[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 27164-27196]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
 RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 
                      30, 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
4577, which the clerk will report.

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     4577) ``making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, 
     Health and Human Services, and Education, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and 
     for other purposes'', having met, have agreed: that the House 
     recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, 
     and agree to the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree 
     to the same; that the House agree to the title of the bill, 
     with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, signed 
     by a majority of the conferees on the part of both Houses.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of today, December 15, 2000.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the fiscal year 2001 Labor/HHS 
Appropriations Conference Report is now before the Senate.
  This conference report serves to wrap up work on all fiscal year 2001 
appropriations bills, as it includes the Treasury-General Government 
and legislative branch bills. Those two bills were previously passed by 
the Congress, but were vetoed by the President.
  The only significant change to the bills previously passed by 
Congress is the deletion of the telephone tax provision in the Treasury 
bill. The conference report includes other appropriations matters, 
which emerged subsequent to the completion of the other fiscal year 
2001 bills.
  Significant items include $150 million for repair of the U.S.S. Cole, 
$100 million for intelligence activities requested by the White House, 
$110 million for the new markets initiative, $100 million for volunteer 
firefighter grants sought by our colleague from Delaware, Senator Roth, 
and $100 million for the Library of Congress to enhance the National 
Digital Library.
  I want to also thank all my colleagues for their patience as I worked 
with the White House for a compromise on the Alaskan Fishery/Sea Lion 
protection issue. Through the hard work of many here in Congress and at 
the White House, OMB and the Department of Commerce, we achieved a 
compromise that meets the priorities of all parties--who share the goal 
of protecting the sea lion population, and the economic well being and 
viability of the commercial fishing industry in my State.
  There are many specific issues that I could comment on today, but I 
had the opportunity to brief members of this side of the aisle at a 
conference this afternoon, and the bill is available in the Cloakroom 
for review.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this conference report, which 
completes the work of this Congress, during this Congress. Next month, 
when the 107th Congress convenes, and a new President is inaugurated, 
they will both start with no carryover from this Congress.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as has been the case on far too many 
occasions in the past number of years, the Senate finds itself today in 
the position of having to deal with a massive omnibus appropriations 
bill. We have had to pass a record number--21--of Continuing 
Resolutions in order to keep the Federal Government operating since the 
fiscal year began on October 1st. These Continuing Resolutions were 
necessary because we in the Congress and the Administration could not 
resolve our differences on a myriad of issues, most of which have not 
involved funding levels at all. Rather, the haggling for the past many 
weeks has been over issues such as ergonomics regulations, immigration, 
and certain regulatory matters; all of which would be more 
appropriately handled by the authorizing committees with jurisdiction 
over them. Instead of following the established practices and the 
regular
order of enacting the thirteen annual appropriations bills, we have in 
recent years, chosen to delay appropriations bills until it is too late 
to do anything other than to package them in a manner that causes such 
packages to be used as vehicles for all manner of non-appropriations 
issues. This has necessitated the adoption of late-year omnibus 
appropriations packages well after the start of the fiscal year, such 
as the one before the Senate today. This is a practice that should 
never have been started and which, if not discontinued, I fear will 
gravely diminish the Senate as an institution. Senators are being 
denied the right to debate and amend appropriations bills, all of which 
contain billions of taxpayer dollars, and literally thousands of 
funding issues affecting their constituents. Instead, we are being 
presented with unamendable omnibus appropriations packages, which 
contain many, many matters that have not had any Senate consideration 
at all. In the next Congress, the 107th Congress, we should strive 
mightily, on a bipartisan basis, to return to regular order in taking 
up each of the thirteen annual appropriations bills. The Appropriations 
Committee has marked up each of the thirteen appropriations bills in a 
timely manner every year under our distinguished Chairman, Senator 
Stevens. He is indeed masterful in his handling of appropriations 
matters and he is very knowledgeable on the issues that come before the 
Appropriations Committee. He is also one who leads the Committee in a 
bipartisan manner at all times. He gives the same consideration to 
requests of Members of the Committee on both sides of the aisle, and I 
am honored to serve as Ranking Member of the Committee under his 
chairmanship. It has not been the fault of Ted Stevens that the 
appropriations bills have, too often, been lumped together into omnibus 
packages, such as the one before the Senate.
  In an effort to facilitate a return to the regular order in the 
Senate's handling of the thirteen annual appropriations bills, I was 
pleased to have the support of both Leaders, Mr. Daschle and Mr. Lott, 
in my amendment to the Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations bill for 
Fiscal Year 2001 to restore Senate Rule XXVIII, Paragraph 2. That 
provision makes it out of order for extraneous matters to be included 
in conference reports. Several years ago, in connection with the 
Senate's consideration of an FAA conference report, the Senate voted to 
overturn the Chair when it ruled that there was extraneous matter in 
that conference report. The effect of that vote to overturn the Chair 
was to negate Rule XXVIII, Paragraph 2. Consequently, it has not been 
out of order for any matter to be inserted in any conference report 
since that time. Upon enactment of the Commerce/Justice/State 
Appropriations bill, and as a result of my amendment thereto,
  Rule XXVIII, Paragraph 2 will be restored. This will mean that in the 
107th Congress, it will not be in order for extraneous matters to be 
placed in a conference report. Upon a point of order's being made in 
that regard, if sustained, such a conference report will be rejected. I 
believe that restoration of this rule will go a long way toward 
eliminating these annual omnibus appropriations measures that the 
Senate has had to deal with in the past several years and is again 
being asked to adopt here today.
  Having said that, Mr. President, I shall vote for the pending 
conference report. It contains the Fiscal Year 2001 appropriations 
bills for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human

[[Page 27165]]

