
  This conference report violates every tenet of the budget we adopted. 
This conference report has two major phony spending shifts where we 
shift payments from the fiscal year we are appropriating for backwards 
into year 2000 so that we can spend an additional $4 billion in clear 
violation of the budget. I am sure you will hear Senator Stevens saying 
that the defense of the Nation will be imperiled if we don't pass this 
bill. Yet while we are providing money to defense through this bill on 
an emergency basis, this bill takes $2 billion out of defense and gives 
it to nondefense, a total violation of the budget agreement that we 
struck.
  It is Friday. My wife is waiting at the corner of First and C. But if 
we look the other way on this bill, then there is no budget, and we are 
going to totally lose control of spending.
  Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. LOTT. First of all, the greatest argument I have heard for 
bringing this to conclusion is the fact that the Senator's lovely wife 
is waiting for his presence to join him in other activities. I am 
genuinely concerned about that. If we have to read this bill, I would 
like to urge the Senator to stay here; I will go see Mrs. Gramm. That 
is the corner of First and C Streets, I believe? I will meet her, and I 
will provide her with a very lovely lunch in the Senate dining room.
  Mr. GRAMM. I appreciate that. If my wife were a liberal, I would 
really be nervous.
  When she figures out that I am here doing God's work, she is going to 
figure that the time is better spent than with her.
  Mr. LOTT. Speaking of the Lord's work, I suggest that the Lord's work 
here would be to analyze this legislation. Let's engage in discussion; 
let's point out where there are problems, if any. Let's hear the other 
side. If necessary, let's vote. To spend 6 hours reading the bill is 
not going to advance the cause. I am glad for the Senator to engage in 
this.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask the majority leader to yield to me for a comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A unanimous consent agreement is pending. Is 
the Senator from Arizona reserving the right to object?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes, I do.
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to respond to a question.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to the majority leader, we are now 
doing what we usually do when a pork barrel bill is before us; that is, 
that national defense and national security are at risk; we will have 
to withdraw from Kosovo; it will be the end of Western civilization as 
we know it. We already have something from the Pentagon that says we 
will have to shut down unit training during the month of September, 
blah, blah, blah.
  So even though in this bill we have, for example, under Kosovo and 
other national security, Olympic Games support; and even though in the 
name of ``emergency'' we have a Coast Guard acquisition of a $45 
million Gulfstream for the Commandant of the Coast Guard--and I would 
be glad to pay for his first-class airfare while he awaits that 
emergency, to help him ride out the emergency situation, even though we 
have $10 million for the Bering Sea crab disaster, $10 million for a 
Northeast fishery, $7 million for a Hawaii fishery, and $5 million for 
an Alaska Sea Life Center. We have covered a good part of those for 
senior members of the Appropriations Committee who have a coastline.
  These are all done in the name of an emergency. I will ask unanimous 
consent that we take up and pass without objection all of those, 
including this ``dire emergency'' concerning the Olympic Games support 
and what is contained in the Kosovo and other national security 
portions of this bill--I would agree to a unanimous consent agreement 
that it be taken up and passed, and that the rest of this bill, which 
is incredibly full of unnecessary, unwanted, unauthorized, unmitigated 
pork be debated.
  There are 47 points of order that can be lodged under this 
appropriations bill. What do we want to do? We want to take a $19 
billion appropriations bill and pass it by voice vote just because we 
want to go home for the Fourth of July.
  I ask unanimous consent that we take the fiscal year 2000 
appropriations title I on Kosovo and other national security defense 
and pass it, and that we take up the rest of this bill for debate on 
points of order when we return after the recess.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous consent agreement 
pending.
  Mr. McCAIN. At the appropriate parliamentary point, I will propound 
that request.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will be 
brief. If we weren't at the end of the session with people on the way 
to the airport, I think we could have a debate on this issue and we 
could begin to raise 47 points of order against this bill.
  The problem is that people would come in wanting to leave for the 
recess and basically understand that if they vote to override the 
points of order, they could go home for a week. Whereas, if they 
sustain the point of order, they could end up being here for further 
debate. So I urge my colleagues to allow us to agree that we will allow 
the bill to come up, waive all of our rights to have it read, and to 
delay it by other motions, have it come up the day we get back and we 
will have a debate. If we stay here and ruin everybody's week, we are 
going to harden hearts. When we get back to this bill--and it will not 
pass today. This bill is not going to pass today. If we harden hearts, 
we are going to come back here and spend a week when we might have a 
chance to work some of these things out, basically, in a strong-worded 
debate that will serve no interest.
  I urge my colleagues to let us step aside, let the bill be brought 
up, waive reading it, but have it be brought up on Monday when we come 
back so we have an opportunity to legitimately make our case. If these 
were little trivial matters, then I would look the other way, swallow 
hard, and let it go. But these are not trivial matters. This is 
basically eliminating the entire budget that we adopted. I think if we 
do that, we are making a mockery out of the whole process. I am not 
going to do it. So I object.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. I have two things. There is one clarification I wish to 
make on what Senator Gramm said. If one of the points of order should 
be sustained, or if a major one was made and sustained, we would not 
necessarily have to continue this. This bill then would go back to the 
House when they return. They would have to take it up and consider it 
further. I realize there may be multiple points of order. If one were 
sustained, there might be others.
  Look, I understand what Senator Gramm is saying. I certainly feel 
very strongly that our budget process should be protected and, if it is 
violated, there should be an opportunity to address those points of 
order. I have no problem with that. All I say is I think to read the 
bill doesn't help anybody's cause. I think we would be better off if we 
get into a discussion and talk about what is in the bill.
  So, again, I am sympathetic with all sides concerned, and I would 
like to get out from the middle of the crossfire of the ammunition 
being employed here. At this point, since there is objection, I have 
no----
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, am I proceeding under leader time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regret deeply that there is a dispute 
over these items. It is true that there is some money in the bill, and 
all of the items the Senator from Arizona mentioned, but one, were in 
the Senate-

[[Page S6227]]

passed bill. The Sea Life Center is the only new one. It is a provision 
to pay a rent for a Sea Life Center, which will close in August 
unless that can be done. It is a Sea Life Center that has Federal money 
in it that opened it. If somebody doesn't believe that is an emergency, 
the right thing is to allow us to vote on it. I am perfectly prepared 
to muster up 60 votes for that Sea Life Center. I am proud of that Sea 
Life Center.

  I say this to the Members of the Senate. There is not one amendment 
in this bill that was not presented by a Member who is here. I assume 
the Members are prepared to vote for the items they told us were 
emergencies. The Senator from Arizona is well known to be the watchdog 
of the Treasury and I admire that. I believe we should get on with this 
business and let's test the votes.
  The Senator is right. If there are not 60 votes to establish the 
emergency designation on this bill, it will be returned to the Senate. 
But that is going to be the same, whether it is now or 6 hours from 
now.
  I remember so well when one of my former colleagues killed a bill, 
which we worked on for 7 years, in the last few minutes of a Congress 
by asking that the bill be read. I have always thought that bills don't 
have to be read if they are available to Members of the Senate. That 
used to be the understanding, that they would be read if the bill was 
not physically on the Members' desks. I will be pleased to put it on 
every Member's desk now. It has been available since last night. But to 
have us now go into a reading of the bill--the Senator from Texas says 
his wife is waiting on the corner. My wife is already in Alaska. I am 
due there tonight. But the sad thing is that the last plane I could 
take to make it left at 10 o'clock. I am prepared to stay here all 
week, if it is necessary.
  I have put before the Members of the Senate--and I will ask unanimous 
consent to print this in the Record. It is not fake or a manufactured 
thing. We have been telling the Senate for days and months that this 
money had been taken from the operation and maintenance account--the 
President's action employing troops in Kosovo. He has the right to do 
that under the act. And the money runs out. On July 5, this new order 
must go into effect that reduces the actions of our people during the 
period of maximum training in the summertime. It is not fake. I don't 
know why anyone would question the statements of the Chief of Staff of 
the Army.
  The bill may not pass today, but it is going to pass before July 5. 
That is my commitment. If the Senator wants to make a commitment that 
it doesn't pass today, I will make a commitment that it passes by July 
5. I believe we have the capacity to do that. It is the desire to have 
this bill passed and to have the people of the armed services know the 
Senate is behind the people in the armed services. It is still a 
military construction bill, an emergency bill to replace money spent 
for the operation and maintenance account.
  It is a must-pass bill before July 5.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move that the Senate turn to the 
conference report to accompany the military construction appropriations 
conference report.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I make a point of order that I don't 
think the bill has to be read. The bill is available to all Members of 
the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is not sustained.
  Mr. STEVENS. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the ruling of the Chair 
be upheld?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas has raised a 
question about the pay shifts that are assumed in this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The appeal of the ruling of the Chair is not 
debatable.
  Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw my appeal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed is not debatable.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
make a statement at this point and that the Senator from Texas be able 
to speak prior to taking action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas has asked that we 
remove from the bill the pay shifts which we assumed were available to 
our committee in order to increase the amount of budget authority and 
outlays that would be used by our committee. The Senator can name them 
and make sure we are naming them correctly.
  Mr. GRAMM. An SSI pay shift of $2.4 billion; a VA compensation pay 
shift for $1.9 billion; and the third item is moving the defense 
firewall, which would transfer $2 billion from defense to nondefense.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, at a later date I will explain in full 
what that means.
  But I make the commitment to the Senator from Texas that on the first 
available vehicle to the Appropriations Committee we will rescind the 
action that is in this bill adjusting those pay shifts and taking them 
into account for future use. They were mechanisms to make available 
funds that would be used in the 2001 bill, and we can and we will have 
to make adjustments in other ways in the future. But these shifts have 
been objected to, and they will not be used this year. I can't say they 
won't be available in another year. They will not be used in connection 
with fiscal year 2001.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the conference report be dispensed with and that a vote occur on 
adoption of the conference report immediately.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska.
  I obviously am disturbed about much that was put into this 
legislation. But I see a $6 billion savings here. So I think it is a 
reasonable compromise. I intend to put in the Record as well as on my 
web site and many other places some of the really egregious projects 
that are in this bill. At the same time, this significant savings I 
think is a very important move.
  I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The report will be stated.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     4425) ``making appropriations for military construction, 
     family housing, and base realignment and closure for the 
     Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 2001, and for other purposes,'' having met, after full 
     and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do 
     recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
       That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
     amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an 
     amendment and the Senate agree to the same. Signed by all of 
     the conferees on the part of both Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report
  The conference report is printed in the Record of Thursday, June 29, 
2000.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the 
Military Construction Conference Report for fiscal year 2001.
  The Senate and the House went into conference with very different 
recommendations for projects and unfortunately, not enough money to go 
around.
  We have worked hard with our House colleagues to bring the Military 
Construction Conference to a successful conclusion.
  This agreement represents a tremendous amount of work and great deal 
of cooperation between the House and Senate.
  Mr. President, the military construction portion of this bill has 
some points I want to highlight.

[[Page S6228]]

  We have sought to recommend a balanced bill that addresses key, 
military construction requirements for readiness, family housing, 
barracks, quality of life and funding for the reserve components.
  In the final conference agreement relating to military construction, 
we met our goals of protecting quality of life and enhancing mission 
readiness throughout the Department of Defense.
  It provides a total of $8.8 billion in spending, an increase of $200 
million over the levels recommended by both the House and Senate, and 
an increase of $800 million over the President's budget request.
  It is my hope that we can move this bill forward very quickly and 
send it to the President.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, late Thursday, the conference concluded 
on H.R. 4425, the Fiscal Year 2001 Military Construction Appropriations 
Act.
  When the appropriations committee in the Senate reported that bill, 
we included a second division, Division B, that provided a series of 
emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense, 
the Coast Guard, and other national defense related activities.
  The conferees on this bill, led by the subcommittee chairman, Senator 
Burns, addressed both the underlying military construction bill, and an 
expanded range of emergency supplementary needs.
  Upon completing work on the military construction portion, an 
amendment was offered by myself, Senator Byrd, the House committee 
chairman, Bill Young, and the House ranking Member, David Obey.
  The amendment addressed fiscal year 2000 funding needs for the 
Department of Defense, the Coast Guard, wildfire fighting, recovery 
from hurricanes Floyd and Irene, the Cerro Grande fire in New Mexico, 
Liheap, and Plain Colombia.
  At several critical points, the personal involvement of the Speaker 
on the House and the Majority Leader in the Senate were invaluable to 
breaking through disagreements, and achieving completion of our work.
  While Senator Burns will address the military construction portion of 
the bill, I want to highlight the defense emergency needs addressed in 
this conference report.
  Once again, the President mortgaged the readiness of our Armed Forces 
by committing troops abroad, without the prior authorization and 
funding from Congress.
  If this bill did not pass this week, the Army faced a genuine 
calamity, as training, base operations and other critical functions 
would have ground to a halt.
  These funds, provided to sustain the Army through the remainder of 
this fiscal year, will prevent any interruption or degradation of our 
Armed Forces.
  In addition, the conferees, under the leadership of Representative 
Jerry Lewis, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, 
responded to several vital defense needs.
  The amendment, offered by the four Members I named, provides a total 
of $11.23 billion in emergency spending for fiscal year 2000.
  The amendment also makes several technical changes, pursuant to the 
budget resolution for fiscal year 2001 adopted earlier this year, 
concerning changes to pay days, delayed obligations, progress payments, 
prompt payment, and other matters.
  In addition, the amendment permits the Senate Appropriations 
Committee to allocate the full amount provided in the 302(a) allocation 
for discretionary spending in the budget resolution. This is the same 
amount now available to the House Committee.
  The amendment also adjusts the Function 050 outlay firewall included 
in the budget resolution to reflect the actual outlay levels in the 
Function 050 related bills reported by the House and Senate committees.
  I want to especially commend the Chairman of the House Military 
Construction Subcommittee, Representative Hobson, and the Chairman of 
the House Committee, Bill Young, for their cooperation and leadership 
in presenting this conference report to the House and Senate.
  Critical funding shortfalls for fuel, medical care, contract 
liabilities for Tricare, depot maintenance and intelligence were 
addressed in the House passed version of the supplemental, and included 
in this conference report.
  Chairman Lewis' initiative ensured that the readiness and quality of 
life for our military personnel will be truly enhanced by these 
initiatives, and provide the right starting point for our work on the 
conference for the FY 2001 Defense Appropriations Bill when we return 
from the July 4th recess.
  A second important need met in this conference report is for Western 
wildfire fighting. As we meet here in Washington, fires are burning in 
several Western States, especially Washington State and my own State of 
Alaska.
  The $350 million provided in this conference report will ensure the 
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service will be able to 
respond to any challenges we face during what promises to be a dry and 
hot summer--a truly dangerous situation.
  Last month, at the request of the senior Senator from New Mexico, I 
traveled to the Los Alamos National Laboratories during the terrible 
fire that afflicted that area.
  I saw firsthand the devastation to that community, and the federal 
facilities, caused by that fire.
  Senator Domenici has included in this bill a comprehensive 
authorization bill that provides a claims settlement mechanism for the 
families and businesses who lost so much in that tragedy.
  In addition, this conference report provides $661 million to initiate 
the claims settlement process and restoration of the federal 
facilities. These provisions brought to the conference by Senator 
Domenici will start the long recovery process, reflecting the Federal 
Government's liability for this disaster.
  In this conference report, there are also several matters of great 
importance to my State. I appreciate the willingness of the conferees 
to consider these items.
  Finally, I want to again thank the distinguished Ranking Member of 
our Committee, Senator Byrd, for his work to complete work on this 
bill. All the conferees met and worked in a spirit of bipartisan 
compromise, which is reflected in the conference report before the 
Senate.
  I urge the Senate to adopt this conference report today, so that it 
can go immediately to the President.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate will soon take up the FY 2001 
Military Construction Conference Report. In addition to meeting the 
military construction needs of the nation, Divisions B & C contain 
emergency supplemental appropriations for FY 2000 totaling some $11.2 
billion.
  The supplemental portion of the bill funds a broad array of urgently 
needed programs. More than $6 billion is provided for the emergency 
needs of the military. Of that amount, some $2 billion is to cover the 
cost of our peacekeeping operations in Kosovo; $1.6 billion is to 
recover increased fuel costs to the military; and $1.3 billion is for 
health benefits for the military. For the victims of natural disasters, 
particularly those who suffered the ravages of Hurricane Floyd, some 
$300 million is provided. And, $350 million is provided in emergency 
funds to replenish the fire management accounts of the Department of 
the Interior and U.S. Forest Service. Those firefighting accounts are 
totally depleted and must be replenished immediately. The bill also 
provides $600 million in Low Income Home Energy Assistance grants, and 
more than $600 million is provided to address the costs related to the 
disastrous fire at Los Alamos, New Mexico.
  One of the biggest pieces of the supplemental package is $1.3 billion 
to fully fund the President's request in support of Plan Colombia. The 
President's anti-drug initiative is an ambitious effort in support of 
Plan Colombia, a massive undertaking by the Colombian government to 
fight the alarming rise of heroin and cocaine production and 
trafficking in Colombia.
  The intent of the President's aid package to Colombia is laudable; 
but at this point, there remain more questions than answers as to what 
the impact of this assistance will be. Our efforts in the past have 
done little, if anything, to deter Colombia's drug lords. The 
production of cocaine and heroin has skyrocketed. Some analysts are 
concerned that increased U.S. involvement in Colombia's drug wars will

