[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 132 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10751-S10769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 
              APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
begin consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4635, 
the VA-HUD appropriations bill, notwithstanding the receipt of the 
papers, and it be considered as having been read and the conference 
report be considered under the following agreement: 30 minutes under 
the control of Senator Graham of Florida, 10 minutes equally divided 
between Senators Bond and Mikulski, 20 minutes equally divided between 
Senators Domenici and Reid, and 10 minutes equally divided between 
Senators Stevens and Byrd. I further ask consent that at the conclusion 
or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the 
conference report without any intervening action, motion, or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The report was printed in the House proceedings of the Record of 
October 18, 2000.)
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for the information of all Members, let me 
point out that at the request of the leadership on both sides of the 
aisle, we are moving forward and hope to have a vote, certainly no 
later than 3:30 this afternoon, because we do need to get this measure 
passed, as well as several others.
  I will take just a few minutes of my time now. I am pleased to 
present to the Senate the conference report to H.R. 4635, the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. As I indicated previously, 
this has been a very unusual year. The conference report represents the 
compromise agreement reached with Senator Mikulski, Congressman Walsh, 
Congressman Mollohan, and myself, in consultation with the 
administration.
  Certainly it is not a perfect situation. It is not the way I would 
like to do the bill. I would prefer to proceed

[[Page S10752]]

with passage of the VA-HUD appropriations bill in a more customary 
manner. Nevertheless, with the assistance of the leaders of the 
committee, and the leadership, we have brought the bill to the floor. I 
think it is a good and balanced compromise that I believe addresses the 
concerns of our colleagues, both in the House and the Senate, while 
striking the right balance in funding programs under the jurisdiction 
of the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee.
  The conference report totals approximately $105.8 billion, including 
$24.6 billion in mandatory veterans benefits, some $1 billion over the 
Senate committee-reported bill and almost $1 billion less than the 
President's budget request. Outlays are funded at roughly $110.8 
billion for the current fiscal year, $540 million over the Senate 
committee-reported bill.
  We did our best to satisfy priorities of Senators who made special 
requests for high-priority items, such as economic development grants, 
water infrastructure improvements, and the like. Such requests numbered 
several thousand, demonstrating the high level of interest and demand 
for assistance provided in this bill.
  We also attempted to address the administration's top concerns, 
including funding for 79,000 new housing vouchers, as well as record 
funding for EPA at roughly $7.8 billion.
  I am not going to summarize the bill today. We have done that before 
when the Senate passed the identical bill on October 12. The conference 
between the House and Senate has now confirmed that legislation.
  I think everyone has had an opportunity to review the bill.
  I offer my sincerest thanks to my ranking member, Senator Mikulski, 
and her staff for their cooperation and support throughout the process. 
Particularly, I thank Paul Carliner, Sean Smith, and Alexa Mitrakos 
from Senator Mikulski's staff. I obviously could not have done it 
without the good leadership and hard work of my team: John Kamarch, 
Carrie Apostolou, Cheh Kim, and Joe Norrell.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that the time be charged equally to all those allocated time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time will be charged to all sides. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I now wish to use time allotted to Senator 
Stevens under the agreement just reached. He has agreed to delegate 
that time to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Improving Education

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to speak on another very important 
appropriations bill that has been addressed on this floor and is being 
considered. That is the debate on education in the Labor-HHS bill. We 
want to see that important bill moved forward, get passed and signed by 
the President.
  It is clear that the two sides of the aisle have very differing views 
on how we ought to go about improving education. Let us all agree that 
improving education should be our national priority. We on this side 
happen to think it is a local and State responsibility, but it is a 
national priority, the top national priority.
  Now, one side of the aisle trusts the Federal Government to make the 
decisions. The other side of the aisle, our side, trusts the parents 
and teachers, the school districts, the school board members, to make 
those decisions. This side of the aisle seems to base its decision on 
whether we are successful in education on the total dollars spent. Our 
side would judge success on academic achievement of students. This side 
of the aisle believes accountability comes in successfully filling out 
paperwork, jumping through the hoops that Washington lays out for 
school boards and teachers. Our side believes accountability is based 
on academic achievement.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that the Olympians 
on the Hill--Capitol Hill, that is--know what is best for the folks 
down in the valley. Our side believes that the great ideas, 
accomplishments, and actions occur on the local level and that the 
Olympians on the Hill should watch and learn.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the Vice President 
talk a good game. Let me give you my view on what is going on. First, 
they have talked about the 100,000 teachers program, the school 
construction program. They have proposed to set aside billions of 
dollars for these programs alone and not allow flexibility that we 
strongly believe should be rested in the hands of the local schools, 
the parents who are served by them, and their children, and the people 
who run them.
  I support reduced class size. I campaigned for Governor on that 
basis. I know there are many school districts around the country that 
need new school buildings. However, as one of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle said, I want to do the right thing. I agree 
with that. I know our children and parents and schools are counting on 
us, in my view, to get out of the way and let them do the job they are 
not only hired to do but they are dedicated to do.
  We saw in the first debate what happens when Washington tries to make 
decisions for what is best in local schools. Vice President Gore told a 
terrible tale about this young girl who had to stand up in class. After 
the debate, we found out that she had to stand up or she had to have a 
chair brought in for 1 day because they had $100,000 worth of new 
computers. The school superintendent said that getting a place for her 
to sit was not really the problem. I understand he mentioned something 
about school lunches in another school district, and very quickly some 
of the folks from that school district said that is not the problem at 
all. That is not to say--and I am not saying here--that the Vice 
President didn't hear real concerns, that he made them up.
  I am just saying: How are we here in Washington, how is the Federal 
bureaucracy, how is the Department of Education, and how are those of 
us who are sitting here in this room trying to make decisions for local 
schools all across the country supposed to know what the problems are 
in the Sarasota School or the Callaway County R-6 school in Missouri or 
a school district in California or a school district in Washington or a 
school district in Maine?
  There is a lot of talk about 100,000 new teachers. That proposal 
sounds good. It is a great slogan to use when you are trying to gain 
national headlines. But when you look at the formula, trying to find 
out whether it works, it doesn't work.
  I traveled around to school districts and talked to school boards and 
teachers and administrators. Let me tell you how that formula works in 
Missouri. The Gilliam C-4 School District would get $384; the Holliday 
C-2 School District would get $608; the Pleasant View R-VI School 
District would get $846.
  I first heard about this problem from a small school district when 
someone in that room said: We would get enough money for 11 percent of 
a teacher. One other person in the room said: We would get enough money 
for 17 percent of a teacher. They haven't quite figured out how to use 
11 percent of a teacher or 17 percent of a teacher or how to spend $846 
on a teacher.
  Over 175 school districts in the State of Missouri would receive less 
than $10,000 under this program. Surely you don't think they are going 
to be able to hire a teacher to reach that 100,000 new teacher goal for 
less than $10,000.
  Many of the schools have already addressed classroom size at the 
expense of other things.
  Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose giving them 
the flexibility to utilize these resources in another manner which may 
suit their needs but which doesn't fall into the dictates of the one-
size-fits-all solution that Washington is being pushed to propose by 
the administration and by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  They are saying that we are not providing the school the resources to 
do what they need to do because Washington is trying to tell them what 
their priorities should be without knowing why that girl had to stand 
up or sit on a stool brought in for that one classroom.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and Vice President Gore 
advocate taking billions of dollars off the

[[Page S10753]]

table for thousands of schools across the country. To me, the issue is 
simple. We must give our States and localities the flexibility to use 
the resources to improve our public education system and to make 
decisions at the local level.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous 
consent that following the debate on the HUD-VA conference report, 
notwithstanding the receipt of the papers, the Senate proceed to the 
continuing resolution and that it be considered under the following 
agreement, with no amendments or motions in order: 20 minutes under the 
control of Senator Dorgan; 10 minutes equally divided between Senators 
Stevens and Byrd.
  I further ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion or yielding 
back of time the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the joint 
resolution, without any intervening action, motion, or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, two back-to-back 
votes can be expected to occur sometime between 3:30 and 4 o'clock this 
afternoon.
  I yield floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, what is the order of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is reserved.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I must object to speaking in morning 
business. We reached an agreement to utilize this time. Perhaps my 
colleague could gain time.
  All right. I am advised by the staff that Senator Dorgan might be 
willing to yield some of his 20 minutes to the Senator. If that is 
agreeable with my colleague from Nebraska, I would be happy to give up 
Senator Dorgan's time.
  Mr. KERREY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I revise my unanimous consent to ask unanimous consent 
to speak for up to 10 minutes under Senator Dorgan's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  IRAQ

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, at Pier 12 in the Norfolk Navy Base, along 
with the Presiding Officer in Norfolk, VA, I joined 10,000 others to 
mourn and to pay our respects to the families of 17 U.S. Navy sailors 
who were killed or who are missing following the explosion that ripped 
into the portside of U.S.S. Cole as she was preparing to set anchor in 
the Yemen Port of Aden.
  It was one week ago today at fifteen past midnight that a routine 
port call became a violent killing of 17 Americans, the wounding of 34 
more, and the disabling of a billion dollar destroyer.
  In attendance at the ceremony to honor those lost on the Cole were 
many Members of Congress, Attorney General Janet Reno, National 
Security Adviser Sandy Berger, the Secretaries of Defense and the Navy, 
and the uniformed commanders of the Navy and the Marine Corps. In a 
gesture of Yemen's cooperation, their Ambassador to the United States, 
Abdulwahab A. al-Hajjri, was also present.
  As I sat and listened to the powerful words of President Clinton, 
Secretary of Defense Cohen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Shelton, and 
others, I looked at the solemn faces of the Naval officers and enlisted 
men who stood on the decks of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Dwight D. 
Eisenhower and two of the Cole's sister ships, the destroyers Ross and 
McFaul and wondered how long the unity we felt would last? How long 
would the moving stories of the lives of these 17 young Americans bind 
us together?
  Their stories define what makes America such a unique place. 
President Clinton captured it perfectly:

       In the names and faces of those we lost and mourn, the 
     world sees our nation's greatest strength. People in uniform 
     rooted in every race, creed and region on the face of the 
     earth, yet bound together by a common commitment to freedom 
     and a common pride in being American.

  They were bound together by other common characteristics. Sixteen 
were enlisted men and women; the lone officer was an ensign who had 
served more than a decade in the enlisted ranks. None were college 
graduates, though many saw the Navy as a means to that end. They were 
from small towns and Navy towns, the places where patriotism burns 
bright and crowds still form to remember on Memorial Day and Veterans 
Day.
  I watched young widows and brothers and fathers cry without restraint 
or shame when President Clinton read the rollcall of the fallen heros. 
Sadness gripped me as once more I thought of lives that ended too soon 
knowing their dreams would not now come true.
  Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Clark appropriately reminded us 
that risk is a part of all sailors' lives. When going out to sea, there 
is never certainty of a joyous homecoming. Death is a frequent visitor 
in Navy households. Loss is never a complete surprise.
  However, in this instance it was not the unpredictable ways of the 
ocean or the violence of a storm that ended these American lives. No, 
in this instance the killer was a highly sophisticated, high-explosive 
device set and detonated by as yet unknown villains.
  There were words from our leaders that addressed the anger we feel in 
the aftermath of this tragedy. From President Clinton: ``To those who 
attacked them we say: you will not find a safe harbor. We will find 
you, and justice will prevail.'' From Secretary of Defense Cohen: 
``This is an act of pure evil.'' And from General Shelton: ``They 
should never forget that America's memory is long and our reach 
longer.''
  Yet, this desire for vengeance is as misplaced as it is 
understandable. Vengeance is one of the things a terrorist hopes to 
provoke. Such acts of vengeance--especially when carried out by the 
United States of America--are bound to provoke sympathy for our 
enemies. If we are to give meaning to the sacrifice of these men and 
women, we must take care not to allow the bitter feelings to govern our 
action.
  While we await the results of a combined U.S.-Yemeni effort to find 
out who was responsible for this attack, let me challenge the idea that 
the attack on the Cole was a pure act of terrorism or criminal action. 
In my opinion it is not. In my opinion, it is a part of a military 
strategy designed to defeat the United States as we attempt to 
accomplish a serious and vital mission.
  This is the third in a series of violent attacks on the United States 
dating back to the car bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia at 10 
pm, on Tuesday, June 25, 1996, that killed 19 United States Air Force 
Airmen and wounded hundreds more. The second attack occurred on August 
7, 1998, when U.S. Embassies in Dar es-Salam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, 
Kenya were bombed. These attacks wounded more than 5,000 and killed 
224, including twelve Americans who were killed in the Nairobi blast.
  I believe all three of these incidents should be considered as 
connected to our containment policy against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The 
Cole was heading for the Persian Gulf to enforce an embargo that was 
authorized by the United Nations Security Council following the end of 
the Gulf War in 1991.

  In order to evaluate this incident and put it in its larger context, 
I had to re-learn the details of the action of Gulf War and its 
aftermath. The Gulf War began on August 8, 1990, when United States 
aircraft, their pilots, and their crews arrived in Saudi Arabia. Two 
days earlier the Saudi King Fahd had asked Secretary of Defense Cheney 
for help. Saudi Arabia was afraid that Iraq's August 2 invasion of 
Kuwait would continue south. Without our help they could not defend 
themselves. Desert Shield--a military operation planned to protect 
Saudi Arabia--began.
  At that time, General Norman Schwarzkopf was Commander-in-Chief of 
Southern Command. On September 8, 1990, he ordered Army planners to 
begin designing a ground offensive to liberate Kuwait. His instructions 
from President Bush were to plan for success. We were not going to 
repeat the mistakes of the Vietnam War. On November 8th, President Bush 
announced that a decision had been made to double the size of our 
forces in Saudi Arabia. On November 29, the UN Security Council voted 
to authorize the use of ``all means necessary'' to drive Iraq from 
occupied Kuwait. On January 12, 1991, Congress authorized the President 
to use American forces in the Desert Storm campaign.

