Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 111 (Tuesday, September 19, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 111 (Tuesday, September 19, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8731-S8748]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of
conference on the bill (H.R. 4516), and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
The legislative clerk reads as follows:

The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill H.R.
4516 making appropriations for the Legislative Branch 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 this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to
the consideration of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of July 27, 2000.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the floor
situation right now? Is the floor open?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the conference
report on H.R. 4516 under a time agreement.
Mr. HARKIN. Further parliamentary inquiry: What is the time? I am
sorry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa does not have time under
the agreement.
Mr. HARKIN. How much time is there?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The managers have 2 hours equally divided.
Senator McCain has 1 hour; Senator Thomas has 1 hour; Senator Kennedy
has 30 minutes; Senator Wellstone has 30 minutes; Senator Dorgan has 30
minutes; and Senator Campbell has 30 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, I still want to understand the
parliamentary situation confronting the Senate right now. We are on the
conference report on Treasury-Postal appropriations and legislative
branch appropriations; is that not correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. There has been a unanimous consent entered into that set
a time limit on this bill and the number of speakers, and their time is
also set.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a second? If
the Senator needs time, I will give some of my time to the Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. President.
Again, to clarify the situation, I understand that we are now engaged
in 6 hours that will lead ultimately to a vote on the conference report
on the legislative branch appropriations bill; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is correct.
Mr. BENNETT. I understand that I have 1 hour under my control.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BENNETT. I hope that hour will not be necessary. I am prepared to
deal with it. I am prepared to stay on the floor during the hours that
are allocated to other Members of this body. But I hope we can move
this more rapidly than the 6 hours.
This is my fourth year as chairman of the Legislative Branch
Subcommittee and the second year that I have had the privilege of
serving with Senator Feinstein as the ranking member.
I want to begin this report by thanking Senator Feinstein for her
assistance in working on the conference report in the House. She, as
you know, Mr. President, is a former mayor. That experience gives her a
unique insight into some of the issues that we face in this
subcommittee. So I pay tribute to her and to her staff and to the
professional way in which she has handled her responsibilities.
In our final session of the conference, the question was raised by
Mr. Obey in the other body as to whether or not there would be
additional legislation added to the conference report. I told him at
the time that I knew of no such plan or program. I spoke accurately at
the time. However, as things often happen around here, changes did
occur under the sponsorship of the leadership of both Houses. As a
consequence, the conference report is somewhat expanded from that which
was negotiated.
Division A of H.R. 4516 contains the conference agreement for the
legislative branch appropriations for fiscal year 2001, and additional
funding for the credit subsidy which supports the FHA multi-family
housing insurance programs. Provision B contains the conference
agreement for the Treasury-general government appropriations and repeal
of the excise tax on telephones.

This bill has attracted attention, and the allocation of time that
has been set up around this bill is demonstrated by the time under the
control of Senators who have nothing to do with the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch and who presumably will talk about
other issues than those that are directly connected with the
legislative branch appropriations.
I will limit my comments to the conference agreement on the
legislative branch and defer to the other subcommittee chairmen and
other Senators who will address the funding that is contained in this
bill under their jurisdiction.
This conference agreement appropriates $2.53 billion for fiscal year
2001, which is approximately a 1.6-percent increase over the funding
for the fiscal year 2000 level, including the supplemental funding.
Both Senator Feinstein and I are proud of the fact that we have kept
the increase at such a low level, as we have tried to be as responsible
as possible in allocating funds for the legislative branch.
We spent a great deal of time going over the accounts and the
increases that agencies have had over the last 4 years to find where we
could best and most fairly cut or hold down expenditures without
impacting employees.
Our goal was to ensure that funding would be provided for all current
legislative branch employees. We have met that goal. No RIFs, or
reductions in force, will be required under this agreement.
Another priority was to make sure that adequate funding is provided
for

[[Page S8732]]

maintenance projects, particularly the projects that involve health and
safety issues. I have long since learned in my business career that one
of the quickest ways to temporarily show an increase on the bottom line
is to cut back on maintenance. One of the surest ways to guarantee that
you will get into trouble long term is to cut back on maintenance. We
have tried to make sure that we didn't make that mistake here in our
desire to hold down the total amount that was being spent.
We have also spent a great deal of time talking about security. We
made sure that the resources were made available to the men and women
who protect the Capitol, its visitors, and Members and staff.
I think we have accomplished all of our goals within the current
funding restraints. The conference agreement on the legislative branch
is a good agreement. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Before I yield so that Senator Feinstein can make her comments, I
would like to thank the staff for their hard work: Christine Ciccone,
who acts as the majority clerk; Chip Yost, my legislative director; Jim
English, who represents the Democratic staff director; Edie Stanley
with the Appropriations Committee; and Chris Kerig from Senator
Feinstein's office, all of whom have performed yeomen service, staying
up late nights and coming in the early morning to make sure those who
get the spotlight on the television look better than perhaps we really
are. I pay them that tribute and extend to them my personal thanks for
all the work they have done.

I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I acknowledge the comments made by the
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative Branch and
indicate my agreement with them. I also thank the staff people he has
duly mentioned, and I want to speak particularly to the funding of the
legislative branch.
It is my understanding on our side of the aisle that there is deep
concern about the addition of the Treasury-Postal bill on this bill,
largely because it contains a measure which would use 25 percent of the
non-Social Security surplus. I will leave that to others to discuss.
Senator Bennett and I worked in a bipartisan way on the fiscal year
2001 legislative branch appropriations bill. I believe it is a very
good bill. It addresses the critical areas of concern for the
legislative branch and is in the best interests of those whom we serve.
We worked very hard to ensure that each agency within our legislative
branch was treated fairly, and even though we were not able to fully
fund every agency's request, we made every effort to distribute the
scarce resources as fairly as possible. In some cases, we were able to
make modest increases above last year's level.
I particularly note that the $97.1 million which we are providing for
the Capitol Police will fund 1,481 full-time equivalents, a level which
conferees believe will enable the appropriate staffing at building
entrances to ensure the security of our Capitol campus.
Additionally, in order to address some very critical needs, the
conference agreement provides to the Capitol Police $2.1 million in
fiscal year 2000 emergency supplemental funds for security
enhancements, and provides the Architect of the Capitol $9 million in
fiscal year 2000 emergency supplemental funds to move forward with a
number of urgent building repairs.

This is my second year as ranking member of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, working alongside our dedicated and
distinguished subcommittee chairman, Senator Bennett. Senator Bennett
is always very open and willing to discuss the various issues that
arise in relation to this bill. He has been very accommodating to my
concerns as well as to the concerns of other Members of the Senate. I
know that firsthand. In fact, he never ceases to amaze me with his
extensive knowledge of the various departments and agencies under the
legislative branch--not only their basic structure and the function of
those agencies but their legislative histories as well. It has been a
great pleasure for me to work with Senator Bennett on this bill.
I urge the adoption of the conference agreement.
I yield some time, with the approval of Senator Bennett, to Senator
Harkin.
Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield.
Mr. BENNETT. With Senator Harkin not currently on the floor, Senator
Bond desires a few moments. Could we ask unanimous consent that Senator
Bond be allowed to proceed with Senator Harkin to follow?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree.
Mr. BENNETT. I yield to Senator Bond.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I ask my colleague whether, in the proper order,
I could then follow Senator Harkin, or after you two are done?
Mr. BENNETT. If you have the time, fine
Mr. WELLSTONE. I have my own time.
Mr. BENNETT. That is correct, the Senator from Minnesota has his own
time. We have no objection to his using the time in that sequence.
With that, I yield to Senator Bond such time as he may require.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I extend my deepest thanks and appreciation
to the floor managers of the bill, the chairman and the ranking member.
I take the floor today because there is an issue that has been in and
out of this body and is currently in conference negotiations. It is
also going to be the highlight of the news probably tomorrow. I
understand the Vice President is scheduled to talk about the HUB Zone
Program. This is a program that I authored in the Committee on Small
Business and this body unanimously accepted 3 years ago. I am concerned
about it because HUB zones are another example of this administration's
record of squandered opportunities.
To begin at the beginning, in 1997, the Committee on Small Business
reported out legislation to create the HUB Zone Program--historically
Underutilized Business Zones. This program seeks to use Federal
contracting, Federal purchasing, to generate business opportunities and
jobs in the areas of high poverty and high unemployment across the
Nation.
We created incentives to get small businesses to locate and bring
jobs to the distressed areas, areas that usually would not be
considered good places to locate in general business judgment. These
distressed areas lacked established customer bases, trained workforces.
They have been out of the economic mainstream. But the HUB Zone Program
was designed to bring small businesses into the area.
I came up with this idea after talking with a friend who headed up
the JOBS Program in Kansas City. I asked him about bringing more job
training programs to the inner city. He said: Stop sending us job
training programs; we have trained people and retrained and retrained.
He said: Send us some jobs. I thought: there's a good idea.
So we set up a program that was designed to reward small businesses
located in areas of high unemployment. Unfortunately, when we proposed
that idea, immediately the Clinton-Gore administration declared its
opposition. I have a letter from the Administrator of the SBA,
enclosing a statement of administrative policy:

. . . the administration remains concerned and opposed to .
. . provisions relating to HUB Zones.

The administration raised a red herring that has dogged the program
ever since. The alleged concern was that HUB Zones would somehow harm
the 8(a) Minority Business Development Program.
I ask unanimous consent the statement of administration policy be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Small Business Administration,

Washington, DC, November 6, 1997.
Hon. John J. LaFalce,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman LaFalce: The Administration supports
reauthorization of the programs of the Small Business
Administration and supports House passage of S. 1139. The
bill reauthorizes small business loans

[[Page S8733]]

which assist tens of thousands of small businesses each year
and contributes to the vitality of our economy. This bill
recognizes the importance of women and service disabled
veteran entrepreneurs and makes permanent SBA's microloan
program which helps those entrepreneurs who need small
amounts of credit. While we are not in total agreement on all
its provisions, we need this legislation to ensure that we
can continue to properly serve our small business customers.
The Administration appreciates the improvement made in the
version of the bill recently passed by the Senate which
maintains the current preference for businesses participating
in the 8(a) Business Development Program.
For the reasons stated in the attached Statements of
Administration Policy, the Administration remains concerned
about and opposed to S. 1139's provisions relating to HUB
Zones, contract bundling, and the extension of the Small
Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program. The
Administration notes that the contract bundling provision is
less burdensome than previous versions. Should this
legislation be enacted, we will continue to work with the
Congress to modify these provisions.
The Administration appreciates the opportunity to comment
on the bill, and thanks the House and Senate Small Business
Committees and their staff for working with us on this
important legislation.
Sincerely,
Aida Alvarez,
Administrator.
Enclosure.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, September 8, 1997.

Statement of Administration Policy

The Administration strongly supports reauthorization of the
programs of the Small Business Administration and supports
Senate passage of S. 1139, with the changes described below.
The bill reauthorizes small business loan programs which
assist tens of thousands of small businesses each year and
contribute to the overall vitality of our economy. The
Administration also supports the increase in the government-
wide small business participation goal in federal contracting
from 20 to 23 percent, following a phase-in period and in
conjunction with the elimination of the Small Business
Competitiveness Demonstration Program.
However, the Administration strongly opposes the bill's
changes to current law on ``contract bundling,'' as well as
extension of the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration
Program and creation of the ``HUD Zone'' program. The
Administration will seek amendments to address these and
other concerns as addressed below.
Contract Bundling. The Administration is committed to
maintaining a strong role for small businesses in Federal
contracting, but is concerned that the proposed changes to
the current law contract bundling provisions could deny
taxpayers the cost savings and improved quality achievable by
appropriate consolidation of Federal contract requirements.
Therefore, the Administration urges the Senate to maintain
current law, which provides sufficient authority and
flexibility for the Administration to protect the important
interests of small businesses.
Small business Competitiveness Demonstration Program. The
Administration strongly opposes any extension of the Small
Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program. Small
businesses will substantially benefit from discontinuing this
program and lifting the unnecessary paperwork and reporting
burdens it imposes. Moreover, the Administration believes
that if this demonstration program is not allowed to
terminate the scheduled, S. 1139's small business
participation goal will be extremely difficult to achieve.
HUB Zones. The Administration strongly supports new efforts
to promote economic development in the Nation's distressed
urban and rural communities. The bill's HUB Zones provision,
however, could weaken one of the strongest tools for
achieving this objective by according the proposed program a
contracting priority equal to that of the 8(a) program.
The Administration has already proposed regulations and is
ready to begin pilots for the Empowerment Contracting Program
(ECP), a new contracting program targeted at distressed
communities. The Administration believes that these tests
should be permitted to proceed, and that they will
demonstrate the ECP's ability to accomplish the goals of the
HUD Zones provisions at less expense and without affecting
the 8(a) program.
Other administration concerns
The Administration will also seek amendments to:
Remove proposed restrictions on the SBA's ability to use
Women's Business Center funding to finance the costs of
administering the program. Removal of these restrictions is
important to ensuring the effective execution of this
program.
Maintain the ability of Small Business Development Center
(SBDCs) to charge appropriate fees for counseling services
provided under the program.
Authorize sufficient microloan technical assistance funding
to support the projected growth in this program.
Reauthorize the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
Program for three years, rather than six. The three-year
authorization proposed by the Administration is consistent
with the authorization period for the companion Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program, and provides a
reasonable period for both achieving and evaluating program
results.
Delete the proposed pilot program targeting technical
assistance to certain States. This provision would divert
scarce resources needed to administer the STTR and SBIR
programs.
Pay-as-you-go scoring
S. 1139 would increase direct spending; therefore it is
subject to the pay-as-you-go requirement of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. OMB's preliminary scoring
estimates of this bill are presented in the table below.
Final scoring of this legislation may differ from these
estimates.