Services, and Education, for the Department of the Treasury and General 
Government, and for the Legislative Branch. By far, the largest of 
these appropriations bills is the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill.
  In the agreement reached on the Labor/HHS bill, the funding totals 
some $108.9 billion in budget authority for Fiscal Year 2001. This is 
an increase of almost $12 billion from last year and represents the 
largest ever one-year increase for the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill. 
This amounts to more than a 12 percent increase above last year's 
level, and will enable funding levels for education to be increased by 
almost 15 percent, including an appropriation of more than $1 billion 
for a new school renovation program. The Labor/HHS Appropriations bill 
also includes critical funding for many health programs such as the 
Ryan White AIDS program, NIH, child immunization, substance abuse 
prevention, and mental health programs. All of these programs are 
funded at levels substantially higher than last year. As Members are 
aware, the bill also funds the Head Start program, and the low income 
home energy assistance program, LIHEAP. I recognize that a number of 
Senators believe that we should have insisted upon even higher levels 
for the Labor/HHS bill. While I might agree with those Senators, and 
although a tentative agreement in October would have funded the Labor/
HHS Appropriations bill at a level of over $112 billion, that agreement 
fell through over a legislative rider involving ergonomics.
  After weeks of haggling over the ergonomics issue, as well as other 
issues such as immigration, and overall funding levels, I feel that we 
have no other choice than to accept this compromise that is before the 
Senate today. As I say, it does not fully please any Senator. I am sure 
there are some who feel that the funding levels are too high; but the 
time has long since passed for us to complete our work and get this 
final appropriations package to the President's desk.
  In addition to the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill, this package 
contains funding for the Legislative Branch, and the Department of the 
Treasury and General Government, which measure funds a number of 
programs for law enforcement, as well as the U.S. Customs Service--the 
federal agency with responsibility for border patrol and enforcement of 
our immigration laws.
  There is also a division of this omnibus package that includes a 
number of non-appropriations matters. Those matters were considered 
carefully by Chairman Stevens, Chairman Young, Mr. Obey and myself, at 
the request of Members of the House and Senate. There were many more 
such matters that were considered, but were not included in this final 
package.
  Finally, the package contains a division relating to tax matters, 
including the so-called Balanced Budget Act, BBA, Medicare fix. Those 
tax matters were inserted into the omnibus package by the Leadership, 
and they fall into the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means and Finance 
Committees. Accordingly, we Appropriations Members were not involved in 
that process.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
conference agreement. Despite its having all the flaws that we have 
seen in previous omnibus appropriations bills, the time has come to 
finish the work of the 106th Congress. In that way, we will have a 
clean slate for the new Congress, the 107th Congress, when it convenes 
on January 3rd, and for the new Administration, when our new President, 
George W. Bush, is sworn into office on January 20th.
  While I recognize that there are those who predict a continuation of 
the gridlock that we have seen in the recent past, or perhaps greater 
gridlock in the next Congress, as it struggles to work with the Bush 
Administration; I hope and believe that there will be unprecedented 
opportunities for bipartisan efforts to prevail in solving the Nation's 
most pressing problems; to maintain a vital national defense, and to 
find solutions which ensure that our Medicare and Social Security 
programs can sustain the promised for our citizens over the coming 
century. I am optimistic that the new Congress will be prepared to work 
with the Bush Administration. I know that the overwhelming number of 
Members of the House and Senate, on a bipartisan basis, join me in 
pledging our best efforts to do so, and our good faith commitment to 
achieve results in these critical areas, on behalf of the American 
people.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, after protracted negotiations, the 
Administration and I have reached an agreement that provides the 
necessary protections for the Steller sea lion while allowing for the 
needs of fishermen who depend on the robust and healthy groundfish 
stocks off Alaska. I believe the Senate knows my personal feelings, and 
the feelings of practically all those who are involved in the 
harvesting, processing, and subsequent marketing of the millions of 
tons of seafood that come from the North Pacific and Bering Sea, on 
this matter. While we recognize that the Steller sea lion deserves 
protection, we are not convinced that the Commerce Department has 
proven, let alone adequately tested, its hypothesis that fishing 
contributes to the sea lions' decline. A few minutes spent skimming the 
biological opinion reveals the lack of science underlying the proposed 
actions it contains. For example, the Commerce Department states in its 
biological opinion that it does not know if fishing impacts sea lions, 
or that sea lions would likely continue to decline even if all fishing 
were halted.
  Nonetheless, the lives of our fishermen will continue to be affected 
by this opinion. Our agreement provides a three-step phase-in process 
for fishery restrictions proposed to be implemented by the National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the Alaska groundfish fisheries 
under Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements. This section is 
intended to lessen the negative economic consequences to the fishing 
community caused by the restrictions and to ensure that any Steller sea 
lion protective measures do not create negative consequences for the 
conservation of the fisheries and ecosystem. This is accomplished by 
requiring the Secretary to rely on the fishery management provisions in 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the regional council processes, 
when implementing reasonable and prudent alternatives under the 
Endangered Species Act.
  Unfortunately, work on this provision was not completed until shortly 
before the conference agreement was filed on the final day of this 
session. I ask unanimous consent that the section-by-section analysis 
of this provision be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

       Subsection (a) includes findings by Congress concerning the 
     decline of the Steller sea lion and need for scientists to 
     study the relationship between commercial fisheries and sea 
     lions. It also includes findings confirming that the 
     authority to manage federal fisheries lies with the regional 
     councils created under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It clarifies 
     that the Secretary is required to comply with, and use the 
     procedures established under, the Magnuson-Stevens Act when 
     implementing measures to comply with the Endangered Species 
     Act. This finding recognizes that the Administration should 
     not use the Endangered Species Act to implement fishery 
     management measures without respect to the Magnuson-Stevens 
     Act, particularly the processes by which the councils 
     develop, review, and promulgate fishery management measures. 
     The appropriate forum to develop fishery management measures, 
     including those measures necessary to protect threatened and 
     endangered species, are the regional councils.
       Subsection (b) requires the North Pacific Fishery 
     Management Council to conduct an independent scientific 
     review of the November 30, 2000 biological opinion (hereafter 
     the ``Opinion'') issued by NMFS for the Bering Sea/Aleutian 
     Islands and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries, drawing upon 
     the expertise of the National Academy of Sciences. This 
     subsection reflects the Congress's deep concerns over the 
     validity and objectivity of the science relied on in the 
     biological opinion and the process by which the Commerce 
     Department developed this opinion. It directs the Secretary 
     of Commerce to cooperate with the North Pacific Council's 
     scientific review, and requests the National Academy of 
     Sciences to give the review its highest priority.
       Subsection (c)(1) directs the Secretary to submit proposed 
     Magnuson-Stevens Act fishery conservation and management 
     measures

[[Page 27166]]

