[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21772-21775]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]





 TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10 a.m. 
having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of the 
conference report accompanying H.R. 2490, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2490), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by all of the 
     conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 14, 1999.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 10 
minutes of debate, equally divided, with the vote on adoption of the 
conference report to immediately follow.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Colorado is 
recognized.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate 
the conference report on H.R. 2490, the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2000.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following staff be accorded floor privileges during the consideration 
of this conference report: Tammy Perrin, Lula Edwards, Chip Walgren, 
and Dylan Presman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to approve this 
conference report. Because of the budget constraints, we were not able 
to give everything that everyone wanted, obviously; but that is 
certainly what compromise is all about. It took us 6 weeks to get this 
report to conference, by the way.
  At the outset, I thank the ranking member of the Treasury 
Subcommittee, Senator Dorgan, and his staff for all of their valuable 
assistance and support during that process.
  The conference report provides a total of $28,239,811,000, of which 
$13,706,000,000 is discretionary spending. We have provided funding 
necessary for the Department of the Treasury, the United States Postal 
Service, the Executive Office of the President, and various independent 
agencies to move into the new millennium.
  Here are some of the highlights of this conference report.
  The conference provided $12.32 million to the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms to Expand the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction 
Initiative. This is $1.12 million more than the requested level, and 
brings the total funding for this very effective program to $51.32 
million.
  The conference also provided $13 million to ATF for grants to State 
and local law enforcement to allow participation in the Gang Resistance 
Education and Training (GREAT) Program. The GREAT Program provides our 
youth with the tools they need to resist the powerful pull of gangs and 
has been highly successful as a deterrent to the growth of youth gangs.
  The conference report provides funding for the continued operation 
and growth of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. We are still 
very much committed to the consolidation of training for Federal law 
enforcement officers at FLETC. After completion of the five-year 
construction master plan, FLETC will be better able to serve the 
training demands of most Federal law enforcement agencies.
  For the Customs Service, the conference has provided $4.3 million for 
pre-hiring polygraph examinations and $2.5 million for the creation of 
the Office of Assistant Commissioner for Training to continue integrity 
efforts begun last year.
  The conference has funded the Customs Cyber-Smuggling Center at $4 
million, which is a $1.6 million increase over last year.
  The conference has provided full funding for the Internal Revenue 
Service to allow them to fulfill the requirements of the Restructuring 
and Reform Act, to proceed with their much-needed organizational 
modernization plan, and to continue necessary improvements in customer 
service. This funding also provides $6 million for grants to low income 
taxpayer clinics.
  The conference has increased funding for the very critical technology 
transfer program under the Drug Czar's Office. This $13.25 million 
program provides drug interdiction technology to State and local law 
enforcement. For fiscal year 2000, the funding was increased by more 
than $10 million over the administration's request.
  The conference has provided $185 million for the continued operation 
of the national youth anti-drug media campaign, and $192 million for 
the popular and effective high intensity drug trafficking areas (HIDTA) 
Program. In addition, the conference has included funding for a 
management review of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) 
by an independent entity in an effort to strengthen the office's 
operations and programs.
  The conference included a combined total of $2 million for the model 
state drug law conferences and the National Drug Court Institute, 
programs which assist State and local enforcement in combating the end 
results of drug addiction and resulting crimes.
  Mr. President, again I say that everyone did not get everything, and 
certainly everybody doesn't agree with every provision of this bill. 
But I think it is a very worthy conference report, on balance, and I 
think we brought to the Senate an excellent product. It certainly 
deserves the support of the entire Senate and signature of the 
President.
  I again thank my friend and coworker, Senator Dorgan, for his hard



work, and also the staff we depended very heavily on this time around, 
including Pat Raymond, Tammy Perrin, Lula Edwards, of the majority 
staff, Barbara Retzlaf, who left a couple weeks to go to the Commerce 
Department, Chip Walgren, and Dylan Presman.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, I am glad to yield.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I am concerned about how this appropriation fits into the 
overall caps on Federal expenditures for domestic discretionary 
programs that were adopted in 1997, and then the more recent 
recommendations of the Congressional Budget Office, which were the 
basis of the tax bill we passed earlier this summer. Could the Senator 
indicate, is this budget, in terms of its total appropriation, 
consistent with the 1997 Balanced Budget Act and the CBO recommendation 
of 1999?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent 
that an additional 5 minutes be added to the 10 minutes for any other 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator that we did try to 
stay within our allocation, as you know. We had many more requests than 
we were capable of dealing with and our allocation was raised by $100 
million. So we did stay within that. We simply could not fit all of the 
requests in the original amount we were allocated.
  Mr. GRAHAM. In relationship to the Congressional Budget Office 
recommendations of this summer, does the Senator know where this 
appropriation would be?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. To my knowledge, we have a number of bills we still 
have to complete. I believe by the time we have finished, we will still 
be within the budget caps. But I have no way of telling before all the 
other bills are through.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, with respect to the question offered by 
the 