[[Page S6229]]

fuel an all-out civil war in a country already ravaged by guerrilla 
warfare and paramilitary abuses.
  For those reasons, I am pleased that this conference report preserves 
a provision that I originally added in the Senate Appropriations 
Committee to place restrictions on future funding for U.S. assistance 
to Plan Colombia, and to limit the number of U.S. military personnel 
and U.S. civilian contractors that can be deployed in Colombia to 
support the counter-narcotics effort.
  The Byrd provision requires the Administration to seek and receive 
congressional authorization before spending any money on U.S. support 
for Plan Colombia beyond the funding contained in this supplemental 
package and other relevant funding bills. The President's request for 
Plan Colombia is fully funded. This provision simply ensures that, if 
additional funding is requested to prolong or expand U.S. involvement 
in Colombia's anti-drug campaign, Congress will have the opportunity to 
review and evaluate the entire program before green-lighting more 
money.
  The goal of my provision is to prevent an incremental and possibly 
unintended escalation of U.S. involvement in Colombia's war on drugs to 
the point that the United States, over time, finds itself entangled 
beyond extraction in the internal politics of Colombia. We cannot 
ignore the fact that Colombia is embroiled in a civil war, and that 
narco-guerrillas, who are better-trained, better-financed, and better-
equipped than the Colombian army, control much of the country. The 
government of Colombia is fighting a just, but uphill battle. The 
United States, in this funding package, is making a major commitment to 
help Colombia. With the Byrd provision, we are also making a commitment 
to the people of the United States that Congress will stand guard 
against this nation's being unwittingly drawn too deeply into 
Colombia's internal problems.
  Mr. President, this Administration has, in the past, registered 
strong opposition to the Byrd provision. I assure the Senate that we 
have listened to the concerns expressed by the Administration, and have 
addressed them. We doubled the cap on U.S. military personnel to 500, 
as requested by the Pentagon, and tripled the allowable number of U.S. 
civilian contractors to 300. We exempted funding for on-going counter-
narcotics programs covered in other appropriations bills, as requested 
by the Administration. We addressed virtually every issue raised by the 
Administration, and I hope that the President is ready to endorse this 
language.
  It is my opinion that the Administration should welcome the spotlight 
that this provision will shine on the level of U.S. participation in 
Plan Colombia. The Administration should also welcome the additional 
safeguards that this language provides to reduce the possibility of 
unbridled mission creep and unforeseen consequences.
  There are some who have expressed concern that this language is too 
restrictive, and that it will impose too difficult a process to allow 
the United States to continue its efforts to fight drug production and 
drug trafficking in Colombia and throughout the region. I believe the 
process should be restrictive. I do not believe that U.S. assistance to 
Plan Colombia should be handled on a business-as-usual basis. The 
political situation in Colombia is too unstable, and the risks to 
American citizens involved in the counter-narcotics campaign are too 
high.
  That said, my provision is not intended to slam the door on future 
counter-narcotics assistance to Colombia or to other countries in the 
region, if such assistance is needed and warranted. The war on drugs 
must be waged aggressively, both at home and abroad. At this point, the 
President has requested a specific level of funding, $1.3 billion, to 
finance a specific program. Congress is providing that funding in this 
appropriations measure. If this President, or a future President, seeks 
more money, or seeks to broaden or prolong U.S. involvement in Plan 
Colombia, we merely ask him to present that request to Congress, and to 
give Congress the opportunity to review, assess, and authorize the 
entire program. What we do not want to see is U.S. assistance to Plan 
Colombia quietly ramped up through regular or supplemental funding 
bills until we suddenly reach the point of having thousands of U.S. 
citizens deployed to Colombia, and billions of U.S. tax dollars 
invested in Colombia's drug war, and no way to extricate the United 
States from Colombia.
  Mr. President, Congress has a responsibility to exercise oversight 
over programs such as U.S. participation in Plan Colombia. This 
provision ensures that we will have the opportunity to exercise that 
oversight, and to make an informed and deliberate decision on future 
funding for Plan Colombia. It is a wise precaution to include in a 
package that will underwrite a costly, complicated, and unprecedented 
assault on a dangerous and determined enemy.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the bill before us provides over $1 
billion in assistance to Colombia and represents a major increase in 
our political and financial commitment to the Colombian Government and 
the Colombian Armed Forces.
  Many of us have been deeply concerned about the potential impact of 
this substantial increase in U.S. military assistance on human rights 
in Colombia. We have worked with the Senate Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Subcommittee to include human rights conditions on the 
aid. I commend Senators McConnell and Leahy for their leadership on 
this issue and for preserving the human rights conditions in the final 
version of the bill. The conditions are fully consistent with the laws 
and stated policies of the Colombian Government. They are also vital to 
ensuring that U.S. military aid does not contribute to human rights 
abuses in Colombia. We look forward to working with the Administration 
to achieve the Colombian Government's compliance with them.
  The first condition requires that armed forces personnel alleged to 
have committed gross violations of human rights be suspended from duty 
and brought to justice in the civilian courts, in accordance with the 
1997 ruling of Colombia's Constitutional Court. The Colombian Ministry 
of National Defense has stated that, ``the Commander General of the 
Military Forces will separate from active service, by discretionary 
decision, members of the various Military Forces for inefficiency or 
for unsatisfactory performance in the fight against illegal armed 
groups.'' Unfortunately, this policy has not been implemented, and 
there is no automatic process for suspending a member of the Colombian 
Armed Forces alleged to have violated human rights.
  The Colombian Ministry of National Defense has expressed its support 
for the 1997 ruling of the Constitutional Court. In its March 2000 
publication entitled ``Public Force and Human Rights in Colombia,'' the 
Colombian Ministry of National Defense stated that, ``Colombia has 
taken very important steps in limiting the jurisdiction of the military 
justice system. In effect, in 1997 the Constitutional Court concluded 
that crimes against humanity do not fall under its jurisdiction because 
it does not relate to the service provided by the Public Force. Such 
crimes constitute a serious violation of human rights and transgress 
the duties of armed services. Consequently, the Constitutional Court 
decided that such crimes be heard by the Ordinary Criminal Courts.''
  Unfortunately, the Colombian Armed Forces have grossly misrepresented 
their record of compliance with this Constitutional Court ruling. They 
have claimed that 576 human rights cases involving Armed Forces 
personnel were transferred to civilian courts when, in fact, only 39 
cases of human rights violations were transferred--and those cases 
involved low level officials.
  The human rights conditions contained in the bill also require the 
Colombian Government to prosecute in the civilian courts the leaders 
and members of paramilitary groups and armed forces personnel who aid 
or abet them. This provision is also fully consistent with the stated 
policies of the Colombian Government. In its publication entitled 
``Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Policies,'' the 
Colombian Ministry of National Defense stated that illegal self-defense 
groups ``are one of the main offenders of human rights and 
international humanitarian law.'' In its publication entitled ``Public 
Force and Human Rights in Colombia,'' the Ministry further stated that 
the Public Force confronts and combats guerrilla and illegal self-

[[Page S6230]]

defense groups ``with the same rigor.'' President Pastrana's ``Plan 
Colombia'' is quite clear on this issue, stating that ``the Government 
will not tolerate ties of any kind between any member of the military 
forces or the police and any illegal armed group or force.''
  Regrettably, the State Department, the United Nations, and human 
rights groups have documented continuing links between the Colombian 
Armed Forces and paramilitary groups. The State Department Human Rights 
Report for 1999 stated that the Armed Forces and National Police 
sometimes ``tacitly tolerated'' or ``aided and abetted'' the activities 
of paramilitary groups. According to the report, ``in some instances, 
individual members of the security forces actively collaborated with 
members of paramilitary groups by passing them through roadblocks, 
sharing intelligence, and providing them with ammunition. Paramilitary 
forces find a ready support base within the military and police.'' The 
report also concluded that ``security forces regularly failed to 
confront paramilitary groups.'' Human Rights Watch has documented links 
between military and paramilitary groups, not only in isolated, rural 
areas but in Colombia's principal cities, and these links involve half 
of Colombia's 18 brigade-level units.
  The Colombian Armed Forces have resisted investigating these links. 
Instead of investigating a credible allegation of military 
collaboration with paramilitary groups in a civilian massacre that 
occurred in the town of San Jose de Apartado on February 19, the 
Commander of the 17th Brigade filed suit against the non-governmental 
organization that made these allegations, charging that it had 
``impugned'' the honor of the military.
  The human rights conditions contained in the bill reflect the 
Colombian Government's laws and policies and underscore the importance 
of human rights as a fundamental principle of U.S. foreign policy. 
Compliance with these conditions is essential if we are to ensure that 
U.S. military aid does not contribute to human rights abuses in 
Colombia.
  I am disappointed that the conference agreement permits the President 
to waive the conditions in the interest of national security. However, 
the inclusion of this waiver authority does not exempt the 
Administration from responsibility for seeking the Colombian 
Government's compliance with these human rights conditions. Nor is the 
waiver an excuse for the Colombian Government not to address the 
continuing human rights problems in Colombia. I look forward to the 
good faith application of these important human rights provisions in 
the implementation of this legislation.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleagues on 
the Appropriations Committee who have worked with me, the Senator from 
Georgia, Senator Coverdell; the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham; 
the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley; and so many others on the 
emergency supplemental provisions contained in the Conference Report to 
the Fiscal Year 2001 Military Construction Appropriations bill. I am 
especially pleased that the Conference Report contains essential funds 
to begin correcting resource and funding shortfalls in the U.S. Coast 
Guard, and vital assistance needed to reverse the deteriorating 
situation in Colombia--a situation I would like to discuss in just a 
few minutes.
  First, though, let me say a few words about the Coast Guard's 
current--and precarious--budget situation and how this Conference 
Report will help keep it afloat--at least for the remainder of this 
fiscal year. The reality is that our Coast Guard has been forced to cut 
back on its current services this year and could be forced to cut back 
even more next year. These reductions make it far more difficult for 
the Coast Guard to meet its many missions. They put at risk the 
sustainability of valuable fish stocks in the North Atlantic and 
Pacific Northwest. They reduce the Coast Guard's capability to stem the 
flow of illicit drugs and illegal immigration into the United States. 
And they can work against the Coast Guard's ability to respond quickly 
to search and rescue situations, which often in fishing grounds and 
high traffic migrant areas.
  As early as last February, the Coast Guard began reducing its 
operating hours in the air and at sea. In some parts of the country, 
operating hours have been reduced as much as 20 to 30 percent.
  Fortunately, Mr. President, the Conference Report we passed today 
will carry the Coast Guard through the current fiscal year. In total, 
more than $700 million is provided to help restore the Coast Guard's 
aircraft and vessel spare parts supply; cover the cost of rising fuel 
prices; pay for rising health care costs and quality of life 
improvements for Coast Guard personnel; and increase by six its fleet 
of C-130 aircraft--assets critical to the Coast Guard's counter-drug 
and search and rescue capabilities.
  Additionally, the Conference Report includes funding for the 
replacement of the Great Lakes Ice Breaking vessel--the Mackinaw. As my 
colleagues from the Great Lakes region know, this replacement vessel is 
invaluable to avoid disruption of winter-time commerce on the Great 
Lakes.
  This legislation is a step in the right direction, but it is only a 
step. Our Coast Guard still remains seriously underfunded. We must 
still address the overall funding problems facing the Coast Guard, 
which is the task that awaits the conferees to the Transportation 
Appropriations bill. Unless we address this funding crisis, our Coast 
Guard will be in the exact same boat--no pun intended--year after year. 
Ultimately, unless we put the Coast Guard under a far more sound 
financial footing, we risk compromising the entire Coast Guard 
apparatus, its routine and emergency operations, training and 
maintenance functions, and even its safety and commercial missions 
along our coasts and Great Lakes.