     to implement the reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) 
     to the North Pacific Council immediately or as soon as 
     possible, and then tasks the Council with preparing a fishery 
     management amendment or amendments under the Magnuson-Stevens 
     Act to implement such conservation and management measures. 
     While the amendments must implement the measures necessary to 
     protect sea lions and, it is equally important that such 
     measures provide for the conservation and safe conduct of the 
     fisheries, as required in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Congress 
     remains concerned that the proposed closures would have 
     forced small vessels to fish in dangerous waters during the 
     winter storm season, a prospect specifically commented upon 
     by our Coast Guard.
       Subsection (c)(2) requires the RPAs, as developed by the 
     North Pacific Council under subsection (c)(1), to become 
     effective on January 1, 2002. To address Congress' concerns 
     about the objectivity and validity of the scientific 
     conclusions of this opinion the opinion must incorporate 
     changes warranted by the scientific review required under 
     subsection (b) or other new information that comes to the 
     Secretary or Council's attention. The Council and Secretary 
     are directed to jointly develop a schedule for the 
     development of FMP amendment or amendments to implement the 
     RPAs beginning in the 2002 fisheries. Subsection (c)(2) 
     specifies that the RPAs shall not go into effect immediately, 
     but shall be phased in according to subsection (c)(3) during 
     the 2001 fisheries.
       Subsection (c)(3) requires the 2001 Bering Sea/Aleutian 
     Island and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries to be managed 
     in accordance with the regulations promulgated for the 2000 
     fisheries prior to the issuance of the July 19, 2000 court 
     injunction in those fisheries (which has since been lifted). 
     The 2000 regulations provide substantial protections for 
     Steller sea lions, while maintaining the comprehensive and 
     proven framework that has protected the marine resources of 
     the North Pacific and been fine-tuned for more than two 
     decades. These regulations for the first months of the 2001 
     fisheries are to be implemented by emergency rule so that the 
     fisheries can begin by January 20, 2001.
       Subsection (c)(4) requires the Secretary of Commerce to 
     amend regulations based on the 2000 regulations, but which 
     are consistent to the extent practicable with the RPA's, by 
     January 20, 2001. The Secretary is to consult with the North 
     Pacific Council in preparing these draft regulations, with 
     the goal of incorporating some of the protective concepts in 
     the RPAs for these regulations, in time for the fisheries to 
     open no later than January 20, 2001. Under paragraph (7) of 
     subsection (c), the draft regulations amended upon the 
     recommendation of the North Pacific Council until March 15, 
     2001. As soon after March 15, 2001 as possible, the Secretary 
     of Commerce will publish and implement the regulations, and 
     these regulations shall then govern the Bering Sea/Aleutian 
     Island and Gulf of Alaska fisheries for the remainder of 
     2001, consistent with all the requirements of the Magnuson-
     Stevens Act. It is our intent that the Secretary provide 
     ample opportunity for the public to comment on these 
     regulations before the regulations take effect.
       Subsection (c)(5) requires that the ``Global Control Rule'' 
     from the RPA's take effect immediately in the fisheries, this 
     is particularly important during the period during the Spring 
     and/or early summer of 2001 when the fisheries are being 
     managed under the 2000 regulations. Paragraph (5) modifies 
     the Global Control Rule during 2001 to limit any reduction to 
     not more than ten percent of the total allowable catch in any 
     of the fisheries.
       Subsection (c)(6) provides the North Pacific Council with 
     the authority to recommend, and the Secretary of Commerce 
     with the authority to approve, modifications to the RPAs 
     contained in the regulations that will take effect in the 
     Spring or early-summer of the 2001 fisheries. These 
     modifications may include the opening of additional 
     designated Steller sea lion critical habitat for fishing by 
     small boats, the postponement of seasonal catch levels inside 
     critical habitat for small boats, or other measures to ensure 
     that small boat fishermen and on-shore processors in Alaska 
     are not adversely affected during 2001 as compared to the 
     fisheries before the July 19, 2000 injunction. This was 
     specifically agreed to by both the Congressional and 
     Administration negotiators to allow coastal Alaskan fishermen 
     to fish in the safer waters closer to shore.
       Subsection (d) appropriates $20 million to the Secretary of 
     Commerce to develop and implement a comprehensive research 
     and recovery program for the Steller sea lion, and to study 
     the myriad of factors which may be causing the decline of the 
     Steller sea lion. Subsection (d) specifically requires that 
     the theories of nutritional stress, localized depletion, and 
     food competition with the fisheries be tested to determine 
     their validity. This subsection also directs the Secretary of 
     Commerce to implement non-lethal measures on a pilot basis to 
     protect Steller sea lions from marine mammal predation, 
     including killer whales, and to determine the extent to which 
     predation may be causing the decline or preventing recovery. 
     The Secretary is strongly encouraged to cooperate with the 
     Alaska SeaLife Center, the North Pacific Universities Marine 
     Mammal Consortium, the University of Alaska, and the North 
     Pacific Council in the development and use of these funds. 
     The Alaska SeaLife Center should receive $5,000,000 of these 
     funds to continue their important work on Steller sea lion 
     science.
       Subsection (e) provides $30 million as a direct payment to 
     the Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference to distribute to 
     the fishing communities, businesses, western Alaska community 
     development quota program groups, individuals, and other 
     entities that have been hurt by the economic losses already 
     inflicted as a result of Steller sea lion restrictions. The 
     President of SWAMC is required to submit a written report to 
     the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Senate and House 
     appropriations committees within six months after receiving 
     the funds to indicate how they have been distributed.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in these waning days and hours of the 106th 
Congress, the focus in Washington is naturally on what action is taking 
place to resolve the remaining fiscal year 2001 appropriations bills 
and concluding the business of this Congress. However, all around us, 
life goes on. Our constituents in the steel industry must be among the 
few in America who will not be happy to see the 106th Congress adjourn 
sine die. Our constituents in the steel industry will see Congress's 
adjournment as a thinning of the bucket brigade that has spent the last 
two years trying to bail out an industry being flooded by cheap, 
illegally dumped steel. These people, our constituents from Weirton and 
Wheeling, West Virginia, from Pennsylvania, Illinois, Alabama, 
Maryland, Utah--their arms are tired, their voices hoarse from the 
effort of keeping their heads above water and shouting for help. As we 
look forward to adjournment, they are continuing to face a flood whose 
undertow threatens to pull them under. Today, as a result of this 
continuing crisis in steel, imports make up almost 40 percent of the 
U.S. market, compared to a historical rate of approximately 18 percent.
  Congress has tried to respond. Members have supported individual 
companies and groups in filing trade cases with the Administration, 
attempting to use our anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws as they 
were intended, to thwart illegal actions by foreign competitors. 
Members of Congress, myself included, have introduced, supported, and 
fought for passage of legislation to help this core American industry. 
But the flood of illegally dumped steel continues, fed by the Asian 
economic crisis, the failure of the Russian economy, and foreign 
competitors seeking to gain a competitive edge with the help of illegal 
government subsidies. When one trade case is filed with regard to one 
type of steel, these competitors switch to another type of steel, 
forcing affected U.S. companies to bear the cost of their sales losses 
combined with the cost and time of collecting data and building their 
legal cases. The overall effect is to grind small companies down to the 
verge of collapse.
  In 1977, there were 16,961 steelworkers on the payroll in West 
Virginia. In March 2000, there were just 6,857, a loss of 10,104 good-
paying jobs. That's a 60 percent loss. So you understand why I am 
concerned. The national picture is no brighter. In 1980, there were 
1,142,000 workers nationwide in the primary metals industry, which 
includes steel. As of September 2000, that total employment number had 
dropped to just 692,000, a drop of approximately 39 percent.
  In the last two years, thousands of steelworkers have been laid off, 
some for considerable periods. Six steel companies have declared 
bankruptcy since 1998. But total steel imports in 2000 will be over 
2\1/2\ times higher than in 1991. Total steel imports through August 
2000 are 17 percent higher than over the same period in 1999 and are 
greater even than imports over the same period in 1998, a record year. 
At the same time, steel prices continue to be depressed, with hot-
rolled steel prices 12 percent lower in August 2000 than in the first 
quarter of 1998, and average import customs values for all steel 
products more than 15 percent lower over the same period.
  Is this how we want to end an era of American history? Do we want to

[[Page 27167]]