[[Page 21773]]

Senator from Florida, my understanding is that the caps established 
in the Balanced Budget Act represent aggregate caps and one can have 
individual subcommittees coming out with spending levels, and if those 
spending levels in the aggregate, with all the subcommittees, exceed 
the caps, you have a problem.
  This particular subcommittee has worked very hard to try to produce 
an appropriations bill that is responsible. Nearly one-half of all 
Federal law enforcement is in this particular subcommittee. People do 
not understand that. But Customs, Secret Service, and a range of other 
law enforcement activities to fight drugs and crime exist in this bill.

  Almost one-half of Federal law enforcement is in this piece of 
legislation.
  I will not repeat what the Senator from Colorado described about what 
we did in the subcommittee. But I think it is responsible and 
thoughtful and most every Member of the Senate thinks it is a pretty 
good investment.
  One of the things we didn't do in this piece of legislation is fund 
courthouse construction. Does there need to be some money invested in 
courthouses around the country to rehab some old courthouses and 
rebuild some? Yes, but we simply didn't have the money. We were short 
of resources. We had to make some difficult choices. That was one of 
them. It is not that the Senator from Colorado and I believe there is 
not a need; there is a need. But we just weren't able to respond to 
that.
  I would like to add to his comments with respect to the work that has 
been done both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 
this bill.
  On my staff, Chip Walgren, Barbara Retzlaff, and Dylan Presman did 
excellent work, and Pat Raymond, Tammy Perrin, and Lula Edwards of the 
majority staff have done wonderful work.
  It has been a pleasure to work with Senator Campbell. He is easy to 
work with. He is thoughtful and wants to do the right thing. It is a 
pleasure to work with someone with that kind of interest.
  The subcommittee bill is a piece of legislation that strengthens the 
Government's commitment to fight drugs and crime, and the Department of 
the Treasury, as I indicated, has a critical law enforcement role. That 
is funded in this piece of legislation.
  One of the pieces of legislation inside this bill is called the GREAT 
Program--Gang Resistance Education and Training Program.
  One day not too long ago, I was invited to go over to Anacostia to a 
junior high school for a ceremony where some young kids were graduating 
from the GREAT Program, the Gang Resistance Education and Training 
Program. This is a school, by the way, that has had significant gang 
problems and a great deal of crime.
  One of the police officers who is assigned to that school full time 
came to the meeting we had on Capitol Hill. He was describing the 
problems in that school--horrendous problems. We called to see if 
perhaps the GREAT Program could be taken to that school because they 
weren't participating. That program was taken over to the school, and 
the first graduates received their diplomas.
  I went over that day with the commissioner. It was really quite 
remarkable. It is a wonderful program to invest in to try to educate 
young people about the dangers of gangs and drugs and crime.
  Part of this legislation is to make the right kind of investments to 
prevent activities in this country that we know are destructive.
  This piece of legislation continues to reform the IRS. It modernizes 
the Federal Election Commission. Several pieces we have put in this 
bill are the first steps in modernizing the FEC --the first steps that 
have been taken for a long, long while.
  I commend this legislation to my colleagues. I hope my colleagues in 
the Senate will approve the work of this subcommittee. The conference 
with the House was difficult, but I think it produced a result that is 
fair and one that will merit the support of the Members of the Senate.
  Again, I thank Senator Campbell, who I think does a remarkable job, 
and his staff and the staff that has worked so hard on my behalf on the 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the conferees of 
this bill for their work on this legislation which provides federal 
funding for many vital programs. However, I regret that this 
appropriations bill continues the unwise practice of including 
unacceptable levels of parochial projects. This year's Senate bill 
contained a little over $293.6 million in earmarked pork-barrel 
spending. This year's conference report is a drastic improvement in 
that it only contains $91.2 million in wasteful, pork-barrel spending. 
Although $91.2 million of waste is better than $293.6 million of waste, 
waste is still waste.
  As my colleagues know, I have consistently fought Congressional 
earmarks that direct money to particular projects or recipients. I 
believe that such decisions are far better made through nationwide 
competitive, merit-based guidelines and procedures.
  We must stop this destructive and irresponsible practice of 
earmarking special-interest pork-barrel projects in appropriations 
bills primarily for parochial reasons.
  Where does all this pork go? This bill contains millions of dollars 
for court house construction and repairs. There is $1,600,000 earmarked 
for repairs and alterations to the Kansas City Federal Courthouse in 
Kansas City, Missouri, and $1,250,000 for repairs and alterations to 
the Federal Courthouse in New York, New York. Although these 
courthouses may need repair and modernization, are these particular 
projects more important than the other courthouses competing for 
funding? The process by which these two earmarks were added makes it 
impossible to evaluate the relative merit of these programs against 
other priorities.
  In addition to earmarks for courthouses, this bill contains the usual 
earmarks of money for locality-specific projects such as $212,000 for 
renovations to the Louisville International Airport in Kentucky, and 
$250,000 to the Fort Buford Historic Site in North Dakota for research 
and cataloging of records of this Fort.
  Then there are the many sections of the report which have language 
strongly urging various Departments of the



