[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 22166-22182]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          FEDERAL DAIRY POLICY

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss possible 
legislation that would devastate family dairy farmers throughout the 
Upper Midwest.
  I understand that the Agriculture appropriations conference committee 
may report a bill that contains poison pill dairy amendment that 
threaten the livelihood of dairy farmers throughout the United States.
  I call them poison pills because they threaten to scuttle the entire 
Agriculture appropriations bill.
  It is my duty to my constituents as a Senator from the great dairy 
State of Wisconsin to make my colleagues aware of these possible 
actions, and

[[Page 22167]]

their insidious effects on America's dairy industry, and the effect 
they may have on our ability to move legislation in these waning days 
of the 104th Congress.
  Our current system is hopelessly out-of-date, and completely out-of-
touch with reality. Fortunately for our farmers--and I am grateful for 
this--the USDA has proposed a rule that would begin to modernize our 
antiquated system.
  According to the Secretary of Agriculture, the new system ``more 
accurately reflects the current market condition, is fairer to farmers 
and consumers alike, modernizes and reforms an antiquated system sorely 
in need of streamlining and revision.''
  In fact, according to the USDA, dairy farmers would have earned 87 
cents per hundredweight more for Class I milk under USDA's reforms than 
under the current system.
  For 60 years, America's dairy policy has both imposed higher costs on 
taxpayers and consumers, and at the same time destroyed tens of 
thousands of family farms.
  This destructive policy has to go. We need to restore equality to 
milk pricing, stop regional bickering, and work to ensure that all of 
our Nation's dairy farmers get a fair price for their milk. My message 
is simple: our Federal dairy policy is hopelessly out of date, 
fundamentally unfair, and in dire need of reform.
  Congress created the current Federal dairy policy 60 years ago when 
the upper Midwest was seen as the primary producer of fluid milk. 
During the Great Depression, many worried that consumers in other parts 
of the country, including young children, did not have access to fresh 
milk because of inadequate refrigeration and transportation technology.
  To address these concerns, Congress at that time set up the so-called 
Eau Claire system, under which producers were reimbursed according to 
their distance from the small town--I shouldn't say small town; it is a 
pretty good-size town for Wisconsin--the great town of Eau Claire, WI, 
in my home State. It is a little unfair to call this the Eau Claire 
system because it is a lousy system and Eau Claire is a great town. I 
like calling it the anti-Eau Claire system. My daughter is happily 
ensconced at the University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire, a huge fan of 
Eau Claire. But it is generally called the Eau Claire system. So be it.
  This is how it works. The farther away a farmer lives from Eau 
Claire, WI, the more he receives for his fluid milk. Under this system, 
Eau Claire, WI, geographically, is ground zero when the fallout of 
artificially low prices lands most harshly on Wisconsin dairy farmers 
and their neighbors in the upper Midwest.
  Back in the days of the Great Depression, apparently this system 
seemed to be a great idea. But like delivery in old metal milk cans, 
the current system is obsolete, failing to meet the needs of either 
producers or consumers. Six decades ago, the poor condition of 
America's infrastructure and the lack of portable refrigeration 
technology prevented upper Midwest producers from shipping their fresh 
milk to other parts of the country. In order to ensure an adequate milk 
supply in distant regions, Congress authorized higher fluid milk prices 
outside the upper Midwest. These higher prices are referred to as class 
I differentials. Let's take a look at how this system rewards producers 
in different parts of the country.
  This chart illustrates the class I differential received by dairy 
farmers throughout the United States. In Eau Claire, WI, the class I 
differential is $1.20 per hundredweight. You will notice that it is 
$1.40 in Chicago. It is $1.92 in Kansas City, MO, and $3.08 in 
Charlotte, NC. Our friends in Florida receive $3.58 in Tallahassee and 
$4.18 per hundredweight in Miami for the exact same amount of milk that 
we produce in Wisconsin. So class I differentials are an arbitrary 
measure of the cost of milk production.
  In fact, in recent years, when our dairy farmers have tried to sell 
their milk in Chicago--in Chicago, a very close distance to Eau Claire 
and the other Wisconsin communities compared to other places in the 
country--when they have tried to sell their milk in Chicago, they have 
been beaten out of that market by milk from the South and the 
Southwest. That is a sign of an archaic system. This archaic system was 
designed to make these regions produce milk for their own needs so 
children in Texas could have fresh milk, not so their producers could 
unfairly compete against Wisconsin dairy farmers in Chicago. 
Unfortunately, this system worked too well. The chief result of this 
system, the only real result of this system, as far as I am concerned, 
is that our Midwestern farmers are now subsidizing farmers in the 
Southeast and in the Northeast through these higher class I 
differentials.
  Of course, a great deal has changed since the creation of the current 
system. We can now easily and safely transport perishable milk and 
cheese products between the States and throughout the country. The 
industry has perfected the system to such a degree that we can export 
cheese to countries all over the world. It seems almost comical that in 
an age when you can order milk through the Internet, our Federal milk 
pricing system continues to be based on an irrelevant factor. That 
factor, again, is a producer's distance from this wonderful Wisconsin 
community of Eau Claire, WI. That is what this whole thing is based on, 
how far the farmer is from Eau Claire, WI.
  Unfortunately, the current system's effects on farming communities 
are anything but common. The current milk pricing system has been 
putting family dairy farms out of business at an alarming rate. Since 
1980, my home State of Wisconsin has sadly lost nearly one-half of its 
dairy farms. This isn't starting with 2,000 or 3,000 dairy farmers. 
This is starting with 45,000-plus dairy farmers. We are below 25,000 
now. That is since 1980 that we have experienced that kind of loss.
  The trend is accelerating. Between 1990 and 1998, in those 8 to 9 
years, Wisconsin lost 11,000 dairy farmers. So the overwhelming message 
I hear from family dairy farmers in Wisconsin and Minnesota and 
throughout the Midwest is that we need milk marketing order reforms. We 
desperately need a new dairy policy, one that does not arbitrarily 
penalize the Midwest and devastate the small farmer. We must replace 
this outdated Depression-era system with a new policy that ensures our 
Nation's dairy farmers get a fair price for their milk.
  Ironically, one of the few changes, one of the only changes, we have 
had at all to Federal dairy policy over the last 60 years has 
accelerated the attack on small farmers. It has made it worse. Of 
course, I am referring to the now infamous Northeast Dairy Compact.
  During the consideration of the 1996 farm bill, Congress sought to 
make changes in the unjust Federal pricing system by phasing out the 
milk price support program and reducing the inequities between the 
regions. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Unfortunately, because of 
backdoor politicking during the eleventh hour of the conference 
committee, America's dairy farmers were stuck with the devastatingly 
harmful Northeast Dairy Compact. It could happen again. The temporary 
fix of the compact may yet be extended again. We in the upper Midwest 
cannot stand for that or any change that further disadvantages our 
dairy farmers, the ones who are left, not the over 20,000 who are gone 
but the less than 25,000 who remain. We are determined to keep them in 
business.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact accentuates the current system's 
inequities by authorizing six Northeastern States--Vermont, Maine, New 
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut--to establish a 
minimum price for fluid milk, higher even than those established under 
the Federal milk marketing order. The compact not only allows these six 
States to set artificially high prices for their producers, it permits 
them to block entry of lower-priced milk from producers in competing 
States. Further distorting the markets are subsidies given to 
processors in these six States to export their higher-priced milk to 
noncompact States.
  Despite what some have argued, the Northeast Dairy Compact doesn't 
even help small Northeast farmers. Since

[[Page 22168]]

the Northeast first implemented its compact in 1997, small dairy farms 
in the Northeast, where this is supposed to help, have gone out of 
business at a rate of 41 percent higher than they had in the previous 2 
years--41 percent higher. In fact, compacts often amount to a transfer 
of wealth to large farms by affording large farms a per-farm subsidy 
that is actually 20 times greater than the meager subsidy given to 
small farmers.
  Fortunately for America's dairy farmers, the 1996 farm bill also 
included language requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture to 
replace the current depression-era milk pricing system with a much 
simpler regulatory plan. After 3\1/2\ years of study and thousands of 
comments from America's dairy farmers, the USDA published a final rule 
that consolidates the complex web of Federal milk marketing orders and 
also reforms the price of class I milk.
  Mr. President, 59,000 dairy farmers--59,000--participated in a recent 
referendum, and over 96 percent of them voted in favor of USDA's final 
ruling.
  While the USDA's reforms are a welcome improvement, they are only a 
modest first step in improving the current system.
  Let's take a look, then, at the final rule's effect on the different 
milk marketing orders. This chart illustrates the producer class I 
benefits under the current system, and the USDA's Federal milk 
marketing order rule. This benefit simply multiplies the class I 
differential with the utilization rate, or the percentage of class I 
milk produced in that region. As you can see, upper Midwest producers 
will continue to get the short end of the stick. They will receive a 
38-cent-per-hundredweight benefit under the new rule. In contrast, 
Northeast producers will continue to receive a high per hundredweight 
benefit of $1.20, and producers in Florida will receive a whopping 
$3.95 per hundredweight class I benefit.
  Unless we follow-up on these reforms and lower the class I 
differentials, we will continue to lose small dairy farms throughout 
the United States. Loss of these farms has already devastated rural 
America for far too long, especially in the upper Midwest.
  Mr. President, unfortunately, our Nation's dairy farmers are not out 
of the woods yet. Some in Congress believe that they know better than 
America's dairy farmers and wish to prevent these moderate reforms, or 
to circumvent the entire rulemaking process altogether. Who in this 
Congress knows more about dairy farming than 96 percent of America's 
dairy farmers?
  As Congress considers any future dairy reforms, I urge my colleagues 
to recognize the national nature of milk marketing, the corrosiveness 
of artificial regional pricing schemes, and the need for comprehensive 
reforms. We must recognize the inequalities inherent in our current 
system and work to ensure that our Nation's dairy farmers get a fair 
price for their milk.
  If Congress does not act quickly, our Nation's family dairy farms 
will continue to suffer. Let me be clear. I will use every means 
available to a Senator to ensure that these necessary reforms go 
forward and that compacts do not. America's dairy farmers deserve 
nothing less.
  After all, approving USDA's final rule is a moderate first step to 
arresting the devastating effects of the current Federal milk marketing 
order system.
  Dairy compacts are simply no way to legislate a national dairy 
policy. I would like to make my colleagues aware of some of the effects 
the dairy compacts can have on consumers and taxpayers.
  Let me begin by citing from an article called ``Dairy Compacts A Sour 
Deal For All U.S. Farmers.'' The sub-headline is, ``The Agreements 
Threaten to Undermine Export Growth For The Rest Of American 
Agriculture,'' by Dennis T. Avery, of the Hudson Institute. It says:

       Enthusiasm for ``dairy compacts'' is sweeping America. 
     Nearly 30 states now seem likely to pass legislation for such 
     compacts, which are designed to bar dairy products from 
     outside a state or region.
       The U.S. government has already authorized such a dairy 
     compact for New England, and dairy farmers recently staged a 
     Washington fly-in to rally congressional support for 
     expanding the concept.
       Supporters of these compacts are trying to recreate a dairy 
     industry of price supports and supply management. Such a 
     vision is incompatible with reducing tariffs on other farm 
     commodities or ending Europe's price-depressing export 
     subsidies.
       Europe dumps huge amounts of dairy products, along with 
     wheat, foodstuffs and meat, onto the world market at prices 
     far below cost, depressing world markets.
       U.S. dairy compacts threaten to undermine export growth for 
     the rest of American agriculture and fly in the face of 
     liberalizing farm trade.
       Free farm trade can't be arranged one commodity at a time. 
     What U.S. dairy farmers are considering could limit the 
     potential for lowering trade barriers on beef, pork, corn, 
     wheat, soybeans and poultry.
       Although dairy farmers have never seen themselves as 
     exporters, perhaps they should start. After all, this is an 
     era of high-value cheese markets, chilled concentrated and 
     ultra-heat-treated milk, and rising demand in industrializing 
     countries like India.
       Moreover, South Korea's bonds have regained investment 
     status, after a year of being classified as lower-rated 
     ``junk bonds.'' Over the next three years the South Koreans 
     will lead a parade of Asian countries back into the realm of 
     economic growth.
       At the moment, however, dairy farmers are willing to write 
     off export markets. Producers of other commodities can't do 
     that--exports are their only path to prosperity.