  Not long ago, the Senate approved a Transportation Appropriations 
bill for the next fiscal year that would fund the Coast Guard's 
operating expenses at a level $159 million less than what it needs to 
conduct its missions. Mr. President, I understand the Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the Transportation Subcommittee had to make some 
tough choices. They had a smaller budget to work with than their 
counterparts in the House. In fact, the House had $1.6 billion more in 
its allocation for the Transportation Appropriations Bill than the 
Senate. This funding disparity needs to be resolved in the upcoming 
conference.
  Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues about the unique 
importance of the Coast Guard. They are called ``the rescue experts,'' 
and for good reason. Each year, the Coast Guard responds to 40,000 
search and rescue cases and saves 3,800 lives. During the devastation 
of Hurricane Floyd, the Coast Guard conducted search and rescue 
missions and delivered drinking water and critical supplies to citizens 
along the Eastern seaboard. And, following the dramatic floods in North 
Carolina that resulted from the hurricane, Coast Guard helicopters came 
in right behind the storm and pulled stranded survivors from rooftops 
and trees surrounded by the swollen rivers.
  The Coast Guard's rescue and response missions are often front page 
news, but often the untold stories are the emergencies prevented by the 
Coast Guard. Few people realize that before any cruise ship ever 
touches the ocean, Coast Guard ship inspectors from its Marine Safety 
Offices inspect each ship to ensure they are built not just for beauty 
and recreation, but for safety as well. That's good news for the 
approximately seven million Americans who embark on cruise ships every 
year. In fact, the Coast Guard doesn't just inspect cruise ships--the 
Coast Guard inspects all commercial ships, including cargo ships and 
tankers.
  Of course, I have spoken on the Senate floor on several occasions to 
highlight the Coast Guard's extraordinary contributions to keep illegal 
drugs from ever reaching our shores. The scourge of drugs is the 
primary security threat within this hemisphere. It is a cancer that 
destroys civil institutions and erodes the sovereignty of nations in 
the Caribbean and South and Central America.
  That is why a number of us here in the Senate and the House worked to 
provide additional funding in 1998 for the Coast Guard's counter-drug 
efforts, and that investment has paid off. The following year, the 
Coast Guard seized 57 tons of cocaine with a street value of $4 
billion--that's more than the total operating cost of the Coast Guard.

[[Page S6231]]

  The Coast Guard's law enforcement skills extends as far as the Middle 
East, where Coast Guard cutters and tactical law enforcement teams 
enforce the continuing U.N. embargo against Iraq.
  Perhaps one of the Coast Guard's toughest jobs is the day to day 
enforcement of U.S. immigration law. It is an emotional and gut 
wrenching mission. It challenges Coast Guard men and women daily to 
carry out their responsibilities with due regard for the law, human 
dignity and, above all, safety of human life. It is a tough job. But, 
day in and day out, the Coast Guard continues to carry out its duties 
with professionalism and a never-ending commitment to the people it 
serves.
  These are just some of the vital missions that would be undermined if 
the Coast Guard is not given the resources to sustain its daily 
operations. In some respects, we have passed that point already. The 
Coast Guard is at a point that it is essentially cannibalizing 
equipment for parts, deferring maintenance, and working their people 
overtime--and this is just to sustain daily operations. This doesn't 
even take into account the rapidly rising fuel costs, which are 
exacerbating problems this fiscal year.
  At the same time, the Coast Guard has to invest in its future. When 
compared to 41 other maritime agencies around the world, the ships that 
make up our Coast Guard fleet of cutters are the 38th oldest. Over the 
past four years, the Coast Guard has had to spend twice as much money 
to fix equipment and hull problems. This is not surprising because the 
older the equipment becomes, the harder it is to maintain. As the need 
for equipment maintenance increases, so too does the cost of 
operations. This is a problem that is not the result of mismanagement, 
but from insufficient funding. And that fact is reflected by this 
Congress having to use emergency supplemental funding for the Coast 
Guard two straight years just to sustain normal operations. I think you 
would agree, Mr. President, that this kind of stop-gap funding process 
is not the best way to keep an organization running--particularly one 
of such vital importance to our nation.
  I urge the conferees to the Transportation Appropriations bill, in 
both the House and Senate, to keep these facts in mind as they proceed 
to conference. Again, the bill we have passed today is a good first 
step, but it is only that--a step.
  Today, the United States Congress took a very important and necessary 
step toward bringing stability to countries in our hemisphere, and 
communities in our own country that are caught in the death grip of 
drug trafficking.
  Today, we are sending to the President more than just an assistance 
package to Colombia--we are sending a blueprint of a partnership with 
Colombia and other countries in the hemisphere to reduce illegal drug 
production and distribution. This is partnership among democracies in 
our hemisphere.
  No one denies that an emergency exists in Colombia. The country is 
embroiled in a destabilizing and brutal civil war--a civil war that has 
gone on for decades with a death toll estimated at 35,000. The once 
promising democracy is now a war zone. Human rights abuses abound and 
rule of law is practically non-existent.
  The situation in Colombia today bears little resemblance to a nation 
once considered to be a democratic success story. But today, the drug 
trade has threatened the sovereignty of the Colombian democracy and the 
continued prosperity and security of our entire hemisphere. And, 
tragically, America's drug habit is what's fueling this threat in our 
hemisphere. It is our own country's drug use that is causing the 
instability and violence in Colombia and in the Andean region. When 
drug deals are made on the streets of our country, they represent a 
contribution to continued violence in Colombia and in the Andean 
region.
  The sad fact is that the cultivation of coca in Colombia has doubled 
from over 126,000 acres in 1995 to 300,000 in 1999. Not surprisingly, 
as drug availability has increased in the United States, drug use among 
adolescents also has increased. To make matters worse, the Colombian 
insurgents see the drug traffickers as a financial partner who will 
sustain their illicit cause, which only makes the FARC and the ELN grow 
stronger.
  A synergistic relationship has evolved between the drug dealers and 
the guerrillas--a relationship bonded by the money made selling drugs 
here in the United States. Each one benefits from the other. Each one 
takes care of the other. This is not a crisis internal to Colombia. It 
is a crisis driven by those who consume drugs in our country, and a 
crisis that directly impacts all of us right here in the United States.
  It is a crisis that has flourished in part because the current 
Administration made a significant and unwise policy change in its drug 
control strategy in 1993. When President George Bush left the White 
House, we were spending approximately one-quarter of our total federal 
anti-drug budget on international drug interdiction--spending it either 
on law enforcement in other countries, on Customs, on the DEA, on crop 
eradication--basically on stopping drugs from ever reaching our shores.
  After six years of the Clinton presidency, that one-quarter was 
reduced to approximately 13 to 14 percent, a dramatic reduction in the 
percentage of money we were spending on international drug 
interdiction.
  Fortunately, in the last few years, Congress has had the foresight to 
recognize the escalating threats in Colombia, and has worked to restore 
our drug fighting capability outside our borders. In 1998, Congress 
passed the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act (WHDEA), which not 
only has begun to restore our international eradication, interdiction 
and crop alternative development capabilities, it contained the first 
substantial investment in Colombia for counter-narcotics activities in 
almost a decade.
  Today, we are building on that effort with a more focused plan to 
eliminate drugs at the source and to reduce the financial influence of 
drug trafficking organizations on the paramilitaries and insurgents 
within Colombia. In short, Mr. President, we are reversing the 
direction of our drug policy for the better. Congress saw what the 
Administration was doing. We said the policy has to change; we need to 
put more money into interdiction and source country programs; and 
that's exactly what we did.
  We must not lose sight of why we are providing this assistance. The 
bottom line is this: The assistance package we put together because 
Colombia is our neighbor--and what affects our neighbors affects us 
too. We have a very real interest in stabilizing Colombia and keeping 
it democratic and keeping it as a trading partner, and keeping its 
drugs off our streets.
  As we consider the great human tragedy that Colombia is today, we 
must not lose sight of the fact that the resources we are providing to 
Colombia now are an effort to stop drugs from ever coming into our 
country in the future. And ultimately, the emergency aid package is in 
the best interest of the Colombia-Andean region. It is in the best 
interest of the United States. And, it is clearly something we had to 
do.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks 
of the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, who has 
taken a strong, personal interest in the human rights conditions in the 
Colombia aid portion of this bill.
  Senator Kennedy and I, with the support of other Senators, both 
Democrats and Republicans, including some strong supporters of this 
Colombia aid package, wrote these conditions which passed the Senate on 
June 22. The Senate version, which passed overwhelmingly, did not 
contain the presidential waiver that was included by the conferees. 
There was virtually no meaningful opportunity for most Senators, 
especially Democrats, to participate in the Conference on the Colombia 
aid package, and I am disappointed that the waiver was included.
  If the Administration had a history of giving the protection of human 
rights in Colombia the attention it deserves there would be no need for 
these conditions. Unfortunately, the Administration, as well as the 
Colombian Government, have consistently misrepresented, and overstated, 
the Colombian Government's efforts to punish human rights violators. 
This causes me great concern. There is no need for

[[Page S6232]]

the waiver and no justification for waiving these conditions.
  Senator Kennedy has described the situation in detail so I will not 
repeat what he has said. However, I do want to respond to a couple of 
the State Department's claims:
  The State Department has said that ``dramatic steps have been taken 
[by the Colombian Government] to deal with the legacy of human rights 
abuses.'' It cites a change in Colombian law, such that ``military 
officers responsible for human rights violations are tried in civilian 
courts.'' That is a gross misrepresentation of what actually occurs. 
The Colombian Armed Forces have systematically, and successfully, 
sought to avoid civilian court jurisdiction of human rights crimes by 
many of its members.
  The State Department has also said that ``President Pastrana has 
stated repeatedly that he will not tolerate collaboration, by 
commission or omission, between security force members and 
paramilitaries.'' I am sure President Pastrana, who I greatly admire, 
has said that. But the reality is that this collaboration has existed 
for years, and virtually nothing has been done about it. In fact, it is 
only recently, when pressed, that the Administration and the Colombian 
Government even acknowledged that it was going on. To date, little has 
been done to stop it.
  This is not to say that the Colombian Government has done nothing to 
address the human rights problems. It has, and I want to recognize 
that. But that is no argument for waiving these conditions. Far more 
needs to be done, especially to punish those who violate human rights.
  There is no doubt that the Administration believes that supporting 
``Plan Colombia'' is in our national security interests. However, the 
Administration has also said, repeatedly, that promoting human rights 
is a key goal of ``Plan Colombia.'' The Colombian Government has said 
the same thing. If those pronouncements means anything, they mean that 
it is not in our national interests to provide assistance to the 
Colombian Armed Forces if the basic human rights conditions in this 
bill are not met, particularly when the Colombian Government has said 
these conditions are fully consistent with its own policies. This is 
not asking too much. These are not unreasonable conditions. To the 
contrary, they are the minimum that should be done to ensure that our 
aid does not go to forces that violate human rights. There is no reason 
whatsoever that the Administration cannot use the leverage of this aid 
package to ensure that these conditions are met, and I fully expect the 
Administration to do so.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
changes that were made to ``Plan Colombia'' in the military 
construction conference report. As if this body did not originally give 
enough to the military ``Push into Southern Colombia'' with $250 
million, this conference report increases that amount by $140 million, 
to fund a 390 million dollar first-time offensive military action in 
southern Colombia.
  ``Plan Colombia'' has been added to this conference report as an 
emergency supplemental. We are moving it through this Congress quickly 
under the guise of a ``drug emergency.'' But, if there is truly a drug 
emergency in this country, and I believe there is, why are there no 
resources in this plan targeted to where they will do the most good: 
providing funding for drug treatment programs at home? And, honestly, 
if the purpose of this military aid is to stop the supply of drugs, 
shouldn't some of that aid target the North as well? Something strange 
and dishonest is going on here.
  During our debate over ``Plan Colombia'' I heard over and over again 
not only how much the Colombian government needed this assistance, but 
also how urgently it had to have it. I heard over and over again how if 
Colombia did not get this money now all hope for democracy would be 
lost, not only in Colombia but also for many other Latin and South 
American countries as well. This, my colleagues, is a far cry from 
stopping the flow of drugs into the United States. This, my colleagues, 
is choosing sides in a civil war that has raged for more than thirty 
years. And I think the American people deserve to know this.
  This massive increase in counternarcotics aid for Colombia this year 
puts the U.S. at a crossroads--do we back a major escalation in 
military aid to Colombia that may worsen a civil war that has already 
raged for decades, or do we pursue a more effective policy of 
stabilizing Colombia by promoting sustainable development, 
strengthening civilian democratic institutions, and attacking the drug 
market by investing in prevention and treatment at home? I see today 
that we have chosen the former.
  We are choosing to align ourselves with a military that is known to 
have close contacts with paramilitary organizations. Paramilitary 
groups operating with acquiescence or open support of the military 
account for most of the political violence in Colombia today. In its 
annual report for 1999, Human Rights Watch reports: ``in 1999 
paramilitary were considered responsible for 78% of the total number of 
human rights and international humanitarian law violations'' in 
Colombia. Our own 1999 State Department Country Reports on Human Rights 
notes that ``at times the security forces collaborated with 
paramilitary groups that committed abuses.''
  We should support Colombia during this crisis. Being tough on drugs 
is important, but we need to be smart about the tactics we employ. This 
conference report decreases by $29 million the aid this Chamber gave to 
support alternative development programs in Colombia. It cuts by $21 
million support for human rights and judicial reform. It also cuts 
support for interdiction by $3.1 million. Yet, it increases by $140 
million funding for the military ``Push into Southern Colombia.'' What 
are we doing here? Guns never have and never will solve Colombia's 
ills, nor will they address our drug problem here in the United States.
  I reiterate how unbalanced ``Plan Colombia'' is in this conference 
report. It cuts the good and increases the bad. A more sensible 
approach would have been to permit extensive assistance to Colombia in 
the form of promoting sustainable development and strengthening 
civilian democratic institutions. This would have safeguarded U.S. 
interests in avoiding entanglement in a decades-old civil conflict, and 
partnership with an army implicated in severe human rights abuses. 
Instead, we are funding a military offensive into southern Colombia and 
denying resources where they would be the most effective: drug 
treatment programs at home. I am appalled at this strategy.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I oppose the billions of dollars of 
emergency Fiscal Year 2000 supplemental funding included in the Fiscal 
Year 2001 Military Construction bill to continue our involvement in 
Kosovo, and to dramatically escalate our military's involvement in 
Colombia. While I support the Military Construction provisions in the 
bill, particularly the worthy Washington state projects specified in 
the bill, I cannot vote for passage of this measure.
  I did not support the President's decision to intervene in the 600-
year-old civil war in the Republic of Yugoslavia, and do not support 
the spending of another $2 billion on this open-ended commitment of our 
nation's armed forces and taxpayer dollars.
  Last week, I actively opposed the President's effort to entangle us 
in yet another civil war, this time in Colombia. I unsuccessfully 
sought to reduce the proposed $934 million in funding to $200 million, 
which would amount to a four-fold increase in spending on our fight 
against drug-trafficking between Colombia and the United States. This 
supplemental spending bill now includes even more for Colombia, a total 
of $1.3 billion. I am afraid this is a mere down payment on the 
billions more we will be asked to spend in coming years. I refuse to 
support this launching of yet another never-ending commitment--
especially one that the President can neither justify nor guarantee 
will have even the slightest positive impact on drug trafficking.
  The billions included in this bill for Kosovo and Colombia are not 
only an irresponsible waste of taxpayer funds, they are a dangerous 
gamble that we will exit involvement in these civil wars with less 
damage to our fighting men and women, and national dignity than we have 
in the past.