watch the linchpin of the American industrial revolution--our steel 
industry--be felled by government subsidized foreign competition, aided 
and abetted by indifferent application of the very trade laws 
implemented to protect American companies and American workers from 
illegal competition? I certainly hope not. When our crippled Aegis 
destroyer, the ill-fated U.S.S. Cole, is brought home for repairs, I 
would like American steel to bind up those wounds. I don't want to be 
dependent on foreign sources of steel for critical national defense 
needs. During World War II, I was a welder, helping to build the ships 
that supported our forces in that war. Today, I am a legislator, and I 
want to help the industry that supports our forces in war and in other 
critical missions.
  I had prepared a resolution, cosponsored by Senators Specter, 
Rockefeller, Abraham, Baucus, Bayh, DeWine, Durbin, Hollings, Kohl, 
Levin, Lincoln, Lugar, Mikulski, Santorum, Sarbanes, Schumer, Sessions, 
Shelby, Thurmond, Voinovich, and Wellstone, that would be a Senate 
companion to H. Res. 635. H. Res. 635 was introduced on October 18, and 
currently has 237 cosponsors. This resolution would call upon the 
President to take all appropriate action within his power to provide 
relief to the steel industry injured by these unfair actions of our 
trading partners. It would request an immediate and expedited U.S. 
International Trade Commission investigation for positive adjustment 
under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. I am pleased that my 
resolution was, instead, accepted and included in the conference report 
to accompany the Labor/HHS appropriations bill.
  This action by the Administration is necessary. We need a broad-
based, comprehensive approach to dealing with this crisis in the 
domestic steel industry. Fighting this war one skirmish at a time, on 
one product type at a time by one company at a time, is simply and 
slowly bleeding our steel companies dry. We cannot let them continue to 
pick our steel companies off one at a time. We need to put the full 
weight of our attention and our resources on dealing comprehensively 
with this matter. We need to be vigilant across all fronts, and we need 
to develop longer strategic vision if we are to preserve this vital 
domestic industry.
  We need a level playing field. I have no doubt that American steel 
companies can compete on a level playing field. But they cannot compete 
against steel that is priced at or below the cost of production by 
foreign companies subsidized by governments who seek not only to 
preserve their own steel production capacity, but to profit by gaining 
U.S. market share and putting our companies into bankruptcy. I am, 
unfortunately, confident that the International Trade Commission's 
investigation will find that the steel crisis of 1998 is far from over. 
In fact, steel imports are on track to match or possibly exceed the 
record figures of 1998. So, sadly, our domestic steel producers should 
have no problem meeting the stringent standards of proof required under 
section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 to prove that an injury has or can 
be expected to occur.
  I commend the many Members of the Senate who join me in calling for 
this action to be taken, for standing up for steel and the men and 
women and families who depend on steel jobs. I also commend the Senate 
for including this provision in this bill. I urge the Administration to 
proceed immediately to initiate a Section 201 investigation of steel 
dumping. It is urgently needed.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, 70 days and 20 continuing resolutions 
after what was supposed to be our October 6 adjournment date, the 106th 
Congress is coming to an end. Let us hope the upcoming New Year brings 
with it a renewed spirit of bipartisan cooperation.
  This year, such cooperation took a back seat to partisan bickering 
and ill-advised parliamentary tactics that had the effect of further 
polarizing this body. How many mornings did Americans awake to 
newspaper headlines reporting that Congress and the president still, 
weeks and months after we were to adjourn, had not finished their work?
  There are many good provisions in the legislation soon to be sent to 
the President and I want to thank all those who put in long hours to 
bring this Congress to a close. I am particularly supportive of the 
Medicare changes that will strengthen the quality of health care for 
our seniors.
  In 1997, Congress made some difficult, but necessary, changes in the 
financial structure of the Medicare system as part of the Balanced 
Budget Act. These changes were needed to preserve and protect the 
system and delay its impending bankruptcy from 2001 until 2015, while 
also increasing choice and expanding benefits for beneficiaries.
  Despite the changes, there has been increasing concern that certain 
reimbursement reductions and caps contained in the Budget Act are 
resulting in access problems for our seniors. Personally, I have grown 
concerned about the potentially negative impact on the delivery of 
health care in our rural communities and for our most frail elderly if 
we do not make certain adjustments.
  I am also pleased this legislation addresses many of the concerns 
raised by my constituents and the Arizona health care community. This 
proposal improves senior health care by increasing access to critical 
preventative benefits--including bi-annual pap smear screenings and 
pelvic exams, glaucoma screenings, colon cancer screening, and medical 
nutrition therapy for patients with diabetes and renal disease. Rural 
hospitals are strengthened by updating reimbursement policies and 
increasing access for seniors to emergency and ambulatory services in 
rural areas. And this legislation significantly lowers co-payments for 
out-patient hospital visits.
  I am also pleased that Native Americans will not be overlooked in 
this legislative package, but instead will receive an economic boost 
through equitable treatment of tribal governments for unemployment tax 
purposes, a change to the tax law that I have been advocating for 
nearly a decade. An important stimulus to economic development in 
Indian country is to provide employment tax credits and incentives, 
including unemployment compensation benefits. This change to the 
Federal Unemployment Tax Act, FUTA, will correct an uneven 
interpretation in the tax law by finally including tribal employees in 
the Nation's comprehensive unemployment benefit system.
  Unfortunately, I must oppose this legislation for a variety of 
reason. Once again, I must object to the pork barrel spending in this 
year-end legislative package and in all of the appropriations bills 
that have become law. Regrettably, the process that got us to this 
point led to what a New York Times headline aptly characterized as 
``The Politics of the Surplus.'' In other words, we paved our way home 
by spending billions of taxpayers' dollars on budget items that never 
went through a merit-based review process.
  In the run-up to this final agreement, over $24 billion in pork 
barrel spending (a list of this spending may be found on my Senate Web 
site) was doled out and that figure will surely climb once we get a 
good look at the bills before us. Mr. President, our appetite for pork 
barrel spending was so large this year, in fact, that NBC News 
highlighted our feast on their Nightly News segment, ``The Fleecing of 
America.''
  Who among us will ever forget the 1.5 million taxpayer dollars we 
have already approved to restore ``a 56-foot iron rendition of the 
Roman god of fire and metalworking, Vulcan''?
  Or the $1.5 million for sunflower research?
  Or the $400,000 for the Southside Sportsman Club?
  Or the $250,000 to develop improved varieties of potatoes''?
  Or the $100,000 for the ``Trees Forever Program''?
  Or the $176,000 for the Reindeer Herders Association?
  Or Or the $5 million for insect rearing?
  But, there is more to come in this year-end budget deal, which has at 
least $1.9 billion in pork. For instance, in the Conference Report for 
the Commerce, State, and Justice Appropriations bill, some examples of 
earmarks having never undergone the appropriate merit-review process 
include: $3

[[Page 27168]]

million for Red Snapper research, $1 million for Hawaiian coral reef 
monitoring, $500,000 for the California Ozone study, $200,000 for the 
Kotzebue Sound test fishery for king crab and sea snail, $600,000 for 
fall chinook rearing for the Columbia River hatcheries program, 
$750,000 for bottle-nosed dolphins, $3,338,000 for sea turtles, $1 
million for winter pollack survey in Alaska, $1 million for the 
implementation of the National Height Modernization, NHM, system in 
North Carolina, $300,000 for research on the Charleston bump, and 
$150,000 for lobster sampling.