  Mr. President, I also want to make my colleagues aware of the effects 
on consumers and taxpayers. The Washington Post said it well in an 
April 6, 1999, editorial entitled ``The Price of Milk'':

       The government sets the price of milk in this country. 
     That's not all bad. Prices are somewhat higher than they 
     would be if left to the market, and some inefficient dairy 
     farmers are kept in business. But supplies of the perishable 
     product are adequate, and small producers are protected 
     against what otherwise might be the predatory and harmful 
     tactics of large buyers.
       Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has just completed a 
     congressionally required review of the system whereby the 
     government plays God in the market. He has proposed some 
     changes that would rationalize it in certain respects. But he 
     has found the basic balance between the interests of 
     producers and consumers about right. There may be a lesson in 
     that as Congress struggles with the question of how much to 
     support the prices of other commodities or the incomes of 
     their producers.
       In the 1996 farm bill, a new Republican Congress acted 
     according to conviction, and against political interest as 
     conventionally defined, to put farm supports on a declining 
     path. The theory was that if farmers grew for the market 
     rather than for the government, they and the consuming public 
     alike would be better off. The rollback worked well for a 
     couple of years, while prices and supports were both still 
     high. Now, both have fallen, and even some sponsors of the 
     legislation, if not quite wondering whether they went too 
     far, are busily seeking extra aid.
       Compelling points can be made on both sides of this 
     argument. The economists are right that artificial price 
     supports are costly in that they shelter inefficient 
     producers. But supports when not excessive also protect 
     against swings in price and production that can harm 
     consumers and producers alike. Costs are involved in going 
     too far in either direction.
       That's more or less where Mr. Glickman came out on milk. 
     There was a fight about milk marketing orders in the context 
     of the 1996 bill. Midwesterners thought--still think--that 
     their region is disadvantaged by the system in that their 
     efficient dairymen could undersell producers in competing 
     regions were it not for the artificially high minimum prices 
     that the marketing orders impose. They wanted to abolish the 
     system unless it was radically reformed in their favor. 
     Congressmen from less efficient areas were equally determined 
     to preserve it, even members who in other contexts were 
     devout free-marketeers. In the end the two sides compromised 
     by booting the issue to the secretary.
       Mr. Glickman has proposed modernizing the inherited system 
     in a number of respects, particularly with regard to the 
     price differentials between various regions. On average, he 
     would lower the price of milk by a couple of cents a gallon. 
     But in general he would support the system as fair to both 
     buyers and sellers of milk. If supports should not be 
     excessive, neither should they be so low as to leave both 
     sides in the milk transaction total prey to the market. That 
     may not be an intellectually elegant standard, but it's 
     probably right.

  The dairy industry is an integral part of our Nation's culture in 
history.
  Let's take a look at that role, if we can.
  Before I do that, let me quote briefly from the New York Times 
article from Sunday, April 11.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

[[Page 22169]]


  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will yield for a question without 
relinquishing my right to the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for those of us who are trying to bring up 
amendments on this bill, will the Senator, perhaps, give us an idea of 
how long he might proceed?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am not certain how long I will be 
proceeding at this point. It will be for a while.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the New York Times has written a piece 
about ``Bringing Markets To Milk,'' ``A Pricing Policy Was Confusing. 
It Still Is,'' by Mr. Weinstein. I would like to read some portions of 
that. He writes:

       Ponder a perverse question: What public policies would 
     pummel the poor? Here is one answer: Impose a levy that falls 
     more heavily on them than on the rich, singling out a staple 
     in the diet of poor families and driving up its price.
       No one would seriously entertain such an idea--no one, that 
     is, except members of Congress.
       Federal milk-pricing rules dating from the 1930's drive up 
     the price that consumers pay for milk, in effect taking money 
     from urban parents, among others, and handing it over to 
     rural dairy farmers.
       Proponents say the rules stabilize milk prices, thereby 
     assuring reliable supplies across the country. But opponents 
     say the system is archaic, Byzantine and unnecessary--a 
     giveaway to the dairy farm lobby. And it's regressive: poor 
     families spend about twice as much of their income on milk as 
     do other families, on average.
       Consumer advocates took heart three years ago when Congress 
     told the Agriculture Department to improve the program. But 
     their hopes were dashed recently when the department released 
     its proposals, scheduled to go into effect on Oct. 1.
       The new rules, the department said, would be ``simpler, 
     more market-oriented.'' But rather than taking a mallet to 
     the program, the department wielded a toothpick. John M. 
     Schnittker, an economist at Public Voice for Food and Health 
     Policy, a nonprofit research group in Washington that plans 
     to merge with the Consumer Federation of America, estimates 
     that the current program raises the cost of milk an average 
     of 18 cents a gallon. The department says its plan will cut 
     prices by about 2 cents--a trim Mr. Schnittker calls ``almost 
     an insult.''
       The current rules impose a complex set of minimum prices 
     that processors are requited to pay farmers in each of the 31 
     marketing regions.
       The department starts by setting a base price for milk used 
     in the manufacture of products like cheese from a survey of 
     prices in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Then it tacks on 
     additional charges, mostly reflecting location, to set the 
     minimum price for so-called fluid milk.
       Kenneth C. Clayton, deputy administrator of the agency that 
     runs the system, says the controls stop milk prices from 
     gyrating wildly and make sure that milk flows from areas 
     where there are surplus supplies, like upstate New York and 
     Wisconsin, to areas where there is scarcity, like Boston and 
     Chicago.
       But he concedes that those flows would occur without 
     Government guidance. What the rules do, he says, is ``divide 
     up the pie--insuring that dairy farmers capture more of the 
     dollar that consumers pay to processors.'' Another set of 
     complex rules dictates how the processors' payments are 
     divided among farmers.
       Many economists challenge Mr. Clayton's benign 
     interpretation. Processors operate in reasonably competitive 
     markets, the economists say, so if they are forced to pay 
     more for milk, they have little choice but to pass on the 
     added cost to customers. Mr. Schnittker points to studies 
     that show consumer prices rising along with Government-
     imposed charges on processors.
       He also challenges another rationale for the milk-pricing 
     rules: Preservation of the family farmer. ``Two-thirds of 
     milk production comes from only about a quarter of the 
     nation's dairy farmers,'' he said. ``The milk-pricing rules 
     overwhelmingly line the pockets of mega dairy farms.''
       The government's overhaul would simplify things by 
     collapsing the 31 regions into 11. But it would also make the 
     system more complicated, by setting the base price for milk 
     use in manufactured products according to surveys around the 
     country, rather than just the Midwest, and by adjusting the 
     price to take into account the milk's protein content and 
     other qualities using complex mathematical formulas.
       Add charges to take account of location and some transition 
     rules, and out come 600-plus pages of regulations. Some 
     economists suggest that the rule-making would fit comfortably 
     in the playbook of the former Soviet Union.
       And though the proposal would bring down average milk 
     prices a small amount, it would leave most of the high prices 
     intact. Indeed, the proposal would actually raise the minimum 
     price in some places, like Chicago, a decision more political 
     than economic.
       Critics point out that this is not the first time the 
     Agriculture Department has sided with dairy farmers over 
     consumers. It also approved the creation of a dairy cartel 
     among farmers in the Northeast that blocks low-price imports. 
     Milk prices in New England rose about 20 cents a gallon after 
     the compact went into effect in July 1997.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will yield without relinquishing my 
right to the floor for a question.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, recognizing the right of the Senator to 
continue to hold the floor, we are trying to figure out how we are 
going to manage the VA-HUD bill, which was the pending business until 
we yielded for the Senator's unanimous consent. Would the Senator share 
with me approximately how long he will continue to speak so we can 
organize our other speakers and amendments?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the answer to the question is, I intend 
to speak for a fair amount of time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. What is the operational definition of that?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, that may be determined more by factors 
that I can't control than my own intentions.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. What is the Senator talking about--5 minutes or 5 
hours?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Somewhere in between, probably.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Senator, I really do need senatorial courtesy because 
there are 99 other Senators trying to figure out what we are going to 
do with the rest of the evening. If the Senator would just share that 
with me, if the Senator wants to talk 5 hours, that is his business. If 
he wants to talk 10 hours, that is his business. But the pending VA-HUD 
bill is my business.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. My pending business that I think needs to be addressed 
by the Senate and the Congress is the outrageous treatment of Wisconsin 
dairy farmers.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Is the Senator not going to answer my question?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my answer to the Senator's question is 
that this needs to be addressed, and that is why I am here.
  Mr. President, I have the floor, I believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, since the question has been raised, I 
think it is time to review what has happened on the floor of the Senate 
and in the Congress on this issue in the past.
  What has happened on this issue is that we have fought this battle 
fair and square in the Senate, won the battle, and then every time we 
get to conference committee, somehow the will of this body is undone. 
In 1996, we had the only rollcall vote on the issue of the New England 
Dairy Compact, the Northeast Dairy Compact. I remember staying up until 
late at night lobbying Members, and we had a vote fair and square on 
whether or not we were going to set up this actually absurd notion of a 
New England Dairy Compact.
  So what did we do? We won the vote fair and square. I think it was 
something like 50-46. I remember the wonderful help and support I 
received from the distinguished majority leader at the time, Senator 
Dole, in feeling it was a tough battle--one of these tough inter-
regional battles--not a Republican or Democrat issue but that we had 
won fair and square. The House had not voted on the issue, but then 
they go over to the conference committee, and in the middle of the 
night, without any basis from the action of either House, they just 
stick in the conference committee the idea that the Secretary of 
Agriculture could create a region in New England that would establish 
an artificially high price for milk for only one part of the country to 
the disadvantage of farmers everywhere else.
  That is how we got here. This was part of the so-called Freedom to 
Farm Act.
  We had hopes that the Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, for 
whom I have great regard and have enjoyed working with, would 
understand what a mistake it would be to create this compact in the 
first place. We did everything we could to persuade him not to