                              eb-52 option

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, as my colleagues may be aware, in recent

[[Page S6233]]

years there has been discussion within the military about modifying or 
equipping B-52 aircraft with advanced electronic jamming equipment that 
would allow them to perform a dedicated electronic warfare, or EW, 
mission. I joined Senator Dorgan in filing amendments calling for a 
thorough study of an ``EB-52'' option.
  Mr. DORGAN. I think it should be noted that operation Allied Force 
demonstrated that our nation is short jamming assets for even one major 
war. An ``EB'' version of the B-52 would be a cost-effective solution 
to the problem, since the aircraft are already paid for. As a matter of 
fact, I understand that during Operation Allied Force, General Wesley 
Clark asked if any other platforms could be equipped with offensive 
electronic gear to augment the over-tasked EA-6Bs against Serbia's air 
defense system, and that an ``EB-52'' variant was under consideration. 
That concept warrants full consideration, as a supplement to the EA-6B 
aircraft now in service with the Navy.
  Mr. CONRAD. I wonder if the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member 
share our interest in the idea of an EW mission for the B-52 and belief 
that it should be carefully studied?
  Mr. WARNER. I certainly do. Our Nation requires additional dedicated 
EW assets and the B-52 offers great potential in this area. I would 
bring to the attention of my colleagues that the Defense Authorization 
Act for fiscal year 2000 called for a study of potential additional EW 
platforms to supplement the EA-6B. The B-52 warrants careful and 
thorough analysis, and I have been assured by the Defense Department 
that it is, in fact, being studied. Senator Levin, would you care to 
comment?
  Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate the interest of my friends from North Dakota 
in the EB-52 and share the sentiments of the distinguished Chairman on 
this matter. The B-52 is a viable candidate for the EW mission in light 
of its large payload, intercontinental range, reliability, and airframe 
maintainability beyond 2040. It is my understanding that it is being 
studied as a dedicated EW platform candidate and must receive full 
consideration.
  Mr. CONRAD. I greatly appreciate the comments of the Armed Services 
Committee's distinguished leadership. I am willing to withdraw my 
amendment in light of assurances that the study is underway and will 
continue to accord the B-52 full, fair, and thorough consideration as a 
potential dedicated EW platform.
  Mr. DORGAN. I also thank the distinguished Chairman and Ranking 
Member for their attention to this important matter. In light of their 
assurances, I, too, will withdraw my amendment, and look forward to 
working with them to ensure that the B-52 is given a close look for the 
EW mission during the ongoing study.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, with the passage of the emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill, I want to talk about an important 
issue to all of my constituents in Arkansas and to private property 
owners across this country. I thank the appropriators for including 
language in the bill that will prohibit the Environmental Protection 
Agency from promulgating or implementing its proposed Total Maximum 
Daily Load regulations.
  In issuing its August 1999 Total Maximum Daily Load regulation, the 
EPA overstepped its congressionally mandated authority. Congress 
authorized the EPA to regulate point sources and left it up to the 
states to regulate non-point sources and develop and implement TMDL 
plans. In its proposed TMDL regulation, the EPA granted itself 
authority to regulate these specific items and clearly overstepped its 
regulatory authority. These changes, while seemingly innocuous, 
represent a major shift in Clean Water Act authority from the States to 
the Federal Government at the hands of the Environmental Protection 
Agency. Congress has the authority to set clean water laws of this 
country, not the EPA.
  I reiterate something I have been saying as often as anyone will 
listen--these new regulations can easily be summed up in two words--
unreasonable and unnecessary.
  I understand some of my distinguished colleagues' objections to what 
seems like legislating on an appropriations bill, but I want to let my 
colleagues know that I have attempted to use all other avenues to fix 
this regulation. I completely agree with the EPA's objective of 
cleaning up our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams, but firmly believe 
that this regulation oversteps congressional mandated authority and 
intent for the implementation of the Clean Water Act.
  I assure my colleagues that I have done all that I could to encourage 
the EPA to back down before we got to this point. I have personally met 
with the President. I have personally met with EPA Administrator Carol 
Browner. I have introduced legislation to reassert congressional intent 
regarding the Clean Water Act. My colleagues and I have held ten 
congressional Committee hearings, introduced six pieces of legislation 
on this matter, and held over 20 public meetings around the country 
that were attended by thousands of property owners.
  In Arkansas alone, we have held three public meetings and two 
congressional field hearings. In El Dorado over 1,000 attended; in 
Texarkana over 4,000 attended; in Fayetteville over 2,000 attended; and 
over 1,000 attended in Hot Springs and in Lonoke to learn how this new 
TMDL regulation would affect their private property and to protest the 
reach of the EPA into traditional non-point source activities.
  We have attempted all available avenues to right this wrong. It was 
never congressional intent for the EPA to regulate non-point sources or 
to interfere with States' implementation of TMDLs on its rivers, lakes, 
and streams.
  After all of our efforts to curb this regulation and bring it back 
into line with congressional intent have failed, we have been left with 
no other recourse but to restrict the EPA's funding for this TMDL 
regulation.
  This emergency supplemental appropriations bill is a good bill, and 
it rightly delays implementation of any new, unnecessary and 
unreasonable EPA regulations until Congress and the States have 
adequate time to address this issue properly and completely. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues for 
voting for final passage of H.R. 4425 and for supporting the funding 
for the Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act contained in this bill. By 
working together with Senator Domenici and his staff, we were able to 
quickly put together a piece of legislation that will compensate the 
many New Mexicans injured by the Cerro Grande fire that raged through 
Los Alamos and the surrounding forests in early May. Because of the 
federal government's role in setting what began as a controlled burn in 
the Bandelier National Park, this legislation was a necessary response 
from the federal government.
  The intensity of the Cerro Grande fire resulted in extraordinary 
losses for both the residents of Los Alamos and the surrounding 
pueblos. I am pleased that a compensation fund will now be available 
for those who lost their homes in the fire, those who were forced to 
close down their business and those who provided emergency relief to 
the threatened community. The compensation fund will also be made 
available for those who suffered other kinds of losses as a result of 
the fire. This would include aid to the Santa Clara Pueblo to help them 
restore the thousands of acres they lost to the Cerro Grande blaze. It 
would also include assistance to the members of the San Ildefonso 
Pueblo who have suffered economically due to the fire closing down the 
roads and cutting off the tourist traffic that frequents the pueblo. 
I'm also glad that we were able to provide funding for the Los Alamos 
National Laboratory so it can begin to address the damages it sustained 
as a result of the Cerro Grande fire.
  I am very pleased that the Cerro Grande compensation fund will be 
available shortly so people can get on with their lives and start 
rebuilding their communities. Once this legislation is signed by the 
President, FEMA will have 45 days to draft regulations that govern this 
claims process. I would like to thank FEMA, and especially Director 
James Lee Witt, for taking on this very large responsibility of 
handling the fire claims process. He has worked tirelessly to aid 
disaster victims across this country and I know he will devote the 
resources necessary to aid the victims of the Cerro Grande

[[Page S6234]]

fire. We hope that the regulations governing the claims process will be 
in place shortly and the victims of the fire can begin settling their 
claims with the federal government by late summer.
  As I thank my colleagues for their support, I would like to 
particularly thank Senator Domenici for his hard work in fighting for 
this money in the appropriations process. The initial appropriation of 
$455 million for this compensation fund will hopefully address most, if 
not all, of the damage caused by the Cerro Grande fire. The amount 
appropriated is a significant commitment by the federal government and 
by passing this legislation today, Congress has committed itself to 
compensating the victims of the Cerro Grande fire for the losses they 
incurred.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased and relieved that after 
weeks of uncertainty we have finally reached this point, and that we 
are ready to act on the Military Construction Bill.
  As always, I thank Senator Burns, the Chairman of the Military 
Construction Subcommittee for his leadership and bipartisan 
cooperation. I also want to thank Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd for 
their work in producing this bill. They set an excellent example for 
all of us to follow.
  The FY 2001 Military Construction Appropriations Bill provides $8.8 
billion dollars in spending. This agreement also represents a 
tremendous amount of work and a great deal of cooperation between the 
House and Senate.
  We went into conference with very different recommendations for 
projects, and simply not enough money to go around. We came out with a 
bipartisan package that is fair and balanced and, most importantly, 
addresses some of our most pressing military construction needs. I wish 
we could have done more because the needs are so significant.
  As our nation continues to tally up ever-larger budget surpluses, I 
hope that the Defense Department will channel more resources into 
military construction. We simply cannot continue to balance the best 
military in the world on the back of a crumbling infrastructure. We ask 
tremendous sacrifices from our military families, and this bill is an 
opportunity to address their pressing needs.
  Mr. President, I would also like to acknowledge the excellent 
contributions of the Military Construction Subcommittee staff for their 
many hours of hard work in crafting this agreement.
  I also want to make a few brief comments regarding the supplemental 
appropriations that have been attached to this legislation. I will vote 
for the conference report but I do so with serious reservations about 
numerous provisions in the supplemental. It is important to note that 
the package before the Senate today does not represent the work of the 
entire conference committee. The conference committee did not meet to 
consider the supplemental items.
  This has not been an ideal process. While this bill provides funding 
for needed projects and disaster relief, many needs were left 
unaddressed. Other projects were added that were not part of either the 
President's supplemental request or the Senate's supplemental 
provisions.
  I am particularly disappointed that this conference report does not 
include the Senate's language to provide Seattle and other local 
governments in Washington state with the needed reimbursement funding 
for last year's WTO meeting. The federal government has not been a true 
partner is sharing the costs for this event.
  I am particularly disappointed with the Congressional Majority, which 
promised to include this language. Unfortunately, when they met behind 
closed doors, they chose to neglect our obligation to Seattle. I will 
demand that the Senate act on this matter before we adjourn this year.
  In addition, I continue to have serious reservations about the 
assistance package to Columbia for counter narcotics activities. I have 
worked with Senator Leahy to strengthen the human rights provisions 
within the bill, and I did vote for both amendments to limit funding to 
Columbia during the Senate's consideration of the issue. If the 
Columbia funding were attached to a bill other than Military 
Construction where I serve as ranking member, I would give serious 
consideration to voting against the bill.
  I also want to note for my colleagues that this legislation provides 
significant disaster assistance for New Mexico to aid the Los Alamos 
area in dealing with the recent devastating fire. Senator Domenici and 
Senator Bingaman have been very diligent in working with the Senate on 
this issue.
  At this moment, fire crews in Washington state have finally gotten 
control of another significant fire near one of our country's nuclear 
weapons facilities. More than 200,000 acres were destroyed by a fast-
moving fire on and around the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
  Secretary Richardson is at Hanford today to assess the damage. I have 
been in contact with Governor Gary Locke and various federal officials 
to follow the fire developments. While it is too soon to know the 
extent of the damage, I do want my colleagues to be aware of this 
serious situation.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned that the supplemental 
appropriations contained in this Military Construction Appropriations 
conference report (accompanying H.R. 4425) do not provide for essential 
funding for SBA's popular 7(a) guaranteed business loan program.
  For nearly 50 years, SBA's 7(a) loan program has provided loans to 
start and grow small business across the country when they could not 
access financing in the commercial marketplace. SBA provides this 
assistance in the form of guaranties for loans made by a network of 
more than 5,000 private sector lenders. Currently, SBA's 7(a) portfolio 
includes nearly $40 billion in 7(a) loans representing as many as 
150,000 small businesses that might not be in business today were it 
not for their SBA guaranteed loans. The 7(a) program is funded by user 
fees and a modest appropriation intended to offset any potential losses 
on the SBA guaranteed loans. For fiscal year 2000, the taxpayers' cost 
for a 7(a) loan is only $1.16 for every $1000 guaranteed. And for each 
$10,000 loaned, at least one job is created.
  Despite the tremendous benefits provided by the 7(a) loan program, 
however, this year the available program level will not be adequate to 
meet the needs of the eligible, credit-worthy small businesses that 
will seek assistance from SBA. This means that by the end of the fiscal 
year the Agency will have to turn away some of the small entrepreneurs 
that are relying on SBA-guaranteed loans to finance the growth of their 
businesses. In an environment where small business is responsible for 
much of the growth in the American economy and most of the new job 
opportunities, this is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
  SBA has funds available that could be transferred to the 7(a) program 
to help to make sure that every eligible, credit-worthy small business 
that seeks SBA's loan assistance is able to access the loans that they 
need. The simple request would allow SBA to use funds that have been 
previously appropriated to it for the 7(a) program. If any of us were 
asked whether we support the small businesses in our States--in our 
districts, we would answer with a resounding ``yes.'' By including 
language to allow SBA to use existing funds for 7(a) program loans, we 
will be demonstrating in a very tangible way that our local small 
businesses can really count on this support.
  I don't understand why we, the Congress, continue to deny this simple 
request that means so much to so many and costs so little. This is 
nothing unanticipated or given to the Congress at the last minute:
  In SBA's FY 2000 request, SBA asked for a program level of $10.5 
billion for this program. The SBA only received a program level of 
$9.75 billion.
  The President's supplemental request letter of February 25, 2000 
included SBA's request for authority to transfer money to the 7(a) 
program to raise the program level to the requested $10.5 billion.
  When the Administrator testified on the FY 2001 budget in March of 
this year, she stated that SBA would need the $10.5 billion program 
level for FY 2000 at the then current demand level.
  On May 22, SBA Administrator Alvarez sent letters to Chairmen Stevens 
and Gregg expressing her concern that the transfer was not included in 
S. 2536.