Pay-as-you-go estimates

[In million of dollars]

Outlays
1998..............................................................1
1999..............................................................1
2000..............................................................1
2001..............................................................1
2002..............................................................1
1998-2002.........................................................5
Mr. BOND. The truth is, the 8(a) program has no reason to fear the
HUB Zone Program. In fact, they should be able to work nicely together.
The 8(a) program helps to seek minority programs own a greater stake in
the economy by focusing on ownership and development of small business.
The HUB Zone Program, on the other hand, focuses on developing jobs
and opportunities in distressed areas, many of them still minority
communities. One brings jobs; the other brings ownership. The two
programs are two prongs of the same fork. HUB Zones in 8(a) should not
fight with each other but focus on the common threads, such as contract
bundling that hurt them and all other small businesses alike.
Yesterday, I was pleased to receive a letter from my friends at the
National Black Chamber of Commerce in which they recognized how these
two programs must work together. Harry Alford, Chamber president and
CEO wrote:

To date, the Small Business Administration and other
agencies have not aggressively pursued the utilization of
this valuable vehicle--

Referring to HUB Zones.

There is a false perception that it is here to replace the
8a program. The author has been guilty of that same fear. In
further research and reflection, it appears that the anxiety
is unjustified. 8a is in the suburbs and nothing is in the
inner city. It will be the HUB Zone activity that will spur a
renaissance where economic activity is lacking. We must
support the HUB zones.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter from Mr. Alford be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

National Black

Chamber of Commerce,

Washington, DC, September 18, 2000.
Re 8a and HUB zone programs
Hon. Kit S. Bond,
Chairman, Senate Small Business Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John F. Kerry,
Ranking Member, Senate Small Business Committee, Washington,
DC.
Hon. James Talent,
Chairman, House Small Business Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nydia Velazquez,
Ranking Member, House Small Business Committee, Washington,
DC.
Dear Leaders of the Small Business Committees: The 8a
program throughout the years has been a successful program.
It has yet to reach maximum levels of utilization but there
are few successful Black owned businesses today that have not
gone through the 8a program during their developmental years.
However, there is something the 8a program has been unable
to address and that is turning around the economic plight of
our distressed inner cities and underdeveloped rural
communities. The vast majority of 8a firms are in suburban
and developed neighborhoods. Their employees usually do not
come from distressed or underdeveloped communities. The 8a
program serves a particular need and should continue in its
present form. What is needed is a better spread of activity.
That is, most companies certified as 8a do not get contracts
from the program. According to the latest GAO report, in 1998
over 50% of 8a contracts went to 209 firms, which is only
3.5% of the 6000 firms in the program. This needs to be
improved.
In addition to keeping the 8a program intact, we must look
at rejuvenating our inner cities and depressed rural
communities. The key to that quest is the HUB Zone program.
The HUB Zone legislation is valuable to the economic future
of our targeted communities.

[[Page S8734]]

To date, the Small Business Administration and other
agencies have not aggressively pursued the utilization of
this valuable vehicle. There is a false perception that it is
here to replace the 8a program. This author has been guilty
of that same fear. In further research and reflection, it
appears that the anxiety is unjustified. 8a is in the suburbs
and nothing is in the inner city. It will be the HUB Zone
activity that will spur a renaissance where economic activity
is lacking. We must support the HUB Zones!
Therefore, the National Black Chamber of Commerce will
begin a ``roll out'' marketing the HUB Zone program to
municipalities throughout the nation. We will identify HUB
Zones in these communities and certify HUB Zone companies and
recruit companies to relocate in these zones. The HUB Zone
program will rise through our infrastructure of 180
affiliated chapters located in 37 states. If the federal
government will not hold sufficient workshops and properly
market the program, we will. It is too important to hold on a
shelf or at bay fearing it will cannibalize the 8a program.
The two have different roles.
To ensure either program will not adversely affect the
other, we propose the following. There should be a bi-annual
report from the Federal Procurement Data Center (GSA) that
will review the trends in contracting in both the HUB Zone
and 8a companies. This review should test the prospect of HUB
Zone contracts growing at a cost to 8a companies. If any such
trend exists, the Small Business Committees must implement
immediate redress. The first review can be due June 30, 2001.
We believe the above can be a win-win for both
philosophies. We ask your consideration and hope the SBA
reauthorization will be resolved in the near future. I will
be happy to entertain any queries or participate in any
meetings with your staffs. For the sake of small business, it
is time to aggressively move on.
Sincerely,
Harry C. Alford,
President & CEO.

Mr. BONDS. Mr. President, we resolved the issue of how 8(a) and HUB
zones would interact in 1997, by directing that the programs should not
compete with each other for contracts. We placed responsibility on the
contracting officers to monitor both programs, and to have discretion
to divert contracts to whichever program might be falling behind at a
given moment. That way both programs can succeed.
We incorporated language to that end in our legislation, and included
clarifying language in our committee report. The other body agreed to
our revised language, and the President signed the HUB Zone Act into
law on December 2, 1997. Everyone involved agreed to the final
resolution of this matter.
Subsequently, the Clinton/Gore administration decided that the
program they opposed was not so bad after all. In April of 1998, the
White House put out a press release in which the Vice President
announced an exciting new program, the HUB zone program, that would
likely create 25,000 new jobs. To judge from their press release, the
HUB Zone Act was a Presidential initiative that ``built upon'' a
Presidential Executive order. Apparently no legislation was involved,
which was news to those of us who developed it, worked hard, and passed
it.
The Vice President in his statement, however, overlooked one key
fact, which was that HUB zone small businesses would have to wait
nearly a full year before the program would start operating. It was not
until late March of 1999 that SBA finally got the program off the
ground and started taking applications. Even that occurred only after
an exchange of several letters between my committee and the SBA
Administrator. When we scheduled a hearing on SBA's budget request, SBA
apparently decided they had better be ready to announce the program, so
the Administrator came to the hearing ready to make that announcement.
That was exciting, but then more delay occurred. It took yet another
year for SBA to process and approve 1,000 applications from HUB zone
businesses. This is not nearly enough to meet the program's needs.
The HUB zone program called for 1 percent of Federal contracts to be
awarded to HUB zone firms in 1999, rising to 1.5 percent in 2000. One
thousand firms is not nearly enough to provide two to three billion
dollars in contracting. It just isn't enough.
Without enough certified companies, the HUB zone program is doomed to
failure. This fact did not go unnoticed by the contracting officers who
need to award the contracts, who cited the lack of certified companies
as an excuse not to do much work on the program.
We were puzzled by this failure. After a series of letters and
meetings, it appears at least two factors were involved. First, the SBA
chopped 10 percent of the HUB zone budget out of the program, and
diverted it to other SBA activities. SBA cited the need to pay for
incidental costs that HUB zone program implementation imposed on other
offices at the agency, but the ten percent whack continued even after
the program was finally up-and-running.
Second, it became apparent that a regulatory provision was keeping
small businesses from becoming qualified. In an attempt to have the HUB
zone program work effectively with other SBA programs, SBA included a
requirement that HUB zone firms be affiliated only with firms that are
eligible for those SBA contracting programs.
This provision was probably well-intended. But it became apparent
that this was preventing firms from participating. An otherwise-
qualified firm that was affiliated with a holding company to manage its
real estate (like its headquarters building) would be disqualified if
that holding company was not eligible for other SBA programs. Those
holding companies are typically an administrative or tax convenience,
so they had never intended to participate in SBA programs, so their
presence disqualified the firm.
SBA informed us that they were concerned about the unintended effects
of this provision. In February of this year, they sought my committee's
guidance on whether they sought do away with this unduly restrictive
affiliation rule. On February 16th, I wrote Administrator Alvarez to
say that I agreed with that proposed change, and she wrote back on
February 25th to say she agreed and that SBA would do away with the
restriction.
It is now seven months later, and the regulations to implement the
change we agreed to have not been published. Another seven months of
delay and frustration. As Everett McKinley Dirksen once said, a year
here and a year there--pretty soon you're talking about real
obstructionism.
This program is designed to get jobs to people in areas where they
need work, the people moving off welfare, the people at the bottom
economic rung. I would be delighted if the Vice President backed up his
rhetoric when he talks about HUB zones by doing something about it.
They opposed it from the beginning. They claimed credit for it. They
have taken away the budget for it. They have imposed regulatory
roadblocks. They have not implemented it.
They have had their chance and they have not led. We are going to
continue to work with the SBA Administrator. We need SBA to get the
revised regulations out, to get the certification process moving. It
could have been an island of excellence in the sea of neglect in the
Clinton-Gore administration.
When the Vice President goes out tomorrow to claim credit for the
program and talk about it, perhaps somebody will ask him why 2\1/2\
years, almost 3 years after the program was passed, how come it is
still weighted down in a bureaucratic maze? I think it is a good
program. I think it is a good concept. My colleagues in this body on a
bipartisan basis unanimously agreed to it. This is a chance for the
administration to stop talking and do something.
I am from Missouri. Frothy eloquence neither satisfies nor convinces
me. I want to be shown. I hope, for a change, we will see some
significant action, rather than just talk, out of the administration.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, a slight change has been worked out in
the order of speeches. I now yield to the Senator from Colorado, who
will address the Treasury-Postal portion of this bill. That has been
done with the understanding and approval of the minority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank the manager, my friend from
Utah. I would like to review the Treasury and general government
section, which was added to the legislative branch bill in conference.
I am going to repeat a few numbers. They are rather dry, but they are
important numbers for my colleagues.

[[Page S8735]]

Needless to say, I think this is an important section and hope they
support it. Budget constraints made it impossible for the committee to
fund all requests made by the administration and by our colleagues in
the Senate, too, but we tried to accommodate all of the requests as far
as we could.
I think, as does my ranking minority member, Senator Dorgan, we would
probably have preferred to bring this bill to the floor as a free-
standing bill, but time constraints prevented us from doing that. But I
believe it is still a good bill. Let me go over some of the numbers.
Mr. President, the Treasury and general government portion of this
conference report contains a total of $30,371,000 in new budget
authority. Of that, $14,679,607,000 is for mandatory programs over
which the Appropriations Committee has no control.
This conference report strikes a portion between congressional
priorities, administration initiatives, and agency requirements.
Preparation of the Senate committee-reported bill would not have been
possible without the hard work and cooperation of the ranking member of
the subcommittee, Senator Dorgan, and his staff.
As we consider the Treasury and general government portion of the
legislative branch conference report, I would like to highlight some of
the provisions before us:
We emphasize on the need for the Gang Resistance Education and
Training Program--called GREAT--by including $3 million more than the
administration request for grants to State and local law enforcement.
We provided a total of $93,751,000 for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms to enforce existing gun laws. This includes:
$19,078,000 to fully staff and expand the Youth Crime Gun
Interdiction Initiative, bringing the total to 50 cities. This program
allows ATF to track and prosecute those who supply guns to our youth.
Also, $23,361,000 for expanded ballistics imaging technology, and
$41,322,000 to significantly expand the Integrated Violence Reduction
Strategy to support criminal enforcement initiatives such as Project
Exile and Project Ceasefire to combat violent crime.
We have also included $13,700,000 for the Southwest Border Customs
staffing initiative, $130 million for the Customs automation effort,
called ACE, and $2,572,000 more to combat importation of items produced
by forced child labor.
Speaking of youngsters, Mr. President, I am pleased to note that we
have been able to fund the ONDCP anti-drug youth media campaign at $185
million.
We have spent over half a billion dollars in this program in the last
several years.
Title II of this section provides $96,093,000 for the U.S. Postal
Service and continues to require free mailing for overseas voters as
well as for the blind, as well as a 6-day delivery and prohibit the
closing or consolidation of small and rural post offices.
Title III contains a total of $691,315,000 for the Executive Office
of the President. This includes the Office of Management and Budget,
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Federal drug control
programs, and the funding for the media campaign to which I alluded.
There is $29,053,000 for the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center
for their program to transfer technology to State and local law
enforcement agencies. This is an ongoing program and has been a huge
benefit to both State and local law enforcement groups.
There is $206 million for the High Intensity Drug Traffickers Area
Program, called the HIDTA Program. This is an existing program, and the
funding is continued in this bill under the current level. HIDTA
Programs coordinate local, State, and Federal antidrug efforts. It has
met with a great deal of approval with local and State law enforcement.
As a matter of fact, many Senators requested expansion of this program,
but we had to live within our budget constraints.
Title IV is independent agencies, such as the Federal Elections
Commission, the General Services Administration, the National Archives,
as well as agencies involved in Federal employment issues, such as the
Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Merit Systems Protection Board,
the Office of Government Ethics, the Office of Special Counsel, and the
Office of Personnel Management.
Also included in this title are mandatory accounts to provide for
Federal retiree annuities, health benefits, and life insurance. The
conferees have provided a total of $15,986,378,000 for this title in
fiscal year 2001.
For the first time in 4 years, the administration has requested
funding for courthouse construction. Although we have not been able to
fund the entire list due to limited resources, we have included funding
for four courthouse projects in fiscal year 2001, as well as an
additional four projects in fiscal year 2002.
Again, I thank the ranking member of our subcommittee, Senator
Dorgan, for his hard work and support. Certainly this bill would not
have been possible without his assistance. Too often we forget the hard
work of staff--for Senator Dorgan, Chip Walgren and Steve Monteiro; for
the majority, Pat Raymond, Tammy Perrin, and Lula Edwards--who deserve
a great deal of credit for the long hours, nights, and sometimes
weekends spent in trying to put this section of the bill together. I
believe this conference report deserves the support of the Senate.
One last thing, Mr. President. We are still obviously in a state of
shock and loss at the death of our colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell,
who was a tireless worker in trying to reduce youth violence and drug
use. His life was a model of what youngsters should aspire to. In his
honor, we have named the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's
newest dormitory building at Glynco, GA, for him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the subcommittee
chairman, Senator Campbell, in bringing this hybrid bill to the Senate
floor. The process by which we have arrived here today is one which I
hope we will not replicate on other appropriations bills for the
remainder of the year. I will not belabor the point about the process.
It is unfortunate that the Senate was unable to enact its will on this
legislation when it initially was reported out of the full
Appropriations Committee on July 20. This is not a reflection on the
chairman--he produced a bill in a short period of time acting on the
instructions he was given. I cannot fault him for this. In fact, I
congratulate him for many of the good decisions which were made on the
substance of this legislation, but the fact remains that the Senate was
not well-served by this process.
The conference report before us today provides $15.6 billion in
discretionary budget authority for high priority law enforcement, trade
enforcement and good government programs. It is approximately $1.1
billion above the level of funding approved by the Appropriations
Committee in July. It is also $1.9 billion above last year's enacted
level. Yet is remains $900 million below the President's request. This
is one of the main problems with the underlying bill. While funds were
added for a number of administration priorities, the bill remains
deficient in a few areas, primarily regarding IRS staffing and counter-
terrorism programs. I have received assurances that additional funds
will be provided for a number of these deficiencies in later
appropriations bills. Former President Reagan used to say, ``Trust, but
verify.'' I trust my colleagues and look forward to verifying that
additional funds will be found.
In many ways, however, this conference report is a good bill.
Compared to the bill that was reported out of the Appropriations
Committee, many of the problems with that bill have been resolved.
Objectionable language regarding guns has been removed. Many agencies
are fully funded at the requested level. The Customs Service's computer
modernization program is well funded at $130 million. A good first step
has been made to reduce the court house construction backlog.
This bill represents a responsible and balanced piece of legislation.
I want to note that it has been a pleasure working with Senator
Campbell on this legislation. He and his staff have been professional
and diligent in representing our interests and assisting us in
formulating this legislation. I also want to take this opportunity to
thank his staff, Pat Raymond, Tammy Perrin,