  The pork barrel spending adds up. Look at the numbers.
  Last spring, Republicans outlined our spending plans calling for 
about $600 billion in so-called discretionary spending--that is, 
spending on programs other than Social Security, Medicare, and interest 
on our $5.7 trillion debt. The President's budget requested about $623 
billion in discretionary spending. We'll end up spending in the 
neighborhood of $650 billion--some $100 billion over the discretionary 
spending caps set by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
  According to Robert Reischauer, former head of the Congressional 
Budget Office, this will be the third year in a row in which the 
budget, excluding Social Security, ``has been in surplus.'' The last 
time this happened, Reischauer says, was over 70 years ago. This is why 
I believe, Mr. President, we should take advantage of our robust 
economy and make significantly paying down our national debt one of our 
top priorities.
  I must also once again express my disappointment over the narrow 
scope of the immigration provisions contained in this bill. I support 
the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, LIFA. Negotiations between the 
White House and the leadership, which endorsed more limited immigration 
reform, have resulted in a compromise that makes progress but falls far 
short of the Fairness provisions we never had a chance to vote on.
  In particular, this bill makes meaningful but insufficient progress 
on amnesty for those wrongly denied it, and does not address legitimate 
concerns about Central American refugee parity. Fortunately, 
negotiators have agreed to temporarily restore Section 245(i), which 
allows immigrants with family or employer sponsors to adjust their 
status in the United States, rather than return to their countries of 
origin and face the threat of 10 years of separation from family and 
work in the United States before returning. This bill also contains 
important provisions encouraging family unification through the 
creation of several new visa categories. That said, it will fall to 
supporters of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act in the 107th 
Congress to advance that bill's intent to allow long-term residents who 
have developed deep roots in our country and contributed to our economy 
for many years to remain legally, and to establish parity for Central 
American and other refugees not afforded the same status as refugees 
from other, similarly troubled countries. I am sorry we could not have 
better addressed these concerns in this bill, but I appreciate the 
progress we are making and hope that we can take up these issues during 
the 107th Congress.
  I remain optimistic, Mr. President, that we will be able to work 
together in the 107th Congress to accomplish great things.
  We all should be proud of the recent election. Obviously, it wasn't 
perfect. Democracy never is. Yet, major issues important to all 
Americans were discussed and debated. In fact, a post-election survey 
by Pew Charitable Trusts found that a high percentage of voters 
believed there was ``more discussion of issues than four years ago.'' 
And 83 percent of voters said they learned enough ``to make an informed 
choice.''
  No doubt voters have different opinions on how we should deal with 
these issues. But, they did not disagree on which issues need to be 
tackled by Congress and our President.
  In national pre-election polls, Americans consistently ranked Social 
Security, health care, and education among the issues they worry most 
about. But they also know that little gets done because too much 
special-interest money is infecting our political process, resulting in 
the kind of gridlock we have witnessed over the last year. A Newsweek 
poll found nearly 60 percent of Americans agreeing with the statement 
that political contributions have ``too much influence on elections and 
government policy.'' Only ten percent disagreed.
  The way we do business must change.
  If we have the will, we can begin to repair Americans' cynical 
perception of our government by working together, in bipartisan 
fashion, on campaign finance reform, a real Patient's Bill of Rights, 
Social Security reform, and badly needed reform of the tax system.
  We must also do our work in the open with due process and appropriate 
discussion.
  This is why, I must also object to a provision inserted by Senator 
Inouye, who has once again gone to great lengths to provide 
protectionist legislation to the lone U.S. operator of large cruise 
ships in Hawaii. In the 106th's closing hours, the Senator has had a 
legislative provision inserted in the final appropriations measure that 
will prohibit any cruise ship operator from allowing gaming on board 
any vessel that departs from and returns to Hawaii. This provides 
American Classic Voyages with the protection they need to keep other 
cruise operators who depend on gaming to attract passengers and provide 
an additional revenue stream from entering the Hawaii market and 
prohibit other vessels currently departing from other U.S. port cities 
from sailing among the Hawaiian islands. In the end, the American 
consumer is the loser.
  While Hawaii law currently prohibits any gaming within the state, 
including its waters, U.S., state, and international law allows gaming 
on vessels more than three miles from shore. I have no argument against 
Hawaii's gambling prohibition. But the amendment authored by Senator 
Inouye is aimed at keeping planed operations by international cruise 
operators out of Hawaii and preserving the monopoly created for 
American Classic Voyages as part of special interest legislation he 
sponsored and which became law in 1998. The language will result in 
fewer large cruise ship operators serving the Hawaiian Islands and 
drastically restricting consumer choice for cruise vacations in Hawaii.
  What is most amazing is this measure, like so many others in this 
bill, was never discussed publicly, with the administration, or with 
any Committee of jurisdiction in Congress. This type of closed door, 
special interest legislation should concern every Member. To deny the 
American public the freedom of choice in cruising vacations and 
restrict international trade without one moment of debate is very 
troubling.
  In light of this and other such inappropriate legislating, we must 
enact institutional reforms to put an end to the rampant abuse of the 
budget process.
  If we are to hold any hope for reforming the budgetary process in 
this body, fundamental changes to the rules governing the 
appropriations process must be made. The two Rules of the Senate 
designed to impose discipline on the appropriations process are Rule 
16, and Rule 28. Rule 16 is designed to block legislative riders on 
appropriations bills coming out of Committee, and Rule 28 is designed 
to accomplish the same goal on Conference Reports. Unfortunately, due 
to the fact that Rule 16 points of order only require a simple majority 
to over-rule the Chair, it has proven ineffective in stripping riders. 
And, as we all know, Rule 28 is effectively moot at this point.
  As such, when the Senate reconvenes next year, it is my intention to 
offer an amendment to the Rules of the Senate designed to toughen Rule 
16, and to reaffirm and toughen Rule 28. This amendment would do the 
following:
  Rule 16 would be modified to require a three-fifths vote to over-rule 
a point of order against a legislative item inserted into a general 
appropriations bill by the appropriations committee. Further, a single 
point of order may be raised against each legislative item, and each 
point of order would be debatable and subject to a roll call vote.
  Rule 28 would be modified, blocking Conferees to a general 
appropriations

[[Page 27169]]

bill from inserting in their Report any matter not committed to them by 
either House, or striking from the bill matter agreed to by both 
Houses. Conferees to a general appropriations bill would be prohibited 
from increasing an appropriation for any item committed to them by 
either House to a level exceeding the highest appropriated level for 
such item presented to them by either House, and reducing an 
appropriated level for any item committed to them below the lowest 
appropriated level for such item committed to them by either House.
  Further, Conferees to a general appropriations bill would be 
restricted from modifying any item committed to them by either House 
where such modification is not germane to the item being modified. In 
any case, no matter may be inserted into the Report that is not germane 
to the general appropriations bill committed to the Conferees.
  The result of these changes would be to impose a strict ``scope of 
conference'' rule on appropriations Conferees.
  A point of order may be made by any Senator against any general 
appropriations bill Conference Report for any violation of the 
restrictions set forth by this rule. In such cases where a single 
restriction has been violated more than once within a Conference 
Report, or where more than one restriction has been violated within a 
single Conference Report, each violation may be treated individually, 
and may be subject to a specific point of order. In the event that a 
single, or multiple points of order, are made against a general 
appropriations bill Conference Report for reasons set forth under these 
new restrictions, a three-fifths vote of the Senate is required to 
over-rule the Chair. Each appeal of the ruling of the Chair of each 
respective point of order is debatable and must be voted on separately.
  Mr. President, before I end, I want to wish everyone a happy holiday 
season and New Year.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to take some time to 
discuss the importance of investing in our Nation's high-speed rail 
infrastructure.
  We have what could fairly be termed a looming transportation crisis 
in the United States. Business and personal travelers are 
overwhelmingly relying on air travel to get from city to city, and the 
system is plagued with delays and congestion which is not only 
undermining people's personal plans but also harming the business 
community.
  Air travel has become so inconvenient and unreliable, the public 
needs alternatives. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, 
aviation delays increased 58 percent between 1995 and 1999. And to add 
to passengers' frustration, the average delay is getting longer each 
year--averaging 50 minutes in 1999.
  Even worse, flight cancellations increased 68 percent over that same 
period--1995--1999. Overall, nearly one in four flights was either 
delayed or canceled in 1999.
  The summer of 1999 was the most delayed summer in aviation history. 
That is until this summer, which blew past last year's delay record.
  The number of delays, the number of cancellations, and the length of 
delays all have continued to go up so far in 2000. And consumer 
complaints more than doubled in 1999 and are up almost another 50 
percent so far this year.
  With aviation travel expected to increase more than 50 percent over 
the next decade, we have a crisis looming.
  The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that boardings will 
increase to 917 million by 2008. Our current aviation system can't 
handle this demand.
  Fortunately, we have a solution to this problem right before our 
eyes. A solution that we have ignored and neglected for too long--high-
speed passenger rail.
  Nineteen of the 20 most-delayed airports in the United States are 
located on potential high-speed corridors. And high-speed rail can 
provide a competitive travel alternative, particularly over distances 
less than 500 miles.
  The situation on our roads is almost as dire as the problems in our 
skies. One study estimated that $72 billion dollars was lost in 1997 as 
a result of traffic congestion through lost productivity and wasted 
fuel. And this situation continues to deteriorate. People now spend 50 
percent more time stuck in traffic than they did in 1990 and triple the 
time they did in 1982.
  Critics have complained about Amtrak receiving $23 billion federal 
subsidies since 1971. But this is pocket change compared with the 
funding we have provided other modes over that same period. Since 1971, 
we have spent over $160 billion on aviation programs and over $380 
billion on highways.
  The High-Speed Rail Investment Act can is the vehicle for giving 
Americans more transportation options. This legislation would allow 
Amtrak to sell $10 billion in high-speed rail bonds over ten years. The 
Federal Government would leverage private sector investment in our rail 
infrastructure by providing tax credits to bondholders.
  States would be full partners in this effort and would have to put up 
a 20 percent match which would go into an escrow account to be used to 
repay the bond principal.
  These funds would enable high-speed rail projects to go forward in 
the Midwest, the Southeast, the Gulf Coast, and along the Pacific 
Coast.
  And it would allow us to finish the Northeast Corridor high-speed 
rail project.
  High-speed rail means better, faster, more competitive rail service. 
It means a comfortable travel alternative to those who want to avoid 
congested highways and cramped and delayed planes.
  The High-Speed Rail Investment Act, S. 1900, is supported by a 
bipartisan group of 57 Senators representing all regions of the 
country. And companion House legislation, H.R. 3700, introduced by 
Congressmen Amo Houghton and James Oberstar, now has over 150 
cosponsors.
  Our Nation's governors, state legislators, and mayors understand our 
transportation problems and see high-speed rail as a vital part of the 
solution to our transporatation woes. Newspapers from across the Nation 
have come out in support of investing in high-speed rail.
  Mr. President, the benefits of High Speed Rail Service are clear. 
High-speed rail is the future of transportation in America. We cannot 
maintain a productive and efficient transportation system without 
modernizing our rail infrastructure and providing a competitive 
alternative means of transportation on our rails.
  I am therefore pleased that I have the commitment of my colleagues to 
provide resources for high speed rail next year. While I won't be in 
the Senate, I know the Senator from Delaware and other colleagues will 
work relentlessly toward this goal.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Medicare, 
Medicaid and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, I 
want to take this opportunity to comment about several of the 
provisions included in the bill. This bill contains many important 
health care provisions affecting both Medicare providers and Medicare 
beneficiaries. Accordingly, I am delighted that a final agreement has 
been reached with the White House on these provisions and that the 
measure is now ready for passage.
  I also want to take this opportunity to commend the distinguished 
Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, for his leadership and 
persistence over the past several months in moving this critically 
important legislation. On a personal note, I would be remiss if I did 
not say that I will miss my colleague and good friend Bill Roth. I am 
very sorry that he will not be returning to the next Congress to 
continue the work on which he has labored for so many years.
  Bill Roth has made a real difference to Americans--he was one of the 
original believers in across-the-board tax cuts. President Reagan 
seized on this idea as the way to get our nation out of 
``stagflation.'' The tax policy worked and produced one of the longest 
periods of prosperity in history. Bill Roth was also a father of the 
individual retirement account, which is a simple way that Americans can 
help themselves save for retirement. Senator Roth worked tirelessly 
over the years to expand IRAs, make them even more