[[Page S10754]]

  The campaign began at 2:38 AM on January 17 with Apache helicopters 
equipped with anti-tank ordnance. The next day Iraq launched Scud 
missiles against Israel. The first U.S. air attacks, flown out of 
Turkey, were launched and were continued until February 24 when the 
ground war began. The ground war was executed with swift precision and 
was ended at 8 AM on February 28 when a cease fire was declared.
  The purpose of the Gulf War--to liberate the people of Kuwait--had 
been accomplished in an impressive and exhilarating display of U.S. 
power and ability to assemble an alliance of like-minded nations. 
Afterwards, Iraq was weakened but still led by Saddam Hussein. In their 
weakened state, they agreed to allow unprecedented inspections of their 
country to ensure they did not possess the capability of producing 
weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations Security Council voted 
unanimously to impose an economic embargo on Iraq until the inspections 
verified that Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear programs were 
destroyed.
  Contrary to popular belief, the military strategy to deal with Iraq 
did not end with the February 28, 1991, cease fire. It has continued 
ever since with considerable cost and risk to U.S. forces. In addition 
to the embargo, the United States and British pilots have maintained 
no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq designed to protect the 
Kurds and Shia from becoming victims of Saddam Hussein's wrath. The 
purpose of both the embargo and the no-fly zones is to ``contain'' Iraq 
so that Saddam Hussein does not become a threat in the region again.
  Unfortunately, this containment object was doomed from the beginning. 
And while we have begun to change our policy from containment to 
replacement of the dictator, change has been too slow. The slowness and 
uncertainty of change has increased the risk for every military person 
who receives orders to carry out some part of the containment mission.
  There are three reasons to abandon the containment policy and 
aggressively pursue the replacement of Saddam Hussein with a 
democratically elected government. First, it has not worked; Saddam 
Hussein has violated the spirit and intent of UN Security Council 
Resolutions. Second, he is a growing threat to our allies in the 
region. Third, he is a growing threat to the liberty and freedom of 20 
million people living in Iraq.
  As to the first reason, under the terms of paragraph Eight (8) of 
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 which passed on April 3, 
1991, Iraq accepted the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of 
its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons program. Under the terms 
of paragraph Nine (9), Iraq was to submit to the Secretary-General 
``within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a 
declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified 
in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection'' as specified 
in the resolution.
  From the get-go, Saddam Hussein began to violate this resolution. 
Over the past decade, he has slowly but surely moved to a point where 
today no weapons inspectors are allowed inside his country. As a 
consequence, he has been able to re-build much of his previous 
capability and is once again able to harass his neighbors. All 
knowledgeable observers view Iraq's threat to the region as becoming 
larger not smaller.
  As to the third reason--his treatment of his own people--there is no 
worse violator of human rights than Saddam Hussein. The people of Iraq 
are terrorized almost constantly into compliance with his policies. His 
jails are among the worst in the world. His appeal for ending sanctions 
on account of the damage the embargo is doing to his people rings 
hollow as the food and medicine purchased under the Oil-for-Food 
Program goes undistributed. Desperately needed supplies sitting in 
Iraqi warehouses while construction continues on lavish new palaces 
demonstrates that Saddam Hussein has no real interest in the welfare of 
his people. Rather, he maintains their misery as means to make 
political points.
  If these reasons do not persuade, consider what happened in the other 
two cases when the United States was attacked. In 1996 we sent an FBI 
team to Saudia Arabia to investigate Khobar Towers. The investigation 
led to improving security on other embassies but no other action was 
taken. In time we have forgotten Khobar. In 1998 following the attack 
on our embassies in East Africa we sent Tomahawk missiles to bomb a 
chemical factory in Khartoum, Sudan, and Osama Bin Laden's training 
compound in Afghanistan. Neither had the decisive impact we sought and 
may--in the case of Sudan--have been counterproductive.
  For all these reasons, I hope we will direct the anger and desire for 
vengeance we feel away from Yemen and towards Saddam Hussein. I hope we 
will begin to plan a military strategy with our allies that will lead 
to his removal and replacement with a democratically elected 
government. This would allow us to end our northern and southern no-fly 
zone operations, remove our forces from Saudi Arabia, and cease the 
naval patrols of the Persian Gulf. I can think of no more fitting 
tribute to the 17 sailors lost on-board the Cole than completing our 
mission and helping the Iraqi people achieve freedom and democracy.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand I have with Senator Reid 20 
minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Reid is not here, but I understand he might 
want some time. I yield myself 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First, I say to the distinguished Senator from 
Nebraska, I don't know if I will have an opportunity again to be on the 
floor when the Senator makes a speech on the Senate floor because I 
don't know where the next 5 or 6 or 8 days will bring us. But I want to 
tell the Senator thanks for all he has done while he has been here. You 
have been, as you were in the military, a hero; you have taken some 
tough stands.
  While not a budgeteer, as I am, you have chosen to express yourself 
many times in terms of the great concern you have for the outyear, the 
long-term effect of some of our entitlement programs, and actually you 
have expressed yourself that maybe appropriations are not getting 
enough money. That is perception, with reference to the Federal 
Government, of a very, very right kind.
  Mr. KERREY. If I could respond to say the Senator from New Mexico and 
any of my colleagues who are uncomfortable and wish I would not do 
this, if I had not done this the last 6 or 7 years, it is the fault of 
the Senator from New Mexico. You and Senator Nunn came repeatedly to 
the floor, I think, in 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993. I think in 1990, 
1991, and 1992 I voted against you, but in 1993 the light bulb came on. 
It takes me a while to learn, I say to my friend from New Mexico, but I 
appreciate very much your leadership on these issues.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Act which is included in this 
conference report along with the VA-HUD appropriations bill.
  The energy and water bill is a very good bill that has unfortunately 
had a difficult path toward enactment. The bill originally passed the 
Senate by a vote of 93-1 on September 7. The Senate then approved the 
original energy and water conference report by a vote of 57-37 on 
October 2. However, the President vetoed that bill because of a 
provision intended to prevent increased springtime flood risk on the 
lower Missouri River--a provision the President had signed the previous 
3 years.
  Whatever the reason, it was vetoed, it came back to us, and now it is 
in a conference form. I regret it has taken so much of our time and 
taken so long to get done but it is a very good bill.
  Earlier today, the House passed the conference report by a vote of 
386-24, and I hope the Senate will also overwhelmingly support the 
conference report.
  Senator Reid and I, along with Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd, 
have worked hard to prepare an outstanding bill that meets the needs of 
the country and addresses many of the Senators' top priorities.
  The Senate and House full committee chairmen were very supportive and 
have provided the additional resources at conference that were 
necessary to

[[Page S10755]]

address many priority issues for Members. They have allowed the House 
to come up $630 million to the Senate number on the defense allocation 
($13.484 billion), and the Senate nondefense allocation to be increased 
by $925 million.
  I would now like to highlight some of the great things we have been 
able to do in this bill.
  The conference report provides $5.0 billion for nuclear weapons 
activities within the National Nuclear Security Administration, an 
increase of $370 million over the request and $580 million over current 
year.
  The additional funds are required to meet additional requirements 
within the aging nuclear weapons complex, and reflects the conferees' 
concern about the state of the science-based Stockpile Stewardship 
Program. As it is now, the program is not on schedule, given the 
current budget, to develop the tools, technologies and skill-base to 
refurbish our weapons and certify them for the stockpile. For example, 
we are behind schedule and over cost on the production of both pits and 
secondaries for our nuclear weapons. The committee has provided 
significant increases to these areas.
  When we use the term ``Stockpile Stewardship Program,'' we are 
talking about a program that the United States has put in place to make 
sure that our weapons systems are indeed safe, reliable, and that we do 
not have to do underground testing to confirm that. In fact, we have 
not been doing testing because the Congress of the United States said 
we should not. To supply the information necessary to keep the 
stockpile strong, reliable, and safe, this science-based Stockpile 
Stewardship Program was put in place. It has a few more years before we 
will have it proved up and then we will look at it carefully and make 
sure that it does the job.
  This does not mean we are making nuclear weapons, for we are not. It 
will come as a surprise to some who are listening that the United 
States makes no nuclear weapons and we have not for some time. 
Nonetheless, we must keep in place the infrastructure and the things 
that are necessary in the event we have to do that, because of a 
failure of our program called science-based stockpile stewardship or 
some other untoward event that might occur in the world.
  Furthermore, DOE has failed to keep good modern facilities and our 
production complex is in a terrible state of disrepair. To address 
these problems, the mark provides an increase of over $100 million for 
the production plants in Texas, Missouri, Tennessee, and South 
Carolina.
  But it is not just the physical infrastructure that is deteriorating 
within the weapons complex, morale among the scientists at the three 
weapons laboratories is at an all-time low. For example, the last 2 
years at Los Alamos have witnessed security problems that greatly 
damaged the trust relationship between the Government and its 
scientists. Additionally, research funds have been cut and punitive 
restrictions on travel imposed. None of this seems to move in the right 
direction, in fact, they probably did not help.
  As a result, the labs are having great difficulty recruiting and 
retaining America's greatest scientists. To help address this problem, 
the conference agreement has increased the travel cap from $150 million 
to $185 million, and increased laboratory directed research and 
development to 6 percent.
  The travel restrictions which have become so burdensome were put in 
because, somehow, we thought if we didn't let scientists travel they 
wouldn't go to meetings in Taiwan and China and someplace like that and 
exchange secret information. Clearly, travel restriction has become a 
very onerous burden, for good scientists working for universities or 
otherwise do travel. That is part of their growing up, maturing, and 
once they are mature and great scientists, they go there to show their 
fellow scientist what the past has put into their minds.
  The conference agreement also includes a compromise proposal that 
allows work on the National Ignition Facility, a major laser complex to 
be used for nuclear weapons stewardship work, to continue. That project 
is funded at $199 million, $10 million below the request of $209 
million. Of that amount, $70 million is fenced pending the project 
meeting a number of milestones by March 3, 2001.
  The conference agreement also includes several provisions to 
strengthen and clarify the operation of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration. The conference report includes provisions to give the 
Administrator a 3-year term of office, prohibit the ``dual-hatting'' of 
NNSA and DOE employees, and limit the authority of the Secretary of 
Energy to reorganize the statutory structure of the NNSA.
  I tell the Senate they have to do some very difficult things by March 
15 or they do not get the fenced funding that is in this bill.
  For defense nuclear nonproliferation activities within the NNSA, the 
conference report provides $874 million, which is $8 million above the 
request and $145 million over current year. This amount of funding 
again shows the Congress' strong support of a broad variety of efforts 
to stem the proliferation of nuclear materials and expertise from the 
former Soviet Union.
  For other programs within the Department of Energy, the conference 
agreement provides $422 million for solar and renewables, which is $33 
million below the request but $60 million over current year.
  For nuclear energy, the conference report provides $260 million, $28 
million below the request. The decrease is due to a transfer of cleanup 
obligations to the Office of Environmental Management. Nuclear power 
R&D actually increased significantly over current year.
  The conference report provides $6.8 billion for environmental cleanup 
at DOE sites across the country. That is $56 million over the request 
and $496 million over current year.
  For the Office of Science, the conference report provides $3.19 
billion, $24 million over the request and $400 over current year. The 
conference added over $300 million in order to address significant 
shortfalls that existed in both the Senate and House bills. The 
conference agreement includes full funding of $278 million for the 
Spallation Neutron Source in Tennessee.
  On the water side of the bill, the conference report provides $4.5 
billion for water resource development activities of the Army Corps of 
Engineers, including $1.7 billion for construction activities, and $1.9 
billion for ongoing operation and maintenance activities. The total 
Corps number is $461 million over the budget request and $415 million 
over the enacted level for fiscal year 2000.
  The conference agreement includes funding for approximately 40 high 
priority new construction starts across the country. While the 
recommendation is a significant increase over both the budget request 
and fiscal year 2000 level, it should be pointed out that there is a 
$40 to $50 billion backlog of authorized projects awaiting 
construction.
  Regarding the construction account of $1.7 billion, although it is 
$350 million above the request, it is within the range of the current 
year construction level of $1.6 billion.
  The conference agreement provides $776 million for activities of the 
Bureau of Reclamation. That is $25 million below the budget request and 
$23 million over the funding level for fiscal year 2000. No funding is 
included for the California Bay-Delta restoration due to the lack of 
program authorization for fiscal year 2001 and future years.
  The conference agreement includes funding to initiate a small number 
of new water conservation and water recycling and reuse projects. 
Finally, the conference agreement provides funding for a number of 
independent agencies.
  For the Appalachian Regional Commission, the conference report 
provides $66.4 million, $5 million below the request but slightly above 
the current year. For the Denali Commission, the conference report 
provides $30 million, compared to $20 million provided in the current 
year. For the Delta Regional Authority, the conference report provides 
$20 million for the initial year of funding, a reduction from the 
request of $30 million. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 
conference report provides $482 million, the amount of budget request. 
The conferees have also included a provision extending and revising 
NRC's fee recovery authority. The revised fee structure will reduce 
fees gradually over 5 years to address fairness and equity issues 
raised by licensees.

[[Page S10756]]