[[Page S6235]]

  In a letter from Jacob Lew, director of OMB, to Chairman Young, 
Director Lew mentioned the concern by the Administration of the 
transfer ability.
  Now I am expressing my concern that it is not in H.R. 4425.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the Senate is today considering the 
conference report to accompany the FY2001 military construction 
appropriations bill, H.R. 4425. The bill includes funding for military 
facilities and infrastructure, including base improvements, operation 
and training facilities, barracks and family housing, and environmental 
compliance.
  Attached to the military construction bill is a supplemental spending 
package for FY2000 that includes funding for anti-drug efforts, 
including in Colombia, funds to replenish defense accounts that have 
been drawn down by the Clinton administration to pay for military 
operations in Kosovo and Bosnia, and funds for disaster assistance, 
wildland firefighting activities, and administrative expenses 
associated with repeal of the Social Security earnings limitation 
earlier this year.
  I am pleased that the total cost of the supplemental package was 
reduced from the original $13 billion proposed by the House to about 
$11 billion. I want to commend the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, and 
the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, for 
working to limit the cost of the supplemental package.
  I think we could have gone further, though. The bill includes about 
$600 million for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I 
question the need to include that money here. There is $7 million for 
peanut assessments. There is language in the bill that lifts the 
firewall that would prevent defense funds from being diverted to 
certain domestic programs. These are things I would omit from the bill, 
if I could.
  The fact is, though, that the bulk of the supplemental spending is 
urgently needed, even though some provisions of questionable merit have 
been included. More than half of the supplemental--$6.5 billion--is 
required to replenish defense operations and maintenance accounts that 
President Clinton has tapped to cover the cost of unauthorized military 
missions around the globe, including in Bosnia and Kosovo. Because O&M 
accounts have been seriously depleted, we find that we are now on the 
brink of serious readiness problems in our military if we do not 
replenish these accounts, and do so quickly.
  Mr. President, the firefighting money in this bill--$350 million--
like the defense money--is an urgent matter. The Los Alamos, New 
Mexico, fires have dominated the news, but wildfires this year have 
consumed more than 25,000 acres in Arizona, as well. Nationwide, over 
one million acres have burned this year, and we still have several 
months remaining in our fire season. The money in this bill will 
reimburse the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service for 
costs incurred in connection with firefighting efforts on the Grand 
Canyon rim and elsewhere around the country. The firefighting funds 
have to be allocated.
  The bill allots $1.3 billion for counternarcotics activities, 
including Plan Colombia. That is a start, but we are likely going to 
have to do even more to help gain control of drug production and 
distribution from Colombia.
  There are several items of particular importance to the state of 
Arizona that I would like to highlight at this point. First and 
foremost is language to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from 
moving forward with a unilateral reallocation of Central Arizona 
Project (CAP) water. This language is defensive in nature--that is, it 
is intended only to counter a threat by the Interior Secretary to 
reallocate CAP water by the end of the calendar year contrary to the 
terms of Indian water settlements now being negotiated. Water is a 
precious and scarce resource, and the allocation of CAP water is one of 
the most important decisions affecting the future of my state. Arizona 
simply cannot allow the Secretary to reallocate its water merely 
because he is about to leave office.
  The bill includes a $12 million one-time appropriation to be split 
equally between Arizona, Texas, California, and New Mexico to help 
cover the overwhelming costs associated with processing criminal 
illegal immigrants and the significant number of border-related drug 
cases.
  It also includes a one-time, $2 million appropriation for Arizona to 
assist Cochise County and other affected jurisdictions along the U.S.-
Mexican border that are incurring significant costs for local law 
enforcement and criminal justice processing because of record-breaking 
levels of illegal immigration and smuggling of drugs and people into 
the state.
  Dr. Tanis Salant, a professor at the University of Arizona, is close 
to completing a study on unreimbursed costs that occur as a result of 
increased illegal immigration in the area. He estimates that Arizona's 
border counties collectively spend $15.5 million to bring criminal 
illegal aliens to justice. Cochise County spends 33 percent of its 
overall local criminal justice budget to process criminal illegal 
immigrants. This does not even include incarceration costs, which are 
also severe.
  Finally, the bill funds important military construction projects in 
the state:
  $2.265 million to improve the readiness center at the Army National 
Guard's Papago Military Reservation;
  $1.598 million for the readiness center at the Guard's Yuma 
installation; and
  $3.35 million for the child-development center at Fort Huachuca.
  These were projects that were not identified in the President's 
budget, but which are important priorities in the state.
  As I said early on, there are some things in this bill that I do not 
support. There is questionable need for some of the military 
construction projects that are funded. The LIHEAP money should not be 
included here. Peanut assessments. The breaching of the defense 
firewall. But it seems to me that the good in the bill outweighs the 
bad.
  Mr. President, I will vote for this bill. We have no choice but to 
replenish our defense accounts and pay for emergency items, like 
firefighting and disaster relief.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to share with my 
colleagues my views on several items contained within this conference 
report.
  Shortly after becoming a Senator, I was named chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs. One of the most 
important matters before our subcommittee this year is the 
Administration's proposed anti-drug aid package for Colombia. The 
conference report before the Senate today includes $1.3 billion for 
this plan.
  On February 25, I called the first hearing of my subcommittee to 
consider the many facets of this package. I must say that at first, I 
was quite skeptical of providing such a dramatic increase in anti-drug 
military aid to Colombia. My concerns centered on whether the United 
States had a comprehensive long-term strategy for this plan, whether 
this swift and dramatic infusion of military hardware would result in a 
worsening of the human rights record of the Colombian military, and 
whether there were assurances that these funds would not be wasted due 
to corruption.
  At our hearing, our subcommittee explored a number of questions about 
this plan. Key among our witnesses was Jose Miguel Vivanco, Executive 
Director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch. Mr. Vivanco 
outlined a report he had just authored documenting the continued links 
between the Colombian military to the paramilitaries that have been 
implicated in countless human rights abuses in Colombia. He also 
touched on the lack of progress in prosecution in Colombia's civilian 
courts of military personnel accused of human rights abuses.
  Two months later, I chaired a meeting of the Foreign Relations 
Committee with the President of Colombia, Andres Pastrana. At this 
meeting, several members of the Committee and other interested Senators 
were able to discuss in depth with Mr. Pastrana our concerns about this 
plan. I came away from our meeting fully convinced that President 
Pastrana is a courageous, reform-minded leader who is committed not 
only to ending drug trafficking in Colombia, but also to bringing 
stability, ending violence, and promoting human rights there as well.
  I am gratified that concerns such as those raised at our subcommittee 
hearing and our meeting with President

[[Page S6236]]

Pastrana received attention as the House and Senate have considered the 
Administration's plan. In that regard, the conference report before the 
Senate today includes several stringent requirements, including a 
series of conditions on the progress of Colombia's military in 
addressing human rights abuses; $29 million more than the President's 
request for human rights and justice programs; a requirement that the 
U.S. President develop a comprehensive strategy with benchmarks; and 
additional anti-drug funding to neighboring nations so that this 
problem is not simply exported out of Colombia.
  Although there remain numerous critics who do not support this plan, 
I would attest that the provisions in this bill are far better than 
simply appropriating the funds without condition. With these strong 
provisions included, I support passage of this anti-drug package for 
Colombia.
  However, let's be clear that passage of this plan today is not the 
end of Congress' consideration of this critical issue. As chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs, I will closely monitor 
implementation of this aid package to ensure that the conditions 
enacted by Congress today are carried out responsibly and thoroughly by 
the Administration.
  I would also like to mention a rider inserted by the Conference 
Committee that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from 
finishing work on a proposed rule revising the Total Maximum Daily Load 
(TMDL) program under the Clean Water Act. The TMDL issue is an 
important policy matter, one with significant consequences for public 
use of our Nation's surface waters and for many businesses, farmers and 
others who will be affected by the rule. No doubt, this issue is 
controversial and merits careful consideration and debate. However, the 
TMDL provision inserted into the Military Construction and Supplemental 
Appropriations bill inappropriately transfers the decision regarding 
the TMDL rule from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Senate 
and House Appropriations Committees.
  This rider is not germane to the underlying bill, was inserted into 
the Conference Report without any public debate, and cannot be amended. 
In my view, important decisions regarding environmental policy should 
not be made behind closed doors and out of public view. This type of 
backdoor legislating circumvents the legislative process of debate and 
amendment, and abuses the public trust. By including this language in a 
conference report that cannot be amended, Senators must either accept 
the offensive provision, or vote down an appropriations bill containing 
important funds for disaster relief, humanitarian aid, and national 
defense.
  Since the bill provides critical assistance to people that need help, 
I reluctantly support its passage.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address 
the Senate once again on the subject of military construction projects 
added to an appropriations bill that were not requested by the 
Department of Defense. This bill contains more than $1.5 billion in 
unrequested military construction projects. More importantly, I would 
like to spend a few minutes discussing the thorough perversion of the 
budget process by Congress in its relentless pursuit of the other white 
meat. There is $4.5 billion in pork-barrel spending in this bill, $3.3 
billion of that total in the so-called ``emergency supplemental.''
  Webster's, Mr. President, defines ``emergency'' as ``a sudden, 
generally unexpected occurrence or set of circumstances demanding 
immediate action.'' What we have here is the antithesis of that 
concept. It is ironic that the emergency spending bill before us today 
includes $20 million for abstinence education, because the taxpayers 
are really getting screwed. For months the leadership of this body made 
a deliberate decision not to act quickly and deliberately with regard 
to legitimate spending issues involving military readiness and the 
crisis in Colombia. The decision was made not to treat these essential 
and time-sensitive activities as expeditiously as possible. Now, after 
many months and a legislative trail more complicated and illogical than 
any Rube Goldberg contraption, we are presented with an $11 billion 
bill replete with earmarks that under no credible criteria should be 
categorized as ``emergency''--and this is in addition to the over $1.5 
billion added to the underlying military construction appropriations 
bill for strictly parochial reasons.
  Mr. President, as everyone here is aware, I regularly review spending 
bills for items that were not requested by the Administration, 
constitute earmarks designed to benefit specific projects or 
localities, and did not go through a competitive, merit-based selection 
process. I submit lists of such items to the Congressional Record, 
generally prior to final passage of the spending bill in question. In 
the case of the Military Construction bill for fiscal year 2001, I 
submitted such a list, along with a statement critical of the process 
by which that bill was put together, particularly the over $700 million 
worth of military construction projects added to that bill that were 
not requested by the Department of Defense--an amount, I reiterate, 
that was doubled in conference with the rarely fiscally responsible 
other Body.
  This is an institution that has proven itself incapable of passing 
legislation on an expedited basis that genuinely warrants the 
categorization of ``emergency.'' Funding for ongoing military 
operations that strains readiness accounts is a case in point. The one 
thing, Mr. President, we can pass without hesitation and consideration 
is money for pork-barrel projects. Just prior to final passage back in 
May of the Military Construction appropriations bill, the 
Appropriations Committee pushed through $460 million for six new C-130J 
aircraft for the Coast Guard--the very aircraft that we throw money at 
with wanton abandon as though our very existence as an institution is 
dependent upon the continued acquisition of that aircraft.
  That funding and those aircraft are in the bill that emerged from 
conference with the House. A consensus exists, apparently, that we must 
have six more C-l3OJs in addition to the ones added to the defense 
appropriations bill despite a surplus in the Department of Defense of 
C-130 airframes that should see us through to the next millennium and 
beyond. Message to parents saving up for little junior's college 
education: invest in the stock of the company that makes C-130s; the 
United States Congress will ensure your offsprinq never need student 
loans.
  Compared to the $460 million for the C-130s, it hardly seems worth it 
to mention the $25 million added to this emergency spending measure for 
yet another Gulfstream jet, other than to point out that it is 
manufactured in the same state as the C-130s.
  It was reassuring that a compromise was reached on the issue of 
helicopters for Colombia. It is extremely unfortunate, however, that an 
issue of life and death for Colombian soldiers being sent into combat 
to fight well-armed drug traffickers and the 15,000-strong guerrilla 
army that protects them was predicated upon parochial considerations. 
Valid operational reasons existed for the decision by the Department of 
Defense and the Colombian Government to request Blackhawk helicopters, 
and the Senate's decision to substitute those Blackhawks for Huey IIs 
was among the more morally reprehensible actions I have witnessed 
within the narrow realm of budgetary decision-making by Congress.
  Specific to the Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
Year 2001, it continues to strain credibility to peruse this 
legislation and believe that considerations other than pork were at 
play. How else to explain the millions of dollars added to this bill 
for National Guard Armories, which, in a typically Orwellian gesture, 
are now referred to as ``Readiness Centers?'' Whether the $6.4 million 
added for a new dining facility at Sheppard Air Force Base: the $12 
million for a new fitness center at Langley Air Force Base; the $5.8 
million for a joint personnel training center at Fairchild Air Force 
Base, Alaska; the $3.5 million added for an indoor rifle range and $1.8 
million for a religious ministry facility at the Naval Reserve Station 
in Fort Worth, Texas; the $4 million added for the New Hampshire Air 
National Guard Pease International Trade Port; the $4 million for a 
Kentucky National Guard parking structure; and the $14 million added 
for New York National Guard facilities all constitute vital spending 
initiatives is highly questionable.

[[Page S6237]]

  Mr. President, there are one-and-a-half billion dollars worth of 
projects added to this bill at member request. Not all of them, in 
particular family housing projects warrant criticism or skepticism. 
There are important quality of life issues involved here. The public 
should be under no illusions, however, that over a billion dollars was 
added to this bill solely as a manifestation of Congress' naked pursuit 
of pork.
  As mentioned, far more disturbing than the pork added to the military 
construction bill is the damage done to the integrity of the budget 
process by the abuse of the concept of emergency spending. Permit me to 
quote from the opening sentence from the Washington Post of June 29 
with regard to this bill: ``Republicans are trying to grease the skids 
for passage of a large emergency spending bill for Colombia and Kosovo 
with $200 million of 'special projects' for members, and one of the 
biggest winners is a renegade Democrat being courted by the GOP.''
  That, Mr. President, summarizes the process pretty well. Military 
readiness and the situation in Colombia are not in and of themselves 
important enough to warrant support for this spending bill; we must 
have our pork. We must have our $25 million for a Customs Service 
training facility at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, a site most 
certainly chosen for its bucolic charm and operational attributes 
rather than for parochial reasons. We must have our $225,000 for the 
Nebraska State Patrol Digital Distance Learning project. We must have 
over $3 million earmarked for anti-doping activities at the 2002 
Olympics, in addition to the $8 million for Defense Department support 
of these essential national security activities on the ski slopes of 
Utah. We must have $300,000 for Indian tribes in North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Montana and Minnesota.
  Those of us who had the misfortune of witnessing one of the most 
disgraceful and blatant explosions of pork-barrel spending in the 
annals of modern American parliamentary history, the ISTEA bill of 
1998, should be astounded to see the projects funded in this emergency 
spending bill:
  $1.2 million for the Paso Del Norte International Bridge in Texas;
  $9 million for the US 82 Mississippi River Bridge in Mississippi;
  $2 million for the Union Village/Cambridge Junction bridges in 
Vermont;
  $5 million for the Naheola Bridge in Alabama;
  $3 million for the Hoover Dam Bypass in Arizona and Nevada;
  $3 million for the Witt-Penn Bridge in New Jersey; and
  $12 million for the Florida Memorial Bridge in Florida.
  These, Mr. President, are but a tip of the iceberg--an iceberg that 
shall not stand in the way of the icebreaker added to this bill, albeit 
for more credible reasons than the vast majority of member-adds.
  As I stated earlier, tracking the process by which this bill comes 
before us today has been a truly Byzantine experience. The addition of 
$600,000 for the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System in South Dakota 
serves as sort of a tribute to the unusual path down which this 
legislation has traveled. The most skilled legislative adventurers 
would be hard pressed to follow the trail this bill followed before 
arriving at its destination here today.
  I cannot emphasize the significance of piling billions of dollars in 
pork and unrequested earmarks into a bill that we have categorized for 
budgetary purposes as ``emergency.'' Consider the distinction between 
emergency spending essential for the preservation of liberty and to 
deal with genuine emergencies that cannot wait for the usual annual 
appropriations process, and the manner in which Congress abuses that 
concept and undermines the integrity of the budgeting process. When I 
review an emergency spending measure and read earmarks like $2.2 
million for the Anchorage, Alaska Senior Center; $500,000 for the Shedd 
Aquarium/Brookfield Zoo for science education programs for local school 
students; $1 million for the North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health 
System in Long Island, New York; $1 million for the Center for Research 
on Aging at Rush-Presbyterian--St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago; 
and $8 million for the City of Libby in Montana, plus another $3.5 
million for the Saint John's Lutheran Hospital in Libby, I am more than 
a little perplexed about the propriety of our actions here.
  Is the American public expected to believe that what the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee calls a ``must-pass bill'' essential for 
national security should include emergency funding for Dungeness 
fishing vessel crew members, U.S. fish processors in Alaska, and the 
Buy N Pack Seafoods--how do you, Mr. President, even write that bill 
language with a straight face--processor in Hoonah, Alaska, research 
and education relating to the North Pacific marine ecosystem, and the 
lease, operation and upgrading of facilities at the Alaska SeaLife 
Center, and the $7 million for observer coverage for the Hawaiian long-
line fishery and to study interaction with sea turtles in the North 
Pacific. Finally, and not to belabor the point, is the $1 million for 
the State of Alaska to develop a cooperative research plan to restore 
the crab fishery truly a national security imperative?
  My friend and colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm, has referred to 
the sadly typical smoke and mirrors budgeting gimmickrey pervasive in 
this bill. I am disturbed by these budgeting gimmicks designed to 
prevent Congress from complying with the revenue and spending levels 
agreed to in the Budget Resolution. This bill is a betrayal of our 
responsibility to spend the taxpayers' dollars responsibly and enact 
laws and policies that reflect the best interests of all Americans.
  For example, this bill waives the budget caps to allow for more 
discretionary spending. This bill also waived the firewall in the 
budget resolution between defense and nondefense spending on outlays. 
The end result is that this gives the Senate Appropriations Committee 
the freedom to move the $2.6 billion the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee did not spend on much-needed readiness into non-defense 
spending.
  This bill further changes current law and shifts the payment date for 
SSI, the Supplemental Security Income program, from October back to 
September. What that does is shift money into fiscal year 2000. In the 
process, it allows $2.4 billion more be spent in fiscal year 2001 by 
spending that same amount of money in the previous year. This bill also 
uses the gimmick of moving the pay date for veterans' compensation and 
pensions from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2000. Both of these 
provisions are further examples of the irresponsible budget gimmickry 
that allows the Congress to spend more without any accountability.
  Mr. President, to conclude, this bill is a travesty, a thorough slap 
in the face of all Americans concerned about fiscal responsibility, 
national security, the scourge of drugs on our streets, and the 
integrity of the representation they send to Congress. We should be 
ashamed of ourselves for passing this bill--a bill that members of the 
Senate had no time to review despite misleading statements to the 
contrary voiced on the floor of the Senate. Unfortunately, shame 
continues to elude us, and the country is poorer for that flaw in our 
collective character.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the list of unrequested items.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