[[Page S8736]]

and Lula Edwards for their hard work and cooperation in crafting this
bill. I also wish to note the work of my staff, Chip Walgren, Steve
Monteiro, and Nicole Kroetsch, on this legislation.
As the chairman noted, this bill funds base operations for the
Treasury Department, its agencies and other general government
operations. It maintains current operating levels in most instances and
annualizes the costs of FTE, full time equivalent, increases made in
last year's bill. It is designed to limit, as best we can, undue
impacts on personnel. We have tried to avoid funding cuts which would
require reductions in FTE after we increased FTE levels in fiscal year
2000.
Within the constraints imposed by our allocation, we have attempted
to accommodate Members' requests where possible. However, our
allocation also means that no Member received everything he or she
requested. I would note that we received requests from over 75
individual Members to include funding for programs they consider of
importance to their State or the Nation.
I must note that there were a number of deficiencies in this bill
when it was reported out of the committee. While I did not participate
in the drafting of the conference report, I am pleased that many of
those deficiencies have been addressed in this legislation.
One of my major concerns is funding for the Customs Service Automated
Commercial Environment, known as ACE. The original Senate bill had no
funds for Customs' new and crucial computer improvement program. The
existing system is the over-worked backbone of our trade flow system.
It has been experiencing an ever increasing rate of failures and
brownouts. Our trade volume has doubled over the last ten years. Based
on the rate of growth in trade from 1996 to 1999, Customs anticipates
an increase of over 50 percent in the number of entries by the year
2005.
This is an antiquated system which is becoming increasingly expensive
to operate. We need to fund ACE now. The House has provided $105
million for ACE and I am pleased that the conference report includes
$130 million for this crucial program.
Another issue that concerns me, as well as the administration, is
funding for the Internal Revenue Service. While this conference report
does better by the IRS than the original House or Senate bills, we are
still more than $300 million below the President's budget request. I
have spoken with the Commissioner of the IRS, Charles Rossotti, and I
share his fears that funding at these levels may result in staff cuts.
I ask unanimous consent that letters from Commissioner Rossotti dated
September 8, 2000 and September 15, 2000 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Department of the Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service,

Washington, DC, September 8, 2000.
Hon. Byron Dorgan,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dorgan: On July 27, the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Treasury and General
Government agreed to a conference report on the Senate
Committee-passed and House-passed fiscal year 2001 spending
bill. The conference committees $8.494 billion funding level
is a $305 million reduction from the FY2001 request. Although
this funding level is an increase from FY2000, please
recognize that this level would lead to a further decline in
the already low levels of compliance activity, and threaten
the modernization of IRS computer systems.
Without funding for the Staffing Tax Administration for
Balance and Equity (STABLE) initiative, the IRS efforts to
provide increased service to taxpayers and reduce the decline
in audit coverage are at risk. Specifically, toll-free
service will drop from the current unacceptable level of 65
percent to less than 60 percent; similar private sector
service is above 90 percent. Even more disturbing, audit
coverage will continue to decline. Since FY 1998, that rate
has declined 49 percent. Furthermore, audits of taxpayers
earning more than $100,000 annually a rapidly expending
segment of society have declined almost 33 percent from
FY1998 to FY1999. Even our ability to collect taxes on
acknowledged overdue accounts is declining significantly.
The conference committee also did not fund the requested
$72 million for the Information Technology Investment Account
(ITIA). The entire $2 trillion of annual tax revenue
collected by the IRS is critically dependent on an obsolete
computer system developed over 35 years by the IRS. These
systems are so deficient they do not allow the IRS to
administer the tax system or provide essential service to
taxpayers at an acceptable level. Furthermore, because the
IRS experiences a 1.5 percent annual workload increase in
number of returns processed, either productivity must
increase through improved technology or staffing must
increase just to remain at the same inadequate service
levels. Through the ITIA account provided by Congress, the
IRS in the last 15 months has begun the enormous job of
modernizing these systems. We must have a consistent funding
stream for this program. Lack of funding for the ITIA account
will slow or even halt projects currently underway,
increasing the time, cost and risk of our systems
modernization.
In order to fulfill requirements of the IRS Restructuring
and Reform Act of 1998 and provide effective tax
administration, we must have full funding. I urge you to seek
ways to provide this funding. Please contact me if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Charles O. Rossotti,
Commissioner.
____

Department of the Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service,

Washington, DC, September 15, 2000.
Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dorgan: As we discussed earlier today, I am
enclosing a set of talking points and a chart on the IRS' FY
2001 budget request and a description of the FTE commitment
needed to meet the requirements of the IRS Restructuring and
Reform Act of 1998. I cannot thank you enough for your
support for full funding of the agency's budget. It is
critical to carrying out the Restructuring Act and
safeguarding the nation's tax administration system.
If I can be of any further assistance or answer any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Charles O. Rossotti,
Commissioner.
Enclosures.

Talking Points for IRS Budget

background

Full funding for the IRS budget is $8.799 billion--the
House-passed conference report if $8.494 billion--or $305
million short of the FY 2001 request.
This $305 million funds two initiatives that are key to the
success of IRS' modernization effort (it also adds $4m for
Criminal Investigations and $3m for Electronic Tax
Administration):
$72 million for technology investments (ITIA) to upgrade
the IRS's obsolete and inherently deficient computer systems
$225 million for a hiring initiative (called STABLE--
Staffing Tax Administration for Balance and Equity) that will
restore the IRS staffing level near the level prior to
enactment of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998
(RRA98).

key points

The IRS needs full funding to deliver on RRA98's mandates.
In terms of technology, IRS has developed a rigorous
management process to ensure that its past mistakes (i.e.
TSM) will not be repeated. The ITIA funding request is
necessary so that the IRS can continue efforts to make
technology investments that will have direct benefits to
taxpayers in 2001. GAO has repeatedly reported that ``until
IRS' antiquated information systems are replaced, they will
continue to hinder efforts to manage agency operations and
better serve taxpayers through revamped business practices''.
Without this funding, the IRS will have to stretch out many
of the projects it has planned to improve the administration
of the nation's tax system and service to taxpayers. For
example, the IRS plans to significantly improve its
communications capabilities with taxpayers--allowing service
representatives to answer taxpayer calls much more quickly
and accurately. This is just the first of a series of planned
upgrades to the decades old IRS technology infrastructure
that will dramatically improve service to taxpayers and could
be delayed.
The staffing initiative (STABLE) is necessary to enable the
IRS to stem the precipitous decline in its collection
activities and, at the same time, improve assistance to
taxpayers. Since 1997, the IRS has experienced an
extraordinary increase in demand for its limited staff. (See
attached table.) There are two main causes for this increase:
RRA98 created numerous new taxpayer rights provisions that
require additional time and resources for IRS employees. The
IRS estimates that more than 4500 FTEs were devoted to
meeting RRA98's demands--an effective reduction of 5.2
percent in FTE since 1997.
As the economy grows so does the IRS workload. Each year
the IRS experience workload growth of 1.8 percent--that
translates to an additional 1800 FTE each year just to keep
pace with increased processing and compliance requirements.
STABLE is designed to compensate for these increases. Even
with STABLE, total IRS staffing will be below the pre-RRA98
level.

[[Page S8737]]

IRS FTE RESOURCES IN FY 2001 WILL BE LESS THAN BEFORE RRA '98 WAS
PASSED, EVEN AT FULL FUNDING OF THE REQUEST
1997.......................................................... 102,622
1998.......................................................... ........
1999.......................................................... 99,596
2000.......................................................... 97,361
2001 (IRS request)............................................ 99,862
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FY 2000 MANDATORY FTE INCREASES FROM RRA '98
[FTE by Program]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer Total
Code section EXAM Collection service Other FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1203--Termination of Employment for Misconduct; Incl 1203 ....... 107 ........ 19 126
Training......................................................
1205--Employee Training Program................................ 113 71 177 7 368
3001--Burden of Proof.......................................... ....... .......... 2 3 5
3201--Innocent Spouse Case Processing & Adjudication........... 421 14 118 178 731
3301--Global Interest Netting.................................. 73 19 10 1 103
3401--Due Process in Collections............................... ....... 108 78 170 356
3417--Third Party Notices...................................... 150 270 150 17 587
3462--Offers in Compromise Case Processing..................... ....... 1,536 136 1 1,673
3501--Explanation of Joint & Several Liability................. ....... 19 ........ 1 20
3705--Spanish language assistance/live assistor option/contact ....... .......... 36 27 63
on manually generated notices.................................
****--All Other Codes.......................................... ....... 10 353 166 529
------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 757 2,154 1,060 589 4,560
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act of
1998, we mandated specific goals for the IRS to meet in terms of
taxpayer assistance and IRS performance. However, we continue to deny
the IRS the resources it needs to meet these mandated goals. This is an
administration concern, and it is my concern as well. We must do better
by the IRS--if not on this bill--then in subsequent legislation. It is
important that we maintain the concept and provision of ``service'' by
the Internal Revenue Service.
I am pleased we were able to fund the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign at last year's level of $185 million. While this is still $10
million less than requested by the administration, it represents a
continued commitment to getting the message to our young people that
drugs can kill. To date we have appropriated over $500 million for the
media campaign--with mixed results. We had two hearings this year on
the campaign where many of these concerns were raised. While it remains
a somewhat controversial program, I will continue to work with the
chairman and others ensure that the campaign bears identifiable and
quantifiable results.
Finally, I am pleased that the conference report fully funds the
administration's requests for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms to enforce existing gun laws. We fully fund the request to
expand existing ballistics identification activities and to expand the
Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, YCGII, program into 12
additional cities. Also, the objectionable gun preference provision--
inserted in the original Senate bill without debate--has been dropped.
This was a wise action and I congratulate the chairman and others for
taking this step.
Again, while I strongly protest the process by which this conference
report was drafted, in most respects--this is a responsible bill. It
goes far to meeting our commitments to law enforcement and our Federal
employees. I am committed to working with Senators Stevens and Byrd and
the leadership to find additional funds for the IRS and
counterterrorism on subsequent legislation.
Mr. President, briefly, the statements made by the Senator from
Colorado, Mr. Campbell, are accurate statements. He has done an
outstanding job. I am very pleased to work with him. We worked closely
together on this legislation.
He knows I feel somewhat aggrieved by the process. This bill has not
followed the normal course in coming from the full Appropriations
Committee to the floor of the Senate. It was taken in an unusual
circumstance. It was put into conference, and now a conference report
comes to the floor. There are Senators who perhaps would have offered
amendments on the floor who were precluded from doing so. That really
should not be the case.
This is not a good process. That is not Senator Campbell's fault. The
Senator from Colorado is someone who did what was required of him with
respect to the leadership decision. I hope we will not have this
approach used in future bills. I will have more to say about the
Agriculture appropriations bill which is supposed to be in conference
now but on which there is no conference. I will speak more about that
at a later moment.
My sense is much of what is in this bill is on target. We are about
$900 million below the budget request. We made progress in a whole
range of areas. I was very concerned about the program called the ACE
Program, the computer modernization program at the Customs Department,
known as ACE--Automated Commercial Environment.
The fact is the system for keeping track of what is coming in and
going out of this country in trade, the system used by the Customs
Service is simply melting down. We need to modernize that system. This
program designed to do that was not funded in some of the earlier
versions. The bill that is now on the floor does begin that funding
with $130 million, a pretty robust amount of funding. For that I am
most appreciative.
This legislation is still short with respect to the Internal Revenue
Service needs, with respect to some counterterrorism appropriations,
with respect to an account called unanticipated needs. The chairman of
the full committee has indicated to me that while this is the
conference we are dealing with and we have to take action on this
conference report, he anticipates being able to respond to those
deficiencies in another circumstance. We will probably have an omnibus
appropriations bill. The chairman of the full committee has indicated
the deficiencies that exist will be responded to in some omnibus bill
at the end.
We will have to wait and see if that happens, but I expect perhaps
this conference report was held for some period of time and certainly
would be held at the White House. There is some discussion of a
potential veto unless the holes are filled, especially with respect to
enforcement capabilities at the Internal Revenue Service.
I say that only because there are more and more sophisticated schemes
being used by some of the largest corporate taxpayers about which the
Secretary of the Treasury has talked a great deal. They do need
enforcement capability to penetrate some of those schemes that are used
to avoid paying a fair share of taxes.
Pat Raymond, Tammy Perrin, and Lula Edwards on the majority side, and
Chip Walgren, Steve Monteiro, and Nicole Koretsch spent a lot of time
on this bill. As is the case with the legislative branch appropriations
bill, this bill, the Treasury-general government appropriations bill,
much credit must go to a lot of people who worked a lot of hours to
make sure we funded these agencies properly.