  Overall, this is an outstanding energy and water conference report. 
We have made a good faith effort to address the concerns raised in the 
President's veto message and I believe we have a bill that the 
President will sign.
  Suffice it to say, we have been able in this bill to keep the Corps 
of Engineers moving ahead, to have projects in the States that many 
Senators requested that we believe feel are very solid projects. 
Without the extra money given to us in the allocation, we would have 
been unable to do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering the combined 
VA/HUD and Energy and Water appropriations bills. This combined bill 
follows the pattern established by previous appropriations bills 
considered by the Senate. Looking first to the VA/HUD appropriations 
bill, in the fiscal year 2000 that ended September 30 of this year, the 
appropriation for these accounts was $99.2 billion.
  We had committed ourselves to a standard of previous year 
appropriations plus inflation. The Consumer Price Index has risen 3.5 
percent over the past year. Making that adjustment, we would have set 
as a target for the VA-HUD bill an appropriation this year of $102.7 
billion. In fact, the bill we are about to vote on has an appropriation 
of $105.5 billion, or approximately $2.8 billion over the standard that 
has been set. This budget represents an increase from fiscal year 2000 
to fiscal year 2001, not of the 3.5-percent inflation but, rather, of 
6.4 percent.
  Looking at the second bill which has been added to the VA-HUD bill, 
which is the energy and water appropriations bill, again in fiscal year 
2000, the appropriation for this budget was $21.2 billion. Adjusting it 
for the 3.5-percent inflation increase, we would have had a target of 
$21.9 billion for energy and water. In this conference report, we are 
being asked to authorize spending of $23.3 billion, or approximately 
$1.4 billion over the scheduled maximum increase. The increase in the 
energy and water appropriations bill represents a 9.9-percent growth 
from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001.
  What is the significance of this? The significance is we started with 
a budget plan, and the plan was that we would attempt to restrain the 
growth in spending to the rate of inflation. If we did that, according 
to the Congressional Budget Office, we would have at the end of 10 
years substantial surpluses not only in the Social Security trust fund 
but also surpluses in general government.
  There are many important events which are taking place in the world 
today: The tragedy of the U.S.S. Cole, the crisis in the Middle East 
and, of course, the heat of fall Presidential and congressional 
elections. All of these things are fighting for the attention of the 
American people. In that context, it is easy to understand why most 
Americans have not focused their attention on what is happening under 
this dome, but I suggest that in the autumn of 2000, some of the most 
important decisions for our individual and our national futures are 
being made in these changes.
  The House and the Senate are slowly closing the curtain on the 106th 
Congress. As the curtain draws to a close, we are in the midst of an 
orgy of spending and tax cuts, an orgy which threatens the fiscal 
discipline that many Members of this Congress and the administration 
have worked so hard to achieve. Worse than the decisions that are being 
made, however, is the process that is being used to make those 
decisions.
  Long gone is the normal legislative process where we had hearings on 
ideas in the committees with jurisdiction. We developed legislation on 
a bipartisan basis with amendments being offered and votes taken; 
Presidential consideration of individual bills; and, should the 
President exercise his or her veto power, further debate and 
congressional action to potentially override the veto; finally, the 
give and take of negotiation that results in bills which will secure a 
Presidential signature.
  In the place of this normal legislative process, we now have a 
process--if it deserves that word--where a handful of individuals make 
far-reaching decisions on legislation. Those decisions are then rushed 
to the House and Senate floors for final votes, often without the 
actual language of the measure being considered available to the 
Members of the House and the Senate.
  Lest we be overly critical of October 2000, I say sadly that, with 
some tactical variations, we were in exactly the same position in the 
fall of 1999. At that time, I wrote an article for the Orlando Sentinel 
which outlined my distress with what was occurring a year ago. I ask 
unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record 
immediately following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, what we are now doing in the fall of 2000 
is characterized by some representative examples of our excess. The 
Transportation appropriations conference report was not available for 
Members to review the night before the final vote, but at least there 
had been some debate on the Senate floor on the Transportation 
appropriations bill when it originally passed the Senate.
  In the remaining days, we are going to be asked to approve measures 
for which there has never been Senate debate. As an example, we are 
going to be asked to make some significant paybacks to the providers of 
services through the Medicare program. This add-back legislation was 
never considered in the Senate Finance Committee, nor has it been 
considered on the Senate floor, but mark my word, we will soon be asked 
to vote on this substantial legislation.
  The Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill will also likely come 
to this body attached to an unrelated conference report without ever 
having been separately considered by the Senate.
  I suggest we all need to grab hold of our aspirin bottles because we 
are likely to need plenty of those pills when we find out what is in 
these measures, a disclosure that is likely to occur several weeks 
after we have adjourned.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record immediately following 
my remarks a column which appeared in the October 18 Washington Post by 
David Broder under the headline ``So Long, Surplus.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See Exhibit 2.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is hard to determine why we have fallen 
into this legislative abyss. It appears there is a strong desire to 
avoid the traditional legislative process in order to protect against 
having to take any votes at all, particularly any votes on 
controversial issues. In order to achieve that desire to avoid public 
commitment as to how we stand on various issues, we have abandoned all 
semblance of fiscal responsibility. Let me provide some large numbers.
  In 1997, we passed the Balanced Budget Act which was a key step 
toward achieving first the elimination of the annual deficits that had 
become so much a part of our Nation's fiscal life and ushered in this 
era of surpluses.
  In that 1997 Balanced Budget Act, we set a spending target for each 
of the future years. For the fiscal year 2001, our spending target for 
domestic discretionary accounts--these are the subject of the 13 
appropriations bills, not taking into account expenditure for items 
such as Social Security, Medicare, interest on the national debt. But 
focusing on those things for which we in Congress have a responsibility 
to annually appropriate, we decided in 1997 that the spending limit for 
this year should be $564 billion. When the Senate passed its budget 
resolution in the spring of this year, we set a target, a constraint on 
ourselves, not of $564 billion, not even of $564 billion adjusted for 
some inflation, but rather $627 billion was the number to which we 
committed ourselves in the budget resolution.
  As of today, with one appropriations bill that is an amalgamation of 
two bills before us and three more appropriations bills yet to be 
considered, we have already committed ourselves to appropriations of 
$638 billion. It is estimated that when those final three bills are 
voted on, we will likely raise the final tally of total appropriations 
to as much as $650 billion, or some $85 billion more than the 1997 
Balanced Budget Act indicated we should be spending this year.

[[Page S10757]]

  There has been an attempt to lay the blame for this orgy of spending 
at the White House step. In the Washington Post of October 13, there 
was an article under the headline, ``DeLay Urges GOP Showdown With 
Clinton Over Spending Bill,'' where the majority whip in the House made 
this statement:

       [He] argued that Clinton is ``addicted to spending'' and 
     that Republicans must draw the line if they hope to conclude 
     budget negotiations next week.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed 
in the Record immediately after my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 3.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would say this is not the case; that we 
have both Republicans and Democrats alike entered into an enthusiastic, 
willing, and self-confessed role as coconspirators to the raiding of 
the surplus.
  Our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, stated it clearly last 
week when he chided his fellow Republican colleagues. ``We didn't come 
to the President with clean hands--we came with dirty hands,'' said 
Senator McCain.
  In another example of the lack of fiscal discipline--and it is part 
of the bill that we are going to be asked to vote upon this afternoon--
the President vetoed the appropriations bill covering energy and water 
projects because there had been added to the appropriations bill a 
provision prohibiting, under certain circumstances, the use of funds to 
revise the Corps of Engineers' Missouri River Master Water Control 
Manual. This was not an issue of spending; it was an issue of the 
management of the Missouri River and who should have ultimate 
responsibility for that management.
  Nevertheless, when this bill came back from the President's office 
with his veto, the response was to revise the bill by excising the 
provision which had led to the veto and then adding $26 million in 
additional water projects. This spending spree is not limited to the 
appropriators. Others have eagerly joined in the party.
  Other spending and tax cuts which are being considered in the final 
hours include increases in spending for Medicare providers. I mentioned 
that earlier as an example of a provision that we are likely to get 
with no opportunity for debate or amendment. News reports indicate that 
this may total $28 billion over the next 5 years and perhaps as much as 
$80 billion over the next 10 years. We are about to be asked to do that 
without any debate, without any opportunity to amend or give the 
thoughtful consideration for which this institution is supposedly 
empowered.
  We passed a military retiree health benefit that will add $60 billion 
over the next 10 years--again, with no open debate or opportunity to 
amend.
  We repealed the Federal telephone tax, a provision that was tucked 
away in the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. That will reduce 
revenues by $55 billion over 10 years.
  I understand that there may be further proposed tax cuts that could 
have a cost of $200 to $250 billion over the next 10 years.

  These are just examples of the almost total absence of any sense of 
fiscal discipline. It is possible to support many of these proposals, 
but I am concerned that we are operating without a blueprint. Congress 
is flying blind, and our plane has no global positioning system. In 
fact, we do not even have a hand compass to give us general direction 
as to where we should be going.
  You might ask, What difference does it make? Why should Americans 
care this fall in the year 2000 as to what we are doing? Don't we have 
an enormous surplus? Can't we afford to do all of these things?
  Americans can and do care because Congress is frittering away the 
hard-won surplus without a real plan for utilizing those surpluses and 
without addressing the big long-term problems facing our Nation.
  Americans should care because by sleepwalking through the surplus, we 
are denying ourselves the chance to face these major national 
challenges.
  A few days ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its long-
term budget outlook. The Congressional Budget Office findings are not 
encouraging, but they are not surprising. That may explain why that 
report garnered such little attention by the media and by Members of 
Congress.
  What were those Congressional Budget Office findings? The Federal 
Government spending on health and retirement programs--Medicare, 
Medicaid, Social Security--dominates the long-term budget outlook. Why? 
The retirement of the baby-boom generation will drastically increase 
the number of Americans receiving retirement and health care benefits. 
The cost of providing health care is growing faster than the overall 
economy. The number of Americans working to support that much larger 
retirement segment of our population will be essentially stabilized.
  Saving most or all of the budget surplus that CBO projects over the 
next 10 years--using those savings to pay down the debt--according to 
the Congressional Budget Office, would have a positive impact on those 
projections of future obligations and substantially delay the emergence 
of a serious fiscal imbalance.
  Despite the clear delineation of the long-term problems, and the even 
clearer outline of the short-term steps Congress can take to begin to 
address those problems--primarily, saving the surplus and paying down 
the debt--Congress seems content on frittering away the surplus.
  We have an obligation to not let this happen. In fact, it is not 
necessary. There are some basic principles to which we could recommit 
ourselves which would avoid the path that I fear is about to take us 
over the canyon cliff.
  First, we should return to that admonition that guided us so 
effectively just 2 years ago, and that was: Save Social Security first. 
The surplus should be used to pay down the debt. The kind of direction 
which the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has 
suggested to us--that we should use 90 percent of the fiscal year 2001 
surplus for debt reduction--is not only a good idea for the fiscal year 
2001 but should be a guiding principle into the future until we have 
met that first obligation of saving Social Security first. We also need 
to establish some priorities.
  In those ugly days of deficits, we were taught some valuable lessons. 
One of those lessons was the need to prioritize. The tool that forced 
us to do that was a requirement that for each additional dollar of 
spending enacted, a dollar of spending had to be reduced or a dollar of 
taxes had to be raised. That was a firm discipline.
  The surplus has eroded that discipline. Many of the proposals being 
enacted in these waning days are desirable. Perhaps they are even more 
desirable than commitments that are already on our law books.
  We are failing the American public by not having an honest, open 
debate about the tradeoffs that are necessary to enact these programs. 
If we are going to add a substantial new benefit--whether it be to 
Medicare providers or whether it be to military veterans--we should be 
prepared to answer the question, Where are we going to pay for that new 
commitment, either in terms of reducing spending elsewhere or raising 
taxes to pay for it?
  We should not be eating away at the surplus which is going to be the 
basis upon which we can meet some of the long-term significant 
challenges that face our Nation.
  There are few Congresses in the history of this Nation which have had 
such a wonderful opportunity to face and respond to important 
challenges to our Nation's future. Few Congresses will be judged so 
harshly for avoiding, trivializing, and ultimately failing to seize 
that opportunity.
  I urge my colleagues in Congress, as well as those in the White 
House, to stop acting as the proverbial children in the candy store and 
start acting as statesmen and stateswomen. At the very least, let us 
follow the admonition given to all healers, which is: First, do no 
harm.
  I regretfully announce that I will have to vote against this 
appropriations bill because it fails to comply with the fiscal 
discipline we established for ourselves, first in 1997 as part of the 
Balanced Budget Act and then this year in the development of our own 
budget resolution. I hope there will be a sufficient number of my 
colleagues who will join me in expressing our outrage as to what we are 
doing in

[[Page S10758]]

terms of our Nation's future, what we are doing in terms of asking our 
children and grandchildren to have to deal with some of the issues that 
will be much more difficult for them than they are for us today.
  Now is the time to face the issue of dealing with these long-term 
commitments that we as a society have undertaken. We have the capacity 
to do so. The question is, Do we have the will to do so?
  I thank the Chair.

                               Exhibit 1

        [From the Orlando Sentinel, Thurs., September 23, 1999]

              Congress' Spending Imperils Economic Growth

       In early 1993, a new U.S. Congress and a new presidential 
     administration took office under the cloud of the largest 
     deficit in our nation's history: $290 billion. In the past 
     year, we have learned that five years of fiscal austerity and 
     economic growth have transformed that record deficit into the 
     first budget surplus in more than a generation--and paved the 
     way for annual surpluses far into the future.
       This historic reconstruction of our nation's fiscal house 
     was no small accomplishment. Both Congress and the president 
     made tough choices--a combination of revenue increases, 
     spending reductions and long-term budget restraints--in 
     stemming the tidal wave of red ink that had threatened to 
     drown our children and grandchildren's economic future.
       That fiscal life-preserver worked better than anyone could 
     have imagined. In addition to eliminating the deficit, it 
     powered one of the strongest economic expansions in our 
     nation's history:
       --Nineteen million jobs have been created since 1992, 
     including more than a million in Florida.
       --In the past six years, long-term interest rates have been 
     reduced by nearly 20 percent while our national savings 
     rate--personal savings plus governmental savings--has 
     doubled.
       --We enjoy the lowest national unemployment rate in 29 
     years and the highest home-ownership rate in history.
       But these successes do not give lawmakers license to return 
     to the fiscally irresponsible days of the past. If anything, 
     we face an even more difficult test in preserving the 
     discipline that has brought us to this enviable economic 
     position. It is a test that requires us to forego instant 
     gratification in favor of policies that will reap benefits 
     for future generations. Thus far, it is a test that Congress 
     is failing miserably.
       The current surplus is the result of surpluses in the 
     Social Security Trust Fund and the federal government's 
     annual operating budget. Congress has mishandled both. 
     Earlier this summer, the U.S. House of Representatives passed 
     a plan to protect Social Security by holding its surpluses in 
     a so-called lockbox. One political pundit even asserted that 
     this action removed Social Security as an issue for debate.
       Wrong. While a lockbox seems responsible, it does nothing 
     to extend Social Security's solvency beyond its currently 
     projected expiration date of 2034. In fact, it numbs us to 
     the structural changes that will be needed to preserve Social 
     Security until 2075, a life-span that will ensure that this 
     important program is there for three generations of 
     Americans.
       Worse yet, Congress seems determined to exhaust the 
     surpluses before they can even enter the lockbox. Wisely, the 
     president has said he will veto a risky tax scheme that would 
     deplete nearly $800 billion from the federal government's 
     operating surplus during the next 10 years--leaving no 
     resources whatsoever to enhance Social Security's solvency 
     further or to strengthen Medicare.
       The story gets worse when it comes to federal spending, 
     where Congress' appetite is as voracious as ever. The 
     historic deficit-reduction legislation enacted in 1993 and 
     1997 included strict discretionary-spending limits. Not 
     surprisingly, it has been difficult to maintain these limits. 
     But rather than dealing with this challenge in an honest 
     manner that salutes fiscal austerity, Congress has reverted 
     to using an escape clause that allows ``emergency'' spending 
     to fall outside the budget limits and further deplete the 
     surplus.
       When this emergency-spending provision was originally 
     passed, many assumed that it would be reserved for natural 
     disasters such as hurricanes or floods, urgent threats to 
     national security and other sudden, urgent or unforeseen 
     needs. For the past year, however, Congress has misused its 
     emergency-spending powers in a manner befitting the little 
     boy who cried wolf.
       In October of 1998, it stretched the emergency definition 
     to direct $3.35 billion to the long-foreseen Year 2000 (Y2K) 
     computer problem and $100 million for a new visitors center 
     at the U.S. Capitol. In June of 1999, Congress added non-
     emergency spending items to an ``emergency'' bill for the 
     Balkans conflict. And this fall, Congress is expected to 
     consider an ``emergency'' bill to pay for the cost of the 
     2000 Census, which was ordered by our Founding Fathers in 
     Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
       It took the federal government 30 years to turn its federal 
     budget deficit into a surplus. Yet it has taken us less than 
     12 months to revert to the same irresponsible behavior that 
     produced record deficits in the first place. For the sake of 
     our economy and our children and grandchildren's futures, I 
     hope that the American people will demand that the 106th 
     Congress establish a new record of fiscal prudence.