[[Page 27170]]

available and more workable. I greatly admire Bill Roth's understanding 
of the tax code and tax policy, and we are going to miss his continued 
contributions to this complex issue area.
  But, Chairman Roth has also been a champion on the Finance Committee 
and in the Senate for his commitment in addressing the critical 
structural and financing problems facing the Medicare program. Indeed, 
his work over the past several years as Chairman of the Finance 
Committee has dramatically improved the prospects that meaningful 
Medicare reform can be accomplished, in a bipartisan fashion, in the 
next Congress. Moreover, because of his efforts, the foundation has 
been laid for a workable and much-needed Medicare drug benefit that I 
am hopeful Congress will enact with the leadership of President-elect 
Bush.
  For now, I would like to comment briefly on several provisions which 
I authored, or strongly supported, that are included in this 
legislation.
  First, I am pleased the legislation contains provisions to create a 
prospective payment system for federally qualified health centers in 
every state of the country. Betty Vierra, who serves as the Executive 
Director of the Association for Utah Community Health, advised me that 
this is one of the top priorities of community health centers in Utah 
and across the nation. Community health centers have been working on 
this issue since 1997, and I am pleased they have finally won their 
hard-fought battle.
  The bill also contains provisions from the Medicare Access to 
Technology Act of 2000, legislation that I introduced earlier this 
year. Last year, provisions were included in the omnibus budget 
legislation for fiscal year 2000 that addressed some of the outstanding 
problems concerning access issues for Medicare beneficiaries. 
Unfortunately, we were to able to resolve all of the issues last year. 
As a result, Medicare beneficiaries continue to have trouble gaining 
access to many new medical technologies that are already reimbursed by 
private insurance plans.
  That is why I introduced the Medicare Patient Access to Technology 
Act of 2000. I believe we must eliminate the delays and barriers to 
access that have arisen in the way Medicare decides to cover, code and 
pay for new medical devices and diagnostics. Last year's legislation, 
which was included in the Balanced Budget Relief Act (BBRA), 
represented an important first step in modernizing the Medicare program 
to provide timely access to needed medical treatments provided in the 
hospital outpatient setting.
  Briefly, my legislation requires the Health Care Financing 
Administration (HCFA) to implement the OPPS pass-through payment 
program on the basis of categories starting April 1, 2001. The bill 
includes a provision which changes the way in which HCFA reimburses for 
clinical laboratory services including the establishment of a specific 
process for clinical laboratory payments, and to report to Congress on 
this issue. Finally, the legislation requires the maintenance of local 
codes by Medicare contractors for three years and also requires HCFA by 
October 1, 2001 to provide for the inclusion of new technologies and 
devices more quickly in the Medicare inpatient hospital payment 
program.
  On another matter, I have been deeply concerned about the safety of 
our nation's blood supply. Patient access to a safe and adequate blood 
supply is a national health priority, however, many of us have heard 
from the American Red Cross, America's blood centers, and the American 
Association of Blood Banks about hospitals having trouble paying for 
new blood therapies. Additional funding is needed if we are to remain 
committed to the safest blood supply possible.
  The blood banking and transfusion medicine communities are constantly 
working to assure that safety improvements for blood are implemented as 
soon as they are available. Unfortunately, these measures significantly 
increase the cost of blood products--over 40 percent for the two latest 
technologies--for both the hospital and blood bank.
  While blood is donated by volunteers, nonprofit blood centers must 
recover the costs associated with providing a safe product. Nonprofit 
blood centers pass these charges onto hospitals, which in turn, must 
get timely and adequate reimbursement for these lifesaving and life-
enhancing products. Unfortunately, the current system by which HCFA 
determines inpatient reimbursement rates does not account for these 
safety improvements a timely manner.
  The bill directs HCFA and MedPAC to review how hospitals are being 
reimbursed for blood. It also asks both entities to recommend necessary 
changes to provide fair and timely reimbursement. While these 
recommendations will not be completed until late next year, I will 
continue to work on guaranteeing that patients are receiving the safest 
possible blood products as soon as possible.
  I am also very pleased that the legislation before the Senate today 
contains additional funding for our nation's skilled facilities (SNFs). 
In September, I introduced legislation, S. 3030, along with my 
colleague Senator Domenici, to increase Medicare reimbursements for 
skilled nursing facilities.
  Nursing homes across our country continue to struggle under the 
enormous demands of complying with the implementation of the 
prospective payment system as authorized pursuant to the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). In an effort to address this problem, 
Congress passed legislation last year to restore nearly $2.7 billion 
for the care of nursing home patients. This action provided much needed 
relief to an industry that is facing extraordinarily financial 
difficulties as a result of the spending reductions provided under the 
BBA as well as implementation by HCFA.
  Unfortunately, the problem is not fixed and more needs to be done. 
That is why Senator Domenici and I introduced the Skilled Nursing 
Facility Care Act of 2000 so that seniors can rest assured that they 
will have access to this important Medicare benefit.
  In Utah, there are currently 93 nursing homes serving nearly 5,800 
residents. I understand that seven of these 93 facilities, which are 
operated by Vencor, have filed for Chapter 11 protection. These seven 
facilities care for approximately 800 residents. Clearly, we need to be 
concerned about the prospect of these nursing homes going out of 
business, and the dramatic consequences that such action would have on 
all residents--no matter who pays the bill.
  I am pleased that the bill before the Senate contains provisions from 
the Skilled Nursing Facility Care Act to ensure patient access to 
nursing home care. Medicare's skilled nursing benefit provides life 
enhancing care following a hospitalization to nearly two million 
seniors annually. Unless Congress and HCFA take the necessary steps to 
ensure proper payments, elderly patients will be at risk, especially in 
rural, underserved and economically disadvantaged areas.
  Specifically, the bill provides approximately $1.6 billion to SNFs 
over the next five years. The legislation repeals the minus one percent 
decrease in the SNF market basket for FY 2001 thereby providing the 
full market basket update. In FY 2002 and 2003 the updates would be the 
market basket index increase minus 0.5 percentage points.
  Moreover, temporary increases in the federal per diem rates provided 
by last year's increases would be in addition to the increases in this 
provision. The bill also increases the nursing component for each 
Resource Utilization Group (RUG) by 16.66% over current law for SNF 
care furnished after April 1, 2001 and before October 1, 2002. Clearly, 
these additional dollars will help ensure the continuity of beneficiary 
care in our nation's nursing homes.
  Another issue that I worked hard to get into the legislation is the 
financial commitment made for the treatment and research on diabetes. I 
am extremely pleased that the bill provides a substantial increase in 
appropriations for special diabetes programs for children with Type 1 
Diabetes as well as for Native Americans with diabetes. As my 
colleagues recall, the BBA created