[[Page 22170]]

go down this road--that it wouldn't make sense; that it wouldn't save 
northeastern dairy farmers; that it wouldn't help consumers, and, in 
fact, would hurt consumers; that it would drive up production 
artificially in a way that would reduce prices for dairy farmers. I 
believe that is exactly what happened.
  Secretary Glickman is a bright guy, and he has an open mind. He 
watched this for a year and a half. He concluded that the New England 
Dairy Compact was not a good idea and proposed, along with his 
suggestions on changing the milk marketing order system, that we not 
have it anymore, that it expire.
  We pointed out on the floor of the Senate on many occasions how this 
notion of a dairy compact, a regional economy for milk, could be 
applied in other situations. Perhaps we should say all the maple syrup 
in Vermont and States in that region should be sold, bought, and 
consumed in that one area and not exported to the rest of the country. 
Others have said we could do the same thing with blueberries. There 
would be a southern or Georgia peanut region, and all the peanuts grown 
there would have to be sold and consumed there. There would be an 
artificially high price for peanuts there but not anywhere else. Others 
carried it further. Since we associate the great city of Seattle, the 
State of Washington, with computers, why not have computers sold in the 
Northwest?
  I found even more interesting the notion that country music should 
only be marketed in States such as Tennessee and Kentucky. I happen to 
be a fan of country music, so I find that troubling, although some of 
my younger staffers would be delighted if we had that kind of 
limitation on country music. I don't think they like it.
  That is what this is, an artificial corruption of what should be a 
national dairy system. I don't mean corruption in the sense of 
impropriety; I mean in the sense of undercutting the notion of free 
enterprise in which the dairy industry should be able to participate. 
The Secretary reviewed it, and he concluded we shouldn't have this 
anymore.
  There has been an effort on the Senate floor and throughout the 
summer on and off to attach the New England Dairy Compact to other 
bills, including the agricultural appropriations bill. It was a hard 
fought battle. I give credit to those who want to preserve the New 
England Dairy Compact for their willingness to continue and to fight 
for their cause. They thought they were going to have 60 votes. They 
thought they had the votes to force this on to the bill. They did not, 
frankly, come very close at all. As I recall, they came some seven 
votes short of the goal rather than one or two.
  It was a decisive statement that made many in Wisconsin hope that 
finally, instead of just the politics of this, people would listen to 
the Secretary of Agriculture and realize this was not a good idea. We 
figured it was done. We knew we couldn't be sure because of what was 
done in 1996 in the conference committee. But we had hopes that this 
would not happen again. However, this is, unfortunately, now what is 
happening or what we fear could be happening.
  In the conference committee, which I had a chance to observe last 
week for a while, there is a real possibility that the Secretary's 
reasonable recommendations to modify to some extent the milk marketing 
order systems and to discontinue the Northeastern Dairy Compact--those 
items may be reversed and placed in the agricultural appropriations 
bill even though there has been no vote in the Senate or in the House 
to continue the dairy compact.
  Although I certainly regret having to come to the floor and proceed 
in this manner, I essentially have no choice. My farmers expect me to 
come to Washington and fight for their rights. It won fair and square 
on the floor. Yet somehow in conference committee these fair votes are 
taken away. Once again, as has been the case over and over again, dairy 
farmers in the upper Midwest are given the short end of the stick. It 
is only because these mistakes were made in terms of putting this 
compact together. Even the person who approved them, the Secretary of 
Agriculture, now sees it was not a very good idea and should be 
discontinued.
  I say to the Senators whose bill is up--and it is an important piece 
of legislation--it is a matter of what is going on in the conference 
committee now that forces me to come to the floor and explain in more 
detail to my colleagues just what is at stake. I don't know how many 
times I will repeat this. I have already mentioned it. We had over 
45,000 dairy farmers in Wisconsin around 1980. Only about 19 years 
later, we have fewer than 25,000. That is a huge loss not only of a way 
of life but of an economic base in our State. It is a tragedy for our 
State to have this trend continue.
  Let me discuss a bit about the way the dairy industry is an integral 
part of our Nation's culture and history. We will look at that role.
  Cheese, unlike its ancient cousin, yogurt, is not a novel food to 
Americans. It came over to America with the earliest settlers who made 
Cheddar cheese in their own homes.
  Like yogurt, though, the popularity of cheese has been steadily 
growing. One of the most natural and oldest of food products, dating 
back to the domestication of animals, about 9000 B.C., cheese was once 
so highly esteemed it was even used as a medium of exchange. It 
traveled with Greeks, the Romans and with the armies of Genghis Khan. 
During the Middle Ages, monks in the French monasteries developed a 
soft-ripened cheese, starting a cheese renaissance. Centuries later, in 
1851, Jesse Williams built the first commercial cheese factory in 
America. Herkimer, in upstate New York, grew into the cheese center of 
the United States until the westward expansion of the country resulted 
in Wisconsin gradually exceeding New York in total annual production. 
As pioneer wagons moved west, boats continued to carry others from 
across the ocean. The immigrants introduced their own favorite cheeses 
to America and contributed to the ``melting (cheese) pot.''
  As the number of cheeses available in the United States has enlarged, 
so has the consumer demand. The consumption of cheese in 1975 was 14.2 
pounds per person compared to 9.1 pounds in 1965.
  Natural cheese is a product of milk that has been heated, pressed, 
and cured. In the United States, cheese is made from pasteurized cow's 
milk. While milk is generally used except for some varieties such as 
cottage cheese which uses skim milk. When milk is heated, usually with 
a starter of some kind, rennet or bacterial culture, it separates into 
soft curd and liquid whey.
  After the milk has been heated, but before it has started to ripen, 
the soft curd may be separated from the whey and with some additional 
treatment made into a fresh natural unripened cheese.
  Unripened cheeses contain relatively high moisture and do not undergo 
any curing or ripening. They are sold fresh and should be used within a 
few days after purchase. The gjetost and primost, however, because they 
contain very low moisture, may be kept refrigerated for several weeks 
or even months.
  Cottage cheese, is low calorie cheese, is made in different sized 
curds. The small-curd type is usually used in salads because it holds 
its shape better than the larger curds which are suitable for all other 
purposes. To prepare creamed cottage cheese, fresh cream is mixed with 
the curd to give it additional moisture and flavor.
  Cream cheese is of American origin and is one of our most popular 
soft cheeses. It is a mixture of milk and cream that is coagulated but 
unripened.
  Unripened cheese may also be divided into soft or firm types.
  Cream cheese and cottage cheese are examples of a soft unripened 
cheese. An example of firm unripened cheese is mozzarella.
  To make natural ripened cheese, the soft curd is taken from the 
liquid whey and then cured by holding it at a certain temperature and 
humidity for a specified period of time.
  Natural ripened cheeses may also be classified according to their 
degree of

[[Page 22171]]

hardness. Authorities generally group natural cheese into four distinct 
groups of hardness: soft, semi-soft, firm, and very hard. Hardness has 
to do with moisture. The older the cheese, the lower its moisture 
content.
  Brie and Camembert, both of which originated in France, are ripened 
by mold. The curd is not cut nor is it pressed. Cheese lovers all over 
the world hold these two cheeses in the highest of esteem.
  Brie is considered to be the Queen of Cheeses. There are probably 
more literary references to Brie than to any other cheese. Its 
descriptions are often accompanied by superlatives but it is a 
difficult cheese to buy satisfactorily because it goes from under 
ripened to over ripened in a matter of a few days.
  It is at its peak when it has a consistency of a heavy slow-pouring 
liquid and a yellow sheen. Under ripe Brie is flaky and chalky. 
Overripe Brie is very soft and has an off-order like ammonia.
  Camembert is a popular cheese in France and is widely known in the 
United States. It has as devoted a following as Brie and also the same 
ephemeral quality of being ripe for only a very short time.
  Limburger and Liederkranz are examples of bacteria-ripened cheeses. 
The different bacteria used in the ripening process are responsible for 
their characteristic flavor and odor.
  Included in this category are the blue-veined cheeses. There are now 
over fifty varieties of blue cheeses made all over the world. However, 
the best known and most highly prized are Roquefort, Stiliton, and 
Gorgonzola.
  Blue cheeses are called the ``king of cheeses.'' They are made from 
cow's milk. Roquefort is the exception. It is made from sheep's milk 
and is cured in the cool damp caves of southwestern France.
  Bel Paese is a popular, all purpose cheese made in Italy and under 
license in the United States--Wisconsin, of course. It is a table 
cheese as well as cooking cheese.
  Brick is an original American Cheese whose name derives from either 
the shape of the cheese or, perhaps, from the brick originally used in 
pressing the curd. It is softer than Cheddar and less sharp. It is a 
strong cheese, but not as strong as Limburger.
  Muenster, as made in France where it is very popular, is strong 
cheese. It is used as table cheese. However, the American kind is much 
more bland and is suitable for cooking as well as for a table cheese.
  Port du Salut originated in a Trappist monastery in France. The 
French import is usually mellow with a slight edge.
  The hard or firm cheese list includes the two most popular cheeses in 
the United States, Cheddar and Swiss.
  Cheddar cheese accounts for almost half of all the cheese consumed in 
America. It ranges from a very mild cheese to a very sharp one 
depending upon how long it's been aged. A versatile cheese, suitable 
for most cheese dishes, it melts well.
  Canadian Cheddar is imported into the United States, but English 
Cheddar, by law, is not. The English relative to Cheddar, the famous 
Cheshire is imported.
  More American Cheddar cheese is made in Wisconsin than any other 
state. There are variations to different kinds of cheese. Colby is 
primarily made in the Midwest while Monterey (Jack) and Tillamook is 
processed on the West Coast. Colby is not as compressed as the other 
cheddars and it has a higher moisture content. Monterey is also a 
milder cheddar and has a higher moisture content. There is a more aged 
Monterey called ``dry Monterey'' that can be used for grating.
  A large amount of Cheddar cheese sold in the United States is sold as 
processed American cheese.
  Provolone and Cacciocavalle are spun cheeses. The curd is placed in 
either hot water or hot whey and then stretched into its desired shape 
or size. They are an important ingredient in Italian cooking. The 
Provolone is usually smoked.
  The Edam and Gouda cheeses are the most popular cheeses imported from 
the Netherlands. Similar in flavor, the Edam is made from partly skim 
milk and the Gouda from whole milk.
  In the category of very hard cheeses, Parmesan has a mild to sharp 
piquant flavor and is famous as a seasoning in cooking. It has the 
natural ability of enhancing the flavor of foods. The imported Italian 
Parmesan is a highly prized cheese and is used as a table cheese as 
well as for seasoning. The domestic varieties are primarily grated for 
seasoning and for cooking.
  Romano is a sharper cheese than Parmesan. In Italy it is usually made 
from sheep's milk instead of from cow's milk. It is primarily a grating 
cheese but the less sharp cheese may be used as a table cheese. The 
domestic variety is primarily a grating cheese.
  Sap Sago is a grating cheese from Switzerland to which has been added 
dried clover. It is made by mixing whey and skim cow's milk.
  I would like to say a little more about the process of making 
cheeses, butter, cream, and yogurt at home.
  Although animals have been milked by man almost from the dawn of 
civilization, there are Egyptian paintings showing cattle being milked 
around 2000 B.C., the use of liquid milk was almost unknown until 
comparatively recently.
  Until the beginning of the 17th century, milk drinking was considered 
quite injurious to health and, in view of the low standards of dairy 
hygiene, the incidence of cattle plague, and the fact that milk 
contained dangerous pathogenic factors, especially the germs of 
tuberculosis and typhoid, this was probably right at the time.
  It reminds me of a dairy farmer who came to see me after I was 
elected to the Senate. I met him in the reception area outside the 
Chamber. He told me he was going over to some of the former Soviet 
Republics to try to help farmers there learn some of the skills we have 
in dairy farming. He told me his goal was to make sure that the milk in 
one of these former Soviet Republics could not walk to the market by 
itself. I understood what he was saying. If you do not do this right, 
as we do in America, in Wisconsin, then we have to be concerned. That 
is one of the reasons milk might have gotten off to sort of a slow 
start in some of these countries, given the risks.
  The fact is, many children died of tuberculosis of bovine origin up 
until the late 19th century. It was not until the 1930s, when 
pasteurization and refrigeration of milk became accepted, and when 
concentrated efforts were inaugurated to eradicate the disease of 
bovine tuberculosis, that milk became safe and acceptable. I can tell 
you, growing up in Janesville, WI, we were taught about pasteurization 
as one of the most important events in human history. When you are from 
Wisconsin, that is a big deal, as it is almost anywhere.
  Mr. GRAMS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Without yielding my right to the floor, I am happy to 
yield for a question.
  Mr. GRAMS. I heard the Senator earlier talking about what is going on 
in the conference committee now, dealing with agricultural 
appropriations. The Senator talked about the Northeast Dairy Compact. 
As mentioned, we had a full and open debate, had a floor vote, and were 
able to defeat the compact--as we did 2 years ago, by the way. Also, we 
talked about farmers across the country, dairy farmers, recently voting 
for a compromise on milk marketing orders, the new orders that were put 
out by the USDA. It was not everything everybody wanted, but it was a 
compromise between the 1-B and the 1-A. But now we find out again, as 
happened in 1997, people are working actively inside the conference to 
try to insert language to basically overturn those issues that have had 
widespread solid support, both among the dairy farmers across the 
country and also Members on the floor of the Senate.
  I was wondering why is this going on in the conference, in the 
Senator's opinion?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his question. I 
note the presence of the senior Senator from Minnesota. Minnesota has 
fewer dairy farmers than Wisconsin, but it has a whole lot. Together, 
our two States comprise a tremendous percentage of dairy production in 
the country. We