                               Exhibit 2

                            So Long, Surplus

                          (By David S. Broder)

       Between the turbulent world scene and the close 
     presidential contest, few people are paying attention to the 
     final gasps of the 106th Congress--a lucky break for the 
     lawmakers, who are busy spending away the promised budget 
     surplus.
       President Clinton is wielding his veto pen to force the 
     funding of some of his favorite projects, and the response 
     from legislators of both parties is that if he's going to get 
     his, we're damn sure going to get ours.
       As a result, said Congressional Quarterly, the nonpartisan, 
     private news service, spending for fiscal 2001, which began 
     on Oct. 1, is likely to be $100 billion more than allowed by 
     the supposedly ironclad budget agreement of 1997.
       More important, the accelerated pace of spending is such 
     that the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan budget-watching 
     group, estimates that the $2.2 trillion non-Social Security 
     surplus projected for the next decade is likely to shrink by 
     two-thirds to about $712 billion.
       As those of you who have been listening to Vice President 
     Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush know, they have all 
     kinds of plans on how to use that theoretical $2.2 trillion 
     to finance better schools, improved health care benefits and 
     generous tax breaks. They haven't acknowledge that, even if 
     good times continue to roll, the money they are counting on 
     may already be gone.
       To grasp what is happening--those now in office grabbing 
     the goodies before those seeking office have a chance--you 
     have to examine the last-minute rush of bills moving through 
     Congress as it tries to wrap up its work and get out of town.
       A few conscientious people are trying to blow the whistle, 
     but they are being overwhelmed by the combination of 
     Clinton's desire to secure his own legacy in his final 100 
     days, the artful lobbying of various interest groups and the 
     skill of individual incumbents in taking what they want.
       Here's one example. The defense bill included a provision 
     allowing military retirees to remain in the Pentagon's own 
     health care program past the age of 65, instead of being 
     transferred to the same Medicare program in which most other 
     older Americans are enrolled. The military program is a great 
     one; it has no deductibles or copayments and it includes a 
     prescription drug benefit.
       Retiring Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, himself a 
     wounded Congressional Medal of Honor winner, wondered why--in 
     the midst of a raging national debate on prescription drugs 
     and Medicare reform--these particular Americans should be 
     given preferential treatment. Especially when the measure 
     will bust the supposed budget ceiling by $60 billion over the 
     next 10 years.
       ``We are going to commit ourselves to dramatic increases in 
     discretionary and mandatory spending without any unifying 
     motivation beyond the desire to satisfy short-term political 
     considerations,'' Kerrey declared on the Senate floor. ``I do 
     not believe most of these considerations are bad or unseemly. 
     Most can be justified. But we need a larger purpose than just 
     trying to get out of town.''
       The Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
     Pete Domenici of New Mexico, joined Kerrey in objecting to 
     the folly of deciding, late in the session, without ``any 
     detailed hearings . . . [on] a little item that over a decade 
     will cost $60 billion.'' Guess how many of the 100 senators 
     heeded these arguments? Nine.
       Sen. Phil Gramm, a Texas Republican, may have been right in 
     calling this the worst example of fiscal irresponsibility, 
     but there were many others. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who 
     made his condemnation of pork-barrel projects part of his 
     campaign for the Republican presidential nominations, 
     complained that spending bill after spending bill is being 
     railroaded through Congress by questionable procedures.
       ``The budget process,'' McCain said, ``can be summed up 
     simply: no debate, no deliberation and very few votes.'' When 
     the transportation money bill came to the Senate, he said, 
     ``the appropriators did not even provide a copy of the 
     [conference] report for others to read and examine before 
     voting on the nearly $60 billion bill. The transportation 
     bill itself was only two pages long, with the barest of 
     detail, with actual text of the report to come later.''
       Hidden in these unexamined measures are dozens of local-
     interest projects that cannot stand the light of day. Among 
     the hundreds of projects uncovered by McCain and others are 
     subsidies for a money-losing waterfront exposition in Alaska, 
     a failing college in New Mexico and a park in West Virginia 
     that has never been authorized by Congress. And going out the 
     window is the ``surplus'' that is supposed to pay for all the 
     promises Gore and Bush are making.

                               Exhibit 3

               [From the Washington Post, Oct. 13, 2000]

        DeLay Urges GOP Showdown With Clinton Over Spending Bill

                    (By Eric Pianin and Dan Morgan)

       After weeks of trying to accommodate the White House on key 
     budget issues, House Republican leaders are pushing for a 
     more

[[Page S10759]]

     confrontational strategy over a giant health and education 
     spending bill, the largest piece of unfinished business in 
     the final days of the session.
       Unable to resolve their differences over spending for new 
     school construction and for hiring more teachers to reduce 
     class sizes, GOP leaders are prepared to challenge President 
     Clinton to sign or veto a GOP-crafted labor, health and 
     education bill rather than making further concessions.
       House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), the chief architect 
     of the strategy, has argued that Clinton is ``addicted to 
     spending'' and that Republicans must draw the line of they 
     hope to conclude budget negotiations next week. House Speaker 
     J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) agrees that Republicans already 
     have made ample concessions, according to an aide.
       ``If it's considered confrontational to reject the idea we 
     should just write the White House a blank check, I guess 
     we're being confrontational,'' Jonathan Baron, a spokesman 
     for DeLay, said yesterday.
       But Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), House 
     Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) 
     and others have argued in private meetings that it would be 
     politically risky to confront Clinton over education spending 
     policy only weeks before the election.
       Those Republicans are worried about appearing to be 
     resisting new spending for education when Vice President Gore 
     and Gov. George W. Bush have made education a top priority in 
     the presidential campaign.
       ``I've never been an advocate of a veto strategy,'' Lott 
     said yesterday. ``I don't understand the wisdom of running a 
     bill down to be vetoed and then bringing it back and doing it 
     over. For one thing, it usually grows.''
       GOP leaders have put off a decision on how to proceed until 
     next week, when they determine whether they have the votes in 
     the House and Senate to pass the bill without Democratic and 
     administration support. A White House budget office 
     spokeswoman said that Clinton would not back down on his 
     demands for increased spending for education.
       The threatened showdown comes just when it appeared that 
     the two sides were making substantial headway in completing 
     work on the 13 must-pass spending bills for the fiscal year 
     that began Oct. 1.
       The Senate approved two packages that each carried two 
     compromise spending bills. One combined a $107 billion 
     measure financing veterans, housing, environment and science 
     programs with a $23.6 billion energy and water bill. The 
     other contains the $30.3 billion Treasury Department bill, a 
     $2.5 billion measure to fund the legislative branch and 
     another repealing a 3 percent federal excise tax on 
     telephones.
       The Treasury measure also would pave the way for members of 
     Congress to receive a $3,800 pay raise in January, to 
     $145,100.
       The spending bill for veterans, housing, space and 
     environmental programs provides much of what Clinton had 
     sought. That includes increased funds for AmeriCorps, the 
     president's signature national service program; the 
     Environmental Protection Agency; veterans' health care and 
     housing vouchers; and other subsidies for low-income 
     families.
       The energy and water bill to which it was attached was 
     retooled after Clinton vetoed it in a dispute over water 
     management along the Missouri River.
       The pairing of unrelated appropriations bills for final 
     passage is part of the leadership's efforts to finish work on 
     the spending bills as soon as possible, so lawmakers can 
     return to campaigning. Congress yesterday approved its third 
     short-term continuing resolution that will keep the 
     government operating through next Friday.
       The festering dispute over the labor, health and education 
     appropriations bill for the coming year has as much to do 
     with how money will be spent as how much will be made 
     available.
       Although the $108.5 billion bill worked out by House and 
     Senate Republicans exceeds the president's original request, 
     Democrats say it largely reflects Republican priorities, such 
     as health research and special education. The White House and 
     congressional Democrats want an additional $6 billion for 
     their priorities.
       About half that amount would go to summer job programs, the 
     training of dislocated workers, health care for the uninsured 
     and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along 
     with smaller programs.
       But the largest differences are over education, where 
     Republicans fall about $3.1 billion short of Democratic 
     targets.
       The White House is pressing for another $1.8 billion to pay 
     for initiatives to train high-quality teachers, renovate 
     schools and fund after-school programs. At the same time, 
     House Democrats want an additional $1.3 billion for special 
     education and for Pell Grants for needy college students.
       In addition to the money difference, Republicans are 
     insisting that more than $3 billion sought by Clinton for 
     school construction and reducing class sizes be rolled 
     instead into a block grant to the states.
       GOP officials contend the argument over this issue is more 
     political than substantive, because federal funds going to 
     states and school districts invariably are mixed with local 
     money. But Democratic officials say that the Clinton plan 
     would be far more effective in targeting the money to the 
     neediest school districts.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the VA-HUD 
conference report and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I want my colleagues to know that this conference report is the exact 
same bill that was passed in the Senate last week.
  It has come back to the Senate in the form of a conference report, 
which includes report language in the statement of the managers.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this measure to give our veterans 
the health care and benefits they deserve, to provide housing for 
families of modest income, and to protect our environment.
  First, I am especially pleased that we were able to provide a 
significant increase in funding for veterans health care. We met the 
President's request of $20.2 billion and are $1.4 billion above last 
year's level.
  We were also able to provide $351 million for medical and prosthetic 
research. This is $30 million above the budget request and last year's 
level.
  The VA plays a major role in medical research for the special needs 
of our veterans, such as geriatrics, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and 
orthopedic research.
  We are also providing $100 million in funding for State veterans 
homes. This is $40 million above the budget request and $10 million 
above last year's level.
  I am also very pleased that we were able to include a new title in 
our bill that will provide medical care and veterans benefits to 
Filipino veterans who fought alongside Americans in World War II and 
who live in the United States.
  Finally, our Filipino-American veterans will receive equal benefits 
for equal valor.
  Our bill provides almost $13 billion to renew all expiring section 8 
housing vouchers. We have included $453 million in funding to issue 
79,000 new vouchers to help working families find affordable housing.
  Unfortunately, we were forced to drop Senator Bond's housing 
production bill due to objections from the authorizing committee, but I 
hope we will revisit the issue next year.
  We were also able to maintain level funding for other critical core 
HUD programs.
  We provided $779 million for housing for the elderly, which meets the 
President's request and is $69 million more than last year. This 
includes funds for assisted living and service coordinators.
  We also provided $217 million in funding for housing for disabled 
Americans, which is $7 million above the President's request and $23 
million over last year's level.
  We were able to provide both the Community Development Block Grant 
Program and the HOME Program with $150 million increases over the 
President's request. CDBG is funded at more than $5 billion, and HOME 
is funded at $1.8 billion. The CDBG program is one of the most 
important programs for rebuilding our cities and neighborhoods.
  We also provided increased funding to help our neighborhoods and 
communities through the Hope VI Program. This year, we provided $575 
million for Hope VI, the same as last year's level.
  I am pleased that we were able to provide funding for other programs 
that help America's communities. We increased funding for empowerment 
zones by providing $90 million in this bill for urban and rural 
empowerment.
  We also help homeowners by extending the FHA downpayment 
simplification program for 25 months.
  I am extremely pleased that our bill fully funds NASA at $14.3 
billion, an increase of $250 million above the President's request.
  All of NASA's core programs are fully funded and all NASA centers are 
fully funded, including the Goddard Space Flight Center in my home 
State of Maryland.
  The VA-HUD bill includes $1.5 billion for Earth science and more than 
$2.5 billion for space science.
  It includes $20 million to start an exciting new program called 
``living with a star,'' which will study the relationship between the 
Sun and the Earth and its impact on our environment and our climate. I 
am especially proud that this program will be headquartered at the 
Goddard Space Flight Center.
  And, of course, we fully fund the space shuttle upgrades, space 
station

[[Page S10760]]

construction, and the new ``space launch initiative'' to find new, low-
cost launch vehicles that will reduce the cost of getting to space.
  The VA-HUD manager's amendment also increases funding for the 
Corporation for National Service. The corporation is funded at $458 
million, a $25 million increase over last year's level. The Corporation 
for National Service has enrolled over 100,000 members and participants 
across the country.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have been very concerned about the 
digital divide in this country. I introduced legislation called the 
Digital Empowerment Act to provide a one-stop shop and increased funds 
to local communities trying to cross the digital divide. I am pleased 
that this bill contains $25 million within the national service budget 
to create an ``e-corps'' of volunteers by training and mentoring 
children, teachers, and non-profit and community center staff on how to 
use computers and information technology.
  With regard to the EPA, our bill provides $7.8 billion in funding. 
All together, this is an increase of $400 million over last year's 
level and $686 million more than the President's request.
  We increased funding by $246 million for EPA's core environmental 
programs.
  We also provided an additional $550 million for the clean water state 
revolving fund.
  Taking care of the infrastructure needs of local communities has 
always been a priority for the VA-HUD Subcommittee.
  A number of my colleagues have raised concerns about some 
environmental provisions in the bill.
  I will address these topics in more detail later. But let me say that 
the administration helped negotiate these provisions and the 
administration supports them. They do not threaten the environment and 
they maintain EPA's authority and flexibility.
  A am a strong supporter of FEMA and am proud that we have provided 
$937 million in funding for FEMA, plus an additional $1.3 billion in 
emergency disaster relief funding.
  The National Science Foundation is funded at $4.43 billion, a $529 
million increase over last year's enacted level and one of the largest 
increases in NSF's history. This is a downpayment toward our goal of 
doubling the NSF budget over the next five years.
  I am especially pleased that we were able to provide $150 million for 
the new nanotechnology initiative.
  Mr. President, I once again appreciate the cooperation of my 
colleagues throughout this process. While I regret that this year's 
process was highly irregular, I am pleased that we worked together to 
bring a conference agreement to the Senate floor. I believe this year's 
VA-HUD bill is good for our country, our veterans, and our communities.
  To reiterate, Mr. President, I rise in support of the VA-HUD 
conference report and urge my colleagues to do the same. As I said, 
this conference report is the exact same bill we passed last week. It 
has come back to the Senate in the form of a conference report and 
includes the report language contained in the Statement of Managers.
  That is kind of inside baseball, but what I want people to know is, 
this is the same bill we voted on, so there does not need to be 
extensive debate. What is not inside baseball, and it is how we played 
the game, is that we played it very fairly. We tried to both exercise a 
great deal of fiscal prudence while looking out for the day-to-day 
needs of our constituents and the long-range needs of our country.
  Our appropriation--the VA-HUD, EPA, National Federal Emergency 
Management, space program, National Science Foundation, and 22 other 
agencies--had the least increase, the least gross increase, of any 
other subcommittee to come before the Senate. I tell my colleagues who 
believe in fiscal discipline, have worked for fiscal discipline, and 
have voted for fiscal discipline, that they need not fear voting for 
the VA-HUD-other agencies appropriations.
  Throughout our entire deliberation on moving this bill, we wanted to 
have legislation that could both meet the responsibilities of fiscal 
stewardship as well as meet the needs. I believe we did do it. Sure, 
there are increases, but it costs more to do what we do. One of the 
major areas where it costs us more to do what we do is in veterans 
health care.
  Health care is on the rise everywhere. It costs money to have the 
best nurses in America working for our veterans. It costs money to be 
able to have primary care facilities. It costs money to provide a 
prescription drug benefit. The cost our veterans gave in their service 
to America is far greater than any monetary spending we can do to 
ensure they get the health care they need.
  That is why we do have increases. We have increased veterans health 
care. We have ensured the benefits that they deserve. At the same time, 
we have worked very hard to provide housing for people of modest 
income. We have an increase in section 8 vouchers.
  What does that mean? It means there are Federal funds to enable the 
working poor to be able to have a subsidy for housing. If you have 
gotten off welfare, we make work worth it by making sure that if you 
are working and you can't afford to live and pay for the housing that 
you need, there will be this modest subsidy.
  We are also doing housing for the elderly. Like it or not, America is 
getting older. Like it or not, we need housing for the elderly, and we 
also bring some innovations to it. Those need to be project based.
  My esteemed Republican colleague and I don't believe vouchers work 
for the elderly. We don't believe if you have a wheelchair or a walker, 
we should give you a little voucher while you forage for housing in 
your neighborhood. We met those needs.
  We have also protected the environment. We have encouraged 
voluntarism, and we have also made major public investments in science 
and technology. Why did we do that? Because we want to be sure America 
is working in this century.
  These major investments in science and technology are to generate the 
new ideas that are going to give us the new jobs for the new economy.