[[Page 27171]]

two new grant programs under which the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services could make grants to support prevention and treatment services 
of diabetes for children and for Native Americans, respectively.
  Specifically, Congress committed $30 million each for Native American 
diabetes care and for NIH research of Type 1 Diabetes in children. This 
program was authorized for five years--FY 1998 through FY 2002. I am 
very pleased the legislation increases the appropriated funds available 
for these two programs by raising the amount from $30 million to $100 
million for FY 2001 and FY 2002, respectively. Moreover, the bill 
appropriates $100 million for each program for FY 2003.
  These dollars have been extremely helpful in Indian Country where 
Native Americans suffer the highest rate of diabetes than any other 
segment of our population. I want to commend the Republican leadership 
for ensuring that these dollars were included in the bill--this 
commitment is truly making positive difference in the lives of millions 
of Americans who suffer from this deadly disease.
  With respect to home health care, the legislation protects funding 
for home health care services by delaying until October 1, 2002 a BBA-
scheduled 15 percent cut in Medicare payments. I sponsored legislation 
earlier this year that addresses the issue of the 15 percent cut. And, 
while I hoped we could repeal the 15% cut provision altogether, I can 
appreciate the difficulty the conferees faced in resolving this 
complicated and costly provision. Delaying the cut for another year 
will provide Congress additional time to address this controversial 
issue.
  Moreover, the bill provides for a full medical inflation update for 
home health. I am particularly pleased the bill contains a provision 
that enhances the use of telehealth medicine in the delivery of home 
health care services. This enhancement will be especially helpful to 
those individuals who live in the rural and remote parts of Utah where 
medical specialists are not readily available. As a result, Utahns who 
live in these areas will not have improved access to the best doctors 
and medical care specialists regardless of where they live.
  The bill also contains a provision on adult day care. This provision 
clarifies that the need for adult day care for a patient's plan of 
treatment does not preclude appropriate coverage for home health care. 
It also clarifies the ability of homebound beneficiaries to attend 
religious services without being disqualified from receiving home 
health care benefits. As one of the Senate's strongest supporters of 
home health care, I believe these provisions will enhance substantially 
the home health care benefit.
  As far as hospitals are concerned, the legislation provides a 
substantial amount of new funding for our nation's hospitals. I have 
been particularly concerned about the financial impact of the BBA's 
provisions on rural hospitals. As I travel across Utah, I am constantly 
reminded by hospital administrators about the serious financial 
pressures many of these institutions currently face with increased 
demands for care while coping with reduced reimbursements from 
Medicare. Clearly, Congress needs to act now to ensure the financial 
viability of our nation's hospitals.
  The bill also addresses the problem by providing equitable treatment 
for rural disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs) which care for a 
disproportionate share of poor Medicare patients. The bill extends the 
Medicare Dependent Hospital program for rural areas; it updates target 
amounts for sole community hospitals; and increases rural patients' 
access to emergency and ambulance services.
  Moreover, the bill ensures continued access to hospital services 
nationwide by providing a full inflation market basket update for 
fiscal year 2001. The plan also ensures the financial stability of 
teaching hospitals by increasing payments related to physician 
training. This provision is especially important to Utah's University 
Hospital which has been hard hit in the past year by the BBA 
reductions.
  With regard to Native Americans, the legislation contains an 
extremely important provision regarding Indian health care. The bill 
authorizes, for the first time, the Indian Health Service (IHS) and 
tribally operated clinics and hospitals to receive Medicare Part B 
reimbursement for services provided under the physician fee schedule. 
This proposal would enhance the access of Medicare-eligible Native 
Americans to affordable, quality health care and improve the ability of 
these clinics and hospitals to serve the Native American population.
  Another important Medicare issue I want to raise involves providing 
appropriate coverage for certain injectable drugs and biologicals that 
are critical to many Medicare beneficiaries. To resolve this issue, the 
legislation has a provision which addresses this important issue.
  The Medicare Carriers Manual specifies that a drug or biological is 
covered under this provision if it is ``usually'' not self-
administered. Under this standard, Medicare for many years covered 
drugs and biological products administered by physicians in their 
offices and other outpatient settings. In August 1997, however, HCFA 
issued a memorandum that had the effect of eliminating coverage for 
certain products that could be self-administered. This resulted in 
patients suddenly losing their Medicare coverage for these products, 
thus limiting access to drugs and biologicals for many seniors and 
disabled individuals.
  The legislation's language clarifies Medicare reimbursement policy to 
guarantee that physicians and hospitals will be reimbursed for 
injectable drugs and biologicals. The new language requires coverage of 
``drugs and biologicals which are not usually self-administered by the 
patient,'' thus restoring the coverage policy that was in effect before 
the August 1997 HCFA memorandum was issued.
  When HCFA considers whether a drug or biological is usually self-
administered, I feel HCFA should determine whether a majority of 
Medicare beneficiaries can actually self-administer the drug. HCFA 
should assume, as it did for many years, that Medicare patients do not 
usually administer injections or infusions to themselves, while oral 
medications usually are self-administered.
  I believe that it would be appropriate for HCFA to issue guidelines 
for its contractors to clarify the intent of the legislation. In 
addition, HCFA should instruct its contractors not to exclude a drug or 
biological without making an explicit finding supported by evidence 
that the product is usually self-administered by most Medicare 
patients.
  This issue is an important step to provide our seniors and persons 
with disabilities with the prescription drugs and biologicals that they 
deserve. I look forward to working with HCFA to ensure that our 
Medicare beneficiaries receive adequate and appropriate coverage for 
these drugs and biologicals.
  On another matter Mr. President, I would also like to state that as 
the Medicare provisions of this legislation are implemented, I urge the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to review policies that affect 
the order of services provided to home health beneficiaries to assure 
that, under the prospective payment system, home health agencies are 
given maximum flexibility to provide services in a clinically 
appropriate and efficient order.
  In this connection, I believe the Secretary should also review the 
role of occupational therapists in conducting the initial Outcome and 
Assessment Information Set (OASIS) even when occupational therapy is 
not the therapy service that initially qualifies the beneficiary for 
covered home health services.
  For example, when patients are prescribed home health solely for 
rehabilitation, the review should include whether or not it would be 
clinically appropriate for occupational therapy to be the first service 
provided to the patient. Another factor to be considered is whether or 
not it may be appropriate for an occupational therapist to conduct the 
initial OASIS. I am hopeful that the prospective payment system 
implemented by the Secretary will not restrict the ability of home 
health agencies to fully utilize the unique skills of covered 
therapists.