[[Page 22172]]

are adamant in this effort to try to stop what the Senator from 
Minnesota correctly points out is the same old trick. We won fair and 
square in 1997. There was not a vote in the House. They did not have a 
vote: should we have a New England Dairy Compact or not. We did. It was 
a tough vote.
  I tell you, this is a tough issue, a hard issue. One thing I like 
about it is that it is not about Republicans versus Democrats. It is 
one of those rare times when everyone in the body is open to be for 
something not based on their party but based on what is best for their 
area and what is best for the country.
  So we had quite a debate. We all worked together on it. As I pointed 
out earlier, it was a close vote, but we won--I hope I am not given the 
wrong number--I think with roughly a 50-46 bipartisan vote where we 
voted not to have the compact. It went to conference.
  I was in the State legislature in Wisconsin for 10 years. We had 
conference committees. They were often not the most attractive moments, 
of course, as things that go on in conference committees get a little 
rough. But there was a basic understanding that unless there was some 
basis from one house or the other for the outcome, it could not be 
done.
  That is not what was done in this conference committee in 1996. 
Without any justification, this compact, or the permission to allow the 
Secretary of Agriculture to put the compact into effect, was placed in. 
And yes, I fear--although I hope it does not happen--that is exactly 
what is happening again.
  There was an attempt here to force the compact continuation or 
extension on to the Ag appropriations bill. All three of us and Senator 
Kohl and others worked together and many other Senators from across the 
country, and they did not even come close to getting the 60 votes.
  So that is my concern. That is why I am out here.
  Mr. GRAMS. I would like to follow up my question.
  I know Senator Wellstone would like to be part of this debate and ask 
a question as well.
  But I know we have some differences on the Freedom to Farm, but one 
thing Freedom to Farm did not do is pit one region of farmers against 
another, whether it was dealing with corn or soybeans or any of the 
other commodities. But somehow when it comes to dairy, an antiquated 
system, as you mentioned, needs to be changed.
  We are looking at something that basically says we are going to have 
some winners in this country--when it comes to dairy--but we are going 
to have some losers. In other words, the dairy farmers in Wisconsin and 
Minnesota have the Government with an antiquated dairy program standing 
on their necks and saying: You are not going to be able to succeed 
because we are going to put limits on you. Yet we are going to give 
tremendous advantages to others.
  All we are asking for is fairness, a level playing field. We are not 
asking for farmers in the Northeast or the Southwest to be 
disadvantaged. But we sure cannot support a program that says: You are 
going to have some farmers who are winners and some who are losers.
  So how do we work this into a new dairy bill coming out of this 
session that is going to give our farmers just an opportunity to 
compete, which is all they ask for?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. To answer the excellent question of the Senator from 
Minnesota, this makes no sense. You and I have views on the Freedom to 
Farm Act. I strongly oppose it. I thought it was a bad idea. In fact, 
the results of it are shocking.
  No one has been more eloquent about this than the senior Senator from 
Minnesota, who has pointed out the enormous tragedy that has occurred 
with many farmers around the country because of that law.
  But what is bizarre about it, as you point out, is that in one area, 
instead of going the Freedom to Farm route, they voted to keep not just 
Government regulation but to put in place a system of regulation and 
marketing that only dealt with one small region of the country where 
there are only a few thousand dairy farmers, when there are some 25,000 
in Wisconsin and a substantial number in Minnesota. It is a complete 
opposite of the notion of a free market national system.
  Even for those of us who oppose the Freedom to Farm Act, those of us 
who oppose the Freedom to Farm Act are not proposing for wheat or corn 
or pork or beef or anything else that there be regional markets. 
Whatever philosophy you have, whether it be Government supports to 
guarantee our farmers do not fall below a certain level, or whether you 
believe in a complete freedom to farm or freedom to fail, some would 
say--either way--this idea of a regional market for a particular 
commodity is an example of ridiculous Federal interference.
  We need a national dairy market. Upper Midwestern farmers will do 
fine in a national dairy market. But one that is unfairly skewed for 
one region, when the underlying system is already terribly unfair, is a 
double whammy that has cost us far too many lives and far too many 
livelihoods of farmers in Wisconsin and Minnesota and throughout the 
upper Midwest.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams, 
for his questions and his work on this issue. He has really been 
tireless in his advocacy for dairy farmers in Minnesota.
  I actually have two questions for the Senator from Wisconsin to which 
I would like him to respond.
  The first question is whether or not the Senator, since he is out 
here on the floor right now, could translate this debate about the 
dairy compact in personal terms. In other words, there is a reason why 
you must be out here. If you could give other Senators a feel for what 
it has been like to be out at dairy farms, meet with dairy farmers, and 
what is happening to the families in Wisconsin and Minnesota.
  My second question would be, since the Senator is out here--and I 
don't know what is the period of time; I know the Senator from Maryland 
wants to get some clarity on that, and I imagine the Senator will do 
what he needs to do and then move on with this bill, with the VA-HUD 
bill--I want to ask the Senator the other question, which is, again, 
the particular concern that he has about the nature of this process in 
the conference committee.
  You are out here to basically sound an alarm. You are out here to 
say: Listen, I want to make it clear that in no way, shape, or form 
should you be able in conference committee--which is almost behind the 
scenes basically--to negate a vote we had already.
  So I wonder whether you could deal with those: In personal terms, 
what this is about for dairy farmers in our States; and second, the 
particular point you intend to make right here on the floor of the 
Senate about what is happening right now in conference.
  You said it before, but I think it needs to be repeated.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Minnesota.
  I say no one has made it more his business to articulate what has 
happened to American farmers in general, particularly in the last few 
years. He was an inspiration to me in that regard before I got to this 
body. We are proud in Wisconsin, but not too proud to look west to 
Minnesota for that kind of inspiration at times.
  Let me start with the second question. The first one involves, as you 
know, a lot of memories: 17 years of working with farmers.
  But the second question really is always a hard one. People say to 
me: How can it be that you have a vote, fair and square, in the body in 
which you have been elected to serve, and there was no vote in the 
other House, and somehow this committee that is appointed to get 
together to resolve the differences between the Houses ends up coming 
up with the exact opposite of what the Senate had resolved?
  You can say: Well, that's the way things always are. But that does 
not satisfy people. There are supposed to be

[[Page 22173]]

some rules, both formal and informal, about the way business is done. 
It has always been my understanding, unless there is some basis in one 
House or the other for putting something into the conference committee, 
it should not be put in there.
  It sounds like, as they say, inside baseball. But what it really is 
is a cynicism that what we do out here is irrelevant to what happens in 
the conference committee.
  So I am sounding the alarm, as you suggested. I know people hate to 
lose. I hate to lose. I hated to lose when we won fair and square 2 
years ago. I hated to lose when we begged the Secretary of Agriculture 
to not do this because we thought it was a lousy idea. He did not 
agree. Now he admits it is not a very good idea.
  I think it is time for those on the other side to understand that 
sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. There are rules, there is 
fairness, and there is no fairness to this process when we win this 
vote time and again on the floor of the Senate, and somehow we are 
still stuck with this thing because of a few people in the conference 
committee.
  I hope it does not happen, I say to the Senator from Minnesota, but I 
am worried about it. I certainly feel bad that I am compelled to do 
this in light of the wishes of the Senator from Maryland and people who 
are bringing this bill forward. It is a terribly important piece of 
legislation. We have to act on behalf of our dairy farmers and because 
of what has happened in the past. Because of the fact that fairness is 
not applied to our issue, we have no choice but to speak. The reason I 
feel so strongly is that I have watched the decimation of Wisconsin's 
dairy farmers. I became a State senator in 1982, just 2 years after the 
year I like to mention as sort of the benchmark, when we had over 
45,000 dairy farmers in Wisconsin. I grew up in a family and am old 
enough to remember, we didn't get our milk and our eggs at the store. 
The milk was delivered every morning by the milkman, and we got the 
eggs once a week by going out to farms in the area. That, to me, was 
the way it was done. We knew personally many of the family farmers in 
our area, and they were good friends of our family. It was part of our 
community.
  There was no question in my mind, when I was elected to the Wisconsin 
State Senate, representing a largely rural area, that at the very top 
of my list had to be making sure these folks who had been providing 
food for us forever could continue to live. I would have been stunned 
and horrified to know that 17 years later I would be out here with 
about half of Wisconsin dairy farmers being lost.
  I can trace it for the Senator from Minnesota, if he would like, 
through the hundreds of conversations I have had. I had them as a State 
senator, and I have had them as a U.S. Senator. I go to every 1 of 
Wisconsin's 72 counties every year and hold a town meeting. We open the 
door, and whoever wants to come to the town hall can come in. And in 
every 1 of Wisconsin's 72 counties, except for possibly Milwaukee, a 
farmer has come in or many farmers have come in and told me about the 
pressure on them because of this pricing system and, in the last couple 
of years, because of the overproduction that this New England Dairy 
Compact has caused. It varies. Sometimes they are just concerned.
  But I say to the Senator from Minnesota, in the last 2 years I have 
had farmers I have known for 17 years, proud men and women, come to my 
town meetings and begin their presentation clearly, concisely, 
politely, but near the end of their presentation they have started to 
cry because they are sick and tired of not being able to pass on that 
farm to their kids.
  That is not a very fun thing to watch--to watch a 70-year-old man who 
is still working his farm take the time to come to my town meeting and 
to try to say how he felt and to be unable to complete the presentation 
and to probably feel embarrassed, but it is that bad.
  The hardest thing for me to hear is the farmer who says: I wanted my 
kids to go into farming, to go into dairy, but I cannot tell them it is 
a good idea. That is usually the point at which one of the farmers just 
can't go on. His dream, a lot of times the dream of his son or 
daughter, is actually to continue the family tradition, and they can't 
because the Federal Government is meddling in having a fair and open 
dairy market, the kind in which they would have done very well.
  That is a brief answer, and I could go on and on.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for one final question?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator has talked about his indignation about 
what might happen in conference committee, and we are on the floor 
trying to make it clear that it will be unacceptable and we will fight 
it all the way, if there should be an effort to undo the vote of the 
Senate.
  The Senator has talked in personal terms. I want to say to him as a 
friend--I am not trying to get psychological here--but he spoke 
differently than I have ever heard him speak on the floor of the Senate 
when he talked about some of the farmers and conversations and how 
people start out very eloquent and rational and then just break down 
crying. I have had the same thing going on right now with many of our 
producers, dairy and crop and livestock, across the board. That is the 
convulsion in agriculture right now. It is awful. We have to change it.
  Could the Senator explain for people the connection between this 
fight, the plight of dairy farmers, and the national interests. Could 
he make a linkage as to why he thinks it is in the interest of our 
country not to have these compacts and to make sure that dairy farmers 
in Wisconsin and Minnesota have a fair shake and have the opportunity 
to be able to earn a decent living.
  In other words, I can see how some would say, he is out here doing it 
for Wisconsin--we are doing it for our States--but what is the 
connection to the rest of us?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I say to the Senator from Minnesota, that really is the 
fundamental question. It relates closely to what he has done such an 
excellent job of talking about. This isn't just about whether or not we 
are going to have a higher price for dairy farmers in New England or 
somewhat lower price in Wisconsin and the age-old regional battles. 
Something happens that is very dangerous to our democracy when we lose 
these small farms. We lose the ability to have people who own their own 
property produce our food. I think that is dangerous.
  What is happening in every sector of the economy, especially in 
agriculture, is the consolidation of the control of the food supply 
into a few hands. I think the Senator from Minnesota knows the 
statistics better than I do, but I think in grain, I was told that one 
company is going to control something like 95 percent of the grain.
  The Senator from Missouri, who was on the floor before, has made the 
point in meetings that we have a problem in this country when we go to 
the store and we buy some ham and we pay more for it than the farmer 
was getting for the whole pig for awhile. Somebody is making the money. 
It is not the small farmer. Dairy is only one example of this trend.
  What happens is, when you lose these small farms in places like 
Minnesota and Wisconsin, of course, milk is still being produced, but 
it tends to be produced in these very large corporate operations, 
whether they are in Wisconsin, but more likely in other places. I 
remember flying into a western State that I won't name and flying into 
an airport saying: What is that down there? It looked similar to the 
General Motors plant in Janesville. Somebody told me it was a dairy 
farm.
  This isn't the dairy farming that I grew up to believe not only was 
basic to our economy but basic to our culture, basic to our democracy, 
and, yes, control of our own food supply. If big corporations and 
multinational corporations own our land and our food supply, isn't this 
even a question of national security? I think it is an element of 
national security if we own our own food product. The best way to keep 
owning it is to have small, individual