  We believe we bring to the Senate a bill that really does represent 
what America wants--yes, fiscal stewardship, but promises made, 
promises kept to those who served the country in the U.S. military 
through its benefits, to make work worth it, and make sure we have a 
helping hand for those who are out there working every day and have 
moved from welfare to work, to protect our environment, encourage 
voluntarism, and come up with the science and technology for the new 
ideas, for the new jobs.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  I again thank my colleague. There has been much made about bipartisan 
cooperation. We saw it in the debates. We see it in the ads, and so on. 
I can tell my colleagues, I saw it in the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and 
Independent Agencies. I thank my colleague, Senator Bond, for his 
cordial and collegial support. I thank the members of the subcommittee 
on both sides of the aisle. It really worked for us. Quite frankly, I 
believe if the rest of the Senate is working in the cooperative way we 
work, when all is said and done, more will get done.
  I yield the floor.


                   sediment remediation technologies

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Missouri has 
addressed similar questions before the conference on this legislation 
was convened, but now that we have the actual text of the statement of 
managers before us, I would like to clarify a section in the statement 
of managers. The language directs EPA to take no action to initiate or 
order the use of certain technologies such as dredging or capping until 
specific steps have been taken with respect to the National Academy of 
Science report on sediment remediation technologies, with limited 
exceptions. It is my understanding that in directing that the report's 
findings be properly considered by the Agency, the conferees are not 
directing any change in remediation standards. However, the conferees 
are directing EPA to consider the findings and recommendations of the 
forthcoming report, in addition to the existing guidance provided by 
the Agency's Contaminated Sediments Management Strategy, when making 
remedy selection decisions at contaminated sediment sites, and as the 
Agency develops guidance on remediating contaminated sediments.

[[Page S10761]]

  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. I have addressed similar questions, 
but to remove any confusion, I clarify the statement of managers now 
before the Senate. In directing that the NAS report by properly 
considered by the Agency, the language in the statement of managers 
directs the Agency to consider the findings of the report when making 
site-specific remedial decisions and in developing remediation guidance 
for contaminated aquatic sediments. In both cases, EPA should consider 
the findings of the report so that the best science available will be 
taken into account before going forward. In implementing this 
direction, EPA should seek to ensure that Congress can evaluate how the 
findings of the report have been considered.
  Mr. INHOFE. It is also my understanding that in providing for an 
exception for urgent cases, we anticipate that the EPA will use the 
four part test set forth in previous committee reports, namely that (1) 
EPA has found on the record that the contaminated sediment poses a 
significant threat to the public health to which an urgent or time 
critical response is necessary, (2) remedial and/or removal 
alternatives to dredging have been fully evaluated, (3) an appropriate 
site for disposal of the contaminated material has been selected, and 
(4) the potential impacts of dredging, associated disposal, and 
alternatives have been explained to the affected community.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. INHOFE. Finally, it is my understanding that the references to 
``urgent cases,'' ``significant threat,'' ``properly considered'' and 
other key terms should be interpreted consistent with ordinary 
dictionary definitions and in light of previous years' statements of 
managers.
  Mr. BOND. Again, the Senator is correct.


             relicensing non-federal hydroelectric projects

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, one of my top priorities this Congress has 
been to improve the process by which our Nation's non-federal 
hydroelectric projects are relicensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission. Over the next 15 years, over half of all non-federal 
hydroelectric capacity (nearly 29,000 MW of power) must go through a 
relicensing process that takes too long and results in a significant 
loss of domestic hydropower generation. Oversight and legislative 
hearings before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee this 
Congress have established a solid record of the problem and the need 
for a legislative solution. I want to commend the Chairman of the Water 
and Power Subcommittee, Senator Smith, for his dedication to this issue 
and for working with me to seek a bipartisan, legislative solution to 
the licensing problem. I look forward to working with all my colleagues 
to pass this legislation in the next Congress.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator for addressing this issue. We are 
clearly looking, in the next 15 years, at a substantial relicensing 
workload for hydropower facilities. No one can be against wanting to 
conduct that process in an efficient and informed manner. But, these 
projects have multiple impacts and benefits that cut across a wide 
range of issues that are important to the citizens who live in the 
vicinity of those projects and to the country at large. Any changes to 
the current system should deal with these multiple impacts in a 
sensible way. I fully expect that the hydropower relicensing issue will 
remain as a topic of concern on our Committee agenda in the next 
Congress, and I am ready to engage in discussions on how to move 
forward on this issue in a bipartisan fashion.


                       abatement program funding

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I note that the bill allocates 
approximately $100 million to HUD to fund its lead abatement program. 
In a number of areas around the country some of our children are still 
at increased risk of exposure to high levels of lead, which can lead to 
development problems.
  The bill further provides that from this account, HUD will provide 
financial assistance to the Clear Corps lead abatement and education 
network administered by the University of Maryland at Baltimore. This 
assistance is set at $1 million.
  Clear Corps is a public-private partnership which organizes and 
manages cleanup and education affiliates around the country in close 
cooperation with local organizations and government. Significant 
resources are provided to this program by various companies in the 
paint industry, and by the National Paint and Coatings Association.
  Based on reports I have seen, it has proven highly efficient and cost 
effective. At my invitation, Clear Corps representatives visited 
Northern Idaho to meet with officials of several private and public 
organizations, including U.S. EPA, to determine if an affiliate 
arrangement might prove helpful in addressing the lead exposure issue 
in that area. While significant progress has been made, there remain 
pockets where further testing, cleanup (particularly inside some older 
houses), and focused education could reap large rewards in the near 
future. It appears that with its growing national network and in-depth 
experience in providing cost effective solutions, my state and its 
children would benefit from such a project. Clear Corps is currently 
evaluating the resources which might be required to establish a new 
site in Idaho. It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that we are able to at 
least begin to establish this program this year in Northern Idaho. Next 
year, I hope to work with the Chairman and the other members of the VA-
HUD Subcommittee to review the Clear Corps approach with a view towards 
increasing the federal share of its resources. We need to see more of 
creative and cost effective approaches to issues such as reducing lead 
exposure of children. Public-private ventures to address such issues 
make a lot of sense.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his thoughtful remarks 
on the lead exposure issue and the Clear Corps program. I might point 
out that in my home state, St. Louis now has a Clear Corps affiliate. I 
might also point out that Senator Mikulski has a Clear Corps affiliate 
in Baltimore. I concur that the public-private approach as one avenue 
of a larger program should be encouraged. I would be happy to work with 
Senator Craig and other members to determine an appropriate level of 
higher funding for Clear Corps.


      definition of an ``urban county'' under federal housing law

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague, Senator 
Bond, and Chairman of the Senate VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee in 
a brief colloquy concerning a provision in the conference agreement 
relating to the definition of ``urban county'' under federal housing 
law.
  Mr. BOND. I would be pleased to engage my colleague in such a 
colloquy.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, as the Chairman knows, the Community 
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program statutory provisions relating to 
the ``urban county'' classification do not contemplate the form of 
consolidated city/county government found in Duval County, Florida 
(Jacksonville) where there is no unincorporated area. A recent decision 
by the Bureau of the Census, and subsequently by the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), has questioned the status of 
Jacksonville/Duval County as an entitlement area.
  Mr. BOND. I am aware of this problem facing the city of Jacksonville.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, my purpose for entering into this colloquy 
is to seek clarification from the Chairman about the effect of the 
provision adopted by the Conference Committee to amend the definition 
of ``urban county'' to address this problem facing Jacksonville.
  Is it the Chairman's understanding that section 217 of the VA-HUD 
Conference Report addresses the concerns of the Town of Baldwin, 
Jacksonville and the Beaches communities, by amending current law to 
classify Jacksonville as an ``urban county''. Is it further his 
understanding that the language would preserve the area's longstanding 
status as an entitlement area for CDBG grants, while also allowing the 
Town of Baldwin to elect to have its population excluded from the 
entitlement area?
  Mr. BOND. Yes. I believe the language clarifies that Jacksonville/
Duval County meets the definition of an urban county under the statute, 
as amended. HUD also agrees with this interpretation.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman for his comments.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank both Senator Bond 
and Senator Mikulski for their hard work on this important legislation 
which provides federal funding for the Departments of Veterans Affairs, 
VA, and

[[Page S10762]]

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Independent Agencies. 
Unfortunately, Mr. President, this year-end process to rush spending 
measures through Congress at the last minute again leaves very little 
time for members to review in full detail the finalized conference 
reports, which are all too often bottled up until just before they 
arrive on the Senate floor. The VA-HUD conference report, regrettably, 
is no exception.
  The House of Representatives just passed this report, despite the 
fact that most of the voting members did not have adequate time to 
fully review its contents. And now, the Senate is being asked to do the 
same. How can we make sound policy and budget decisions with this type 
of budget steam-rolling?
  This conference report provides $22.4 billion in discretionary 
funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. That amount is $17.2 
million more than the budget request and $1.5 billion above the fiscal 
year 2000 budget level. It does appear that some progress has been made 
to reduce the overall amount of earmarks in this spending bill. The 
conferees have earmarked approximately $40 million this year; last 
year, earmarks exceeded $31 million.
  Certain provisions in the Veterans Affairs section of the bill also 
illustrate that Congress still does not have its priorities in order. 
Let me review some examples of items included in the bill.
  The conferees direct that $250,000 be used by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs to host The Sixth International Scientific Congress on 
``Sport and Human Performance Beyond Disability.'' The conference 
report continues to express the view that the conferees believe this 
sporting event is within the mission of the VA.
  Neither budgeted for nor requested by the Administration over the 
past nine years is a provision that directs the Department of Veterans 
Affairs to continue the nine-year-old demonstration project involving 
the Clarksburg, West Virginia, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, VAMC, 
and the Ruby Memorial Hospital at West Virginia University. Several 
years ago, the VA-HUD appropriations bill contained a plus-up of $2 
million to the Clarksburg VAMC that ended up on the Administration's 
line-item veto list. The committee has also added $1 million for the 
design of a nursing home care unit at the Beckley, West Virginia, VAMC.
  The VA-HUD funding bill also includes construction projects not 
originally included in the President's budget request.
  For example, the VA-HUD appropriations report adds $12 million not 
previously included in the President's budget for the construction of 
the Oklahoma National Cemetery. Obviously, the VA-HUD Appropriations 
Subcommittee felt compelled to include this money since the VA and the 
Administration chose to ignore the Committee's report language last 
year. Last year the VA-HUD Senate report directed the VA to award a 
contract for design, architectural, and engineering services in October 
1999 for a new National Cemetery in Lawton (Oklahoma City/Fort Sill), 
Oklahoma, and also directed the President's fiscal year 2001 budget to 
include construction funds for a new Oklahoma National Cemetery.
  Most questionable are several special interest projects not 
previously included in the House or Senate version of the fiscal year 
2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill. Some examples are: $15 million for 
land acquisition for a national cemetery in South Florida, $5 million 
for the Joslin Vision Network for telemedicine in Hawaii, and continued 
funding for the National Technology Transfer Center, NTTC, at Wheeling 
Jesuit College in Wheeling, West Virginia. None of these programs were 
in the President's budget request, nor in either House or Senate 
veterans funding bills.
  In addition, the bill adds $1 million not previously included in the 
President's budget for planning and design activities for a new 
national cemetery in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and $2.5 million for 
advanced planning and design development for a national cemetery in 
Atlanta, Georgia. Last year, the Senate provided an additional $500,000 
for design efforts for Atlanta, as well as other congressionally-
directed locations.
  Although these areas are likely deserving of veterans cemeteries, I 
wonder how many other national cemetery projects in other states were 
bypassed to ensure that these states received the VA's highest 
priority.
  This bill also contains the funding for the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development. The programs administered by HUD help our nation's 
families purchase their homes, helps many low-income families obtain 
affordable housing, combats discrimination in the housing market, 
assists in rehabilitating neighborhoods and helps our nation's most 
vulnerable--the elderly, disabled and disadvantaged--have access to 
safe and affordable housing.
  Unfortunately, this bill shifts money away from many critical housing 
and community programs by bypassing the appropriate competitive process 
and inserting earmarks and set-asides for special projects that 
received the attention of the Appropriations Committee. This is unfair 
to the many communities and families who do not have the fortune of 
residing in a region of the country represented by a member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  And once again, Utah has managed to receive additional funds set 
aside for the 2002 winter Olympic games.
  This bill includes $2 million for the Utah Housing Finance Agency to 
provide temporary housing during the Olympics. It is certainly a 
considerate gesture that the housing facilities are expected to be used 
after the 2002 games for low-income housing needs in Utah. However, I 
am confident that the many families in Utah and around the country who 
are facing this winter and next without affordable and safe housing 
would much rather have this $2 million used for helping them now rather 
than in two or three years when the Olympics are over.