I wanted to make those points and say I do not like this process. It
has produced a bill that is pretty good in almost all respects except
for a handful of things that need some remedy. The chairman of the full
committee has told me, and I think he has told the White House and
others, that he intends to respond to those deficiencies in some other
venue as we go along in the appropriations process, and I appreciate
that.
As we work to finish our remaining appropriations bills, it is my
fervent hope that we can do this in the regular order. Bills passed by
the full Appropriations Committee in the Senate should be brought to
the Senate floor for debate and amendment, and then we send them to
conference. When we have debate and amend a bill in the Senate, as we
did with the Agriculture appropriations bill, which is critically
important--it has my amendment that gets rid of sanctions on the
shipments of agricultural products and stops using food and medicine as
a weapon. The Senate voted for it by a wide margin.
It has the amendment Senator Jeffords and I, Senator Gorton and
others offered on reimportation of prescription drugs which would force
the repricing of prescription drugs in this country. We adopted that.
The House passed their bill the early part of July. We passed ours
mid to late July. I am a conferee, and there has not been a conference.
My expectation is there will never be a conference because they do not
want to have a conference on something that controversial. Either one
of those put to a separate vote in the Senate and the House will pass
by 70 percent. I am worried this process will be used to hijack that
bill.

[[Page S8738]]

I serve notice that I intend to inquire of the majority leader later
this afternoon when he comes to the floor or tomorrow at some great
length saying, we lost the issue last year and were hijacked to stop
using food and medicine as a weapon. They adjourned the conference and
never reconvened. It looks as if they are fixing to not convene a
conference this year. That is not the way we should expect the Senate
to do its business. I am sorry to get off on that for a moment.
Again, I appreciate the good work of Senator Campbell and look
forward to not only proceeding with what is in this bill, which I think
is good work, but also remedying a half dozen or so areas that I think
come up short of what we need to do, and I think the chairman of the
full committee has said we need to do that.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to respond to my friend and
colleague from North Dakota.
His advice and counsel has been extremely important to me. I
appreciate his comments very much. As I mentioned in my opening
statement, I would have preferred to bring the bill to the floor as a
self-standing bill, too. We are simply running out of time with only
less than 3 weeks, I guess, of actual workdays before we adjourn for
the year. It just was not possible this year.
But I look forward to working with him. If we do bring some emergency
spending bill to the floor through the full committee, I would ask to
work with him to try to fill in some of the holes we have missed in
this bill.
With that, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Grand forks federal building and united states courthouse

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there are a number of important national
provisions contained within the conference report. One provision,
however, is both of national importance as well as of importance to the
people of North Dakota. I am especially proud that the bill names the
Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Grand Forks, ND after
Judge Ronald N. Davies.
The late Judge Davies is one of North Dakota's proudest sons. While
he grew up in Grand Forks, he is also claimed by Fargo. It was while
serving as a judge in Fargo that President Eisenhower appointed him to
the Federal bench in 1955. While not a household name, Judge Davies has
gone down in history as the judge who ordered Arkansas Governor Orval
Faubus to integrate the Little Rock public schools 43 years ago this
month. It is only fitting that the Federal building in his hometown--
constructed the year he was born--bear his name.
Some of my colleagues may have had the opportunity to visit the
Norman Rockwell exhibit at the Corcoran Gallery of Art in downtown
Washington. Among the many examples of Americana is the famous Rockwell
painting of a little African-American girl, hair in pigtails, head held
high, being escorted to school by U.S. Marshals. The painting puts a
human face on an important turning point in our Nation's history. It
was the result of the ruling by this modest and unassuming son of North
Dakota that our Nation took one more step toward expanding the American
dream to all Americans.
I thank my colleagues for their support of this provision. I ask
unanimous consent that articles from the Grand Forks Herald and Fargo
Forum regarding Judge Davies be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Grand Forks Herald, Aug. 6, 2000]

A Fitting Tribute to Judge

federal building will be renamed for judge ronald n. davies--the man
who made landmark decision on school desegregation

(By Marilyn Hagerty)

Soon it will be the Ronald N. Davies Federal Building and
Courthouse in Grand Forks. The neoclassical building at 102
N. Fourth St. will be renamed to honor the late federal judge
from North Dakota who in 1957 made what is considered the
landmark decision on racial integration in our nation.
Born in Crookston in 1904--the same year work began on the
Federal Building--Davies grew up in Grand Forks.
The Appropriations Committee of the U.S. Senate last month
approved renaming the building in memory of the late Judge
Davies.
The legislation was proposed by Sen. Byron Dorgan D-N.D.,
who said: ``I can think of no better way to celebrate his
contributions and preserve his legacy for future
generations.'' A date for the renaming ceremony will be
announced.
Davies was appointed to the federal bench by President
Dwight Eisenhower in 1955. Two years later, he made history
when on a temporary assignment to Arkansas he ruled that
Little Rock public schools must allow black students to
attend immediately.

guard called

The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled three years earlier that
segregation was unconstitutional. Before a desegregation plan
could take effect in Little Rock, Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus
called out the National Guard to prevent it.
On Sept. 7, 1957, Davies ordered Faubus to stop
interfering. The governor called Davies' ruling high-handed
and arbitrary, but the National Guard was removed. On Sept.
23, nine black children entered the high school, and white
mobs rampaged. The children were removed after sporadic
battles between police and rioters, according to reports by
The Associated Press.
Two days later, the ``Little Rock Nine'' entered the school
under the protection of 1,200 soldiers sent by Eisenhower.
Judge Davies, by then was widely known for his work in
Arkansas. He often was referred to as ``the stranger in
Little Rock.'' This stemmed from an article in Newsweek in
late September in which he was featured as ``This Week's
Newsmaker.''
When a national television broadcast branded him as ``an
obscure federal judge,'' he responded: ``We judges are
obscure--and should be. That is want I want--to return
quietly to the obscurity from which I sprang.''
Before going to Arkansas, Davies said, he never had heard a
desegregation case. He insisted he was only trying to do his
job.
``I have no delusions about myself,'' he was reported to
have said. ``I'm just one of a couple of hundred federal
judges all over the country. That all.''
Davies was named to senior U.S. U.S. District Judge status
in 1971 in Fargo. He died there in 1996 at the age of 91.

highlights

Significant honors awarded Judge Ronald N. Davies:
North Dakota's highest honor, the Theodore Roosevelt
Roughrider Award, was presented to him in 1987. His portrait
hangs in the Hall of Fame in the State Capitol.
Named outstanding alumnus of Georgetown University Law
Center, Washington, D.C., in 1958.
Given an honorary doctor of law award by the UND School of
Law in 1961.
Received Martin Luther King Holiday Award in 1986 by North
Dakota Peace Coalition.
In 1961, the Davies family attended graduation ceremonies
at UND for three rewarding reasons: Son Timothy received a
degree from the law school; son Thomas earned a degree in
business administration, and Judge Davies delivered the
commencement address.
In 1966, Judge Davies rendered a decision he considered one
of his most important cases--Stromsodt vs. Parke-Davis and
Co. The case was tried in Grand Forks and involved a damage
suit against Parke-Davis, one of the nation's largest drug
manufacturers, for an unsafe vaccine administered to Shane
Stromsodt at the age of five months in 1959. The child, who
suffered irreparable brain damage, was represented by
prominent torts attorney Melvin Belli. On Sept. 29, 1966,
Davies awarded $500,000 to the 7-year-old Stromsodt.
____

Davies, The Man--Who Was Judge Ronald N. Davies?

He was competitive, ambitious, courageous. He was a
lawyer's lawyer and a lawyer's judge. He had a sense of humor
that would knock your socks off.
That's what children of the late Judge Ronald N. Davies say
about him.
A daughter, Katherine Olmscheid, of Lafayette, Calif., was
a senior in high school at the time her father was making
headlines in Little Rock, Ark.
She says: ``I knew what was going on, but I was so used to
Dad being a take-charge kind of man that I just expected he
was being very thoughtful about every decision he made. He
did tell me that he well knew that his upholding the law in
this case would not bode well for him in appointments to a
higher court.
``He was competitive and ambitious, but when it came to the
law and the courage to uphold it, there was never any
question. He was a father who took time to talk to me and
explain what was happening, but he never focused on the drama
of it.''
Thomas Davies, a son who is a municipal judge in Fargo,
says his dad had a favorite saying: ``Better to be silent and
thought a fool than to open your mouth and erase all doubt.''
Judge Ronald N. Davis was short--only 5 feet, 1 inch. But
his son says nobody mentioned his height. If they did, the
judge would launch into a good-natured dissertation about
people who were too tall for their own good.
Thomas Davies says his father knew who he was and what he
had to do. ``He respected lawyers, and they respected him. He
never lost contact with the average person. He knew and liked
the janitors, elevator operators, secretaries, waitresses,
labor people and their bosses. He could, in my estimation,
have been elected to any office in state, local

[[Page S8739]]

or federal levels; but he had the job he wanted, and he loved
it.''
Jody Eidler, a daughter who lives in Wheaton, Ill.,
remembers her father's sense of humor. ``It was the best of
anyone we knew. Ask any lawyer who appeared in his courtroom.
I used to meet him in Chicago when he came to hear cases. I'd
sit back and marvel at how smooth he was with the big-city
attorneys. He handled them with kid gloves.''
Davies' sons and daughters talk of the ``round table'' the
judge held at the Elks Club in Fargo. He would have lunch
with different lawyers, and he always would make room for one
of his children if they happened to drop by.
Olmscheid says: ``Dad was a stickler for his name being
Ronald N. Davies. That N. initial thing was important to him,
so I sure hope the powers that be take that into
consideration when renaming the building.''
As an aside, she said: ``Dad was as proud of being a Sigma
Nu as he was about just about anything else. He always sang
the UND and Sigma Nu songs to us as we drove around Grand
Forks on warm summer nights. He loved the University of North
Dakota. He got his law degree from Georgetown, but he was a
UND man all the way.''
Along with Jody, Katharine and Thomas, the children of
Judge Davies include Jean Marie Schmith and Timothy Davies, a
trial lawyer with the firm of Nilles, Hansen and Davies in
Fargo.
Judge Ronald N. Davies was born in Crookston on Dec. 11,
1904, two years before the completion of the U.S. Post Office
and Court-house--now the U.S. Federal Building that will be
named after him.
He was the son of a former Crookston Times editor and Grand
Forks Herald city editor, Norwood Davies, and Minnie Quigley
Davies.
His interest in the legal world grew as he tagged after his
grandfather, who was chief of police in East Grand Forks. The
family moved to Grand Forks in 1971, and Davies received a
diploma from Central High School in 1922.
He went on to UND and worked at a soda fountain and in a
clothing store to help with expenses. He graduated in 1927.
He earned his law degree from Georgetown University Law
Center in Washington, D.C., in 1930. As a student, he worked
for the Capitol police force.
Davies began his long legal and judicial career in 1932,
when he was elected as judge of the Municipal Court in Grand
Forks. He served in that capacity until 1940, when he went
into private practice. He was called into military service
after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. He entered the
U.S. Army as a first lieutenant and was discharged in 1946 as
a lieutenant colonel.
Davies was married in Grand Forks on Oct. 10, 1933, to
Mildred Doran, who was born in Arvilla, N.D., and grew up in
Grand Forks. She was a graduate of St. John's Hospital School
of Nursing in Fargo. She died in 1994.
The family includes five children, 20 grandchildren and 37
great grandchildren.
____

[From the Fargo Forum, Aug. 11, 2000]

Idea to Honor Judge Davies is Appropriate

(By Terry DeVine)