[[Page 22174]]

producers all over this country continue to survive.
  To me, I don't know if that is exactly what the Senator from 
Minnesota was getting at, but it is a fair point that this isn't just 
about the upper Midwest versus New England and so on. What it is really 
about is, can these small operators who live in Wisconsin and Minnesota 
continue to exist?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if the Senator is going to continue to 
speak, then that is one thing. I don't want to hold up deliberations. I 
think the Senator from Maryland has a question to ask. I will just 
simply defer.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I was prepared to go on to discuss the 
VA-HUD bill, and I am prepared to continue to discuss the VA-HUD bill.
  Mr. President, who has the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from 
Wisconsin has the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me say, because the Senator from 
Maryland has been very patient, I am sorry I had to delay this 
important legislation to this point. I am going to conclude for now. 
Again, I regret that this is necessary. However, as a Senator from the 
great State of Wisconsin, I will continue to fight for a fair national 
dairy policy as we await the outcome of the conference and in the days 
to follow.
  Obviously, in taking this unusual step, I am merely signaling to the 
Senate that there certainly will be more discussions of the same kind 
if this goes forward.
  Before I yield the floor, I see the Senator from Minnesota. I wonder 
if he wanted to ask me one more question.
  Mr. GRAMS. I wanted to ask a quick question if I could. What we are 
asking for doesn't cost money. This is not a request to give farmers in 
Minnesota or Wisconsin more money but to allow them the ability to 
compete on a level playing field. That is all we are asking for, as far 
as this dairy policy goes.
  As you mentioned, and very well have laid out the problem, this is a 
program set up in 1930, completely outdated. If we were going to begin 
a new milk marketing program today, it would not look like anything 
debated in the committees at all. This is an unfair system, outdated. 
It has no rhyme or reason to markets or regions or producers or our 
dairy farmers. So we have a system now, and all we are asking for is 
legislation or a program that would allow our farmers to compete. We 
are willing to compete with anybody in any part of the country and let 
the chips fall where they may.
  At the same time, this program will cost consumers additional money, 
whether it is low-income, whether it is school lunch programs, or 
whatever it is. So this program has a lot of negatives to it, and all 
we are asking for is a level playing field and competition. Is that 
what the Senator says?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes. I thank both Senators from Minnesota for joining 
me. Of course, the Senator is absolutely right. This is not about a 
guaranteed price for the farmers. It is not about any kind of 
legislation, some of which I might support. This is an attempt to 
prevent the continuation of an absurd distortion of our dairy market in 
the New England Dairy Compact. We are looking for fairness both in 
terms of the policy and the procedure of this institution. I thank the 
Senator from Minnesota. Again, I thank the Senator from Maryland for, I 
hope, understanding.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Carl Levin and Senator John Kerry be added as cosponsors to the Bond-
Byrd-Mikulski-Stevens VA health care amendment, No. 1744.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as you know, we intended to have an 
extended conversation about the VA-HUD bill. Obviously, I appreciate 
the Senators' needs to defend their constituents' interests, and the 
plight of people losing businesses, of course, is significant to us 
all. I wish I would have known the time so we could have been better 
able to organize and plan our amendments.
  I know the leadership of both parties is now consulting on what is 
the best way to proceed for the rest of the evening in terms of 
amendments to be offered. I know there are amendments that are being 
drafted, and I also know the two leaders are discussing what is the 
best way to come to closure on the number of amendments to be offered. 
So right this minute, because we missed a certain window to offer two 
important amendments, we are now involved in a process. But I am 
reluctant to yield the floor except to Senator Bond because I am going 
to stick on VA-HUD, and with all of the compelling issues in that bill.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my very able ranking member for her 
efforts to move the bill forward. We certainly intend to do so. I have 
a clarifying amendment, a technical correction amendment.


                           amendment no. 1779

    (Purpose: To clarify the prohibition on using Federal funds for 
        lobbying or litigating. This is a technical correction)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1779.
       On page 111, beginning on line 4, strike out ``or be used'' 
     and all that follows through ``litigation activity'' on line 
     5.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is simply a technical correction the 
experts have told us is necessary to assure that the provisions in the 
law at that point are properly phrased. I know of no controversy on it. 
It is technical in nature. I believe it has been cleared on both sides.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I think we are in agreement on this 
amendment. I am prepared to accept it.
  Mr. BOND. I ask for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1779) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and all our colleagues. We 
have been making great progress. We are ready to move forward on 
several matters relating to the housing section of the bill.
  I am sorry that it appears we are not ready to do so.
  I renew my request to all Members who have amendments. We welcome the 
opportunity to look at them. On some of these amendments, we find we 
can work them out in a way that is very easy to accommodate the 
reasonable requests of our colleagues. We want to do so in every 
possible way. But as I believe we have said many other times, we are 
facing a real time deadline.
  We need to get this measure passed out of the Senate, I hope, no 
later than tomorrow. Then we can go to conference committee and get it 
back and send the conference report to the President prior to September 
30 so this measure will not have to be included in the continuing 
resolution. To do so would relieve a tremendous amount of burdens from 
the agencies that are covered and would certainly move forward the work 
of this body. We have had good discussions, and we have had very 
helpful discussions from a number of Members who have not offered 
amendments. We are not looking for more amendments, but if there are 
Senators who have either colloquies they wish us to include or 
amendments they wish to offer, we would be happy to consider them at 
this time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to convey to the Senator from 
Missouri that we are trying to reach the Senator from Massachusetts 
about his amendment. As you know, he was prepared to offer them and 
then he moved on to other constituent meetings because we didn't know 
if we were in a filibuster or not. I didn't even know, and we are sorry 
that we could not pinpoint the time.

[[Page 22175]]

  I say to the Senator from Missouri, just another few moments of 
patience. We are contacting Senator Kerry to see if he can break free 
from the meetings and come to the floor to offer his amendment within 
the next 20 minutes or so, or shorter. In the meantime, we also know 
the Senator is anxious, as I am, for a unanimous consent to be hotlined 
with a deadline for amendments to be filed.
  As I understand it, we are waiting for the majority leader to see if 
he is in agreement with the UC as proposed by the Democratic leader. We 
are waiting, one, for Senator Lott on the UC, and Senator John Kerry, 
the Senator from Massachusetts, to come this evening. If he can, we 
will keep on going. If not, I am not quite sure what the other 
amendments are. I know the Senator from Missouri has a whole group of 
constituents who are a special affinity group for him that he is 
anxious to get to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for her 
help.


                           amendment no. 1780

(Purpose: To require a report on the effect of the allocation of funds 
  under Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) formula on the 
rural subregions of the health care system administered by the Veterans 
                         Health Administration)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Ms. Snowe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1780:

       On page 17, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       Sec. 108. (a) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the 
     Senate that it should be the goal of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs to serve all veterans equitably at health 
     care facilities in urban and rural areas.
       (b) Report Required.--(1) Not later than six months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' 
     Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives a 
     report on the impact of the allocation of funds under the 
     Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) funding formula 
     on the rural subregions of the health care system 
     administered by the Veterans Health Administration.
       (2) The report shall include the following:
       (A) An assessment of impact of the allocation of funds 
     under the VERA formula on--
       (i) travel times to veterans health care in rural areas;
       (ii) waiting periods for appointments for veterans health 
     care in rural areas;
       (iii) the cost associated with additional community-based 
     outpatient clinics;
       (iv) transportation costs; and
       (v) the unique challenges that Department of Veterans 
     Affairs medical centers in rural, low-population subregions 
     face in attempting to increase efficiency without large 
     economies of scale.
       (B) The recommendations of the Secretary, if any, on how 
     rural veterans' access to health care services might be 
     enhanced.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have let the clerk read the entire sense-
of-the-Senate resolution because I think it makes the point. I believe 
there is nothing further I can add to the terms of that Senate 
resolution. It simply requires VA to undertake a study of rural 
subregions. I urge its adoption.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I concur with its adoption and want to 
congratulate the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, for this amendment. Her 
criteria on Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation--nicknamed VERA--is 
absolutely right. I hope the VA uses it as a model for looking at the 
delivery generally: Travel time to veterans' health care, waiting time 
for appointments, costs associated with additional community-based 
outpatients, and also not only the waiting period but what we heard in 
other debate is, sometimes they wait and then they are sent home, 
sending them back another 150 miles and coming back another 150 miles. 
I believe our veterans have marched long enough and they shouldn't have 
to march to get their health care.
  This side of the aisle accepts this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1780) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, thank you very much. I thank my colleague 
from Maryland. I believe it is a very good amendment.
  We are at this moment waiting to find out from others what the 
schedule will be for this evening and whether there are additional 
amendments to be offered.
  At this point, we intend to stay on the bill. I see the Senator from 
Nevada is ready to speak on the bill. I withhold my suggestion on the 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BRYAN. 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. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about two important 
components of the legislation before us today that would severely 
impact the state of public housing both in my home state of Nevada and 
throughout our nation.
  The distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee 
have undoubtedly worked hard to provide the needed funding for a number 
of critical programs in the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I commend them 
for their efforts. Nevertheless, I am forced to say that I am 
disappointed that this bill falls far short in continuing our 
commitment to provide affordable, quality housing to low and moderate 
income families.
  Of particular concern, Mr. President, is the lack of funding for any 
new section 8 housing vouchers despite the considerable demand and need 
for such assistance in communities throughout the nation.
  The section 8 program provides vital assistance to American families.
  In 1998, 1.4 million Americans were receiving assistance under this 
program and countless more have been on waiting lists for months and 
sometimes years for this needed assistance.
  Who receives assistance under the Section 8 program? According to 
CRS, recipients of section 8 vouchers are typically single-parent 
households with children under the age of 18. Most participants have 
income well below the poverty level, and the average household income 
of a recipient is well below $10,000.
  Mr. President, we are all aware that the American economy has been 
roaring for the last few years, and we are all delighted that inflation 
and unemployment numbers are at record lows and job growth and housing 
starts are at record highs. But lost in this economic expansion and 
prosperity are millions of Americans who continue to struggle to make 
ends meet and adequately provide for their families.
  The section 8 program has historically served as a lifeline to low 
income households, providing needed assistance to those American 
families seeking to raise their children in quality, affordable homes 
in safe, livable communities.
  Last year we were successful in providing almost 100,000 new section 
8 vouchers to address the substantial shortage in affordable housing, 
the first new vouchers in five years.
  As my colleagues will recall, the authorizing legislation passed by 
the Senate last year authorized 100,000 new section 8 housing vouchers 
for the upcoming fiscal year.
  And yet the legislation before us provides no new vouchers despite 
the growing gap between the public housing assistance needed and 
assistance available.
  As an example of how disconcerting this issue has become in my own 
state of Nevada, low and moderate income families in Las Vegas, Reno 
and numerous other communities currently have to wait for a period of 
over 8 months for public housing--8 months, Mr. President.
  The wait for section 8 vouchers in Nevada is even worse. That delay 
is