  Some of the earmarks for special projects in this bill include:
  $500,000 for the restoration of a carousel in Cleveland, Ohio;
  $500,000 for the Chambers County Courthouse Restoration Project in 
the City of LaFayette, Alabama;
  $2.6 million for the rehabilitation of the opera house in the City of 
Meridian, Mississippi;
  $3 million for restoration of an historic property in Anchorage, 
Alaska;
  $2 million for renovation on the Northwest corner of 63rd Street and 
Prospect Avenue in Kansas City;
  $500,000 for infrastructure improvements to the W.H. Lyons 
Fairgrounds in Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and
  $400,000 for Bethany College in Bethany, West Virginia for continued 
work on a health and wellness center.
  This bill also funds the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, which 
provides resources to help state, local and tribal communities enhance 
capacity and infrastructure to better address their environmental 
needs. I support directing more resources to communities that are most 
in need and facing serious public health and safety threats from 
environmental problems. Unfortunately, after a cursory review of this 
year's conference report for EPA programs, I find it difficult to 
believe that we are responding to the most urgent environmental issues.
  There are many environmental needs in communities back in my home 
state of Arizona, but these communities will be denied funding as long 
as we continue to tolerate earmarking that circumvents a regular merit-
review process.
  For example, some of the earmarks include:
  $300,000 for the Coalition for Utah's Future;
  $1 million for the Animal Waste Management Consortium in Missouri;
  $2 million for the University of Missouri-Rolla for research and 
development of technologies to mitigate the impacts of livestock 
operations on the environment;
  $200,000 to complete the soy smoke initiative through the University 
of Missouri-Rolla; and
  $500,000 for the Economic Development Alliance of Hawaii.
  While these projects may be important, why do they rank higher than 
other environmental priorities?
  For independent agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, this bill also includes earmarks of money for locality-
specific projects such as:
  $3.5 million for a center on life in external thermal environments at 
Montana State University in Bozeman; and

[[Page S10763]]

  $15 million for infrastructure needs of the Life Sciences building at 
the University of Missouri-Columbia.
  Let me also read two paragraphs from an article by David Rodgers, to 
be included for the Record, in today's Wall Street Journal:
  ``Never before has the appropriations process been such a 
clearinghouse for literally thousands of individual grants and 
construction projects coveted as favors for voters. Budget negotiators 
gave their blessing last night to more than 700 ``earmarks''--listed on 
46 double-spaced pages--in a single account for the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development. The Environmental Protection Agency 
budget bulges with about 235 clean-water projects. Hundreds of ``member 
initiatives'' totaling nearly $1 billion are expected to be spread 
among the departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human 
Services.

       Perhaps the most striking example of earmarks is the so-
     called economic-development initiative in the HUD budget, for 
     which about $292 million is spread among an estimated 701 
     projects. The precise language has been closely guarded by 
     the committee, and the clerks deliberately compiled the list 
     in no particular order to make it more difficult to decipher.

  In closing, I urge my colleagues to develop a better standard to curb 
our habit of directing hard-earned taxpayer dollars to locality-
specific special interests so that, in the future, we can better serve 
the national interest.
  Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the attached Wall Street 
Journal article be printed in the Record immediately following the 
conclusion of my remarks on the Fiscal Year 2001 VA-HUD Appropriations 
bill.
  The article follows.

               [From Wall Street Journal, Oct. 19, 2000]

   Spending Bill Is Full of Projects Coveted as Favors for Electorate

                           (By David Rogers)

       Washington.--As Congress dithers over spending bills, 
     committee clerks are putting the final touches on what may be 
     the most important political business at hand: an 
     unprecedented number of home-state projects attached to the 
     budget this election year.
       Never before has the appropriations process been such a 
     clearinghouse for literally thousands of individual grants 
     and construction projects coveted as favors for voters. 
     Budget negotiators gave their blessing last night to more 
     than 700 ``earmarks''--listed on 46 doubled-spaced pages--in 
     a single account for the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development. The Environmental Protection Agency budget 
     bulges with about 235 clean-water projects. Hundreds of 
     ``member initiatives'' totaling nearly $1 billion are 
     expected to be spread among the departments of Labor, 
     Education and Health and Human Services.
       Pork-barrel politics are nothing new. The annual $78 
     billion agriculture budget bill, which cleared Congress last 
     night, has always been a haven for dozens of research 
     projects favored by lawmakers. But this year's surplus-
     inspired spending breaks new ground. it permeates the labor, 
     health and education accounts, once considered sacrosanct. 
     Moreover, as the number of items has exploded, both parties 
     are openly steering funds to districts to help win seats in 
     November.
       The tone was set in the free-for-all negotiations on a $58 
     billion transportation budget. Dozens of highway and bridge 
     projects totaling more than $1.9 billion were added. When 
     Republicans insisted on $102 million to help a hard-pressed 
     Arkansas incumbent, Democrats got an almost equal sum to 
     spread among candidates in tight races in Mississippi, 
     Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Kansas.
       Running for Congress from Utah, Republican Derek Smith 
     isn't even a member of the House yet. But thanks to the 
     intervention of House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, he 
     can already lay claim to two budget earmarks worth $5 million 
     to fund water and lands-related projects in his district.
       Sen. John McCain, the Arizona maverick and former 
     presidential candidate, took to the Senate floor again 
     yesterday to chastise fellow Republicans. But one of his 
     greatest allies in the House, Rep. Brian Bilbray (R., 
     Calif.), hasn't been shy about claiming credit for Washington 
     money that could help his chances in a tough reelection 
     campaign. ``Bilbray Applauds San Diego Funding'' a press 
     release for the congressman said last Thursday, trumpeting 
     millions of dollars in earmarks attached to a housing, 
     veterans and environmental budget bill pending in the House.
       ``I will condemn it in his district,'' said Mr. McCain, who 
     is scheduled to campaign for his friend in California next 
     week. ``It is one of those gentleman's disagreements,'' said 
     an aide to Mr. Bilbray.
       Perhaps the most striking example of earmarks is the so-
     called economic-development initiative in the HUD budget, for 
     which about $292 million is spread among an estimated 701 
     projects. The precise language has been closely guarded by 
     the committee, and the clerks deliberately compiled the list 
     in no particular order to make it more difficult to decipher.
       Most of the grants appear to be less than $2 million, some 
     as small as $21,500. Thanks to the New York delegation, 
     Buffalo would lay claim to two grants of $250,000; one to 
     help renovate a Frank Lloyd Wright-designed home, the other 
     to build a new city boathouse--based on Mr. Wright's 
     blueprints--for the West Side Rowing Club.
       Meanwhile, in related action:
       The Senate approved the agriculture budget 86-8. The 
     measure provides increased spending for food safety and rural 
     development while relaxing trade sanctions against Cuba. For 
     the first time in decades, commercially financed, direct U.S. 
     shipments of food to Havana would be permitted. Shipments of 
     medical supplies, which are already sold on a modest basis, 
     may also be increased.
       Trying to free up a $14.9 billion foreign-aid bill, 
     Republicans are proposing compromise language on the divisive 
     issue of U.S. assistance to population-planning programs 
     overseas. The proposal would continue current restrictions, 
     favored by antiabortion forces, only through March 1, as a 
     transition to the next administration. The initial reaction 
     from Democrats was skeptical, but if the transition period is 
     shortened--and funding increased--it could yet be the 
     framework for a deal.
       Top House Republicans are pressing for big increases in aid 
     to children's hospitals under a fledgling program to help 
     train pediatric medical residents. Last year, spending was 
     $40 million, but it could grow to $280 million under the 
     proposal, three times the administration's request.


                            SPECIAL TREATMENT
          [Examples of funds set aside for Members' projects.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Project/sponsor                           Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Storm Drain Diversion Rep. Brian Bilbray (R.,       $4,000,000
 Calif.)..................................................
I-49 and Great River Bridge Study Rep. Jay Dickey (R.,       102,000,000
 Ark.)....................................................
Route 7 Brookfield Bypass Rep. James Maloney (D., Conn.)..    25,000,000
Frank Lloyd Wright Boathouse N.Y. Delegation..............       250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass the final 
version of fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. 
Included in the legislation is a provision that requires the Department 
of Energy to spend not less than $2 million on the Small Wind Turbine 
Project. This effort is vitally important to our Nation's continued 
development of American wind technology for consumer use. It was added 
as a program at the Department of Energy in 1995, to develop cost-
effective, highly reliable Small Wind Turbine systems for both domestic 
and international markets. In fact, due to the Small Wind Turbine 
Program, U.S. companies have been able to advance the performance and 
cost-effectiveness of small wind turbine systems. The participants in 
the Small Wind Turbine Project are Windlite Corp, a subsidiary of 
Atlantic Orient Corp, Bergey Windpower Co., and World Power Technology. 
Through the Small Wind Turbine Project, these three companies are 
advancing the technology of wind energy for homes, small businesses, 
rural development and export. To end the effort that these three 
companies are undertaking at this time would be a giant setback and for 
this reason the Congress has included funding to continue the project 
under their guidance.
  I worked closely with Senators Domenici and Reid and Assistant 
Secretary of Energy Dan Reicher in developing the language in this 
legislation related to small wind. The language is clear, that the 
department should spend no less than $2 million on the Small Wind 
Turbine Project. We must continue to develop, test and certify the wind 
turbines being developed under this program to date.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a few remarks on 
the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD Appropriations bill.
  First, I would like to commend my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee for doing some excellent work on this bill. Many important 
housing initiatives--including housing assistance for the elderly and 
disabled, the HOME Investment Partnership Program, the Community 
Development Block Grant, Housing for People With AIDS, and the Lead-
Based Paint Hazard Reduction Program--will all receive funding 
increases under this bill in fiscal year 2001. Furthermore, an 
additional 79,000 Section 8 vouchers will be funded under this bill. 
These are all critical programs, program that help low-income working 
families find safe and affordable housing, and the authors of this bill 
should be commended for recognizing the need to continue to

[[Page S10764]]

fund these programs at the appropriate levels.
  Having said this, though, I would also like to take a few minutes to 
express my disappointment that this bill does not include funding for a 
housing production incentives program, despite the fact that the need 
to produce more affordable housing in this country is critical. 
Unfortunately, a Senate provision which would have used $1 billion in 
excess Section 8 funds to pay for the production and preservation of 
affordable housing failed to make it into the final conference report. 
Yet many of the programs that are funded in this bill, including 
Section 8 housing assistance, only work when affordable housing units 
are available. It does low-income working families no good whatsoever 
to be given a rent voucher when they can't find an apartment on which 
to spend it.
  As it is written, this bill fails to address one of the most 
important problems underlying the current affordable housing crisis: 
the rapid erosion of this country's affordable housing stock. Every 
year, in fact, every day, we see the demolition of old affordable 
housing units without seeing the creation of an equivalent number of 
new affordable housing units. And while there can be no question that 
some of our existing affordable housing units should be demolished, we 
have yet to meet our responsibility to replace the old units that are 
lost with new, better, affordable units. We must do a better job of 
this, for our current policy simply results in too many displaced 
families, families who are forced to sometimes double-up or even become 
homeless in worst-case scenarios, overburdening otherwise already 
fragile communities.
  The National Low Income Housing Coalition reports that right now 
there are a record 5.4 million households, 12.5 million people, that 
pay more than one half of their income in rent or live in seriously 
substandard housing. Who are these people? One and a half million are 
elderly, 4.3 million are children, and between 1.1 and 1.4 million are 
adults with disabilities. Waiting lists for housing assistance are 
longer than ever, and there are still far too many people who simply 
lack shelter altogether--an estimated 600,000 people are homeless in 
this country on any given night.
  The fact is that incomes for our poorest citizens are simply not 
keeping pace with the increase in housing costs. A July 1998 study by 
the Family Housing Fund found that in Minneapolis-St. Paul rents 
increased 13 percent from 1974 to 1993 while real incomes declined by 8 
percent. They found that there were 68,900 renters with incomes below 
$10,000 in the Twin-Cities and only 31,200 housing units with rents 
affordable for these families. That means that there were more than two 
families for every affordable unit available, and the situation has 
only gotten worse since then, as the vacancy rate has plummeted to 
below two percent.
  Housing is usually considered to be affordable if it costs no more 
than 30 percent of a household's income. In the Twin Cities area, 
however, 185,000 households with annual incomes below $30,000 pay more 
than this amount for their housing. Knowing this, it isn't hard to 
understand why the number of families entering emergency shelters and 
using emergency food pantries is on the rise.
  This situation certainly isn't unique to Minneapolis-St. Paul. Out of 
Reach 2000, a recent publication by the National Low Income Housing 
Coalition, finds that the cost of housing is exceeding the reach of 
low-income families across the country. This study estimates that the 
national ``housing wage''--a measure that represents what a full-time 
worker must earn to afford fair market rent, paying no more than 30 
percent of their income--for a 2 bedroom apartment is $12.47 an hour, 
more than twice the minimum wage. The report notes that in no county, 
metro area, or state is the minimum wage as high as the corresponding 
housing wage for a 1, 2, or 3 bedroom home at the fair market rent; in 
more than half of metropolitan areas, the housing wage is at least 
twice the federal minimum wage.
  Such high rents are, of course, fueled at least in part by the 
shortage of housing. Demand for housing exceeds the supply, so rents 
spiral upwards, far beyond the reach of the poor and often well-beyond 
the reach of the middle class who find themselves priced out of the 
very communities in which they grew up. The shortage of affordable 
housing is so drastic that in Minneapolis-St. Paul, like many other 
cities, even those families fortunate enough to receive housing 
vouchers cannot find rental units. Landlords are becoming increasingly 
selective given the demand for housing and are requiring three months 
security deposit, hefty application fees, and credit checks that price 
the poor and young new renters out of the market.
  In my own State of Minnesota, a family must earn $11.56 an hour, 40 
hours a week, 52 weeks out of the year to afford the fair market rent 
for a two-bedroom apartment, more than double the minimum wage. That's 
more than double the minimum wage. This means that a person earning the 
minimum wage in Minnesota would need to work 90 hours a week in order 
to afford a two bedroom apartment at the fair market rent. Here's the 
real secret of why so many single parents are in poverty, because it 
has become impossible for one parent, one worker, to support a family 
on the bottom rung of the economic ladder.
  So what happens to those families who are unable to earn $11.56 an 
hour? Families with a single worker at minimum wage who cannot work 90 
hours? The answer is no secret, and is unfortunately too common in all 
parts of our country. These families quite simply can't afford adequate 
housing. Instead, families crowd into smaller units, a one bedroom, an 
efficiency. Sometimes these families double up, two or more families in 
a home, with multiple generations crowded under one roof. When the 
stress of multiple families becomes unbearable, they are left with no 
other option than homeless shelters. Families rent seriously 
substandard housing, exposing their children to lead poisoning and 
asthma, in neighborhoods where they don't feel safe allowing their 
children to play outdoors. They rent housing with leaky roofs, bad 
plumbing, rodents, roaches, and crumbling walls.
  And even for such substandard housing, many families find themselves 
forced to pay more than the recommended 30 percent of their income in 
rent, sometimes spending more than half of their income on housing 
costs. Families in this situation must then ``cut corners'' in other 
ways, sometimes doing without what others might consider necessities. 
Not luxuries like cable television, but necessities: gas, heat, 
electricity, food, or medical care. This is simply unacceptable. In an 
era of such tremendous economic prosperity, no family should have to 
choose between food and shelter, or heat and medical care.
  In a recent study of homelessness in Minneapolis-St. Paul, the Family 
Housing Fund reported that more and more children are experiencing 
homelessness. On one night in 1987, 244 children in the Twin Cities 
were in a shelter or other temporary housing. By 1999, 1,770 children 
were housed in shelter or temporary housing. Let me repeat that: 1,770 
children in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area on one night alone spent the 
night in a homeless shelter or temporary housing. That's seven times as 
many homeless children in 1999 than in 1987. And families are spending 
longer periods of time homeless. If they had a family crisis, if they 
lost their housing due to an eviction, if they have poor credit 
histories, if they can't save up enough for a two or three month 
security deposit, they will have longer stretches, longer periods of 
time in emergency shelters before they transition into homes.
  Let me provide a stark and disturbing example of the desperate need 
for affordable housing in this country: for six days in February of 
this year, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority distributed 
applications for families interested in public housing. They 
distributed applications for only six days, and then stopped entirely. 
This was the first time since 1996 applications were accepted for 
public housing and it is likely to be the last time for several years 
to come. Mr. President, 6,000 families sought applications for public 
housing in those six days --an average of 1,000 families each day 
requesting public housing in one metropolitan area. This is not free 
housing. Residents would be required to pay one-third of their income 
in rent. This is not luxury housing. Many families