Federal Government to recognize or participate in a joint-venture with 
a particular project in a state. While these objectionable provisions 
have no direct monetary effect on the bill, this not-so-subtle 
``urging'' will have some financial benefit for someone or some 
enterprise in a Member's home state. For example, there is report 
language urging the continuation and expansion of the collaboration 
between the University of North Dakota and the Customs Service for 
rotorcraft training. There is also report language urging GSA to 
strongly consider the U.S. Olympic Committee's need for additional 
space and to give priority to the USOC's request to gain title or 
acquire the property located at 1520 Willamette Avenue in Colorado 
Springs, Colorado.
  This bill also selects sites across the country for which the report 
language ``urges'' the Agency not to reduce its staff. For example, 
there is report language providing that no reorganization of the 
Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division will result in 
a reduction of criminal investigators in Wisconsin and South Dakota 
from the 1996 level.
  Why are these facilities protected at a time when each agency is 
required to abide by the Government Program Reduction Act which 
mandates that they operate more efficiently with less bureaucracy? Even 
if these positions are critical, they should be prioritized in the 
normal administrative process.
  Mr. President, although we have not yet done so, we are very close to 
breaking the spending caps. I hope my colleagues understand that merely 
because we can fund these programs of questionable merit within the 
spending caps, that does not entitle us to spend the taxpayers' hard-
earned dollars irresponsibly.
  The examples of wasteful spending that I have highlighted are only a 
few of the examples of earmarks and special projects contained in this 
measure. 

[[Page 21774]]

There are many more low-priority, wasteful, and unnecessary 
projects on the extensive list I have compiled. I ask that the list be 
printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.
  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.
  The list follows:

  Objectionable Provisions Contained in the Conference Report on H.R. 
 2490, The Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, The 
  Executive Office of the President, and Certain Independent Agencies 
                          Appropriations Bill


                             bill language

                       Department of the Treasury

       $9,200,000 for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 
     for construction of two firearms ranges at the Artesia Center 
     in New Mexico.
       $725,000 is earmarked for an agricultural economics program 
     in North and/or South Dakota to conduct a research program on 
     United States/Canadian bilateral trade of agricultural 
     commodities and products.
       $150,000 for official reception and representation expenses 
     associated with hosting the Inter-American Center of Tax 
     Administration (CIAT) 2000 Conference.

                          Independent Agencies

       An earmark of $35,000,000 in Montgomery County, Maryland, 
     for FDA Consolidation.
       $8,263,000 is earmarked for new construction of a border 
     station in Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan.
       $753,000 for new construction of a border station in 
     Roosville, Montana.
       An $11,480,000 earmark for new construction of a border 
     station in Sweetgrass, Montana.
       $277,000 for new construction of a border station in Fort 
     Hancock, Texas.
       $11,206,000 for new construction of a border station in 
     Oroville, Washington.
       An earmark of $475,000 for the Plains States De-population 
     symposium.

                           General Provisions

       Language indicating that no funds appropriated pursuant to 
     this Act may be expended by an entity unless the entity 
     agrees that in expending the assistance the entity will 
     comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1993, 
     popularly known as the ``Buy American Act.''
       Language indicating that entities receiving assistance 
     should, in expending the assistance, purchase only American-
     made equipment and products.