North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan's introduction of
legislation that would rename the federal courthouse in Grand
Forks in honor of the late federal judge Ronald Davies of
Fargo, who handed down the landmark ruling in the 1957 Little
Rock, Ark., school desegregation case, is certainly
appropriate.
Davies may have been a diminutive man, standing only 5-
foot, 1-inch tall, but he was a Paul Bunyan of the law when
he sat on the bench. His courtroom was a model of decorum,
but never humorless. He had a way of keeping serious matters
from becoming too overwhelming.
``If things were too tense, he'd crack a joke in court to
lighten up the atmosphere,'' says his son, Fargo Municipal
Judge Tom Davies. ``The dad at home was not the judge you saw
in court. He was serious in court but had a real good sense
of humor.''
The Senate Appropriations Committee recently approved
Dorgan's legislation to change the name of the building to
the judge Ronald N. Davies Federal Building and Courthouse.
The provision is included in a larger bill that will be voted
on by the full Senate when it returns from its recess in
September.
The elder Davies was a graduate of the University of North
Dakota and Georgetown Law School in Washington, D.C. While in
law school, he worked as a Capitol policeman.
``I'd have loved to see that,'' says his son. ``I'm sure my
dad thought that was a hoot. He did think the rest of the
world was too tall. His nightstick must have been almost as
long as he was tall.''
Former North Dakota senator and power broker Bill Langer
nominated Davies for the federal bench in 1954, and he was
appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1955.
At the time, Langer reportedly said Ron Davies would be
appointed to the federal bench or there would be no federal
judges in North Dakota. The Senate obliged Langer.
Tom Davies says his father was fully aware of the awesome
power a federal judge possesses, but it only made him more
careful in the way he wielded it. He never let it go to his
head, Davies says.
Davies had practiced law for several years in Grand Forks,
N.D., before moving to Fargo following his appointment to the
federal bench. He was sent to Arkansas to help clear what he
thought was a backlog of routine cases.
Another federal judge ordered the integration of Little
Rock schools, and Judge Davies ordered the integration
process be accelerated at Central High School. Arkansas Gov.
Orville Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard to stop
the admission of black students. President Eisenhower
federalized the National Guard troops and nine black students
were admitted to the previously all-white school.
It was a scary time, and there were death threats aplenty,
but Davies stood his ground. He was the right man at the
right time for the nation.
Davies paid his dues long before his federal appointment by
``belonging to just about every organization that ever
existed, with the exception of the Communist Party.''
``He was as active as any human being could ever be,'' says
Tom Davies. ``He was a sparkplug. He never stopped
recognizing people. He said hello to everyone. He was never
arrogant.''
Davies says his father was always available to the media,
but never once took advantage of many opportunities to speak
or write about the Little Rock ruling for large sums of money
in his later years.
``I shouldn't be paid to talk about doing my job,'' he
said.
His son said his father, who died in 1996 at the age of 91,
spoke about Little Rock only once on television when he did a
45-minute show with Fargo-Moorhead radio/television host Boyd
Christenson.
Men like Judge Davies should be remembered. Naming a
federal courthouse in his honor is a fine idea.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before the Senator starts, I ask the
Chair: I am in order to follow the Senator from Iowa; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is in order in the
request.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. How much time do I
have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 25 minutes
under her control but has not yielded a specific amount of time.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe Senator Wellstone is speaking under his own
time. I will yield such time as he may consume to Senator Harkin.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from California for her graciousness
in yielding me this time.
(The remarks of Mr. Harkin are located in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Minnesota is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to say at the very beginning to
my colleague from Utah, for whom I have a lot of respect, that none of
what I am about to say is aimed directly at him personally; quite the
opposite. But I want to come out here and take very serious exception
with the process and the result.
We finalized the legislative appropriations bill. Rather than having
the Treasury and Postal appropriations bill coming directly from the
floor of the Senate and having the opportunity to offer amendments,
that bill was put into the legislative appropriations conference
report. The two bills were basically linked to one another. This is a
terrible way to legislate.
I say to the majority leader and others that we have been at this
before and that I am out here on the floor of the Senate again today
saying I take very serious exception to this. I cannot represent the
interests of the people in the State of Minnesota very well when there
is no opportunity to come to this floor and have amendments and try to
make a difference.
I didn't come to the floor of the Senate to be a potted plant or a
piece of furniture. In this particular case, I take exception with a
couple of different things.
First of all, we have raised our salary to $141,300, and there is no
opportunity for an amendment to be offered on the floor of the Senate
to block this increase, no opportunity at all, no opportunity for any
debate on this with an amendment. I can understand how the majority
leader or someone on the majority party did not want to have an up-or-
down vote. But I will tell you that I find it is very difficult to
square raising our salary to $141,300 at the same time we are not
willing to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 over a 2-year
period. It is just unbelievable to me.

I want to be clear about it again. The Congress, by taking the
Treasury-Postal appropriations bill and putting the salary increase
into it, then putting it

[[Page S8740]]

into a legislative appropriations conference report, is basically
raising our pay without even taking a vote on it.
I want to tell you that is what gets us in trouble with the people we
represent. This is exactly what gets us in trouble with the people we
represent, and for very good reason.
Maybe the majority leader didn't want to have an up-or-down vote.
Maybe the majority party didn't want to have an up-or-down vote. But I
wanted an opportunity to come here to the floor of the Senate and say
no way am I going to support raising our salary to $141,000 a year when
this Senate and this conference has not been willing to raise the
minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $6.15 an hour.
To be very honest with Senators, I might raise another question,
which is: Have we earned the salary increase? Have we passed a
Patients' Bill of Rights? No. Have we passed prescription drugs
extended onto Medicare? No. Have we reauthorized the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act? No. Have we reauthorized the Small Business
Administration? No.
In all due respect, we have done hardly any of the work of the
people. We have not done much at all when it comes to the basic issues
that affect the lives of the people we represent. Yet we are raising
our salary to $141,000 a year. We are putting it into an unrelated
conference report so that there will not be a vote on it. I think that
is not a very direct way of conducting business.
I want to remind my colleagues of the words of Senator Kennedy 4
years ago, when the Senate voted to gut rule XXVIII. That is the Senate
rule limiting the scope of conference, and we are violating this
conference report. I quote from Senator Kennedy. This was 4 years ago,
and it is so true to be prophetic.

The rule that a conference committee cannot include
extraneous matter is central to the way the Senate conducts
its business. When we send a bill to a conference we do so
knowing that the conference committee work is likely to
become law. Conference reports are privileged. Motions to
proceed to them cannot be debated, and such reports cannot be
amended. So conference committees are already very powerful.
But if conference committees are permitted to add completely
extraneous matters in conference--that is, if the point of
order against such conduct becomes a dead letter--conferees
will acquire unprecedented power. They will acquire the power
to legislate in a privileged, unrenewable fashion on
virtually any subject. They will be able to completely bypass
the deliberative process of the Senate.

Mr. President, it is a highly dangerous situation. It will make all
of us less willing to send bills to conference and will leave all of us
vulnerable to passage of controversial, extraneous legislation any time
a bill goes to conference. I hope the Senate will not go down this
road. Today the narrow issue is the status of one corporation under the
labor laws, but tomorrow the issue might be civil rights, States
rights, health care, education, or anything else. It might be a matter
much more sweeping than the labor law issue that is before us today.
That is exactly what we have done. What we have here today is a mini-
omnibus measure, and I think it is exactly the road that Senator
Kennedy was warning we should not go down.
I say to colleagues that I think every Senator ought to object to
what we are doing--every Senator, Democrat and Republican alike.
We had an opportunity in the later months of this summer when we came
back to bring this appropriations bill to the floor. We could have
dealt with the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. If we had, I would
have brought an amendment to knock out our salary increase. I would
have added an amendment that said we do not raise our salary increase
to $141,000 a year until we raise the minimum wage. I would like to
have had an up-or-down vote. All of us would have been held
accountable, but that is not the way it was done. The majority party
apparently doesn't want to have any votes any longer on any amendments
whereby we will be held accountable.

Instead, anytime a Member desires--and I hope other Democrats will
speak on this--it is true, they can take unrelated issues in matters,
put it into a conference report, vote to raise our salary to $141,000 a
year when we are not willing to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to
$6.15 over 2 years. They are in the majority. They can put it into an
unrelated conference report, bulldoze it over us, and pass this
legislation.
As a Senator from Minnesota, I am not going to let it happen without
speaking about it. There will come a time when they may not be in the
majority and there will come a time when they may find provisions that
are put into conference reports unrelated to the scope of that
conference report antithetical to the values they believe in, against
what they think is right, against a Member's ability to represent their
State, and they won't like it one bit. But that is exactly what has
happened today. It is not because of the Presiding Officer right now,
the Senator from Utah. But I believe this is truly an egregious
process.
Again, one more time--just to be clear to those who are following
this debate--I want to be on record. As a Senator from the State of
Minnesota, people did not elect me to vote for a salary increase to
$141,000 a year, people did not elect me to be here not in a position
to bring out any amendments on the floor of the Senate to represent
their interests, and people certainly did not elect me to let others
put a salary increase--we now go up to $141,000 a year--in a conference
report so we don't have an up-or-down vote on it without someone
speaking out against it.
I speak out against it. I am not showboating. I speak out against it
not because I don't think Senators should make a decent salary. First
of all, what bothers me the most is I don't think we have done much. I
think this has been a do-nothing Senate. I don't think we have done
much on most of the crucial issues that affect people's lives. I am not
sure what we have done to earn this increase.
Second, and I think even more importantly, I don't know how in the
world we can justify raising our salary to $141,000 a year when we are
not even willing to raise the minimum wage. There are 10 million people
in this country who would directly benefit, and many others who would
indirectly benefit, from the raise of the minimum wage. There are
119,826 Minnesotans who would benefit from a $1 increase in the minimum
wage over 2 years, and if we don't do that, the minimum wage increase
that we did pass has essentially lost all of its value. It is not even
keeping up with inflation.
So colleagues understand, we hear a lot about the booming economy. It
is true, but not all the new jobs that are being created are living
wage jobs. In 1998, 29 percent of all the workers were in jobs paying
poverty-level wages. In some of the jobs where we have seen the
greatest growth--waiter staff, cashiers, janitors, and retail sales
people--people earn less than half of what is called a living wage.
A study released by the U.S. Conference of Mayors in 1998 showed that
nearly 4 out of 10 Americans visiting soup kitchens for emergency food
were working; they were working poor people.
I don't think I want to go into the statistics. We have so many
people in this country who could benefit. We have people who work 52
weeks a year, 40 hours a week, and they are still not out of poverty.
The raise in the minimum wage would make a real difference, from $5.15
to $6.15 over a 2-year period.
What are we doing instead? Instead, we are raising our salary to
$141,000 a year. We are raising our salary through the worst process,
whereby rather than risking someone bringing an amendment out and
having an up-or-down vote, someone has put the Treasury-Postal
appropriations bill into the legislative appropriations conference
report. Quite clearly, it was done in a very deliberate way so we
wouldn't have to have an up-or-down vote.
In conclusion, I object to this process. I believe one of the worst
things we ever did was make it possible for the majority party--and I
promise the Chair that when we are in the majority I will take the same
position--to basically waive the rule and insist measures that are put
in conference committee be related to the subject material, that we no
longer have to deal with the scope of the conference, the worst thing
we could have ever done in violation of this constitutional process,
and certainly in violation of the very notion of accountability.

[[Page S8741]]

We have been down this road before. I have come to the Chamber many
times and objected to this. This time I believe even more strongly in
it. I say to my colleagues, if you want to raise the salary, go ahead,
but don't do it in this way. And don't put one appropriations bill that
we should have been able to vote on into an unrelated appropriations
bill conference report, and then bring it to the floor where there is
no opportunity for amendments. I can't have an amendment that says we
shouldn't raise our salary to $141,000, but I will vote against this.
And I am sorry because the Presiding Officer and other Senators have
done good work and in both these appropriations bills there is funding
for a lot of important work.
I am going to vote no for two reasons. A, I am on record objecting to
the way we are conducting our business. I am on record in opposition to
the way the majority party is bulldozing over the right of the minority
to come to the floor of the Senate with amendments. Second, I am voting
against this appropriations bill because I think it is an outrageous
proposition that the Senate should vote to raise our salaries to
$141,000 a year and we are not willing to vote, to even have a debate
much less a vote, on raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to
$6.15 an hour over a 2-year period so people who work hard all year-
round and are still poor, who don't earn a decent living and cannot
take care of their children, are not even given the opportunity to be
able to do better for themselves and their children.
I think it is egregious. It is absolutely egregious what has
happened. I am in opposition to it. I hope other Senators will speak
out in opposition to the process and in opposition to the Congress
being so generous with our own salary and oh so stingy when it comes to
looking out for the interests of many hard-working, working poor people
in this country.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 14 minutes of Senator
Dorgan's time be yielded to Senator Graham from Florida and that 6
minutes of my time be yielded to Senator Graham of Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The distinguished Senator from
Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for
their hard work in putting forth this legislation which provides
federal funding for numerous vital programs in the Treasury Department
and the General Government. However, I am sad to say, once again, I
find myself in the unpleasant position of speaking before my colleagues
about unacceptable levels of parochial projects in another
appropriations Conference Report.
The amount of pork in this bill is a tremendous burden which is
patently unfair to the millions of hard-working American taxpayers, who
do not possess the resources to get a ``pet project'' placed in their
backyard.
The list of projects which received priority billing is quite long
and the dollar amounts are staggering. Nevertheless, I will highlight a
few of the egregious violations.
The conference report contains numerous provisions for millions of
dollars to construct new courthouses in specific locations such as Los
Angeles, CA, Richmond, VA, and Seattle, WA. Again, why are these
particular sites so deserving of funding, that they receive specific
earmarks to fund their construction? Unfortunately, this spending
frenzy is not limited to courthouses. Somebody in either the other body
or the Senate has concluded that the SSA National Computer Center in
Woodlawn, MD deserves $4.3 million, and the Richard Bolling Federal
Building in Kansas City, MO deserves $26 million are so unique that
they should receive specific earmarks.
Furthermore, this conference report irresponsibly expands the
definition of what constitutes emergency spending to get around the
spending caps. For example, this report designates $9 million in
funding for repairs to the underground garage in the Cannon House
Office Building as emergency spending. I do not think this is what the
American taxpayer would envision as a true emergency.
This report also spends nearly $7 million more for salaries and
expenses for the Treasury Department than was requested by either the
House or the Senate.
The list of spending excesses goes on. This bill provides a
staggering $14.8 million for communications infrastructure, including
radios and related equipment, associated with law enforcement
responsibilities for the Salt Lake Winter Olympics. This item is but
one example of the fiscal abuse surrounding the staging of the Olympic
Games in Salt Lake.
This past year, Congressman Dingell and I requested the General
Accounting Office to conduct an audit into Federal financial support
for U.S. cities hosting the Olympics. Specifically, we asked the GAO to
answer two questions: (1) the amount of federal funding and support
provided to the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympics, and planned for the 2002
Winter Olympics, and the types of projects and activities that were
funded and supported, and; (2) the Federal policies, legislative
authorizations, and agency controls in place for providing the Federal
funds and support to the Olympic Games. What the GAO discovered is
that, ``at least 24 Federal agencies reported providing or planning to
provide a combined total of almost $2 billion, in 1999 dollars, for
Olympic-related projects and activities for the 1984 and 1996 Summer
Olympic Games and the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.''
I say to my friends, the number is staggering, but what is more
shocking, but not too surprising once an egregious practice begins and
goes unchecked, is the way in which Federal funds flowing to Olympic
host cities has accelerated. The GAO found that the American taxpayers
provided about $75 million in funding for the 1984 Los Angeles games,
by 1996 the bill to the taxpayers had escalated to $609 million, and
for the upcoming 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, that bill to
American taxpayers is estimated to be $1.3 billion.
That is outrageous, Mr. President, and it is a disgrace. It is a
disgraceful practice to put these pork-barrel projects on this
appropriations bill. I say to the Senator from Utah who is on the floor
now, if another pork-barrel project that is not authorized for the
Olympic games is put on any appropriations bill, I will filibuster the
bill until I fail to do so.
I wrote a letter to the Senator from Utah on September 19, 1997. In
it I said:

I am writing about the recent efforts to add funds--

This is 1997--

to appropriations measures for the 2002 Winter Olympics in
Salt Lake City.