[[Page S10765]]

seem to look upon public housing with disdain, though I know those 
communities are rich with the talents and contributions of their 
tenants. This is not even immediate housing. Many of those families 
will wait years to get into public housing.
  Surely this should tell us there is a huge housing crisis. One 
thousand families a day sought to pay one-third of their income in rent 
to live in public housing in one metropolitan area. Surely, if this 
tells us anything, it tells us we must do more.
  Mr. President, I know this Nation is prosperous. I know we can afford 
to solve this problem. We can afford to take this step today. We must 
make a commitment to address the shortage of affordable housing. 
Although we were not able to include funding for housing production 
initiatives in this appropriations bill, it is my hope that each of my 
colleagues will join me next year in assuring that this critical need 
is met.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Senate considered the VA-HUD 
conference report a week ago today. During consideration of the bill, 
the Senate extensively debated report language included in the 
conference report that dealt with the cleanup of river and ocean 
sediment contaminated with DDT, PCBs, metals and other toxic chemicals.
  Upon passing the conference report today, it is critically important 
to reiterate that it was understood by the managers of the bill in the 
House and the Senate that our resolution of the contaminated sediments 
issue in the VA-HUD conference report on October 12, 2000 was final, 
and that modifications to the report language or bill language relating 
to this issue would not be permitted this legislative session on any 
legislative vehicle.
  It is also important to reiterate and to underscore the 
clarifications the Senate made to that report language.
  One of the most important clarifications was a statement of the 
managers that the report language would not apply presently or 
prospectively to any site in California.
  Another important clarification included a colloquy between Senators 
Bond, Mikulski and Levin stating that EPA had full discretion to define 
the operative terms of the report language.
  Yet another critical clarification was a colloquy between Senators 
Bond, Mikulski and Lautenberg that stated that the National Academy of 
Sciences study referred to in the report language was not to be 
afforded any type of extraordinary or special standing in the 
Environmental Protection Agency's established process for selecting 
remedies under Superfund.
  Finally, a colloquy between Senators Bond and L. Chafee clarified 
that report language would not affect the cleanup of the Centredale 
Manor Restoration Project in Rhode Island.
  Make no mistake about it, Mr. President, I would have preferred that 
the proponents of this report language not be given even one bite at 
the apple in an appropriations bill on the important issue of cleaning 
up heavily contaminated river and ocean waters. I was concerned that 
the report language they advanced would slow cleanups in California and 
around the nation.
  I am satisfied that our debate on the report language will ensure 
that it does not have that effect.
  Under no circumstances, however, should the proponents of this report 
language be permitted a second bite at the apple to undo the work of 
this chamber and the commitments of the House and Senate managers not 
to revisit the issue of contaminated sediments--in bill or report 
language--in this legislative session on any legislative vehicle.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I truly enjoy working with the chairman and 
his staff in putting together the Energy and Water appropriations bill 
each year.
  The third time's the charm.
  This time, I think we really have completed work on the FY 2001 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
  I am a little surprised to be talking about final passage of the 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill in late October. Ours is usually 
one of the earliest to be passed and signed by the President.
  Ours is also a bill that is very rarely vetoed. However, this has 
been an unusual year.
  We have modified our bill to meet the Administration's needs on the 
Missouri River and I am confident that the President will now sign this 
bill promptly.
  For the information of Senators: the Energy and Water portion of this 
Conference Report has not changed since all of our colleagues joined us 
in voting on this matter last week.
  Our counterparts in the House insisted upon having a Conference, but 
no changes have been made since we completed work on the package that 
came before the Senate last week. In fact, it has not changed much at 
all since it originally passed both Houses earlier this month.
  For the third, and, I hope, final time this year, I encourage all of 
my colleagues to support final passage of this Conference Report which 
includes both the final energy and Water and VA-HUD Conference Reports.
  This is a very important appropriations bill, one where we are asked 
to pay for a broad array of programs critical to our nation's future. 
We fund
  the guardians of our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile our nation's 
flood control and navigation systems, infrastructure that contributes 
to human safety and economic growth
  Long-term research, development, and deployment of solar and 
renewable technologies, programs critical to our nation's long-term 
energy security and environmental future and
  Science programs that are unlocking the human genome and other 
breakthroughs that help to keep the U.S. at the scientific forefront of 
the world.
  By and large I think this is a fine Conference Report.
  The Conference Report we lay before the Senate totals just over $23.5 
billion. Of that, $13.7 billion is set aside for defense activities and 
just under $9.9 billion will be spent on nondefense activities at the 
Department of Energy, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, 
and several other independent agencies.
  It addresses the needs of our Nation's nuclear stockpile and the 
crumbling infrastructure at the weapons labs and plants.
  Enhanced funding in the water accounts allows us to move forward on a 
handful of important new construction starts while maintaining our 
emphasis on clearing out the $40 billion backlog in work already 
authorized and ready to go.
  We have also been able to provide much needed additional funding to 
both the Science and Solar and Renewable accounts at DOE.
  I am particularly pleased to report that funding for the solar and 
renewable programs is $60 million higher than last year. This year's 
numbers are the highest these programs have seen in quite some time.
  At a time when our Nation is once again questioning our utter and 
singular dependence on fossil fuels, I am delighted that we are going 
to be able to move forward aggressively on renewable programs.
  Obviously, I have some disappointments about things we were not able 
to do this year.
  However, as all of us know, an appropriations bill is a one year 
funding bill. We are never able to do all that we want and there is 
always next year.
  The twin notions of one-year funding and re-visiting issues next year 
brings me to my final point this evening.
  Today we are providing $199 million for the National Ignition 
Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California. This is 
about $15 million below the oft-revised DOE request for this project. 
They are lucky to get that much.
  The final funding figure represents a compromise between the 
Administration and Congressman Packard, both supportive of NIF, and 
Senator Domenici and I who both would have preferred a substantially 
smaller dollar amount.
  For reasons I have discussed at length in other venues, I believe the 
Department and laboratory sold the Congress a bill of goods on NIF, and 
I do not feel that they can be trusted to get it right now.
  Chairman Packard feels strongly that the lab and Department have 
gotten their House in order and should be given the opportunity to 
proceed for another year in order to prove it.
  I have great respect for the chairman of the conference. We both came 
to the House of Representatives together in 1982 and I consider him a 
friend. I do,

[[Page S10766]]

however, disagree with him on this matter.
  His work on this subcommittee has been excellent and I will miss both 
his good nature and his fine judgement after he retires this Fall.
  He has prevailed upon Chairman Domenici and me to allow NIF to go 
forward for one year, albeit with substantial reporting and milestone 
requirements.
  It is my hope and expectation that DOE will go out of their way to 
find credible, external reviewers to add some element of objectivity to 
the new project reviews we are imposing on the Department.
  I am going to watch this program like a hawk for the next year.
  If the Department and lab fall a day behind schedule or go a dollar 
over budget, I will not hesitate to zero NIF right out of the Senate 
bill next year and I suspect that Senator Domenici will help me do it.
  We have given them all but a couple of percent of what the 
Administration requested for this project. Now is the time for 
performance, not excuses.
  After nearly a year of listening to DOE and Livermore discuss the 
problems with this project, I am still not sure what bothers me more: 
The notion that DOE woke up one morning and discovered that their 
estimate was off by a billion dollars; or that they simply expected us 
to give them the money without much of a fuss.
  A billion dollars is a tremendous amount of money.
  I am done sitting by while DOE and the three weapons labs continue to 
sweet talk us into beginning projects and then revealing the real price 
tag to us later.
  Livermore is on the hot seat now, deservedly so, but this is a 
complex-wide problem.
  It is going to stop.
  The chairman and I have worked together on this bill and so many 
other issues for many years. Despite the hard work and late nights that 
completing this bill requires, it is always a pleasure to work with him 
and his staff to get the job done.
  Both of us had staff changes at the clerk position this year and we 
just kept humming along. The bill has worked as well as it ever has.
  I thank the entire staff for all their hard work. Clay Sell, David 
Gwaltney, and LaShawnda Smith of Senator Domenici's staff have worked 
very well with Drew Willison, Roger Cockrell, and Liz Blevins of my 
staff.
  Every year the associate subcommittee staff provides valuable advice, 
input, and recommendations to our staff and I am grateful for their 
help, too.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement before 
the Senate, it is my understanding I have 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I did at the conference committee we had 
last night, I express my appreciation to Senator Mikulski for the great 
leadership she has shown in working this bill through this very 
difficult process.
  As she has indicated, it takes two to do that. It is important we 
recognize that there are matters, when we are able to work together, 
where both Democrats and Republicans can work toward a common goal. 
That goal has been, for many months now, getting this very difficult 
VA-HUD bill to a point where we are now going to approve it. The 
Senator from Missouri is also to be commended for working so closely 
with the Senator from Maryland in coming up with this great piece of 
legislation. They are both a couple of experts in this field, not only 
experts in the field that covers the legislative matters before us but 
experts in moving the matters through the legislative process. Both 
sides of the aisle recognize their expertise.
  After this conference report is approved, we will next move to a vote 
on a continuing resolution. What is a continuing resolution? It is when 
we have failed here to do our work to extend the operation of 
Government so it doesn't shut down.
  So we are going to have another continuing resolution approved this 
afternoon. I am disappointed that we are now to a point where this is 
the fourth continuing resolution, I believe, that we will approve. This 
is for 6 days--until next Wednesday. We just completed work on a long 
continuing resolution. We basically completed very little during that 
period of time.
  The new fiscal year is now nearly 3 weeks old, and Congress has still 
failed to have signed into law 9 of the 13 appropriations bills.
  To compensate for the failure to do our work, we pass these 
continuing resolutions that I have talked about to stop the Government 
from shutting down. We have been through a Government shutdown. We know 
it can happen. We will now consider in a few minutes another continuing 
resolution. That is too bad. I find it disturbing that the continuing 
resolution didn't go for 24 hours at a time.
  I have not been in the Congress as long as some people, but I have 
been here a long time. I can remember when a congressional session was 
winding down and we worked day and night. We worked Mondays. We worked 
Fridays, Saturdays, and on occasion we worked Sundays to complete our 
work. No, not here. We have had leisure time. We have not had any hard 
lifting. We just took a 5-day break.
  I understand the importance of the upcoming elections as well as 
anyone else. The elections represent a crucial choice regarding the 
future of this great Republic. However, no election is more important 
than the election that takes place here in this Congress every day when 
we, in effect, vote on legislation. This election represents something 
just as important. That is why we were sent here--to do the work of the 
people. We are not doing it. The majority isn't allowing us to do it.
  We will never finish these appropriations bills until it is clear to 
everyone that we must do our work and do it every day of the week. We 
have been used to 3-day weeks around here where we worked Tuesdays 
starting about 2:30, and Wednesday and Thursday. But we finished early 
on Thursday. I have never seen a congressional session such as this. We 
don't work on Mondays. We don't work on Fridays. And now we have a new 
deal: We are working 2-day weeks. We are now going to a 2-day week 
schedule. Of course, on the first day we will work late. So it will 
only be about a day and a half. I don't think when we have work to do 
that we should be working 2-day weeks.
  I bet the hard-working American people who work for these massive 
corporations and small businesses would like a 2-day workweek. That is 
what we are having here.
  It is no secret that this exceptionally slow work schedule is 
responsible for the fact that Congress has completed only a few 
appropriations bills. We passed one in July, one in August, none in 
September, and two so far this month. I think we should pick up the 
pace a little. I think the American people would agree.
  Until we finish the 106th Congress, I think every continuing 
resolution we pass in the future should be for 24 hours. I am not going 
to vote for any more continuing resolutions that are for more than 24 
hours. I don't know if I am going to vote for this continuing 
resolution. I think it is a shame that we are not going to be here 
literally doing work on this floor until probably next Tuesday with 
probably no votes until next Wednesday.
  Not everyone would like this approach--because we have more certainty 
with a longer continuing resolution. I hope the President will support 
our efforts to have a 24-hour continuing resolution. I want to give 
everyone a hint here. The President just told us that is what he is 
going to do--that he will no longer approve a multiday continuing 
resolution--24 hours only.
  When we get here Wednesday and that expires, remember that we are not 
going to get one for more than 24 hours. We have to complete our work. 
It is important that we do that.