                            report language

       Report language directing the Director of Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) to provide up to $300,000 
     to a graduate level criminal justice program in a Northern 
     Plains State which can provide causal research on the link 
     between youth and criminal activity in rural locations.
       Report language that the ``Acquisition, construction, 
     improvements, and related expenses'' account covers the 
     current Master Plan construction, expanding the chilled water 
     system, a counter terrorism facility, and completion of a new 
     dormitory at the FLETC facility in Artesia, New Mexico.
       An earmark of $212,000 for renovations to the Louisville 
     International Airport in Louisville, Kentucky.
       Report language directing Customs to report on the merits 
     of designating both the Hector International Airport in 
     Fargo, North Dakota, and The Manchester Airport in 
     Manchester, New Hampshire, as International Ports of Entry.
       Report language instructing Customs to maintain current 
     staffing levels in Arizona in fiscal year 2000 and to report 
     on what resources are necessary to reduce wait times along 
     the Southwest border to twenty minutes.
       Report language urging the continuation and expansion of 
     the collaboration between the University of North Dakota and 
     the Customs Service for rotorcraft training.
       Report language providing that no reorganization of the 
     Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division will 
     result in a reduction of criminal investigators in Wisconsin 
     and South Dakota from the 1996 level.
       Report language directing that the Postal Service report, 
     on an annual basis, on the placement of ethanol flexible fuel 
     vehicles that it has announced that it will purchase and 
     deploy over the next two years.
       Report language instructing the Postal Service to issue a 
     report after studying and evaluating the need for a post 
     office in Hammondville, Alabama.
       Report language encouraging the Director to consider 
     convening a national conference on rural drug crime to 
     include regional conferences in rural areas, such as those in 
     South Carolina, Vermont, and Missouri, in order to assess the 
     needs of rural law enforcement and the impact of drug related 
     crimes.
       An earmark of $1,600,000 for the repairs and alterations of 
     the Kansas City Federal Courthouse at 811 Grand Avenue, 
     Kansas City, Missouri.
       $1,250,000 for repairs and alterations to the Federal 
     Courthouse at 40 Center Street, New York, New York.
       An earmark of $150,000 for the acquisition, lease, 
     construction and equipping of the flexiplace telecommuting 
     center in Winchester, Virginia.
       $200,000 for the acquisition, lease, construction and 
     equipping of the flexiplace telecommuting center in 
     Woodbridge, Virginia.
       $500,000 is earmarked for a GSA study and conceptual design 
     of a combined federal, state, and local law enforcement 
     facility in St. Petersburg, Florida.
       $275,000 to study the feasibility of developing a Virtual 
     Archive Storage Terminal.
       Report language urging GSA to strongly consider the U.S. 
     Olympic Committee's [USOC] need for additional space and to 
     give priority to the USOC's request to gain title or acquire 
     the property located at 1520 Willamette Avenue in Colorado 
     Springs, Colorado.
       A $900,000 earmark for design and the preparation of an 
     environmental impact statement for a National Archives 
     facility in Anchorage, Alaska.
       An $8,000,000 earmark for the repair, alteration, and 
     improvements of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and 
     Museum in Simi Valley, California.
       $250,000 to the Fort Buford Historic Site in North Dakota 
     for research and cataloging of records at this Fort--a Lewis 
     and Clark ``Corps of Discovery'' site.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, if there is no further discussion, I 
believe the yeas and nays have already been asked for, and I ask that 
we proceed to the vote on the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I, therefore, ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Cochran), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the 
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 
Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 38, as follows:



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 277 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--38

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cleland
     Collins
     DeWine
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Mack
     McConnell
     Robb
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Biden
     Breaux
     Cochran
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Warner
     Wellstone
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to explain why I voted ``no'' on 
the Treasury Postal Appropriations conference report.


[[Page 21775]]

  First, I am concerned that the contraceptive mandate included in the 
Treasury/Postal Appropriations bill is a precedent setting attempt to 
mandate coverage of abortifacients that have been approved--or will be 
approved in the future--by the Federal Food and Drug Administration.
  Second, I am concerned that this mandate constitutes an attempt to 
eventually force providers who have either a moral or religious 
objection to abortion services to provide those services, or lose the 
ability to provide health care within the Federal Employee Health 
Benefit Plan. The FEHBP mandate does not have adequate conscience 
clause protection for sponsors of health plans and individual providers 
who are opposed to providing such drugs and devices. Conscience clause 
protection for individual providers needs to be clarified to protect 
any health care provider, including but not limited to physicians, 
nurses and physician assistants who object to providing these drugs or 
devices on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions.
  Third, this misnamed ``contraceptive'' mandate is being used to help 
``mainstream'' abortifacient drugs to which many health professionals, 
pharmacies, and patients have serious objections. It reduces federal 
employees' freedom to choose the health benefits they want; ignores 
health plans' potential moral objections; and increases pressure on 
health professionals to ignore their own conscientious convictions. All 
of this, ironically, is done in the name of ``freedom of choice.
  Fourth, I do not believe that the federal government should issue 
healthcare mandates. Mandating the FEHBP providers cover contraceptives 
as part of their health plan constitutes the first time in the history 
of the FEHBP that Congress has issued a mandate on a coverage.
  Fifth, I am also concerned that this may be the first step by some in 
Congress to issue a similar mandate on private insurers. Such a mandate 
on private insurers will drive up costs and lead to uninsurance at the 
margins.
  Therefore, because of the inclusion of this provision in the 
conference report I voted ``no.''

                          ____________________