H.R. 4225 FY01 conference MILCON and supplemental add-ons, increases & 
                                earmarks

                        [In millions of dollars]

M1A2 Tank Upgrades................................................163.7
Patriot Missile Program.............................................125
Walking Shield Program..............................................0.3
2002 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games............................  8
Sale of a Navy Drydock to Bender Shipbuilding, Mobile, AL.
Corps of Engineers Flood Protection, Devils Lake, North Dakota......  2
Corps of Engineers Flood Protection, Princeville, North Carolina....1.5
Corps of Engineers improvements, Johnson Creek, Arlington, TX.......  3
Corps of Engineers dredging, Saxon Harbor, Wisconsin................0.2
DoE Oak Ridge, Tennessee............................................ 25
DoE Kansas City Plant, Missouri..................................... 11
DoE Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas.................................7.5
DoE Los Alamos, NM..................................................  5
DoE Sandia Lab, NM.................................................. 14
DoE Transportation/Fleet Upgrades................................... 10

[[Page S6238]]

DoE Savannah River Site.............................................1.5
DoE Nevada Test Site U1h Shaft improvements.........................2.5
DoE Office of Security Staffing.....................................  3
DoE Worker Health Concerns Paducah, KY & Portsmouth, OH............. 10
DoE Uranium Enrichment Decontam. and Decommission. Fund............. 58
DoE Environmental Cleanup at Paducah, KY & Portsmouth, OH........... 16
DoE Uranium and Thorium licensee reimbursements..................... 42
Land acquisition at Blount Island, Florida.......................... 35
Implementation of the 1999 Livestock Mand. Price Reporting Act.....1.35
Farm Service Agency Salaries and Expenses.........................77.56
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).................................. 81
Authorizes Sec. of Agriculture to use CCC funds to offset the 
    assessment on peanut producers for losses from 1999.
DoJ Funds to reimburse Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California 
  municipal governments for federal costs associated with handling 
  and processing of illegal immigrants.............................. 12
DoJ Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement (CALEA)...........181
Hurricane(s) assistance to fishermen...............................10.8
Long Island Lobster Fishery Compensation for New York/Conn..........7.3
West Coast Groundfish fishery disaster relief (CA, OR & WA).........  5
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom..................  2
Bering Sea Crag Fishery for Oregon, Washington, and Alaskans........ 10
Voluntary Fishing Capacity reduction program (NE U.S.).............. 10
Hawaiian Long-line fishing/Sea Turtle interaction/observers.........  7
North Pacific/Alaska SeaLife Center emergency appropriation.........  5
BLM Wildland Fire Management funding................................200
BLM Land Acquisition--Douglas Tract in Southern Maryland............  2
Storm Damage Repairs in National Forests in Minnesota & Wisc........  2
Authorizes Const. of Indian Health Service Clinic in King Cove, AK.
Authorizes compensation to Buy N Pack Seafoods in 1999 and 2000 for 
    losses in Dungeness crab fishing in Glacier Bay Park, AK.
DoL--Abstinence Education--Maternal and Child Health Grant.......... 20
Const. of Little Flower Children's Services Clinic, Wading River, NY  3
International HIV/AIDS funding...................................... 12
CDC Chronic and Environmental Disease Prevention, Houston, TX......0.46
Payment to States for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance........... 35
Auth. extension of funds to Anchorage, AK Senior Citizen's Center.
Improvement in Postsecondary Education, College of New Jersey......0.75
Education Research, Statistics Center, George Mason Univ., VA.....0.368
Improvements to St. John's Lutheran Hospital, Libby, Montana........3.5
Economic Development Administration Grant to Libby, Montana.........  8
Arch. of the Capitol--Capitol Fire Safety Improvements............17.48
NTSB Alaska Air/Egypt Air Investigation Costs....................19.739
DOT Paso Del Norte International Bridge, TX.........................1.2
DOT US 82 Mississippi River Bridge..................................  9
DOT Union Village/Cambridge Junction in Vermont.....................  2
DOT Naheola Bridge, Alabama.........................................  5
DOT Hoover Dam Bypass in Arizona and Nevada.........................  3
DOT Witt-Penn Bridge in New Jersey..................................  3
DOT Florida Memorial Bridge......................................... 12
National Environmental Policy Institute, Washignton, DC............0.75
DOT Woodrow Wilson Bridge, VA/MD....................................170
DOT transfer to EPA for telecommuting pilot program.................  2
DOT Metro-North Danbury to Norwalk, CT commuter rail project........  2
DOT Second Avenue Subway improvements, NYC, NY......................  3
DOT Improvements to the Halls Mill Road, Monmouth County, NJ........  1
Treasury in-service firearms training facility, WV.................24.9
Treasury--Secret Service funds for National Security Special Events. 10
White House--EOP funds for restoration/reconstruction of e-mail.....8.4
Winter Olympics/Paralympic Games Doping Control Program.............3.3
Provide FY00 funds for the nebraska State Patrol Digital Distance 
    learning project.
5 HUD Economic Develop. Initiatives Comm. Dev. Block Grants:
City of Park Falls, Wisconsin.......................................1.3
Lake Superior BTC Cultural Center, Washburn, Wisconsin.............0.25
Hatley, Wisconsin for water, wastewater, and sewer system imp.......0.9
Hamlet, North Carolina for demolition and removal of buildings.....0.05
Youngstown, Ohio for design and constr. of a Community Center....... 25
Home Investment Partnership Program, New Jersey..................... 11
Home Investment Partnership Program, North Carolina Housing Finance 
  Agency............................................................ 25
FEMA Buyout of properties in flood plains........................... 50
NASA Software work for future Mars Missions.........................  1
NASA Online ``Learning Flight Control for Intell. Fl. Cont. Sys.'' 
  proj..............................................................0.5
DC reimbursement for IMF and world Bank Demonstration.............4.485
DOT Study, HWY 8 from Minnesota Border thru Wisconsin.
6 C-130Js for the Coast Guard.......................................468
1 Gulfstream V (C-37A) for the Commandant of the Coast Guard........ 45
LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program)..................600
Military Construction, Blount Island, FL............................ 35
Washington, DC Police Department Funding............................4.5
Lewis & Clark Rural Water Project in South Dakota...................0.6
Airborne Reconnaissance Low (ARL) aircraft.......................... 30
Colombia--Substitutes 30 Blackhawk helos requested by the 
    administration and the Colombian Government for a total of 60 
    Huey II helicopters.
Cerro Grande/Los Alamos Fire Emergency Conservation Program......... 10
Cerro Grande, Watershed and Flood Prevention Ops, Los Alamos........  4
Dept. of Int. BIA Operation of Indian Programs, Cerro Grande NM...8.982
Buy America Provisions, Arabian Gulf, Kwajalein Atoll.
Authorizes Purchase of an elevated Water Tank, Millington, TN.
Authorizes Light Rail Connector, Ft. Campbell, Kentucky.
Authorizes SECAF to conduct milcon dem. project, Brooks, AFB, TX
Elementary School for the Central Kitsap District, Bangor, WA.......  1
Study the Health of Vieques, Puerto Rico Residents.................. 40
Purchase Tactical High Energy Laser for the Army....................5.7
Purchase F-15 Eagle Fighters for the Air Force...................... 90
CH-46 Helicopter engine Procurement................................. 27
EP-3 Sensor Improvements for the Navy..............................25.8
Dam Construction, West Virginina.................................... 11
U.S. Customs Service Training Center, Harpers Ferry, WV............. 25
U-2 Reconnaissance aircraft improvements..........................212.7
WARSIMS for the Army................................................  5
Biometrics Assurance Program........................................  7
EPA Macalloy Special Account, Charleston, SC........................9.7
Atlas Pulsed Power Experimental Facility, Nevada Tst Site...........  5
DoE Science Programs, Natural Energy Lab, Hawaii....................2.5
DoE Science Programs, Burbank Hospital, Fitchburg, MA...............  1
DoE, St. Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, IL.........................  1
DoE Science Program, North-Shore, Jewish Hlth. Sys., Long Island....  1
DoE Supply Programs to Meterials Science Center, Tempe, AZ..........  1
Prohibits the use of federal funds to the Nuclear Regulatory 
    Commission for FY00 and 01, Chattanooga, TN Tech Trng Ctr.
West Virginia, Dept. of the Interior, Surface Mining Reg. Program.9.821

[[Page S6239]]

HHS Projects for the Health Resources and Services/SSA.............. 20
Youth Offender Grants............................................... 19
Shedd Aquarium/Brookfield Zoo Science Programs......................0.5
Boston Music/Symphony Education Collaboration (Dept. of Educ.)....0.832
Ben Booke Arena and Hilltop Ski Area Grant, Anchorage, AK...........

     Total Plus-Ups for the Supplemental Portion Only: 
     $3,386,177,000.00.
                                  ____


                       MILCON portion of the bill

                        [In millions of dollars]