[[Page 22176]]

over 50 months, Mr. President. Over four years for a section 8 voucher. 
And yet the legislation before inexplicably does not provide any 
additional funding for section 8 housing vouchers despite this 
substantial increase in demand.
  It is my understanding that there will be an amendment to this bill 
to provide additional vouchers along the lines of the administration's 
request and I look forward to supporting that effort.
  Let me address another issue that I believe was inadequately 
addressed in the bill and that I regret to say in my view is a setback.
  I was also disappointed to learn that the underlying legislation 
before us today seeks to zero-out HUD's highly effective Community 
Builders Program.
  Let me say parenthetically that during the recently concluded August 
recess my staff and I had the chance to visit with some of the 
community builders to learn about their effectiveness, and in the very 
short time that this program has been in existence I have heard 
considerable feedback from local officials, community leaders, and 
others throughout our State in praise of the Community Builders 
Program.
  By way of example, the eight community builders working in HUD's Las 
Vegas regional office have been able to bring HUD officials and 
community leaders together to solve local problems by developing 
strategies that draw resources from a multitude of Federal programs. 
All who are familiar with the Federal bureaucracy know it can be very 
difficult to bring together all the various programs with all of their 
intricacies and requirements and to meld those together to develop an 
effective program for the housing needs of our communities.
  During the brief existence of this program, we have witnessed a 
number of success stories in both the southern and northern parts of 
Nevada. Let me share some recent accomplishments of the program in the 
Las Vegas area. Community builders in Las Vegas have partnered with 
southern Nevada's local office of the Bureau of Land Management to 
facilitate the conveyance of a large tract of vacant BLM land to the 
city of Las Vegas for the development of affordable housing for low-
income and moderate-income residents.
  Community builders are working with several housing partners to 
develop two to four units of single-family detached housing using 
technologically advanced materials and building processes to show how 
technology can reduce the cost and improve the quality of single-family 
housing.
  Community builders are undertaking the first phase of development of 
a new 400-unit mobile home park in Pahrump, NV. Pahrump, NV, is located 
in my county and one of the 10 fastest growing counties in the entire 
country. This is being done at the same time by streamlining housing 
code compliance to ensure safety and yet also to reduce the cost.
  Community builders in Las Vegas are working to develop a lender 
certification program designed to assist in the extension of mortgage 
programs and products to an increased number of low- and moderate-
income families and individuals. These success stories in the southern 
part of our State have also been mirrored in northern Nevada.
  For example, when BHP Copper Mine in Ely shut down mining operations, 
more than 400 individuals representing 12 percent of the area's 
workforce were laid off, dealing a devastating blow to a struggling 
community. The community builders in Reno immediately went to work, 
joining with local officials in organizing a community partnership 
forum with community leaders and representatives from many Federal, 
State, and nonprofit agencies. This effort resulted in the development 
of an action plan that identified solutions and opportunities for 
mitigating the adverse economic and housing effects caused by these 
massive layoffs. This initiative is being held up as a model throughout 
rural Nevada for rural communities to develop comprehensive local 
strategies responsive to economic downturns in the mining industry and 
the longer-term need for greater economic diversification.
  I might add as an aside, we learned from two of our counties, 
Humboldt and Lander Counties, two counties I visited and spent time in 
with their county commissioner and citizens in August, those counties 
have also been affected as a result of a series of layoffs in the 
mining industry. They, too, are buffeted by worsening economic 
conditions.
  Once again, the community builders are being called into action to 
assist community leaders in finding ways to stabilize rural economies 
and housing markets in the face of falling gold prices in the global 
market.
  In sum, the Community Builders Program strikes me as a smart and 
cost-effective way to do business. By breaking down the old 
bureaucratic hurdles that often hinder customer service and working at 
the grassroot levels with communities ranging from the sprawl of Las 
Vegas to a rather small community such as Ely, NV, the Community 
Builders Program has proven highly effective in finding solutions to 
critical challenges facing our urban and rural communities.
  It is my hope that before this legislation is passed by the Senate, 
these two critically important and highly successful programs are 
addressed in a way that will allow the Federal Government to continue 
its commitment to providing affordable housing to the millions of 
Americans who depend upon such assistance and to allow the Community 
Builders Program to continue its work in building successful 
partnerships within our communities to solve local problems.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind words the Senator from 
Nevada shared. We did appreciate working with the Senator on these very 
important bills. I thank him for his interest.
  With respect to the new vouchers, I believe I have already addressed 
at some length why we have not recommended any new vouchers. We do not 
have the resources identified to maintain the ones we have. In fact, 
there are $40 million worth of additional vouchers for the disabled. We 
put in $100 million for the Opt Out Program to protect the residents in 
section 8 housing where the landlords are choosing to get out of the 
program. We are also working through HOME and CDBG to provide 
additional housing facilities. I have stated those points before. I 
will not reiterate them at any length.
  With respect to community builders, we will address this in 
conference. The bill would terminate HUD's Community Builders Program 
for all external community builders. We were originally told there were 
supposed to be about 200 staff. It is now up to 800. The program 
represents about 9 percent of the HUD staff. In fiscal year 1999, HUD 
is expecting to spend as much in funds for staff and support costs for 
this program as they will spend for the HUD's community planning and 
development staff, which is responsible for administering programs such 
as CDBG and the homeless.
  I believe investing in 2-year terms for employees hired out of the 
normal practices of HUD is a questionable use of scarce resources. What 
does it say about the capabilities of existing HUD staff when the 
Secretary says we have to bring in people who are hired for a 2-year 
term outside of the normal hiring practices to explain HUD programs? It 
says something is going on.
  Before the community builders' staff was hired, the roles were not 
adequately defined by HUD. It is still in the process of developing and 
defining the role, even though most of the positions have been filled 
for several months. According to the information we have from the IG, 
76 percent of the external community builders' initial hiring was not 
in accordance with Federal selection rules. The hiring appeared to be 
political despite the assurances to the contrary.
  The FHA Commissioner in charge of the multifamily housing has 
written:

       Community Builders in certain areas have misinterpreted or 
     overstepped their role in dealing with HUD's identified 
     multifamily projects.

  In his letter, the Commissioner states:


[[Page 22177]]

       It cannot be stressed too strongly that the Community 
     Builders must communicate with the appropriate HUD staff.

  In my view, community builders are not acting as HUD staff. They are 
acting in the capacity of lobbyists or public affairs representatives 
for HUD. HUD already has a public affairs office. The public affairs 
office is providing the direction to these people. The Department 
recently directed the community builders to reach out to the media to 
voice strong opposition to the House of Representatives appropriations 
fiscal year 2000 budget. I can state that they are also reaching out to 
lobby Congress to keep the community builders. I don't need to fund a 
group of people whose job it is, in addition to all the other normal 
functions of HUD, to lobby me and tell the news media how valuable they 
are when they are only on for 2 years and, according to the information 
we have, have not even in some instances been able to define the job of 
HUD and the roles and the programs of HUD adequately.
  I don't believe there is an amendment pending. We will have more to 
say about that at length if it is brought up in the form of the 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1785

 (Purpose: To provide a period of time for consultation and evaluation 
  of any realignment plan for the VISN 12 health care delivery system)

  Mr. BOND. On behalf of Senators Fitzgerald and Durbin, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Fitzgerald, 
     for himself, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1785.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in 
     this Act for the Medical Care appropriation of the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs may be obligated for the realignment of 
     the health care delivery system in VISN 12 until 60 days 
     after the Secretary of Veterans Affairs certifies that the 
     Department has (a) consulted with veterans organizations, 
     medical school affiliates, employee representatives, State 
     veterans and health associations, and other interested 
     parties with respect to the realignment plan to be 
     implemented, and (b) made available to the Congress and the 
     public information from the consultations regarding possible 
     impacts on the accessibility of veterans health care services 
     to affected veterans.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides. There had been great concern in the Chicago area about the 
realignment of the VA facilities. This measure simply assures 
appropriate procedures are followed so all parties involved have an 
opportunity to express themselves.
  This has been a longstanding concern with the VA. We do believe they 
should continue to move forward, as we said before, in closing unneeded 
facilities. But in doing so, it is vitally important they go through 
the proper processes which allow those affected to have a say and a 
stake in the process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, first of all, I thank Senator Bond for 
working with the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin. I know Senator 
Fitzgerald also had a keen interest in this particular issue. I am 
ready to also accept this amendment and wish to note, though, this 
seems to be a pattern with VA, where our colleagues in the Congress 
have to keep giving them commonsense criteria on how to decide what is 
the best way to serve veterans.
  We know we are in the veterans' health care business. We know we are 
not in the veterans' real estate business. But surely, clear criteria 
and talking with the people most affected would go a long way.
  There was a saying in the early Polish Parliament that said:

       Nothing about us without us.

  I think that is the way the veterans feel. That is the way the 
Members of the Senate feel: Hello, Veterans Administration. Please, get 
to work on these criteria and follow what the Senate is telling you.
  I am happy to accept this amendment and urge its adoption.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1785) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we thank the Senators from Illinois for 
working with us on what we think is a very positive step forward that 
will allow the VA to perhaps shift resources to serve veterans better. 
We are very pleased we could fashion an appropriate format for 
developing criteria to make sure the process is done in a fair and 
equitable manner.
  I see the Senator from Ohio. I believe he has two amendments to 
offer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                           Amendment No. 1782

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds by the National Aeronautics and 
  Space Administration for the establishment at any field center of a 
  research capability that would duplicate a research capability that 
                    exists at another field center)

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 1782 to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1782.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 113, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 431. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration by this 
     Act may be obligated or expended for purposes of establishing 
     at a field center of the Administration any research 
     capability that would duplicate a research capability that 
     currently exists at another field center of the 
     Administration.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first thank my friend from 
Missouri, Senator Bond, and my colleague from Maryland, Senator 
Mikulski. They have produced, I believe, under some very tough, 
difficult circumstances, a very excellent, very fair, and very balanced 
bill. Members of the Senate are certainly indebted to them for the 
tremendous work they have put in and the product they have produced.
  The amendment I have just sent to the desk is a very commonsense 
amendment. In fact, I believe it really builds upon the very 
commonsense language included in the VA-HUD appropriation bill 
committee report. That part of the committee report states the 
committee is concerned about the duplication of work being performed 
throughout the NASA field centers. It instructs NASA, by April 15 of 
the year 2000, to produce a preliminary action plan to map out what 
each of the field center's future roles and responsibilities will be.
  The most important part of this report language states:

       NASA should identify where a center has or is expected to 
     develop the same or similar expertise and capacity as another 
     center, including justification for this need.