I went on to say:

I recognize that proper preparation for the Olympics is
vital. . . . It seems to me, though, the best course of
action would be to require the U.S. Olympic Committee, in
coordination with the Administration and Congress, to prepare
and submit a comprehensive plan detailing, in particular, the
funding anticipated to be required from the taxpayers. . . .
Please call me so that we can start work immediately to
establish some predictability and rationality in the process
of preparing for Olympic events in our country.

That was 1997. In a rather surprising breach of senatorial courtesy,
the Senator from Utah never responded to that letter, so I wrote him
another letter a year later asking for the same and never got a
response.
The GAO now determines that $1.3 billion--and some of those I will
read: $974,000 for the Utah State Olympic Public Safety Command; $5
million for the Utah Communications Agency Network; $3 million to
Olympic Regional Development Authority, upgrades at Mt. Van Hoevenberg
Sports Complex; $2.5 million, Salt Lake City Olympics bus facilities;
$2.5 million, Salt Lake City Olympics regional park-and-ride lots;
$500,000, Salt Lake City Olympics transit bus loan, and on and on;
$925,000 to allow the Utah State Olympic Public Safety Command to
continue to develop and support a public safety program for the 2002
Winter Olympics; $1 million for the 2002 Winter Olympics security
training; $2.2 million for the Charleston Water Conservancy District,
UT, to meet sewer infrastructure needs associated with the 2002 Winter
Olympic Games.
What the Olympic games supposedly hosted and funded by Salt Lake
City, which began in corruption and bribery, has now turned into is an
incredible pork-barrel project for Salt Lake City and its environs.

[[Page S8742]]

Not surprisingly, the GAO found that there was no effective mechanism
in place for tracking Federal funding and support to host cities, one
thing I tried to do in the letter to the Senator from Utah in 1997. The
GAO stated that ``in some cases it was difficult to determine the
amount of federal funding and support because federal agencies
generally did not track or report their funding and support for the
Olympic Games.'' Congress, in some cases, authorized $690 million of
the estimated $2 billion, with some $1.3 billion being approved by
Federal agencies. However egregious it might be for Congress to approve
$690 million in taxpayers funds--most of which was done through
objectionable legislative pork barreling--it is astounding that federal
bureaucrats, with absolutely no accountability, have ponied up $1.3
billion as a regular course of business.
The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, named after my good
friend and colleague from Alaska, sets out the process by which the
United States Olympic Committee operates, and how the USOC goes about
selecting a U.S. bid city. Embodied in this act is a uniquely American
tenet establishing that the United States Olympic movement, including
the bid, and host city process, is an entirely independent, private
sector entity. However, as this report points out, the American
taxpayer has now become, by far, the largest single underwriter of the
costs of hosting the Olympics. Mind you, this is not about private,
voluntary giving to the Olympic movement. Nor is it about corporate
sponsorships. This is about a cocktail of fiscal irresponsibility, made
of congressional pork barreling, and unaccountable Federal bureaucrats.
As I outlined earlier, taxpayer funding of the Olympics has increased
dramatically in recent years, as has the purpose of the funding. In the
1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, $75 million in Federal support--
$75 million versus $1.3 billion for the Salt Lake City Olympics--was
provided. Most notable about this figure, aside from how low it is
relative to Atlanta and Salt Lake, is what the money was used for. Of
the $75 million in Los Angeles, $68 million, or 91 percent, was used to
help provide safety and security services during the planned staging of
the games. Only $7 million was for nonsecurity-related services.
Providing safety and security support is a proper role for the Federal
Government. No one would dispute that the Federal Government should
provide whatever support necessary to ensure that the Games are safe
for everyone. However, the American taxpayer should not be burdened
with building up the basic infrastructure necessary to a city to be
able to pull off hosting the Olympic Games.
Clearly, by the time we got to Atlanta, such was not the case.
Other classic examples include $331,000 to purchase flowers, shrubs
and grass for venues and parks around Atlanta, $3.5 million to do
things like installing of solar electrical systems at the Olympic
swimming pool.
As astounding as the Atlanta numbers are, they absolutely pale in
comparison to Salt Lake City. Almost $1.3 billion of Federal funding
and support is planned or has already been provided to the city of Salt
Lake. And $645 million--51 percent--is for construction of roads and
highways; $353 million--28 percent--is for mass transit projects;
approximately $107 million for miscellaneous other activities, such as
building temporary parking lots and bus rentals; and $161 million on
safety and security.
As of April 2000, the Federal Government planned to spend some $77
million to provide spectator transportation and venue enhancements for
the Salt Lake games. This includes $47 million in congressionally
approved taxpayer funding for transportation systems. Among other
things, Salt Lake officials plan to ask the Federal Government for $91
million to pay for things such as transporting borrowed buses to and
from Salt Lake, additional bus drivers, bus maintenance, and
construction and operation of park-and-ride lots.
However, as outlined, most of the money taken from taxpayers to pay
the bill for the Salt Lake games is going to develop, build, and
complete major highway and transit improvement projects, ``especially
those critical to the success of the Olympic games.'' This last phrase
is vital to understanding the fleece game being played by cities such
as Salt Lake City.
It works this way. A city decides they want to host an Olympics to
generate tourism and put their hometown on the map. In order to
successfully manage an Olympics, community leaders know they will have
to meet certain infrastructure demands. They develop their plans, and
then, of course, the pork barreling starts.
The GAO makes several recommendations for congressional
consideration, including a potential Federal role in the selection of a
bid city, a tracking system for funds appropriated, and more direct
oversight. Among other things, the GAO also recommends a larger role
for OMB in exercising oversight regarding agency activities.
However, I believe there are two fundamental reforms that should take
place. The first is budget reform. Appropriations for Olympic
activities should occur through the regular budget process, subject to
the sunshine of public scrutiny and debate within Congress. Second, the
USOC should not consider the bids of cities that do not have in place
the basic capacity to host the Olympic games.
What has happened here is what happens in Congress. We start out with
a little pork barreling; it gets bigger and bigger and bigger. We saw
that recently on the Defense appropriations bill--$4 million on the
Defense appropriations bill to protect the desert tortoise.
I want to repeat, I will filibuster and do everything in my power to
delay any more appropriations bills that have this pork-barrel spending
for Salt Lake City. There is a process. There is a process of
authorization for these projects. They are conducted by the authorizing
committees. Some of them may be worthwhile and necessary. Some of them
may deserve to be authorized. Instead, they are stuck into an
appropriations bill without scrutiny or without anyone looking at them.
I do not understand how we Republicans call ourselves conservatives
and then treat the taxpayers' dollars in this fashion. This is terribly
objectionable. It is up to $1.3 billion. We still have another year, at
least, to go. This has to stop.
I am glad we got the GAO study. It is a classic example of what
happens with pork-barrel spending in this body. It directly contributes
to the cynicism and alienation of the American voter. These are my
taxpayers' dollars, Mr. President, as well as the citizens' tax dollars
of Utah. I have an obligation to my constituents in the State of
Arizona who pay their taxes that their tax dollars should not be spent
on this pork-barrel spending.
Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of
objectionable provisions for the legislative branch conference report
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Objectional Provisions for the Legislative Branch Conference Report
106-796 (Includes Treasury/Postal)

ITEMS IDENTIFIED in Report 106-796

Earmarks

Title I--Department of the Treasury

$47,287,000 for development and acquisition of automatic
data processing equipment, software, and services for the
Department of the Treasury.
$31,000,000 for the repair, alteration, and improvement of
the Treasury Building and Annex.
$29,205,000, for expansion of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center.

Title II--Other Agencies

Library of Congress

$4,300,000 for a high speed data transmission between the
Library of Congress and educational facilities, libraries, or
networks serving western North Carolina.
Russian Leadership Program--$10,000,000.
Hands Across America--$5,957,800.
Arrearage reduction--$500,000.
Mass deacidification--$1,216,000.
National Film Preservation Board--$250,000.
Digitization pilot with West Point--$404,000.

Botanic Garden

Wayfinding signage--$25,000.

Architect of the Capitol

Replace HVAC variable speed drive motor--$90,000.
Room and partition modifications--$165,000.

[[Page S8743]]

Replace partition supports--$200,000.
Lightning protection, Madison building--$190,000.

Title IV--Emergency Fiscal Year 2000 Supplemental Appropriations

Architect of the Capitol

$9,000,000 for urgent repairs to the underground garage in
the Cannon House Office Building.

Title I--Congressional Operations

Replacement of Minton title--$100,000.

Title IV--Independent Agencies

$472,176,000 for construction projects at the following
locations:
California, Los Angeles, U.S. Courthouse;
District of Columbia, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms Headquarters;
Florida, Saint Petersburg, Combined Law Enforcement
Facility;
Maryland, Montgomery County, Food and Drug Administration
Consolidation;
Michigan, Sault St. Marie, Border Station;
Mississippi, Biloxi-Gulfport, U.S. Courthouse;
Montana, Eureka/Roosville, Border Station;
Virginia, Richmond, U.S. Courthouse;
Washington, Seattle, U.S. Courthouse.
Repairs and alterations:
Arizona: Phoenix, Federal Building Courthouse, $26,962,000.
California: Santa Ana, Federal Building, $27,864,000.
District of Columbia: Internal Revenue Service Headquarters
(Phase 1), $31,780,000, Main State Building (Phase 3),
$28,775,000.
Maryland: Woodlawn, SSA National Computer Center,
$4,285,000.
Michigan: Detroit, McNamara Federal Building, $26,999,000.
Missouri: Kansas City, Richard Bolling Federal Building,
$25,882,000; Kansas City, Federal Building, 8930 Ward
Parkway, $8,964,000.
Nebraska: Omaha, Zorinsky Federal Building, $45,960,000.
New York: New York City, 40 Foley Square, $5,037,000.
Ohio: Cincinnati, Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse,
$18,434,000.
Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh, U.S. Post Office-Courthouse,
$54,144,000.
Utah: Salt Lake City, Bennett Federal Building,
$21,199,000.
Virginia: Reston, J.W. Powell Federal Building (Phase 2),
$22,993,000.
Nationwide: Design Program, $21,915,000; Energy Program,
$5,000,000; Glass Fragment Retention Program, $5,000,000.
$276,400,000 for the following construction projects:
District of Columbia, U.S. Courthouse Annex;
Florida, Miami, U.S. Courthouse;
Massachusetts, Springfield, U.S. Courthouse;
New York, Buffalo, U.S. Courthouse.

directive language

Title III--General Provisions

Standard buy-American provisions throughout the conference
report.

Title II--Other Agencies

Language directing the General Accounting Office to
undertake a study of the effects on air pollution caused by
all polluting sources, including automobiles and the electric
power generation emissions of the Tennessee Valley Authority
on the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the Blue Ridge
Parkway and the Pisgah, Nantahla, and Cherokee National
Forests. This study will also include the amount of carbon
emissions avoided by the use of non-emitting electricity
sources such as nuclear power within the same region. The GAO
shall report to the Committees on Appropriations no later
than January 31, 2001.

Title III

Language directing that there be no reorganization of the
field operations of the United States Customs Service Office
of Field Operations which may result in a reduction in
service to the area served by the Port of Racine, Wisconsin.
Up to $2,500,000 for the purchase of land and the
construction of a road in Luna County, New Mexico.
$95,150,000 for the repair, alteration, and improvement of
archives facilities, and to provide adequate storage for
holdings, $88,000,000 is to complete renovation of the
National Archives Building.

Title--Department of the Treasury

$14,779,000 for communications infrastructure for the Salt
Lake City Winter Olympics;
$2,000,000 for Critical Infrastructure Protection; and
$3,500,000 for Public Key Infrastructure.
Additionally, the conferees include $500,000 for Customs'
ongoing research on trade of agricultural commodities and
products at a Northern Plains university with an agricultural
economics program and support the use of $2,500,000 for the
acquisition of Passive Radar Detection Technology.
The conferees therefore direct the Treasury Department and
Customs to complete this model and to report to the
Committees on Appropriations not later than November 1, 2000
on its implementation. In relation to this, the conferees
urge the Customs Service to give full consideration to the
needs of the following areas for increases or improvements in
Customs services: Fargo, North Dakota; Highgate Springs,
Vermont; Charleston, South Carolina; Charleston, West
Virginia; Honolulu, Hawaii; Great Falls, Sweetgrass-Coutts,
and Missoula, Montana; Tri-Cities Regional Airport,
Tennessee; Dulles International Airport; Louisville
International Airport; Miami International Airport;
Pittsburg, New Hampshire; San Antonio, Texas; and multiple
port areas in Arizona, New Mexico, and Florida

Title III--Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to
the President

As ONDCP reviews candidates for new HIDTA funding, the
conferees direct it to consider the following: Las Vegas, NV;
Arkansas; Minnesota; North Carolina; and Northern Florida,
which have requested designation; Mexico, South Texas, West
Texas, and Arizona, New England, Gulf Coast, Oregon,
Northwest (including southwest and eastern Washington), and
Chicago HIDTAs; and full minimum funding for new HIDTAs in
Central Valley, California, Hawaii, and Ohio.
$3,300,000 for anti-doping efforts of the United States
Olympic Committee.