Alabama:
  Redstone Arsenal Space & Msl Def Command Bldg....................15.6
Alaska:
  Eielson AFB, Joint Mobility Complex............................... 25
  Elmendorf AFB, Child Development Center.........................7.666
Arizona:
  Ft. Huachuca, Child Develop. Center..............................3.35
  Army National Guard, Papago Mil. Reserv. Readiness Center.......2.265
  Yuma Readiness Center...........................................1.598
Arkansas:
  Pine Bluff Arsenal, Chemical Defense Qual. Facility...............2.5
  Little Rock AFB, C-130 Drop Zone................................1.259
California:
  Ft. Irwin, Presidio of Monterey Barracks Addition.................2.6
  Barstow USMC Log. Base, Paint & Undercoat Facility...............6.66
  Lemoore NAS, Child Dev. Center Expansion.........................3.79
  Miramar USMC Physical Fitness Center.............................6.39
  Monterey USN PostGrad. Building Extension........................5.28
  TwentyNine Palms, Bach. Enlisted Quarters.......................21.77
  Beal AFB, Control Tower.........................................6.299
  Fresno, Organiz. Maintenance Shop...............................0.978
  Parks, Organiz. Maintenance Shop................................6.062
  Bakersfield Readiness Center......................................0.5
  Fort Ord Thermochemical Conversion--Direct the Army to develop and 
      operate a thermochemical conversion pilot plant at Fort Ord.
Colorado:
  Peterson AFB, Computer Network Defense Facility.................6.826
  Peterson AFB, Maintain Main Access Gate..........................2.31
  Army Natl. Guard, Ft. Carson, Mobiliz. & Train. Equip. Site......15.1
  Air Natl. Guard, Buckley ANGB, Replace Joint Munitions Complex....  6
Connecticut:
  Orange Air National Guard Station Air Control Squadron Complex should 
      be considered in FY 2002.
Delaware:
  Army Natl. Guard, Smyrna Readiness Center........................7.02
  Dover AFB Control Tower highlight funding req. for FY 2002.
District of Columbia:
  Washington USMC Barracks, Site Improvements.......................7.4
  Washington USN Research Lab. Nano-Science Center................12.39
  8th and I Marine Barracks (1 Unit)................................0.5
Florida:
  NS Mayport, Aircraft Carrier Wharf Improvements..................6.83
  Panama City USN Coastal System Center, Amphib. War. Facil........9.96
  Tyndall AFB, Weapons Controller Train. School...................6.195
  Army Reserve, Clearwater Aviation Support Facil..................17.8
  Army Reserve, St. Petersburg Arm. For. Res. Center................ 10
  USAF Reserve, Homestead, Fire Station.............................  2
Georgia:
  Ft. Gordon, Consolidated Fire Station.............................2.6
  Athens USN Supply Corps School, Fitness Center...................2.95
  Moody AFB, Dormitory............................................8.818
  Robins AFB, Storm Drainage System..............................11.762
  Robbins AFB, Airmen Dining Facil................................4.095
Hawaii:
  USA Pokakuloa Train. Range........................................ 12
  USN Ford Island, Sewer Force Main.................................6.9
  Defense Wide, Pearl Harbor, Special Deliv. Drydeck Facil..........9.9
  Maui Readiness Center..........................................11.592
Idaho:
  Air Natl. Guard, Gowen Field, C-130 Assault Strip.................  9
Illinois:
  Natl. Guard, Aurora Readiness Center............................2.871
  Natl. Guard, Danville Readiness Center..........................2.435
Indiana:
  ANG, Ft. Wayne Int'l Airport, Replace Fuel Cell & Corrosion 
    Facility........................................................  7
  Grissom AFRB, Services Complex..................................11.29
  USNR, Grissom AFRB, Reserve Train. Facil.........................4.73
Iowa:
  Fairfield Readiness Center......................................1.066
Kansas:
  Ft. Riley, Adv. Waste Water Treatment Facil....................... 22
  McConnel AFB, Approach Lighting System............................2.1
  McConnel AFB, KC-135 Squad Ops/Aircraft Main. Unit..............9.764
  Air Natl. Guard, McConnell AFB, B-1 Power Check Pad..............1.55
  Ft. Leavenworth--Bell Hall Refurbishment earmark for FY 2002.
Kentucky:
  Ft. Knox Multi-Purpose Digital Training Range....................0.55
  Natl. Guard, Ft. Knox, Parking..................................3.929
Louisiana:
  Barksdale AFB, B-52H Fuel Cell Main. Dock......................14.074
  USNR, New Orleans Naval Support Activity.........................1.67
  New Orleans NAS, Joint Reserve Center.............................  7
Maine:
  Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Waterfront Crane Rail System..........4.96
Maryland:
  Ft. Meade, Barracks............................................... 19
  Patuxent River NAS, Environmental Noise Reduction Wall...........1.67
  Patuxent River NAS, Research & Test Eval. Support Facil..........6.57
  Aberdeen Proving Ground, Munitions Assessment/Processing Sys......3.1
Massachusetts:
  Hanscom AFB, Renovate Acquisition MGMT Facility................... 12
  Air Natl. Guard, Barnes Municipal Airport, Relocate Taxiway.......  4
  ANG, OTIS ANGB, Upgrade Airfield Storm Water System...............  2
  Westover AFB, USMC Reserve Training Facility......................9.1
  Westover AFB, USAF Reserve, Repair Airmen Quarters...............7.45
Michigan:
  Natl. Guard, Lansing Combined Main. Shop.......................... 17
  Natl. Guard, Augusta Organ. Main. Shop............................3.6
  Air Natl. Guard, Selfridge ANGB, Upgrade Runway................... 18
Minnesota:
  Natl. Guard, Camp Riley, combined Support Main. Shop...........10.368
Mississippi:
  USN Stennis Space Center, Warfighting Center.....................6.95
  Columbus AFB, Corrosion Control Facil...........................4.828
  Natl. Guard, Camp McCain, Modified Record Fire Range..............  2
  Natl. Guard, Oxford Readiness Center............................3.348
  ANG, Jackson Int'l Airport, C-17 Corr. Control/Main. Hangar.......1.7
  Family Housing, Gulfport Naval Con. Battalion Center (157 Units).20.7
Missouri:
  Ft. Leonard Wood, Airfield Improvements...........................4.2
  Natl. Guard, Maryville Readiness Center.........................4.225
  USNR, Whiteman AFB, Littoral Surveillance System.................3.57
  Family Housing, Ft. Leonard Wood (24 units)......................4.15
Montana:
  Malstrom AFB, Convert Commercial Gate...........................3.517
  Malstrom AFB, Helicopter Ops Facil..............................2.362
  Natl. Guard, Bozeman Readiness Center...........................4.916
Nevada:
  Fallon NAS, Corrosion Control Hangar.............................6.28
  Natl. Guard, Carson City USP&FO, Admin. Building................4.472
  Air Natl. Guard, Reno-Tahoe Int'l Airport, Fuel Storage Complex...  5
  Family Housing, Nellis AFB (26 units).............................  5
  Carson City Readiness Center--direct National Guard Bureau to insure 
      additional funding is provided.
New Hampshire:
  Air Natl. Guard, Pease Int'l. Trade Port, Med. Train. Facil.......  4
New Jersey:
  Picatinny Arsenal, Armament Software Eng. Center..................5.6
  McGuire AFB, Air Freight Terminal/Base Supply Complex............10.6
  Fort Dix Barracks $900,000 for the design of the facility.........0.9
New Mexico:
  Cannon AFB, Control Tower.......................................4.934
  Holloman AFB, Repair Bonito Pipeline............................18.38

[[Page S6240]]

  Kirtland AFB, Fire/Crash Rescue Station..........................7.35
New York:
  Ft. Drum, Battle Simulation Center................................ 12
  Air Natl. Guard, Hancock Field, Small Arms Train. Facil..........1.25
  Air Natl. Guard, Hancock Field, Upgrade Aircraft Main. Shops......9.1
  ANG, Niagara Falls Int'l. Airport, Upgrade Overrun & Runup........4.1
  West Point Multi-media Learning Center............................0.5
North Carolina:
  USMC Camp Lejeune, Armories.......................................  4
  Seymour Johnson AFB, Repair Airfield Pavements..................7.141
  Air Natl. Guard, Charlotte/Dgls. Airport, Replace Supply Whare....6.3
North Dakota:
  Natl. Guard, Wahpeton Arm. For. Readiness Center................10.96
Ohio:
  Wright-Patterson AFB, Consolidated Toxics Hazards Lab..........14.908
  Air Natl. Guard, Mansfield-Lahm Airport, Squad. Ops & Commun......7.7
  Air Natl. Guard, Springfield Airport, Power Chk/De-arm pad........  4
  Columbus Naval & Marine Reserve Center, Consolidated Air Res.....7.08
Oklahoma:
  Ft. Sill, Tactical Equip. Shop...................................10.1
  Altus AFB, C-17 Cargo Compartment Trainer.......................2.939
  Tinker AFB, Dormitory...........................................8.715
  Vance AFB, Main. Hangar........................................10.504
  Natl. Guard, Sand Springs, Arm. For. Res. Center................13.53
Oregon:
  Camp Rilea Train. Simulation Center..............................1.47
  Eugene Armed Forces Reserve Center Complex consideration for FY 2002.
Pennsylvania:
  Philadelphia Naval Surface Warfare Cent., Gas Turbine Test Fac..10.68
  Ft. Indiantown Gap, Repair Waste Treatment Plant/Sewage.........8.518
  Johnstown Regional Main. Shop.....................................4.5
  Mansfield Readiness Center........................................3.1
  New Milford Readiness Center....................................2.675
  Letterkenny Army Depot, Missile Igloo Modifications.............0.112
Rhode Island:
  Air Natl. Guard, Quonset State Airport, Main. Hangar & Shops......8.9
South Carolina:
  Charleston AFB, Base Mobility Warehouse.........................9.449
  Charleston AFB, Runway Repair..................................10.289
  Shaw AFB, Dining Facil..........................................5.252
  Beaufort USMCAS, Readiness Center................................4.87
  Leesburg Training Center, Infrastructure Upgrades...............5.682
  USN, Ft. Jackson Naval Reserve Armory.............................5.2
South Dakota:
  Ellsworth AFB, Base Civil Eng. Complex..........................10.29
  Natl. Guard, Sioux Falls, Consolidated Barracks/Edu. Facil......4.955
Tennessee:
  Natl. Guard, Henderson Readiness Center.........................5.165
  Natl. Guard, Tazwell Readiness Center............................3.51
Texas:
  Ft. Hood, Command & Control Facil.................................  4
  Ft. Hood, Fire Station/Transportation Motor Pool................6.492
  Corpus Christi NAS, Parking Apron Expansion......................4.85
  Ingleside USN Station, Mobile Mine Assembly Unit Facil...........2.42
  Kingsville NAS, Aircraft Parking Apron...........................2.67
  Dyess AFB, Fitness Center......................................12.813
  Lackland AFB, Child Dev. Center..................................4.83
  Sheppard AFB, Dining Facil.......................................6.45
  Laughlin AFB, Visitors Quarters................................11.973
  Ft. Bliss, Lab. Renovation........................................4.2
  Air Natl. Guard, Ellington Field, Replace Base Supply/Civil Eng. 
    Co.............................................................. 10
  USNR, NAS, Ft. Worth, Indoor Rifle Range.........................3.49
  USNR NAS, Ft. Worth, Religious Ministry Facil....................1.83
Utah:
  Hill AFB, Dormitory.............................................11.55
  S.A. Douglas Armed Forces Reserve Center Parking & Site Improv....0.7
Vermont:
  Air Natl. Guard, Burlington Int'l. Airport, Main. Complex.........9.3
Virginia:
  Ft. Eustis, Aircraft Main. Instruction Building..................4.45
  USN Dahlgren Naval Surf. Warfare Center, Joint Warf. Analysis C..19.4
  Langley AFB, Fitness Center.....................................12.18
  Natl. Guard, Richlands Org. Main. Shop..........................1.175
  Family Housing, Ft. Lee (52 units)................................8.6
  Fort Belvoir, Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail..............0.5
Washington:
  Bangor Naval Sub. Base, Strategic Sec. Support Facil..............4.6
  Bremerton Naval Station, Fleet Recreation Facil..................1.93
  Everett Naval Station, Aquatic Combat Training Facil..............5.5
  Puget Sound Naval Shipyd., Industrial Skills Center............... 10
  Fairchild AFB, Joint Personnel Training Center...................5.88
  Fairchild AFB, Runway Centerline Lighting.......................2.046
  Natl. Guard, Bremerton Readiness Center.........................4.341
  Natl. Guard, Yakima Readiness Center..............................1.6
  Ft. Lawton, Site Improvements.....................................3.4
  Ft. Lewis Vancouver Barracks Historic Facilities..................1.5
West Virginia:
  Air Natl. Guard, Yeager ANGB, Upgrade parking Apron...............  6
  USNR, Eleanor Res. Center.........................................2.5
Wyoming:
  Air Natl. Guard, Cheyenne Int'l. Airport, Control Tower..........1.45
Puerto Rico:
  Ft. Buchanan, Child Dev...........................................3.7
WorldWide Unspecified:
  USA Unspecified Minor Construction................................5.7
  USA Planning & Design............................................17.6
  USA Classified Project............................................0.5
  USN Planning & Design............................................. 10
  USN Unspecified Minor Construction................................  4
  USAF Unspecified Minor Construction...............................1.5
  USAF Planning & Design.........................................20.391
  Natl. Guard Planning & Design..................................20.547
  Natl. Guard Unspecified Minor Construction......................10.48
  Natl. Guard Unspecified Minor-WMDCST.............................. 25
  Air Natl. Guard Unspecified Minor Construction....................  4
  USA Reserve Planning & Design.....................................5.5
  USA Reserve Unspecified Minor Construction........................0.7
  USNR Planning & Design............................................2.2
  USAFR Planning & Design...........................................  1

     Total MILCON only: $1,226,226,000.00.
     Total MILCON Plus Supplemental: $4,612,403,000,00.
                                  ____


 Add-Ons, Increases and Earmarks Highlighted By Section and Designated 
                       as Emergency Requirements

       Section 111. Any military construction projects, including 
     architect and engineer contracts, estimated to exceed more 
     than $500,000 to be accomplished in Japan, in any NATO 
     country, or in countries bordering the Arabian Gulf are to be 
     awarded to United States firms or U.S. firms in joint venture 
     with host nation firms.
       Section 112. Any military construction project in U.S. 
     territories and possessions in the Pacific and on Kwajalein 
     Atoll, or in the Arabian Gulf, estimated to exceed $1 million 
     may be awarded to a foreign contractor only if the foreign 
     contractor bid exceeds a U.S. contractor bid by 20% or more. 
     Furthermore, for contract awards for military construction on 
     the Kwajalein Atoll this requirement is suspended for 
     Marshallese contractors.
       Section 124. Department of Defense funds may be transferred 
     for the purpose of funding programs of the Demonstration 
     Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.) 
     to pay for expenses associated with the Homeowners Assistance 
     Program.
       Section 130. Critical military construction funds may be 
     transferred from the Naval Reserve account to the Active Duty 
     Navy account for funding an elevated water storage tank at 
     the Naval Support Activity Midsouth, Millington, Tennessee.
       Section 131. Department of Defense military construction 
     funding may be used for the light rail connector located at 
     Fort Campbell, Kentucky and if funds become available, the 
     Secretary of the Army may later accept funds from the Federal 
     Highway Administration or the State of Kentucky.
       Section 133. Directs the Secretary of Defense to prioritize 
     military housing projects in San Diego over military housing 
     projects in cities in other communities where there are 
     bases.
       Section 134. $170 million is provided for the purposes of 
     dredging and foundation repairs for the Woodrow Wilson 
     Memorial Bridge in Virginia.
       Section 135. Provides $0.5 million in funds for the 
     Secretary of the Navy to improve and repair Marine Corps 
     Officer Quarters Number 6 belonging to the Commandant of the 
     Marine Corps, at the 8th and I Barracks, in Washington, D.C. 
     This is odd especially since elsewhere in this bill there is 
     restrictive language that prohibits more than $25,000 per 
     unit may be spent annually for maintenance and repair of ANY 
     general or flag officer quarters.
       Section 136. Authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to 
     conduct a logistics, maintenance, and military construction 
     demonstration project at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas.