  I do not believe, at a time when NASA's overall funding is 
increasing, NASA should be duplicating any capabilities that already 
exist at one center at a different center. It just makes no sense. This 
really defies logic. My amendment would simply prevent NASA from 
spending any money to duplicate capabilities that already exist.
  Let me say in conclusion, I appreciate that the authors of this bill 
are

[[Page 22178]]

willing to accept this amendment. Let me pledge to the authors of the 
bill, I will continue to work with them and continue to work with NASA 
to resolve this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Ohio on his 
staunch support and advocacy of the programs at the Glenn Space Center. 
Because of his very strong advocacy, we included funds for the future 
launch program and other things that we think are vital to the long-
term interests of NASA. We expect those programs will go forward. My 
view is, I am willing to accept this amendment and the additional 
amendment he proposes to ensure that NASA preserves the integrity of 
the mission of the Glenn Space Center.
  Having said that, I have some problems. The amendment, if finally 
adopted into law, would be too constraining and might result in 
unintended consequences. We need to call NASA's attention to these 
problems but also give them needed flexibility that might not be there.
  That said, I expect NASA to operate in good faith in maintaining the 
programs at the Glenn Space Center. This is critical. I expect NASA can 
resolve the concerns of Senator DeWine so these provisions can be 
dropped in conference. I might note for my colleagues, the Senate 
report for NASA already states that ``each NASA center be vested with 
specific responsibilities and activities.''
  I think we are all moving in the same direction. I believe the 
Senator's admonitions included in this amendment that will be accepted 
here should suffice.
  So I urge we accept the amendment. I will urge we accept the second 
amendment as well.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I concur with the analysis offered by 
Senator Bond. Rather than simply repeat, I concur in his comments. I 
say that to the Senator from Ohio.
  You have the Ames Research Center in Ohio. It has served the Nation 
well. It needs to be respected for what it has given to the Nation. As 
we look to the future of NASA, there needs to be the kind of analysis 
we talked about. So I concur with both the comments and the strategy 
offered by the Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Voinovich 
be added to this amendment and the subsequent amendment I will offer in 
a moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. I think we are ready to vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1782) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1781

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds by the National Aeronautics and 
 Space Administration for the transfer of research aircraft from Glenn 
           Research Center, Ohio, to any other field center)

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1781.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 113, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 431, None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available for the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration by this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     purposes of transferring any research aircraft from Glen 
     Research Center, Ohio, to another field center of the 
     Administration.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, again the chairman and ranking member have 
indicated they accept this amendment. I appreciate their consideration 
very much.
  I want to say in regard to the previous amendment, I appreciate the 
comments. I am sure this is a matter that can be resolved in 
consultation with NASA. We are all trying to achieve the same thing. I 
fully expect this will be done.
  Mr. BOND. With the same caveat added on the first amendment, this 
side is willing to accept the amendment. I commend the Senator for 
dealing with this very real concern, and I trust this will send the 
appropriate message to NASA.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1781) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. As though in morning business?
  Mr. SCHUMER. It is on this bill. I don't need to ask unanimous 
consent, do I?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. What a great body.
  Mr. President, I rise today to share my concerns about the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill. I first thank the chairman and the ranking member 
for their efforts on the bill. This is a bill with many important 
programs that are very popular which has a limit to funding. I know how 
hard it is to please everybody on this bill. Under the budget caps, it 
is next to impossible to find the money to do what is necessary. So I 
appreciate that.
  But I do rise to voice my concerns. I will support the amendment to 
be offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, if he 
should offer it, to add an additional 50,000 section 8 affordable 
housing vouchers, because this amendment is a step in the right 
direction. I hope the Senate will adopt the amendment and work with the 
House to ensure that it is part of any package sent to the President.
  New York City and New York State have a severe housing shortage. It 
is not just in New York City. In New York City, there are over 400,000 
people who need homes. In Rochester, there are nearly 20,000 families 
with severe housing needs. In New York City, there are over 150,000 
families on public housing waiting lists alone; and 220,000 families 
waiting for section 8 help. The waiting list is as long as 8 years in 
each case.
  In Syracuse, families must wait 2 and a half years before they get 
section 8 help. In Rochester, there are 1,700 families waiting for 
public housing, and 4,500 are waiting for section 8. The bill will make 
these families wait even longer.
  The bill adds no new section 8 vouchers, and the public housing is 
dramatically underfunded.
  New York State Comptroller Carl McCall--our excellent comptroller--
issued a report in July highlighting that New York City's public 
housing needs over $7 billion in major repairs.
  Under this bill, I fear these properties will further deteriorate, 
threatening the health and safety of children and seniors, the disabled 
and veterans who live in these communities who depend on this Congress 
to meet our obligations.
  Our Nation has invested over $90 billion to house the poorest 
Americans. This bill, I believe, uses these investments as spare parts 
for other parts of the budget. Let's put a face on the budget.
  Many of those who are helped by the housing programs that are 
underfunded by this budget are the most vulnerable in our society. 
About half of section 8 beneficiaries are children. Over 40 percent of 
those in public housing are children.

[[Page 22179]]

  Last year, Congress did take a step forward. We authorized 100,000 
additional section 8 vouchers in the public housing reform bill. We 
made progress by adding 50,000. This year, however, the Senate and the 
House decided the Nation does not need any more.
  The hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, and many more other 
Americans, waiting for safe and affordable housing need more than the 
bill offers.
  About 5 and a half million families spend more than half their income 
on housing. Many of those are in New York State. Recent studies have 
indicated that for many of these families the situation is getting 
worse. The Kerry amendment will help them.
  The section 8 vouchers that this amendment funds will help Congress 
fulfill its promise to working families, particularly families leaving 
welfare. If we are committed to strong communities and want to shrink 
the welfare rolls, new section 8 authority can only help.
  If the bill was absolutely perfect for veterans, but shortchanged 
housing, I would be a little happier. Although I feel strongly about 
section 8 public housing, the bill also achieves only a bear minimum 
for veterans.
  As other Senators have pointed out, 99 of us are on record that a 
full $3 billion over the President's request is needed. I agree with 
this and I am disappointed that the Wellstone amendment failed.
  Veterans hospitals across my State have laid off hundreds of staff 
this year alone. Despite promises from the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, I believe that even more staff will have to go if this bill 
goes through.
  So, in conclusion, I appreciate the job, the difficult job that the 
chairman and the ranking member face. It is not easy when there are so 
many important needs and so few funds. I just wish either we could find 
the extra money or at the very least the priorities were a little 
different because of housing and veterans needs that are so pressing in 
my State.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member for their courtesy.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for his 
very moving comments. I agree with him that we need more housing. I 
stated earlier my concerns that section 8 is not providing more 
housing. This is a long-term problem on which we must work. There are 
many challenges in the section 8 program, not the least of which is, as 
I said earlier, being able to continue the section 8 assistance for 
those who have it. So I will not pursue this discussion any longer. We 
will have an opportunity to do so tomorrow.
  I believe we are winding up.
  Mr. President, I do have one other amendment I would like to offer 
which simply calls on the GAO to conduct a study of possible revisions 
to the capital structure of the Federal Home Loan Bank System and 
report to the Congress not later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this act.
  I am sure everybody is looking forward to having another study from 
GAO.


                           Amendment No. 1786

  I send this amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1786.

  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . GAO STUDY ON FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK CAPITAL.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study of--
       (1) possible revisions to the capital structure of the 
     Federal Home Loan Bank System, including the need for--
       (A) more permanent capital;
       (B) a statutory leverage ratio; and
       (C) a risk-based capital structure; and
       (2) what impact such revisions might have on the operations 
     of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, including the 
     obligation of the Federal Home Loan Bank System under section 
     21B(f)(2)(C) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act.
       (b) Report to Congress--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit a report to the Congress on the 
     results of the study conducted under subsection (a).

  Mr. BOND. It is a simple amendment. I urge the adoption of the 
amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this side has reviewed the amendment. We 
think a GAO study on this topic will definitely be in the national 
interest. I am willing to accept the amendment.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator.
  I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1786) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to convey to the chairman of the 
subcommittee that the Senator from Massachusetts said he would be ready 
to go first thing in the morning. So I know of no other amendments this 
evening where the Senators are ready to offer them. My suggestion would 
be that we close out this evening and begin bright and early with the 
Kerry of Massachusetts amendments on section 8 and also the issue of 
housing for AIDS patients.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I share the Senator's hope. It does appear 
there will not be any further business on this bill tonight. We are 
awaiting the final OK from the leadership.
  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. 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 ask unanimous consent that all remaining 
first-degree amendments, other than one for each leader and a manager's 
package and a measure relating to Y2K by Senators Dodd and Bennett, to 
the HUD-VA appropriations bill be relevant or sense-of-the-Senate 
language. I further ask unanimous consent that all second-degree 
amendments be relevant to the first-degree amendment they propose to 
amend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. AKAKA addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I take the floor to commend my friends, the 
chairman and the ranking member, for their efforts in coming forward 
with a bill that provides valuable funding for veterans and key housing 
programs.
  However, I urge my colleagues to provide additional funding for 
section 8 vouchers. We have talked a lot about this. In my State of 
Hawaii, there is a 20-month wait for public housing and a 44-month wait 
for section 8 vouchers. Without additional funding for these programs, 
Hawaii's residents will only see an increase in the waiting period for 
public housing and section 8 vouchers. We must ensure that adequate 
funding is provided for these important programs which benefit so many 
people.
  Lastly, I wish to also urge my colleagues to revisit the Community 
Builders Program and provide HUD with the ability to continue this 
valuable program. In my State, this program has provided a valuable 
service for Hawaii's low-income families.
  Once again, I commend the chairman and ranking member for making very 
tough decisions in crafting this legislation. I know it was not easy, 
and I am pleased the committee sought additional funding for our 
Nation's veterans' health care system. But I hope we also understand 
the need for affordable housing, and I urge the committee to revisit 
this issue in conference.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page 22180]]