  Let's set aside for the moment the disappointing record on the 
appropriations bills and focus instead on the laundry list of missed 
opportunities that litter Capitol Hill this fall.
  The lack of action on the appropriations bills is rivaled only by the 
chronic inaction by this Republican Congress on the many other 
important issues that face our country. While the Republicans blame the 
Democrats for lack of action, how they can do that

[[Page S10767]]

with a straight face is a little hard for me to comprehend. The problem 
is the Republican majority doesn't seem to work with each other.
  We all recognize that one of the highest priorities for America at 
the beginning of this century is education. We have spent in this 
Congress parts of 6 days working on education. That is it. It couldn't 
be a very high priority. We don't set the agenda here. I wish we could. 
But instead of parts of 6 days, we would spend weeks working on 
education. For the first time in 35 years we haven't approved the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is too bad.
  Another issue before the Congress is that we have failed to address 
any meaningful way raising the minimum wage. Sixty percent of the 
people who draw minimum wage are women. For many of these women it is 
the only money they earn for their families.
  I think it is important that women who get only 74 percent of what 
men make for the same job should at least be recognized by getting an 
increase in the minimum wage.
  This long list of missed opportunities which will be compounded by a 
2-day workweek that we are now going to have demonstrates the irony 
that the majority is more interested in plowing down the campaign trail 
than helping plow down the field to help us pass some legislation that 
helps working Americans.
  What legislation am I talking about? Am I making this up? The long 
list of missed opportunities of this Republican-controlled Congress is:
  The minimum wage we talked about;
  The failure to enact anything dealing with health care; Prescription 
drug benefits, no; Prescription bill of rights, no; Helping make 
college education affordable, no; Doing something about education and 
lower class sizes, no; Having money for school construction, no.
  In the State of Nevada--the most rapidly growing State in the 
Nation--we have to build a school every month in Las Vegas to keep up 
with the growth. We need some help.
  The average school in America is over 40 years old. We have crumbling 
schools. We must build some new schools. In one school in Ohio, the 
ceiling collapsed and kids were hurt.
  Then there is the failure to pass a meaningful targeted tax cut for 
middle-class working Americans.
  It is important.
  One issue that we should talk about a little bit is campaign finance 
reform. We are awash in money. People are out raising money. Why? 
Because one has to be competitive. John McCain has been very 
courageous. He is one of the few Republicans to join with every 
Democrat over here to do something about campaign finance reform.
  Get rid of corporate money; let's at least do that.
  Two years ago, in the small State of Nevada, over $20 million was 
spent on the election for the Senate. Neither one of us spent more 
money. We spent the same amount of money. Can you imagine that in a 
small State of Nevada with over $10 million each? It is shameful. We 
have to change it. But, no, we are not able to even vote on it.
  This continuing resolution is going to be coming up, and I am not 
happy with it. I am certainly supportive of making sure that we 
complete our work. But we don't need to take off from Thursday until 
next Wednesday. That is, in effect, what we are doing. That is too bad.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe there is some time left for 
Senator Stevens under this agreement. We are interested in yielding 
back time, to the extent that the other side will yield back time.
  Mr. President, there are lots of statements that could be made to 
answer the political charges of my colleague from Nevada. Let's just 
say we disagree with them. We will debate those later.
  We have been delayed in this process because we had to file cloture 
because of filibusters this summer on the measures.
  I ask the distinguished chairman of the committee if he would like 
time. I would be happy to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. Has my time expired?
  Mr. BOND. On the continuing resolution?
  Mr. DOMENICI. He had 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the pending conference report.
  Mr. STEVENS. Whatever it is, I am happy to yield back my time so we 
can vote.
  Mr. REID. Senator Byrd has time. He is not here. I am confident that 
we can yield back his time.


       Making Continuing Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator wishes, he may use his time on 
the continuing resolution.
  Mr. REID. I reserve Senator Byrd's time.
  It is my understanding now the time goes to the CR, and Senator 
Dorgan has 10 minutes; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Are we going to vote on VA-HUD now or have stacked 
votes?
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding we are to use the time on the CR and 
on the VA-HUD conference report and have two back-to-back votes.
  Mr. BOND. That is our understanding. So the sooner we use up or yield 
back the time on the continuing resolution, the sooner we can vote, and 
perhaps colleagues who wish to use time can talk quickly.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Are we now done with VA-HUD?
  Mr. BOND. It is my understanding the time for VA-HUD has expired. 
Some of the time has been used off the CR. I believe there is a 
willingness to yield back on our side.
  Mr. REID. I used time I had reserved for me under the continuing 
resolution. Senator Byrd has 5 minutes. He is not here. I am sure he 
would be willing to yield that back. The only time remaining, as I 
understand it, is time on the CR. Is that right, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. Who has time reserved under the CR?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Dorgan has 10 minutes and Senator 
Stevens and Senator Byrd have 5 minutes each.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have yielded back my time, if I had any.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding Senator Stevens 
yielded back his time on the continuing resolution?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I may not take all of the 10 minutes, but 
I want to speak on the continuing resolution for a moment.
  It is now Thursday, October 19. We have a continuing resolution, 
which in English means continuing the funding for the Government for 
appropriations bills that have not yet been completed, until next 
Wednesday. This is one more in a series of continuing resolutions 
required by this Congress because we do not have the appropriations 
bills completed and sent to the President to be signed into law.
  Now we have to do this. I understand that. We have to pass a 
continuing resolution. But this is not the way for the Senate to do its 
business. I came from a meeting we had with the President. The 
President indicated this is the last continuing resolution of this sort 
that he will sign. He indicated the next continuing resolution will be 
for 24 hours, no more than 24 hours. That is what he told a large group 
of people a bit ago. This continuing resolution takes us until next 
Wednesday, after which, apparently, continuing resolutions will be for 
no more than----
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. Of course.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, if the President said 
we can only have 24 hours, does that mean within 24 hours we will have 
the full scope of his demands under the Appropriations Committee?
  We have not seen the full scope of the President's demands, and until 
we do we will continue to have continuing resolutions.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let the record show there is a search for 
scope around here.
  The President's number is 456-1414. Certainly, the Senator can 
consult with the President on that issue.
  It is now October 19. We are keeping the Senate in session and 
preventing the Senate from doing business in many ways. We have 
something pending. As soon as we finish these votes,

[[Page S10768]]

do you know what is pending on the floor of the Senate? The motion to 
proceed to S. 2557. Do you know when the motion to proceed was filed in 
the Senate? A month ago; a motion to proceed to an energy bill. Does 
anybody think there was ever an intent to proceed to a bill? No.
  Why is this motion to proceed pending? To block every other amendment 
that would be offered by anybody else in the Senate. So the purpose is, 
keep us here for the desires of those who need to do the appropriations 
bills but don't let anybody do anything else with respect to other 
issues.
  That is the purpose of this block motion. It has been in place a 
month. Some of us chafe a little by being told, you stay in session for 
our purposes; that is, the purposes of those who control the agenda. 
But in terms of what you are here for, in terms of your desires and 
your passions on a range of issues, forget it because we will block it 
with this motion to proceed.
  Now, this continuing resolution takes us until next Wednesday. We 
apparently will have at least two votes stacked, two sequential votes, 
following this discussion. Then I guess the question is--this is 
Thursday--what happens tomorrow, on Friday or Saturday or Sunday, 
Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday? Who is doing what? When are we going to 
get these issues resolved?
  I think the import of the question from my colleague was that this is 
somebody else's fault. Maybe so. Maybe someone hasn't provided a list 
of scope here or there. All I can say is it is now October 19. This is, 
I think, the third CR, perhaps the fourth, and more will be required, I 
suspect. But if we are going to be in session, if we are going to be in 
session for some while, some days, then I ask the question, why aren't 
we working on other issues? Why should we be prevented--those on this 
side of the aisle--from offering amendments on a range of issues?
  I think it is not the way to run this Senate, to put up a blocking 
motion. I believe it was put up September 22. It is now October 19. The 
import of that blocking motion to proceed was to say we are only going 
to allow the Senate to work on the following issues, and we will do it 
by blocking all other amendments to be offered.
  I don't know what next week will bring. I will say the President 
indicated he is not going to sign long-term continuing resolutions. I 
don't know how you could. A week from now, next Wednesday, is October 
25. I don't know how much further you can take this session of 
Congress.
  At some point we have to do the appropriations bills and resolve the 
funding issues. I don't think anybody has had an easy job doing this. 
The difficulty of this job started with the passage of the budget. That 
budget never added up. It was not realistic. We all knew we would have 
to spend more money than called for in the budgets on discretionary 
spending.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. Of course I yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. Yesterday, this Senator completed 5 days of negotiations 
and finally got an agreement with the House and with everyone on how to 
lift the caps of the 1997 act. That did not take place because the 
Senator's side of the aisle objected at the last minute. We don't have 
a provision in this bill lifting the 1997 caps; we can't go forward 
until we do.
  We don't have the ability to go forward yet this afternoon and 
tomorrow and the next day. We have to lift those caps.
  It is enough to take abuse once in a while, but this Senator doesn't 
take it when it is undeserved. To accuse this side of the aisle for 
delay now is absolutely wrong. The President of the United States just 
came here and demanded 100 percent of what he asked for, but we don't 
know what it is.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me reclaim my time. If the Senator 
from Alaska heard anything that represented ``abuse,'' that was not my 
intent. If there were discussions yesterday about lifting the cap, 
yesterday was October 18, 18 days past the October 1st deadline.
  I happen to think the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is 
someone for whom I have had great respect. I don't think he has caused 
these problems. But I do think if you go back to the spring of this 
year with respect to the budget that was passed, there was not enough 
money in it, and we knew it then. There wasn't enough money in it for 
domestic discretionary programs, and we knew we would come to the end 
of the process with gridlock. Now we have this gridlock, and then we 
have these CRs that say: By the way, we will keep you in session until 
Wednesday but only on our issue. If you have issues--prescription 
drugs, minimum wage, the Patients' Bill of Rights--you ought not offer 
them, and we will block you. So they block it for a month.
  I say to my colleagues, if you were in this circumstance, I don't 
think you would be as quiet as we have been. The fact is, we have been 
blocked for a month from offering amendments dealing with the central 
issues that we came to Congress to deal with and resolve and deal with. 
People talk about not leaving people behind. There are a whole lot of 
folks left behind with the agenda this Congress hasn't dealt with.
  I am going to relinquish the floor, and we will vote on a CR. I 
assume this is not the last CR. I assume we will have more. I don't 
think any of us ought to be white eyed with surprise when we find 
ourselves in October trying to get out of a budget that was passed this 
spring. Incidentally, that is a budget I did not vote for because, in 
my judgment, it did not add up in the first place.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent I might be permitted to speak 
for 5 minutes since all the time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I think the arguments by the Senator from North Dakota 
require some response. If I could have the attention of the Senator 
from North Dakota? I know the number of the White House. I called it 
last night in an effort to try to resolve the outstanding differences 
on the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education, the subcommittee of appropriations which 
I chair.
  When the Senator from North Dakota talks about insufficient money for 
discretionary spending, that is not necessarily true. In our 
subcommittee, on those three Departments we met the President's figure, 
$106.2 billion. We have structured our priorities somewhat differently. 
He wanted $2.7 billion for school construction and for more teachers. 
We gave that to him. But we added a very appropriate proviso, and that 
is, if the local boards decide they have sufficient of those items, 
they can use it for something else.
  The grave difficulty here has been, since the Government was closed, 
there has been a radical shift in power between the Congress and the 
President. Now the President expects everything on the threat of a 
veto. If he is going to veto something, that means the Congress has to 
cave to him and knuckle to him. We are proceeding in a 
nonconstitutional way. We have the executive branch in our legislative 
discussions before we arrive at our bills, and then we have a situation 
where the President has to have his way. There is no such thing as 
compromise. We are discussing language----
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield?
  Mr. SPECTER. No.
  We are discussing the issue of schoolteachers. Last year, in the 
middle of the night, there was a compromise which went around this 
Senator, the chairman of the subcommittee, and I am not prepared to 
take that unacceptable language. But it is a high-handed demand. We are 
not going to retreat from last year's language on a program the 
President thinks is important.
  We need to go back on track, and that is to follow the Constitution 
and submit our bills to the President. The Congress has the primary 
authority and responsibility for assessing priorities. We have the 
purse strings, it says in the Constitution. But that is not the way it 
is functioning today.
  When the President comes to Capitol Hill and issues a dictatorial 
statement that he is not going to sign continuing resolutions for 
longer than a day, fine, let him stay in town. It will be quite a 
change for the President's schedule if he stays in town to sign these 
continuing resolutions day in and day out.

[[Page S10769]]

 It is time the Congress stopped being blamed for everything.
  If the American people understood where we stand on my bill, that the 
President got the full sum he asked for, there is a difference in 
priorities--I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes, Mr. President.
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object--and I shall not object--I 
would like to observe, I have yielded to requests on that side and I 
hope the Senator will yield at the end of his time.
  Mr. SPECTER. I will be glad to yield at the end of my time, limited 
as it is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. If the American people knew we met the President's 
figure of $106.2 billion but we think the National Institutes of Health 
ought to have a priority--we have raised them $1.7 billion more than 
the President, we have given more money to special education--I think 
if the American people knew that, they would say those are more 
important priorities.

  If the American people knew that we want to retain local control so 
school boards can spend the money the way they see fit on the local 
level if they do not think the President's priorities are preferable, 
that they prefer local control to a Washington, DC, bureaucratic 
straitjacket, then we could have that decision.
  But this Senator is not at all concerned about 1-day continuing 
resolutions. I am prepared to stay here a lot longer than is the 
President.
  I yield for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator for yielding for a brief question. If 
the Senator's contention is there was enough money in the budget this 
spring for domestic discretionary, why, then, are people on his side 
discussing the need to increase the budget caps, the spending caps?
  Mr. STEVENS. If I may answer that, with regard to the bill on which 
we are about ready to vote, I, as chairman, delegated some of the 
302(b) allowance to Health and Human Services to VA-HUD and to the 
other bill, energy and water. It is because of the limits that were set 
in the 1997 act, not just the budget resolution. We have not lifted 
them to the point to have enough money to pass this bill.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, might I ask if everybody will yield back the 
time so we can get on with the votes?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not 
present.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there are other pressing matters. It is an 
interesting discussion that might go on after the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding now we are going to 
vote on VA-HUD. After that, because of one of the senior Members, and 
others, we are going to have to wait until the papers get here before 
we vote on the CR. I understand they should be here momentarily. I am 
sure by the time the vote is closed they will be here, so I hope we can 
go to the vote now on VA-HUD.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Isn't there an 
order to vote back to back on these bills?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an understanding that will occur. 
That will be the case.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is it the order, the unanimous consent agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired on both measures, and votes 
will occur on both measures back to back.
  Mr. STEVENS. Let's run the first one here.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  vote on h.r. 4635 conference report

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the 
VA-HUD conference report?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), and the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 278 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Allard
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Feinstein
     Grams
     Helms
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     McCain
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee and 
the ranking member, Senator Mikulski, for the work they have done on 
this bill. It has been a long process, and they both have done 
excellent work. We appreciate their leadership.

                          ____________________