[[Page S6241]]

       Section 137. Directs the Secretary of Defense to provide 
     not less than $1 million for the design of an elementary 
     school for the Central Kitsap School District in Bangor, 
     Washington. Putting this funding requirement in the emergency 
     supplemental bill is an end run around the normal 
     authorization and appropriations process. Now that design 
     work is obligated, then next year funding will become 
     available for the construction of the school through the 
     military construction authorization and appropriation bills. 
     Both Committees turned down this project because the 
     Department of Defense had not put any design money funding in 
     their budget.
     Chapter 1--Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
       Provides $40 million in emergency funding to Vieques, 
     Puerto Rico for the study of health or Vieques residents, 
     airport fire-fighting equipment, pier improvements at a 
     commercial ferry pier and terminal, construction of an 
     artificial reef and reef conservation, special payments for 
     Vieques commercial fisherman for lost days of fishing because 
     Navy training, roadways and bridge improvements in Puerto 
     Rico, adult training and reeducation programs, natural 
     resources preservation, protection and conservation, and 
     economic development programs.
     Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
       Provides $5.7 million for the purchase of Tactical High 
     Energy Laser (THEL) for the Army.
       Section 103. Provides $90 million for the purchase of F-15 
     Eagles for the Air Force.
       Section 104. Provides $163.7 million for the purchase of 
     Abrams tank M1A2 SEP Upgrades for the Army.
       Section 111. Provides $27 million for the purchase of 
     engines for the CH-46 and $25.8 million for the purchase of 
     EP-3 sensor improvement modifications for the Navy. Provides 
     $212.7 million for the purchase of U-2 reconnaissance 
     aircraft sensor improvements and flight simulators for the 
     Air Force. Provides $5 million for the development of WARSIMS 
     for the Army.
       Section 112. Provides $7 million total for biometrics 
     information assurance programs for the Army, probably at 
     Walter Reed Hospital in Maryland.
       Section 113. Provides $125 million for the purchase of 
     Patriot missile equipment for the Army.
       Section 114. Provides $300 thousand for Walking Shield for 
     the technical assistance and transportation of excess housing 
     to Indian Tribes in the States of North Dakota, South 
     Dakota, Montana and Minnesota.
       Section 116. Provides for the transfer of $9.7 million from 
     Department of Defense readiness funding to the Environmental 
     Protection Agency Macalloy Special Account for environmental 
     response funding in Charleston, South Carolina.
       Section 117. Provides $8 million to the Department of 
     Defense for communications, communications infrastructure, 
     logistical support, resources, and operational assistance 
     required by the Salt Lake Utah Organizing Committee to stage 
     the 2002 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.
       Section 119. Provides for the sale of Navy Drydock No. 9 
     (AFDM-3) located in Mobile, Alabama, to the private 
     shipbuilder Bender Shipbuilding and Repair Company, Inc. 
     without competitive bidding by other contractors.
       Section 205. Provides $5 million from the Department of 
     Energy Weapons Activities programs to move the Atlas pulsed 
     power experimental facility to the Nevada Test Site.
       Section 206. Provides $2.5 million from the Department of 
     Energy Science programs to the Natural Energy Laboratory in 
     Hawaii.
       Section 207. Provides $1 million from the Department of 
     Energy Science programs to the Burbank Hospital Regional 
     Center in Fitchburg, Massachusetts.
       Section 208. Provides $1 million from the Department of 
     Energy Science programs to the Center for Research on Aging 
     at Rush-Presbyterian-St Luke's Medical Center in Chicago, 
     Illinois.
       Section 209. Provides $1 million from the Department of 
     Energy Science programs to the North Shore-Long Island Jewish 
     Health System in Long Island, New York.
       Section 210. Provides $1 million from the Department of 
     Energy Supply programs to the Materials Science Center in 
     Tempe, Arizona.
       Section 211. Prohibits the use of federal funds 
     appropriated to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for fiscal 
     year 2000 and 2001 to relocate or prepare for the relocation 
     of personnel or functions from the Chattanooga Tennessee 
     Technical Training Center.
     Chapter 3--Military Construction
       Section 303. Provides $35 million from the Department of 
     Defense Military Construction Navy account for the purchase 
     of land at Blount Island, Florida.
     Chapter 4--Department of Transportation, Coast Guard
       Provides $468 million for the purchase of 6C-130J Hercules 
     aircraft for the Coast Guard and the funding of these 
     aircraft as an emergency requirement and therefore is not 
     subject to the budget caps.
     Chapter 2--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
       Provides $30.7 million for compensation of fisherman for 
     losses and equipment damage resulting from Hurricane Floyd 
     and other recent hurricanes and fishery disasters in the Long 
     Island Sound lobster fishery and west coast groundfish 
     fishery, and for the repair of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration hurricane reconnaissance aircraft 
     and designated as an emergency requirement and therefore is 
     not subject to the budget caps.
     United States Commission on International Religious Freedom
       Provides $2 million for the United States Commission on 
     International Religious Freedom and designates this funding 
     as emergency funding.


                           general provisions

       Section 2201. Provides $10 million for the Pribilof Island 
     and East Aleutian area of the Bering Sea for emergency 
     expenses for fisheries disaster relief and $7 million for 
     other disaster assistance, $3 million for Bering Sea 
     ecosystem research, and $1 million for the State of Alaska to 
     develop a cooperative research plan to restore the crab 
     fishery in Alaska and to designate this funding as emergency 
     funding and therefore the funding is not subject to the 
     budget caps.
       Section 2202. Provides $10 million for Northeast multi 
     species fishery to support a voluntary fishing capacity 
     program and designates this funding as emergency and 
     therefore not subject to the budget caps.
       Section 2203. Provides $2 million for studies relating to 
     the long-line interactions with sea turtles in the North 
     Pacific and $5 million for the commercial fishing industry in 
     the Northwest Hawaiian Islands for the Hawaiian Long-line 
     fishery and to designate this funding as emergency and 
     therefore is not subject to the budget caps.
       Section 2204. Provides $5 million in funding for and 
     directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish a North 
     Pacific Marine Research Institute at the Alaska SeaLife 
     Center by the North Pacific Research Board for the purpose of 
     carrying out education projects relating to the North Pacific 
     marine ecosystem with particular emphasis on marine mammal, 
     sea bird, fish, and shellfish populations in the Bering Sea 
     and Gulf of Alaska including populations located in or near 
     Kenai Fjords National Park and the Alaska Maritime National 
     Wildlife Refuge. This $5 million in funding is designated as 
     emergency funding and therefore is not subject to the budget 
     caps.
       Section 2303. Provides emergency status funding for United 
     States fish processors which have been negatively affected by 
     restrictions on fishing for Dungeness crab in Glacier Bay 
     National Park and which previously received interim 
     compensation and specifically ``Buy-N-Pack Seafoods Inc., 
     a United States fish processor in Hoonah, Alaska which has 
     been most severely impacted by these fishing restrictions.


                           general provisions

       Language stating that notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, no funds provided in this or any other Act may be 
     used to further reallocate the Central Arizona Project water 
     or to prepare an Environmental Assessment, Environmental 
     Impact Statement, or Record of Decision providing for the 
     reallocation of the Central Arizona Project water until 
     further act of Congress authorizing and directing the 
     Secretary of the Interior to make allocations and enter into 
     contracts for delivery of the Central Arizona Project water.
       Language stating that notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Indian Health Service is authorized to improve 
     municipal, private or tribal lands with respect to the new 
     construction of the clinic for the community of King Cove, 
     Alaska.
       Language which provides for compensation to Dungeness 
     fishing vessel crew members, fish processors which have been 
     negatively affected by restriction on fishing and Dungeness 
     Crab in Glacier Bay National Park; and, the Buy N Pack 
     Seafoods in Hoonah, Alaska which have been negatively 
     affected by restrictions on fishing in Glacier Bay National 
     Park.


                          independent agencies

       $2,374,900 in addition to amounts made available for the 
     following in prior Acts, shall be and have been made 
     available to award grants for work on the Buffalo Creek and 
     other New York watersheds and for aquifer protection work in 
     and around Cortland County, New York, including work on the 
     Upper Susquehanna watershed.
       $2,600,000 shall be transferred to the ``State and Tribal 
     assistance grants'' account to remain available until 
     expended for grants for wastewater and sewer infrastructure 
     improvements for Smithfield Township, Monroe County 
     ($800,000); the Municipal Authority of the Borough of 
     Milford, Pike County ($800,000); the city of Carbonadale, 
     Lackawanna County ($200,000); Throop Borough, Lackawanna 
     County ($200,000); and Dickson City, Lackawanna County 
     ($600,000), Pennsylvania.
       Language which redirects funding appropriated in title III 
     of the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2000, by striking ``in the town of Waynesville'' in reference 
     to water and wastewater infrastructure improvements as 
     identified in project number 102, and by inserting ``Haywood 
     County''; Fourpole Pumping Station'' in reference to water 
     and wastewater infrastructure improvements as identified in 
     project number 135; and by striking the words ``at the West 
     County Wastewater Treatment Plant.''


                department of health and human services

       Earmarking $20,000,000 for Health Resources and Services 
     for special projects of

[[Page S6242]]

     regional and national significance under section 501(a)(2) of 
     the Social Security Act, which shall become available on 
     October 1, 2000, and shall remain available until September 
     30, 2001.


                        administration on aging

       Earmarking $3,000,000 as an additional amount for Health 
     Resources and Services, to remain available until September 
     30, 2001, for renovation and construction of a children's 
     psychiatric services facility in Wading River, New York.
       Earmarking $2,200,000 for the Anchorage, Alaska Senior 
     Center, and shall remain available until expended.


                        department of education

       Amended by inserting after the words ``Salt Lake City 
     Organizing Committee'' the words ``or a governmental agency 
     or not-for-profit organization designated by the Salt Lake 
     City Organizing Committee.''
       Earmarking $19,000,000 provided to become available on July 
     1, 2000, for Youth Offender Grants, of which $5,000,000 shall 
     be used in accordance with section 601 of Public Law 102-73 
     as that section was in effect prior to the enactment of 
     Public Law 105-220.
       Earmarking $750,000 to remain available until expended, 
     which shall be awarded to the College of New Jersey, in 
     Ewing, New Jersey, for creation of a center for inquiry and 
     design-based learning in mathematics, science and technology 
     education.
       Inserting ``Town of Babylon Youth Bureau for an educational 
     program.''
       By striking ``$500,000 shall be awarded to Shedd Aquarium/
     Brookfield Zoo for science education/exposure programs for 
     local elementary schools students'' and inserting ``$500,000 
     shall be awarded to Shedd Aquarium/Brookfield Zoo for science 
     education programs for local school students.
       By striking ``Oakland Unified School District in California 
     for an African American Literacy and Culture Project'' and 
     inserting ``California State University, Hayward, for an 
     African-American Literacy and Culture Project carried out in 
     partnership with the Oakland Unified School District in 
     California.
       By striking ``$900,000 for the Boston Music Education 
     Collaborative comprehensive interdisciplinary music program 
     and teacher resource center in Boston, Massachusetts'' and 
     inserting an earmark for ``$462,000 to the Boston Symphony 
     Orchestra for the teacher resource center and $370,000 shall 
     be awarded to the Boston Music Education Collaborative for an 
     interdisciplinary music program, in Boston, Massachusetts.
       Earmarking $368,000 to be derived by transfer from the 
     amount made available for fiscal year 2000 for Health 
     Resources and Services Administration--Health Resources and 
     Services for construction and renovation of health care and 
     other facilities: Provided that such amount shall be awarded 
     to the George Mason University Center for Services to 
     Families and Schools to expand a program for schools and 
     families of children suffering from attentional, cognitive, 
     and behavioral disorders.


                           general provisions

       Earmarking $3,500,000 for the Saint John's Lutheran 
     Hospital in Libby, Montana for construction and renovation of 
     health care and other facilities and an additional amount for 
     the Economic Development Administration.
       Earmarking $8,000,000 only for a grant to the City of 
     Libby, Montana, such amount to be transferred to the City 
     upon its request notwithstanding the provisions of any other 
     law and without any local matching share of award conditions.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I use my leader time to make some 
announcements about the schedule.
  I, too, commend Senator Burns from Montana, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Military Construction Subcommittee, and his ranking 
member, Senator Murray of Washington State, for their work on this 
legislation. It is important. It has a lot of projects that are very 
important for our defense and the underlying military construction 
appropriations bill. I also extended to them my sympathy and 
appreciation for the fact that their bill had to carry a title II which 
brought a lot of emergency legislation, but it needed to be done. Their 
bill became the catalyst to move this emergency legislation through. It 
was not easy for them to have to deal with all the conflicting problems 
not in their jurisdiction. I thank them for what they did on this 
legislation.
  I thank Senator Gramm, Senator McCain, Senator Stevens, and Senator 
Byrd for their usual brilliance and innovation. What looked like 6 
hours of readings, multiple votes on points of order, and a contested 
final passage sometime tonight, Saturday, or Sunday, was resolved in a 
matter of minutes. It is a miracle.
  I know there will be objections to various parts and a lot of 
speeches will be made. That is great. There will be time for that 
later. I appreciate the help of Senator Daschle and all involved. We 
needed this bill. We needed this emergency legislation.
  Senator Stevens did the right thing. I thank him. I wanted to express 
my appreciation to all.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I also express my congratulations to Senator Stevens and 
Senator Byrd for their masterful effort in getting the Senate to this 
point, and for the managers of the bill itself. As Senator Lott has 
indicated, this was not an easy task. All the way to the very last 
moment it looked as if this could have been derailed. It wasn't, in 
part because of leadership and in part because of cooperation.
  I think we have done a good thing today, an important thing. It is 
important we finish this work prior to the time we leave. This bill 
will now go to the President, as it should. I know he will sign it. I 
think we are ending the way we should have ended, on a high note with a 
good deal accomplished.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, having been the Senate Democratic leader, I 
know that there comes a moment in time when leaders have to step in and 
act. Our two leaders did that at the critical moment. It is through 
their leadership that we have reached an understanding in this matter. 
I thank both leaders. I congratulate them on having done a great 
service. I say this: Every Senator is in their debt.
  I also thank my colleague and friend, Senator Stevens, for the 
leadership he has shown in these appropriations matters.
  I hope that both of our leaders, in particular, and all of our 
colleagues will have a very safe and enjoyable Fourth of July.
  Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Senator Byrd, for your comments and for your 
inspiration and for talking about the history of this great country and 
this special celebration of the Fourth of July, 2000, with family and 
friends. It is a special time for our country and in our lives. I look 
forward to it.

  Senator Byrd, I will have the presence of my very fine grandson that 
you spoke so beautifully about just 2 years ago on his birth date. I 
look forward to that moment.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. Please tell your handsome grandson, who has been blessed 
with a multitude of talents, I am sure, that this year is not the 
beginning of the 21st century. Tell him it is not the beginning of the 
third millennium. This is the last year of the 20th century. Regardless 
of what the media say and many politicians say, this is the last year 
of the 20th century and the last year of the second millennium.
  Let him know that, so that he will be raised in truth and will always 
seek truth.
  Mr. LOTT. Thank you, again.
  Senator Byrd, I want to note, when you enter my young grandson's 
room, on the wall to the left, in a beautifully framed device is the 
fantastic speech that you gave on the floor. It will always be there. 
What you had to say was so beautiful to say about our grandchildren, 
and about his birth, and quotes from the Bible, quotes from history.
  Anybody who thinks there is not a bipartisan spirit around here needs 
to know that there is no quote from the Republican majority leader in 
my grandson's room. The only speech in his room is the speech from that 
great Democrat of West Virginia, Robert Byrd.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I yield to Senator Reid.
  Mr. REID. Having listened and watched what went on and having served 
in government most of my adult life, it is not often we see such 
leadership in action close up. We have seen it here today. This is 
remarkable.
  I want to publicly express my appreciation for the work done by our 
leader. The burdens he bears I see close up. I see your burdens, Mr. 
Majority Leader, but not as up close and personal as

[[Page S6243]]

I see Senator Daschle's. What he does for us, the minority, is 
extraordinary, as evidenced by the very quick, instantaneous decisions 
he made in conjunction with you today. You are both to be applauded. 
This is democracy in action. It is what is good about government.
  I also extend accolades to the two of you. I have no military service 
in my background, but with the love and appreciation and dedication 
that Senators Stevens and Inouye have for the military, and Senator 
Warner and others who work for the defense of this country, they see it 
from a little different perspective than a lot of us because they have 
seen military action. I think they deserve a great deal of credit.
  Senator Inouye has been ill and has not been here this week, but his 
spirit has been here. He was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. 
He and Senator Stevens have guided the military of this country for the 
last decade as no one in the history of this country, in my opinion. I 
express appreciation for everyone on our side of the aisle for what 
these two men do for the military. Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye 
have personally felt the need for this military construction bill, and 
every word they speak indicates that.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid, for his comments.

                          ____________________