  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Hawaii for his 
perceptive comments. We will be happy to discuss those issues. We 
appreciate the insights and look forward to working with him to attempt 
to deal with the specific problems he finds in his beautiful State. I 
do appreciate his coming to share with us his views.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity first 
to applaud Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for the tremendous job 
they have done balancing the demands of some of our most important 
programs with a very limited budget. The Fiscal Year 2000 VA-HUD and 
Independent Agencies appropriations bill which they have crafted is a 
good bill and stands in stark contrast to the House passed bill which 
included some devastating cuts to a number of very important housing 
and community development programs. The Chairman and Ranking Member 
were very responsive to my requests and concerns with the bill as were 
their staffs.
  I do remain concerned about funding for several HUD programs and I 
hope that there will be an opportunity in conference to revisit these 
accounts and provide some additional funding. In particular, the 
failure to fund incremental section 8 vouchers will cause a real 
hardship for the thousands of families across the country on wait lists 
for rental assistance. In Vermont alone the wait for Section 8 rental 
assistance can stretch for years and some lists have been closed 
completely because of the extensive wait. The booming economy is great 
for business but not so good for low-income families who are finding 
themselves priced out of the housing market. More and more people in 
Vermont and throughout the country are paying more than 30 percent of 
their income for housing. Last year Congress authorized 100,000 
vouchers for FY 2000. The Administration has included those vouchers in 
their budget request. We should include funding for those vouchers in 
the FY 2000 VA-HUD Appropriations bill.
  I would also like to voice my concern for the funding provided for 
the Youthbuild program and for the Neighborhood Reinvestment 
Corporation. Youthbuild is a wonderful example of a program that is 
helping develop leadership skills in at-risk youth while providing much 
needed affordable housing. The program has been an unqualified success 
in Vermont where Youthbuild participants have constructed and 
rehabilitated affordable housing in Burlington's Enterprise Community. 
From weatherizing homes to building single and multi-family housing, 
Youthbuild Burlington has proven the value of this program in investing 
at-risk youth in their communities while building skills for the 
future, and meeting the critical need for quality affordable housing in 
Burlington. Earlier this year I joined 49 of my colleagues in a letter 
to Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski supporting a $75 million 
appropriation for the Youthbuild program. Unfortunately the bill we are 
considering includes only $42.5 million for this valuable program. The 
Department's ability to offer grants to new Youthbuild programs or 
provide additional support for existing programs would be greatly 
reduced by this funding level. I hope that we will be able to increase 
funding for Youthbuild in Conference.
  The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) is another important 
HUD program which received a significant funding cut. This bill reduces 
funding for the NRC by a third. The NRC has been an invaluable partner 
in the drive to increase home ownership in Vermont and throughout the 
nation. Four homeownership centers in Vermont are currently 
implementing the Neighborworks model of ``full cycle lending'' which 
has made such a difference in bringing the opportunity of homeownership 
to lower income families in my state. Time after time, these 
homeownership centers have allowed families who would not otherwise 
have been considered by commercial lenders, to secure mortgages for 
affordable homes, and helped families who would otherwise have suffered 
foreclosure remain in their homes. The level of funding proposed in the 
Senate bill would prevent 12,000 families currently in the pipeline 
from receiving further assistance, and would result in 8,700 fewer 
families realizing the dream of homeownership and 80,000 families not 
receiving homebuyer or foreclosure prevention counseling. I hope that 
we can prevent those results by providing additional funding for this 
valuable program in conference.
  Finally, I would like to once again express my support for the 
Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) program. The Senate 
bill provides $80 million for this important program, $15 million below 
last year's level and $45 million below the President's request. The 
CDFI Fund is an economic development initiative that was adopted with 
overwhelming bi-partisan support several years ago. The program is an 
important investment tool for economically distressed communities. CDFI 
leverages private investment to stretch every Federal dollar. This 
program is working effectively in communities across the country, and I 
believe additional resources are needed to maximize the value of this 
important federal investment.
  I look forward to working with Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond 
during conference to secure additional funding for these programs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to draw attention to FEMA's 
proposed Public Assistance Insurance Rule that is currently pending at 
the Office of Management and Budget. The rule is referenced in the 
report language of both the House and Senate VA-HUD Appropriations 
bills.
  I support FEMA's efforts to reduce the costs of federal disasters. 
However, the proposed rule, in its current form, would require public 
institutions to purchase ``all hazard'' insurance for public buildings. 
This includes local school districts, cities, non-profit hospitals, 
universities and other non-profits.
  California risk managers and insurance brokers have told me there 
currently is no insurance available to public institutions. They would 
be unable to obtain, at any price, the coverage required by the FEMA 
rule.
  Even if insurance were to be available, it is highly unlikely that 
the individual insurers would be able to pay out in the event of a 
catastrophic earthquake. The financial implications for California are 
enormous and should be considered before implementing the proposed FEMA 
rule.
  During Committee markup, I was told by Senator Bond that cities and 
counties that could not obtain hazard insurance would be exempt from 
the FEMA rule. FEMA says this is not the case. I believe the FEMA 
proposal is ambiguous in many areas and it needs to be more thoroughly 
examined. I am concerned that FEMA may be rushing to implement this 
regulation without a thorough understanding of its true impact.
  The House VA-HUD bill requests a GAO study of this issue before 
moving forward with the proposed rule. The Senate bill makes no mention 
of a GAO study, and supports the proposed rule change. It is my sincere 
hope that we can work together to develop an approach similar to that 
of the House. I believe that we must have an independent analysis of 
this important and potentially costly issue before it is finalized.


                             KYOTO PROTOCOL

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, pages 78 and 79 of the fiscal year 2000 
VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill and page 83 of the 
accompanying Committee Report contain language regarding implementation 
of the Kyoto Protocol. During the debate on this appropriation last 
year, we agreed that EPA should not use appropriated funds for the 
purpose of issuing regulations to implement the Kyoto Protocol, unless 
and until such treaty is ratified by the United States. We also agreed 
that our intent was not to interfere with important and on-going 
voluntary energy conservation and climate change related programs and 
initiatives--such as the Climate Challenge program, Green Lights, 
Energy Star, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. These 
programs have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by increasing energy 
efficiency across a broad range of domestic industrial

[[Page 22181]]

sectors. These programs make sense for other reasons as well, including 
saving consumers and businesses money, creating export opportunities, 
reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and addressing local air 
pollution problems.
  I ask the distinguished manager of the bill, Senator Bond, whether 
the language in the bill and the report this year maintain the 
agreement that we reached last year on this issue?
  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. The language cited by the Senator 
reflects the agreement reached on this issue during the conference last 
year. Previously funded, ongoing projects and voluntary initiatives can 
go forward. We expect the agency to spend the money in an effective and 
appropriate manner.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator.


                            bethune-cookman

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend from Florida, 
Senator Graham, to engage the distinguished Chairman, Senator Bond, in 
a colloquy. Specifically, I wish to make the Chairman aware of an 
important priority for the State of Florida which was not funded in 
this bill. Last year, the public housing reform act passed by Congress 
contained authorization for the construction of a community services 
student union building at Bethune-Cookman College in Daytona Beach, 
Florida. Accordingly, we included this project as one of our important 
priorities for the legislation before us today.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I join my friend from Florida in support of this project. 
The building will serve as a full-service facility not only for the 
college's 2,300 students, but also the 28,000 citizens of West Daytona 
Beach. The facility would allow the college to expand its long record 
of exemplary service to low-income and disadvantaged residents in the 
community. I would appreciate the Chairman working with his colleagues 
on the conference to find funding for this important project in FY 
2000.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my friends from Florida for their 
comments and I appreciate their support for the facility. Should this 
matter come before the conference, you can be assured I will give it 
due consideration. I thank my friends for bringing this matter to my 
attention.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman for his assurances.


                Reusable and Alternative Water Projects

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend from Florida, 
Senator Graham, to engage the distinguished Chairman, Senator Bond, in 
a colloquy. Specifically, I wish to make the Chairman aware of two 
critical projects in Florida that did not receive funding in this bill. 
The first is the City of West Palm Beach's water reuse project. This 
wetlands-based potable water reuse program is critical not only to the 
water supply of the City of West Palm Beach but also to the Everglades 
restoration effort.
  During dry season, the City takes water from Lake Okeechobee which is 
a critical primary source of water for the Everglades. West Palm Beach 
is attempting to eliminate this water use through their innovative 
water reuse project. The City has received federal support in each of 
the past three fiscal years. Work is progressing on schedule, but a 
final installment of federal funding is needed to complete the work and 
bring the project on line.
  I would point out to the Chairman that this project is funded in the 
House VA-HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations bill. I would urge 
the Chairman to work with our House colleagues during the upcoming 
conference to ensure that funding for this critical project is 
completed in this fiscal year.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend from 
Florida and understand the importance of this project to his State. I 
will do all I can with my colleagues in the House to secure funding for 
this project during the conference.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the 
Chairman for a moment to address another important project to the State 
of Florida, the Alternative Water Source Projects. These central 
Florida water projects are providing valuable assistance to local 
governments in devising alternative and expanded water supplies for the 
region. To date, the federal government has provided $46.6 million 
toward this important effort. This project was also funded in the House 
of Representatives but did not receive funding in this bill. I would 
also appreciate the Chairman's consideration of Florida's ongoing 
water-related needs as this bill goes to conference with the House.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Florida for his 
comments and understand the merits of this project. I would like to 
assure both my colleagues that I will do my best to work with the other 
members of the conference to provide funding for this project.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman for his assurances.


                            water treatment

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend from Florida, 
Senator Graham, to engage the distinguished Chairman, Senator Bond, in 
a colloquy. Specifically, I wish to make the Chairman aware of an 
important priority for the State of Florida which was not funded in 
this bill. The city of Sarasota, Florida has long been working with the 
federal government to address its water treatment system problems. Many 
of the city's residents are still on septic tanks and the federal 
government has been interested in addressing this problem because of 
polluted runoff into the Sarasota Bay National Estuary.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would agree with the comments of my Florida colleague 
and add that the federal government has been working through the 
National Estuary Program to help it address this problem in previous 
years. During this year's appropriations process, we requested a grant 
out of the State and tribal assistance grant portion of this bill to 
continue this process. It would be my hope that the Chairman would work 
with us and with the other members of the upcoming conference committee 
to find funding for this project. It has the full support of Florida's 
House delegation and I would appreciate the Chairman's support as we 
move toward the next stage of the process.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my friends from Florida for their 
comments and I am familiar with this project from previous years. If an 
opportunity arises in the conference to fund it, I will work with my 
colleagues from the House to do so. I thank my friends for bringing 
this matter to my attention.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman for his assurances.


          northeast states for coordinated air use management

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman in a 
colloquy. First, let me thank the Senator from Missouri for his 
diligence in balancing funding for the wide variety of programs within 
the VA-HUD Appropriations bill under very difficult budget constraints. 
Under these constraints, you were able to increase funding for the 
Environmental Programs and Management over Fiscal Year 1999. However, 
one very important organization in the Northeast was not funded this 
year. For more than a decade, this body has supported an organization 
called the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management or 
(NESCAUM) with a modest $300,000 line item. NESCAUM is a non-profit 
organization that provides technical assistance to the Northeast states 
and the nation on a host of important air quality issues. By providing 
recommendations for consistent regional action, NESCAUM helps both 
states and regulated industry avoid a costly patchwork of differing 
regulatory requirements. While I know that this is a very difficult 
year, I believe that NESCAUM provides a valuable service and is 
strongly supported by the Senators from our region. At a minimum, I 
believe the Environmental Protection Agency should be encouraged to 
allocate $300,000 from the Environmental Programs and Management 
account to NESCAUM.
  Mr. BOND. I recognize that we have provided NESCAUM this support for 
many years. The same can be said for

[[Page 22182]]

several entities that do not receive line-item funding in this year's 
legislation. However, recognizing the broad support for NESCAUM's 
activities from a number of states, I concur in supporting encouraging 
EPA that it seek to provide NESCAUM with $300,000 of general support 
consistent with previous years.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chairman and look forward to working with him 
and the Environmental Protection Agency to continue the good work of 
this organization. It has been a model of state collaboration. Most 
recently, its efforts to develop market-based approaches to air quality 
improvement have helped move our region toward specific steps to reduce 
emissions within our states.

                          ____________________