[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 88 (Tuesday, July 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Page S6465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  FY 2000 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on the Friday before the July 4 recess, 
the Senate passed the military construction appropriations bill, which 
included the supplemental spending package, by voice vote. Although 
there were a number of meritorious items in that bill, if there had 
been an up or down vote, I would have voted against it for a number of 
reasons.
  I was extremely disappointed in the Conferees' decision to drop the 
$5 million in emergency methamphetamine cleanup funds from the 
supplemental package.
  There was strong support for this provision from both Democrats and 
Republicans. And it was included in both the House and Senate 
supplemental packages.
  So, it doesn't make sense why it was suddenly dropped--especially 
when we're talking about dangerous chemical sites that are left exposed 
in our local communities. Without this provision, the bill provides 
hundreds of millions to help a foreign country fight a drug war, but 
turns a blind eye to one of the biggest drug problems right in our own 
back yards. That is unacceptable.
  Our failure to fund the cleanup of these labs is all the more 
disappointing because this bill is bloated with pork. There is $700 
million here for the Coast Guard alone, including $45 million for a C-
37A aircraft for the Coast Guard. The C-37 is a Gulfstream V executive 
jet. It's not even your average corporate jet, but one of the most 
expensive, top-of-the-line crafts
  Why should the American taxpayers pay $45 million so the Coast Guard 
officers can fly in luxury, when the military has trouble keeping its 
planes aloft because they lack spare parts? There is a drug crisis in 
this country and an immediate need for funds for peacekeeping 
operations, but that's no reason to buy luxury jets in an emergency 
spending bill.
  Mr. President, without the meth funding, states and local communities 
will have to bear the burden of cleaning up these highly toxic sites 
that are found every day in Iowa and throughout the Midwest, West and 
Southwest.
  In recent years, the Drug Enforcement Agency has provided critical 
financial assistance to help clean up these dangerous sites, which can 
cost thousands of dollars each.
  Unfortunately, in March, the DEA ran out of funds to provide 
methamphetamine lab cleanup assistance to state and local law 
enforcement. That's because last year, this funding was cut in half 
while the number of meth labs found and confiscated has been growing.
  In late May, the Administration shifted $5 million in funds from 
other Department of Justice Accounts to pay for emergency meth lab 
cleanup. And I believe that will help reimburse these states for the 
costs they have incurred since the DEA ran out of money. My state of 
Iowa has already paid some $300,000 of its own pocket for cleanup since 
March.
  However, we've got months to go before the new fiscal year--and the 
number of meth labs being found and confiscated are still on the rise. 
My $5 million provision in this emergency spending package would have 
provided enough money to pay for costly meth lab cleanup without 
forcing states to take money out of their other tight law enforcement 
budgets.
  If we can find the money to fight drugs in Colombia, we should be 
able to find the money to fight drugs in our own backyard. We should 
not risk exposing these dangerous meth sites to our communities.
  So I urge the Senate to support adding the $5 million in emergency 
meth cleanup funds to the FY 2001 Foreign Operations spending bill or 
another appropriations vehicle. It is unfair to force our state and 
local communities to shoulder this financial burden alone.

                          ____________________