Title IV--Independent Agencies

$3,500,000 for the design and site acquisition of a
combined law enforcement facility in Saint Petersburg,
Florida.
$700,000 for the design of a 10,000-square-foot extension
to the Gerald R. Ford Museum.

GRAND TOTAL: OVER $1.4 BILLION.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, am I correct that I have 20 minutes
reserved at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The distinguished Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield for an inquiry?
Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have left under my control?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Utah has 45
minutes.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair. I will use time when the Senator from
Florida has finished.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator
allowing me to speak on another matter during the debate on the
legislative branch conference report.
(The remarks of Mr. Graham are located in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I listened with interest when the Senator
from Arizona spoke about the GAO report with respect to the Olympics. I
believe the Senator from Arizona has made a significant contribution
and is attempting to move the Congress in a direction in which we
should go with respect to the Olympic games. I think he has raised
appropriate concerns. I can be specific about some of them. I will not
attempt to be specific about them all because they are quite lengthy.
For example, the $14.8 million for communications infrastructure to
which he objects in the Department of the Treasury portion of the
conference report before us was inserted there at the request of the
Secret Service, which told the Appropriations Committee that was the
amount they required. This was not something that was asked for by the
Salt Lake organizing committee or the Senator from Utah specifically.
It came from the Department of the Treasury.
That is true of some of the other items. But rather than getting
bogged down in a debate over the appropriateness of this amount or that
amount, every one of which has had that debate in one form or another
in the process of getting to the conference report, I want to address
the issue of the GAO report and the comments that the Senator from
Arizona made about it.
He said, very accurately, that the Federal role with respect to the
Olympic games has increased dramatically from the $75 million that was
appropriated in 1984 for the Olympics in Los Angeles to the amount that
has now been appropriated and is going to be appropriated for the
Olympics in Salt Lake City, showing the step-up from Los Angeles to
Atlanta to Salt Lake City.
Inasmuch as Washington, DC, has announced its intention to bid on the
Olympic games in either 2008 or 2012, I think now is an appropriate
time, as the Senator from Arizona has suggested, to talk about the role
of the Federal Government with respect to the Olympic games.

[[Page S8744]]

The GAO report makes this comment with which I am sure the Senator
from Arizona would agree and with which I agree. I think it is a very
appropriate comment. It says:

Despite the lack of a specifically authorized Government-
wide role in the Olympic games, the Federal Government has,
in effect, become a significant supporter of the Games when
hosted in the United States. Accordingly, Congress may want
to consider enacting legislation to establish a formal role
for the Federal Government and a Government-wide policy
regarding Federal funding and support for the Olympic Games
when hosted in the United States.

I think that is a very sound recommendation on the part of GAO. It
resonates with the concerns raised by the Senator from Arizona.
I lived in Los Angeles in 1984 and watched the Olympic games from the
standpoint of a resident. Let me add a little history to the history
that has been referred to on the floor this afternoon.
In 1984, as I recall--I could be wrong, but my memory tells me--Los
Angeles was the only city bidding for the Olympic games. The games were
seen as an economic disaster for any city unfortunate enough to end up
as the host. There were examples all over the world of cities that had
hosted the Olympic games and ended up with huge deficits which took
them years and years to pay off. Nobody wanted the Olympic games. Los
Angeles got the Olympic games almost by default. They hired an
extraordinary individual named Peter Ueberroth to serve as the manager
of that event, and Peter Ueberroth did something that was both very
good and, in retrospect, maybe not so good for the Olympic movement. He
brought in for the first time on a serious basis big money sponsors.
I remember reading in the Los Angeles Times after the Olympic games
were over that there was a surplus in the Olympic account of $30
million that would be turned over to the city of Los Angeles. There
were further newspaper stories that said: No, the surplus is $60
million. No, we have looked through the books, the surplus is $100
million. I don't remember now what it ended up being. But it was, for
the time, a comparatively staggering amount of money. There were jokes
made in Los Angeles about the fact that everything was available as the
official filled in the blanks.
I remember going with my family to watch the women's marathon. It was
the only event we attended in the Los Angeles 1984 Olympic games
because it was the only one that was free. We couldn't afford to buy
the tickets at that time. As the father of six children, I think other
people can understand that particular problem. We stood there on the
sidelines and watched the Olympic runners come down. We cheered for the
Americans. We were excited. Then after it was over, in the spirit of
the time, one of the officials of the games turned to us and said, Do
you want an official Olympic sponge? They had handed sponges filled
with water to the runners as they went by, and the runners cast them
off.
Everything was an ``official Olympic'' this or that and had a price
tag attached to it. I remember Kodak was very concerned because Peter
Ueberroth put the official Olympic film up for bid and Kodak said: You
can't possibly have an official Olympic film that isn't an American
film. Ueberroth said: Make your bid. Fuji Film outbid Kodak. We had
over the Olympics in Los Angeles a large green blimp with ``Fuji Film''
on it. Fuji Film was the official Olympic film for the 1984 Los Angeles
Olympics.
As I say, the number came out to be ultimately something close to
$100 million. It transformed the Olympic movement. From that moment
forward, everybody wanted to be the host city for the Olympic games.
And everybody assumed that if they could somehow get that plum for
their city, they would receive a very substantial economic payoff. But
once you start down that road psychologically, a number of interesting
things happen. And an interesting thing happened to the Olympic
movement.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator be good enough to yield
for a moment for a question?
Mr. BENNETT. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I note that we are going to hear from former Vice
President Quayle at 6 p.m., and Senator Stevens wanted to address the
Senate. Just as a point of information, I welcome the chance to be able
to address the Senate tomorrow. If the Senator is going to continue for
a while, if he could let us know, because I wanted to have the
opportunity to hear from Mr. Quayle and also to accommodate Senator
Stevens. The Senator is addressing a very important matter that is
relevant to the remarks of the Senator from Arizona. Could he give us
any indication?
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his inquiry.
Since I have no prepared remarks, I am responding directly to the
remarks of the Senator from Arizona. I can't put an exact timeframe on
it. I will try to restrain my enthusiasm for the sound of my own voice
and finish in maybe 15 or 20 minutes--something in that timeframe. I
will do my best to do it faster. I understand the Senator from Alaska
no longer requires any time. So the Senator from Massachusetts could
speak right up to the time we go into the session with the former Vice
President.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if I may go back, the reaction out of Los
Angeles caused the leaders of the Olympic movement to also get dollar
signs in their eyes, and the Olympics began to expand. The assumption
was, if the costs go up at the International Olympic Committee or the
costs go up at the U.S. Olympic Committee, no problem; we will just
sell a few more sponsorships and be able to pay for it without any
difficulty.
So one started chasing the other, and the number of sponsorships sold
kept going higher and the costs kept going higher.
One aspect of the cost going up has been the addition of new sports.
Interestingly enough, the number of sports that will participate in the
Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002 is significantly higher than the number
that participated at Lillehammer in, I believe, 1994. In just that
short period of time, the cost of putting on the Olympics has been
expanded by a significant percentage--I do not have the number
currently available--by adding additional sports. The organizers of the
Salt Lake Olympic Committee have told me that even though their budget
is very close to the budget at Lillehammer, their costs are
substantially higher because of the additional sports that have been
added.
Somewhere along the line, someone lost track of what happens to all
of this. Again, the head of the Salt Lake organizing committee, Mit
Romney, has told me that the budget he was handed from the U.S. Olympic
Committee implied more sponsorships for the winter Olympics than
Atlanta had for the summer Olympics in 1996. He has to go out and sell
those sponsorships now because the budget has built into the assumption
that money will be there. He is still approximately $40 million or $50
million shy of being able to cover his budget even though he has
outsold the sponsorships that went into Atlanta. He has more
sponsorship money coming from Atlanta for the winter games, which are
less popular than the summer games, and he is still money short.
That is what has happened as everybody, reacting to what happened in
Los Angeles in 1984, has assumed that the Olympics are a pot of gold.
They are clearly not a pot of gold. And we are getting to the point
where we may be back to the Los Angeles games when no city wanted to
host it because they would end up with a major deficit.
I said to Mit Romney: Will we have a deficit in Salt Lake? He said:
No, we will not have a deficit because, if absolutely necessary, we
will cut back to whatever amount of money we have.
We don't want to have America host Olympics that seem to be second
class by comparison to the rest of the world. But financially we have
no choice if we can't close that gap.
I believe Mit Romney will be able to close that gap. I believe he
will be able to bring it down so that we will have an exact meeting of
expenses and revenues.
But in this whole picture comes the question that has been raised by
the Senator from Arizona: What is the role of the Federal Government?
Increasingly, the Federal Government plays an important role in the
Olympics because, increasingly, as the Olympics get bigger and bigger,
with more and

[[Page S8745]]

more nations, more and more athletes, and more and more opportunities
for international terrorism, they become a bigger and bigger problem
for the Federal Government.
I think the whole question raised by the Senator from Arizona and by
the GAO report as to the formalization of the Federal role is a very
legitimate question. I think the proposal in the GAO report that was
endorsed by the Senator from Arizona that there be a formal involvement
from OMB and a formal process within the Congress to track these
appropriations is a right and proper proposal. We probably should have
done it after the Atlanta Olympics when we had the first indication
that this was what was going to happen. We didn't.
I am perfectly willing to join with the Senator from Arizona to craft
a way to do this once the Salt Lake City Olympics are over. If
Washington, DC, or some other American city gets the Olympics at some
point in the future, this process will be in place. I think it is the
responsible thing to do. I applaud the Senator from Arizona in helping
move in that direction.
I point out, as the GAO report says, with respect to the $2 billion
figure used by the Senator from Arizona:

According to Federal officials, most of these funds would
have been awarded to these cities or States even if they had
not hosted the Olympic games although the funds could have
been provided later if the games were not held.

Let me talk specifically about the two largest items in that $2
billion figure that relate to Salt Lake City: the mass transit in
downtown Salt Lake City and the renovation of I-15, the interstate
highway that runs through Salt Lake City. Both projects were properly
authorized, properly funded, under established congressional procedures
with respect to transportation activities. I-15 was 10 years beyond its
designed life when renovation construction began. The project was
outlined for 9 years under standard construction procedures.
The State of Utah, working with the Federal Highway Administration,
came up with a method of doing it which is called design/build; that
is, you design it while you are building it. Instead of designing it
all first and then building it, you do it simultaneously. In the
process, they cut the time from 9 years to 4\1/2\. They also cut the
cost by close to $1 billion.
Yes, it will be done in time for the Olympics. Yes, it will enhance
the Olympics. And GAO has included its total in its calculation of the
cost of the Olympics. But it had to be done. It was a logical expense
of the highway trust fund. It was funded in the normal fashion through
the highway trust fund, and because of the pressure the Olympics put on
it in terms of time, we now have a pilot project with design/build that
is coming in ahead of schedule and under budget. We are saving
taxpayers money by virtue of the pressure that the Olympics put on this
highway project.
There is absolutely no question that the money would have been spent
even if the Olympics had not come to Salt Lake City. It may not have
been spent as wisely or as prudently as it is being spent if we had not
had the pressure of the Olympics.

The second issue is the mass transit system in Salt Lake City. The
mass transit system in Salt Lake City, again, stood in queue with all
of the other mass transit systems that were being reviewed by the
Department of Transportation. It was approved in the Clinton
administration as an appropriate transit program for a metropolitan
area experiencing tremendous growth and congestion. It is interesting
to me to note that the current construction of mass transit in Salt
Lake City is going forward even though there was no assurance that it
would be completed in time for the Olympic games. In other words, the
Department of Transportation approved the full funding grant agreement
for that spur of the mass transit system with the full knowledge that
it might not be available for the Olympics.
Now, the contractors who were building it insisted it would be
available for the Olympics. It certainly will help the Olympics. But it
was not approved as an Olympic project. It was not examined as an
Olympics project. It was not evaluated by the Department of
Transportation as an Olympics project. Its cost, however, is included
in the GAO study as an Olympics project because it occurred in the
period where things were being spent in Utah.
I make a footnote with respect to I-15, the interstate highway. It is
being funded largely by State funds. The Federal dollars only became
available after TEA-21 passed in 1998 and the State decided we couldn't
wait. Had we not had the Olympics and waited for full Federal
participation in this portion of the interstate, the State of Utah
would be paying less than it is now. So the State of Utah has put up a
substantial sum of money by virtue of this for this infrastructure. We
do not complain because we will have the benefit of that infrastructure
after the games are over. However, I want to make it clear to any who
are keeping score that if you take the $2 billion figure to which the
Senator from Arizona referred that is part of the GAO report and break
it down, you come up with a much smaller figure for the Federal
participation in the Olympics games that has nothing to do with
anything else; that is, you have a much smaller figure for Federal
expenditures that are solely Olympics expenditures than anything like
the $2 billion.
Now, back to the earlier point, that we must address the question of
the Federal role. Let us look what the Olympics do to any country that
gets them in today's world. My wife and I went to Nagano, Japan, to see
the Olympics put on in Japan. We read the Japanese newspapers. We
didn't come up with a firm figure, but the Japanese newspapers
speculated that the total amount that Japan as a country spent in order
to put on the Olympics--the lowest figure I read was $13 billion; the
highest figure I read was $18 billion, given the kind of accounting
sleight of hand that accompanied the Japanese Olympics. I think the
higher figure may very well be the accurate one. Even if we take the
lower figure, Japan decided they could not put on an Olympics worthy of
world attention without making such infrastructure improvements as to
spend ultimately $13 billion. I participated in the benefits of that. I
rode the bullet train from downtown Tokyo to Nagano where the Olympics
were held. They decided they couldn't put on the Olympics without
putting in a bullet train.
We, in the United States, view the Olympics as basically a sporting
event. The rest of the world views the Olympics very differently, and
once a city in a country in the rest of the world is awarded the
Olympics, the entire national government of that country becomes
engaged. We need to think this one through as a nation. If we ever want
to hold the Olympic games in the United States again and have the games
be presented to the world on anything like the level that the world has
come to expect for the Olympics, we are going to have to face the fact
that the Federal Government must be involved in a formal kind of way.
The GAO comments about this just growing upon us are correct and a
formal examination of the American Federal Government participation in
the Olympics is overdue. The fact is, now no city in this country can
bid for, accept, and put on the Olympic games without significant,
maybe even in the view of the Senator from Arizona, massive Federal
support. The Clinton administration has recognized that. I have been a
long critic of the Clinton administration in a number of areas, but in
this area I must say that the Clinton administration has stepped up to
the plate and supported absolutely everything that has to be done to
see that the Olympics are put on in an appropriate way.
I salute the people in the OMB with whom we have worked, the people
in the White House staff with whom we have worked in a collaborative
way to bring this all together to see that we will have a responsible
Olympic games.
The Olympic games in Salt Lake City in 2002 are going to be fabulous.
We have the best mountains, the best snow, the best facilities. It is
going to be a fabulous experience for the entire world, and all
Americans are going to be very proud of the job that the Salt Lake
Olympic Organizing Committee will do in putting that on. But the Salt
Lake organizing committee could not do it without the kind of support
that has been provided by all of the Federal agencies who have been
called upon in the various appropriations bills that have gone through.

[[Page S8746]]

As we look to the future and anticipate the possibility that at some
point some other American city will either gain the summer games, as
Atlanta did, or the winter games, as Salt Lake City did, we should put
in place the recommendations of the GAO and recognize right up front
that it is a national effort, it is a Federal responsibility, as well
as a city responsibility, and perform as every other country in the
world performs with respect to this particular opportunity.
If we decide as a Congress that we do not want Federal participation
in the Olympic games, make that decision clear, then no American city
will ever host the Olympic games again because no American city can
ever afford the kinds of things that are required.
I thank the Senator from Arizona for raising this issue, for bringing
us to an understanding of the importance of the recommendations that
the GAO has made, and for giving me the opportunity to give these
specifics about the $2 billion figure. The Federal Government, in fact,
will spend far less than that figure, far less than $1 billion, far
less than however many hundreds of millions of dollars. I do not know
the number. I do not know anybody who does. I will try to find it out
and bring it to the floor at some point. It will be less than any other
federal government has spent to bring the Olympics to their host
country, but it demonstrates to us that we have to have the kind of
planning and coordination for which the Senator from Arizona calls.
I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his indulgence. I ask how
much time I have remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Utah has 18
minutes remaining.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have nothing further to say. I probably
should not have said as much as I did. If there is no Senator seeking
recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum and request that it be
charged to both sides equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have had brought to my attention since
I finished my extemporaneous remarks some information about the funding
of the Olympics that I would like to now share and put into the Record.
This is a draft statement that was prepared for Mit Romney. I do not
want to put these words in his mouth until he has had an opportunity to
review it. It has come from his staff. I believe it is accurate. I will
share some of this information with you.
First, Federal spending for activities directly associated with the
games is entirely appropriate when it is within traditional areas of
public responsibility. Example: Two-thirds of the costs are for public
safety activities, such as providing counterterrorism support. Other
areas where the Government is involved include visas, customs,
transportation to the public, and weather information infrastructure--
all traditional governmental responsibilities.

The statement says the Olympic games are essentially a mission of
peace entirely consistent with the objectives of our country and
recognizing that the Government spends billions of dollars to maintain
wartime capability, it is entirely appropriate to invest several
hundred million to promote peace. That is an editorial comment.
With respect to the funding and the GAO report, there are two types
of unrelated spending combined under the term ``Federal funding.''
First is spending actually required to host an Olympic games; and,
second, spending on projects the Government would have funded whether
or not the Olympics occur. I have already talked at great length about
the second aspect--funding that would have been spent regardless of
whether or not the Olympics have occurred.
Direct Olympics spending; that is, spending that occurs solely
because of the Olympics, as accounted in GAO's report, is about $254
million, not the $1.3 billion that was in the headlines. I repeat that:
About $254 million is the direct spending, and it goes for the items
that are referred to up above--visas, customs, transportation, weather
information and, of course, security and counterterrorism, as indicated
by the $14.8 million to which the Senator from Arizona referred that
was requested by the Secret Service.
I add one other comment to this. The Senator from Arizona talked
about future appropriations. We are pretty much over the hump with this
year's appropriations. We cannot spend money in fiscal 2002 for Olympic
games that are going to be held in February of 2002. So the 2001 fiscal
year budget, which we are involved in here, is the big-ticket item.
Once we are past this budget cycle, there will be some additional
funds in the next year, but they will be much smaller than the funds
that are included this year. I say to my colleagues, I know of no funds
in the 2001 bills that are yet to come before us that have not, in
fact, been authorized in the appropriate procedure to which the Senator
from Arizona referred.
So, Mr. President, I speculated as to what the number was in my
extemporaneous remarks. I have now had the number given to me. The
actual number of Olympics-only Federal spending is in the neighborhood
of $250, $254 million. I make that additional correction to the Record.

expansion of chicago high-density drug trafficking area

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity
to engage the Chairman of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Subcommittee in a brief colloquy.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.
Mr. FITZGERALD. My state has an emerging methamphetamine problem,
which is an unmet need of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
program. To tackle this problem successfully, Congress should provide
funding in fiscal year 2001 to implement the expansion of the Chicago
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area to the Southern and Central
Districts of Illinois.
Over the last three years, seizures of methamphetamine laboratories
in Illinois have increased by 925 percent. In 1999 alone, 246
methamphetamine laboratories were seized in Illinois (more than all
previous years combined), and methamphetamine-related crime in the
state is at an all-time high, according to the Illinois State Police.
If this trend continues, Illinois can expect to see an exponential
growth of methamphetamine activities in the next two or three years,
similar to what has occurred in Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Iowa.
I recognize that the final version of the Treasury and General
government Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001 includes an
additional $14,500,000 to expand existing HIDTAs or fund newly
designated HIDTAs. I would like to ask the Chairman a question: is it
your expectation that a portion of these funds will be used to
implement the expansion of the Chicago HIDTA to the Southern and
Central Districts of Illinois?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, that is my expectation.

national drug-free workplace alliance

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to enter into a
colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Treasury and General
Government Subcommittee, Senator Campbell, regarding the importance of
the National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I understand the Senator's interest in this area.
Mr. KYL. I would like to take a few minutes to describe the
importance of the National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance. The goal of
the Alliance is to promote and assist the establishment of drug-free
workplace programs and provide comprehensive drug-free workplace
services to American businesses. As you know, drug abuse is prevalent
in the American workplace. One in 12 employees uses illegal drugs.
Equally troubling is that drug and alcohol abusers file about 5 times
as many workers compensation claims as non-abusers, and 47 percent of
all industrial accidents in the United States are related to drugs and/
or alcohol. The Alliance will not only serve as a valuable resource to
businesses, but also to the many organizations across the country

[[Page S8747]]

devoted to drug free workplaces. Two such organizations in my state,
Arizonans for a Drug-Free Workplace and Drugs Don't Work, would greatly
benefit from working with the Alliance.
Mr. CAMPBELL. The Subcommittee is increasingly aware of the problems
that drugs pose in the workplace. Helping businesses to address such a
problem will greatly benefit our communities and children. I look
forward to working with my colleague to address your concerns.
Mr. KYL. Once again I would like to thank the distinguished Chairman.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this conference report
on the legislative branch appropriations bill. The reasons for my
opposition have much to do with the process by which this conference
report has come to us. As I said in my statement this May during debate
on the motion to proceed to the foreign operations appropriations bill,
the character of the Senate has been changing. This conference report
is yet another example of that change. And the change has not been for
the better.
The Senate sent to conference a $2\1/2\ billion legislative branch
appropriations bill. The House majority leadership took that conference
on a relatively modest bill and shoveled into it a $55 billion tax cut
and a $30 billion appropriations bill for the Treasury Department, the
Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain
independent agencies. This is an abuse of the powers of the majority.
Mr. President, the Senate may be calloused to the accelerating number
of abuses that we have witnessed in the past few years. And this
growing indifference may have given some comfort to those who are
spearheading this particular offensive.
But, Mr. President, there is a facet to this latest effort that makes
it especially worthy of opposition. For adopting this conference
report, now shielded from amendment, removes the opportunity to force
an open debate of a $3,800 pay raise for every Member of the Senate and
the House of Representatives.
By bringing the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill to the Senate
floor for the first time in this conference report, without Senate
floor consideration, the majority prevents anyone from offering an
amendment on that bill to block the pay raise. The majority makes it
impossible even to put Senators on record in an up-or-down vote
directly for or against the pay raise. The majority has thus perfected
the technique of the stealth pay raise.
And the majority also makes it impossible to link this congressional
pay raise directly to other pay issues of importance to the American
people. With this abuse of the rules, the majority makes it impossible
to consider, among other things, an amendment that would delay the
congressional pay raise until working Americans get a much-needed raise
in the minimum wage.
The majority leadership thus appears to believe that cost-of-living
adjustments make sense for Senators and Congressmen, but that cost-of-
living adjustments do not make sense for working people making the
minimum wage.
The abuse of the process that brings us here today prevents the
Senate from rectifying this injustice. If the Senate were considering
the regular Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, a Senator could offer
an amendment that would point out inequities like this. And that, in
the end, might help explain why the majority is using this procedure
today. That might explain why we are not considering the regular
Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, but are considering an unamenable
conference report.
This unamendable conference report culminates the technique of the
stealth pay raise. As my colleagues are aware, it is an unusual thing
to have the power to raise our own pay. Few people have that ability.
Most of our constituents do not have that power. And that this power is
so unusual is good reason for the Congress to exercise that power
openly, and to exercise it subject to regular procedures that include
debate and amendment.
The question of how and whether Members of Congress can raise their
own pay was one that our Founders considered from the beginning of our
Nation. In August of 1789, as part of the package of 12 amendments
advocated by James Madison that included what has become our Bill of
Rights, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the
Constitution providing that Congress could not raise its pay without an
intervening election. Almost exactly 211 years ago, on September 9,
1789, the Senate passed that amendment. In late September of 1789,
Congress submitted the amendments to the states.
Although the amendment on pay raises languished for two centuries, in
the 1980s, a campaign began to ratify it. While I was a member of the
Wisconsin State Senate, I was proud to help ratify the amendment. Its
approval by the Michigan legislature on May 7, 1992, gave it the needed
approval by three-fourths of the states.
The 27th amendment to the constitution now states: ``No law, varying
the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives,
shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have
intervened.'' Now, today's action does not violate the letter of the
Constitution, because it is the result of a 1989 law that provides for
a regular cost-of-living adjustment for congressional pay. But stealth
pay raises like the one that the Senate allows today certainly violate
the spirit of that amendment.
Mr. President, this practice must end. To address it, I intend to
introduce legislation that ends the automatic cost-of-living adjustment
for congressional pay.
The conference report before us today took its final shape just
before the August recess, during what were reported to be all-night,
closed-door meetings. The House majority leadership then tried to
muscle this conference report through the House on the day before the
recess. The bill survived a procedural vote by just four votes, 214 to
210. with Representatives anxious to begin their August recess, the
House leadership decided to postpone further action until this month.
The conference report before us today includes the Treasury Postal
bill. The Senate never had a chance to consider the Treasury Postal
bill that is now part of this conference report. The Senate
Appropriations Committee ordered the bill reported on July 20. It is
available for Senate consideration as a separate bill.
This conference report on an appropriations bill also includes a
repeal of the telephone excise tax. Now repealing the telephone tax is
probably the best tax cut idea that we will get in this Congress. I
voted to repeal the telephone tax during consideration of the estate
tax bill.
But that was a tax bill. Today, we are being asked to enact that tax
cut on an appropriations bill. A tax cut that will cost $55 billion
over the next decade should not be added in the middle of the night in
a conference on a $2\1/2\ billion appropriations bill.
As well, the conference report also makes budget process law changes.
Section 1002 of the conference report changes the limits on outlays set
in the current budget resolution for defense and non-defense spending.
It shifts $2 billion from non-defense spending to defense spending.
Making this budget process change violates the rules. Section 306 of
the Congressional Budget Act prohibits including budget process changes
like this in a bill that is not a budget process bill.
Some may argue that if we do not enact this conference report with
this abuse of the process, then the leadership will confront us with an
even greater abuse of process in the form of an even larger omnibus
appropriations bill. Even were that so, my colleagues, we here cannot
and must not give the leadership a blank check to include any matter
that they choose. And we most certainly can demand that Congress do
what we can to ensure that we get no pay raise until such time as
Congress has enacted a raise in the minimum wage.
This is a matter of principle, because this conference report does
not honor the principles of debate and amendment that undergird the
rules of this Senate.
And this is a matter of fairness, because this conference report
allows a $3,800 pay raise for Senators and Congressmen, before the
Congress has enacted a $1,000 pay raise for working Americans making
the minimum wage.
The majority has sought to prevent votes on this pay raise. By
preventing

[[Page S8748]]

votes on amendments, they have made this final vote on this conference
report the single vote that will allow the congressional pay raise to
happen. A Member who wants to prevent a congressional pay raise before
we have a raise in the minimum wage has this one opportunity to vote
against it.
It is for these reasons that I will vote against this conference
report.

____________________