[[Page 27172]]

  Once again, Mr. President, I am pleased the Congress and President 
Clinton have come together in reaching agreement on this legislation. 
It is vital that these provisions become enacted this year; they will 
help many people across our country. I look forward to the President 
signing this measure into law at the earliest possible date.
  I also want to take this opportunity to thank the numerous 
individuals across the great state of Utah who took the time to meet 
with me here in Washington and in Utah over the past year regarding 
many of the health provisions included in this bill. I value the input 
and expertise I received from health care providers and consumers in 
may state, and especially from the elderly whose views have been 
particularly helpful to me in the development of this legislation.
  Seniors in Utah and across our country depend on Medicare. We must 
ensure this program provides the highest quality of health care to 
beneficiaries. Moreover, I am hopeful that in the next Congress, with 
the leadership from President-elect Bush, we will be able to build on 
today's work and further improve the quality of services to 
beneficiaries and, especially, provide for a new outpatient 
prescription drug benefit.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say a few words about the Small 
Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 and the process to bring this 
legislation to the floor as part of the Fiscal Year 2001 Omnibus 
Appropriations bill. First, however, I would like to thank Senate 
Committee on Small Business Chairman Kit Bond, House Small Business 
Committee Chairman Jim Talent, House Small Business Committee Ranking 
Member Nydia Velazquez, our staffs, Laura Ayoud with Senate Legislative 
Counsel and John Ratliff with the House Legislative Counsel's office 
for their efforts on reauthorizing programs vital to America's small 
businesses. We have all worked long and hard to get to this point.
  The Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000, H.R. 5667, as 
included in the Fiscal Year 2001 Omnibus Appropriations bill, contains 
a good portion of the conference report negotiated by the Senate and 
House Committees on Small Business. Despite the rough start, partisan 
wrangling over unrelated issues, broken deals and lengthy delays, I am 
pleased that we can at last pass this legislation so critical to our 
nation's small businesses. Unfortunately, it is our small businesses 
that have suffered the most in this climate of uncertainty, waiting, 
anticipating and hoping that the Congress would complete its work and 
pass this reauthorization package.
  While I am pleased that we have reached an agreement that will ensure 
continuation of valuable Small Business Administration (SBA) programs, 
I am greatly concerned with the breakdown in the legislative process 
that has prevented what is normally a bi-partisan reauthorization bill 
from passing in a timely manner.
  To briefly elaborate on this, when the original agreement between the 
Senate and the House was concluded, our bipartisan legislation was 
commandeered by the Republican leadership and provisions dealing with 
tax cuts, assisted suicide and medicare give-backs to HMOs were added 
without my knowledge or consent. The President threatened to veto such 
a package.
  Additionally, a Wellstone provision agreed to during negotiations was 
removed. The Wellstone provision would have created a 3 year $9 million 
pilot project to build the capacity of community development venture 
capital firms through research, training and management assistance. 
Senator Wellstone had already agreed to make this program a three year 
pilot project and cut the funding down from $20 million over four 
years. But the provision was removed from the Conference Report without 
consulting either of us.
  I am also disappointed that some provisions included in the Senate 
passed version of the Small Business Reauthorization Act, as well as in 
the Administration's budget request, were not included in the final 
version of this legislation. The original Senate version contained 
several provisions important to the Administration, Members of the 
Senate Small Business Committee and the Senate in general. In the 
spirit of compromise, the Senate agreed to drop several of these 
important provisions, with an understanding, in many cases, to revisit 
these issues in the 107th Congress.
  Chairman Bond agreed to remove his provision regarding the 
``Independent Office of Advocacy Act,'' which I cosponsored, and which 
passed the Senate as a separate bill. This Committee has heard on more 
than one occasion that providing separate funding for the Office of 
Advocacy is the best means to ensure its autonomy. I look forward to 
working with the Chairman on this issue in the next Congress. A 
provision requested by Senator Ted Stevens setting up a HUBZone pilot 
program in Alaska and a provision requested by Senator Dianne Feinstein 
to allow fruit and vegetable packing houses hit by the 1998 freeze to 
participate in the SBA's Disaster Loan program were removed as well. I 
have assured Senator Feinstein that the Committee will look further 
into this matter in the next Congress in an effort to allow the SBA to 
provide relief if it is warranted.
  A provision requested by the Administration and strongly supported by 
Senator Paul Wellstone and myself was also dropped. This provision 
would have created a Native American Small Business Development Center 
(SBDC) Network that would have worked together with the traditional 
SBDC Network, but would have been separately funded. I have received 
assurances from both Chairman Bond and the House Committee on Small 
Business that this issue will be addressed in the next Congress, along 
with concerns raised by Senator Inouye about the participation of 
Native Hawaiian Organizations in the 8(a) program. The Senate and House 
Committees on Small Business are in agreement that this is an important 
issue for Native Americans, considered a disadvantaged group for the 
purposes of SBA programs, and one that needs greater focus.
  Provisions regarding the Quadrennial Small Business Summit, the Small 
Business Advocacy Review Panel Technical Amendments Act, Development 
Company Debenture Interest Rates, Fraud and False Statements and 
Financial Institution Civil Penalties were also removed.
  The final version of this legislation does include some of the 
provisions I requested regarding improvements to the Microloan program. 
The changes to the Microloan program stemmed from the President's 
Fiscal Year 2001 budget request and had broad support in the Senate, as 
well the support of several Members of the House Committee on Small 
Business. I have long been a firm believer in microloans and their 
power to help people gain economic independence while improving the 
communities in which they live. With a relatively small investment, the 
Microloan program helps turn ideas into small businesses adding up to 
sel-sufficiency for many families and big returns for the taxpayers.
  Changes to the program, which resulted from a roundtable Committee 
meeting in the Senate and discussions with the Administration and users 
of the Microloan program, will be a great boon to the effectiveness and 
availability of Microloans. Specifically, provisions increasing the 
maximum loan amount from $25,000 to $35,000 and increasing the average 
loan size to $15,000 were included. However, changes to make the 
program more effective, such as increasing the number of intermediaries 
or authorizing reimbursement for peer-to-peer mentoring, were weakened 
or removed because the House did not have time to hold hearings and 
study them thoroughly.
  I believe all of the changes in the Senate bill make sense, have 
broad bipartisan and bicameral support, and would go a long way toward 
providing increased access to capital, especially for minority 
entrepreneurs. I want to make it clear to my colleagues who support the 
Microloan program that I will continue my efforts to strengthen this 
program and will work with Chairman Bond and our House counterparts

[[Page 27173]]

to make these remaining improvements in the next Congress. I also 
intend to revisit the Microloan funding issue before the end of the 
three-year reauthorization period if the level authorized is inadequate 
to meet program needs.
  While I am disappointed that some of the Senate changes were not 
included in the final compromise, this legislation is crucial for our 
nation's small businesses. It reauthorizes all of the SBA's programs, 
setting the funding levels for the credit and business development 
programs, and making selected improvements. Without this legislation, 
the 504 loan program and the Small Business Innovation Research program 
would shut down; the venture capital debenture program would shut down; 
and funding to the states for their small business development centers 
would be in jeopardy.
  The SBA's contribution is significant. In the past eight years, the 
SBA has helped almost 375,000 small businesses get more than $80 
billion in loans. That's double what small businesses had received in 
the preceding 40 years since the agency's creation. The SBA is better 
run than ever before, with four straight years of clean financial 
audits; it has a quarter less staff, but guarantees twice as many 
loans; and its credit and finance programs are a bargain. For a 
relatively small investment, taxpayers are leveraging their money to 
help thousands of small businesses every year and fuel the economy.
  Let me just give you one example. In the 7(a) program, taxpayers 
spend only $1.24 for every $100 loaned to small business owners. Well 
known successes like Winnebago and Ben & Jerry's are clear examples of 
the program's effectiveness.
  Overall, I agree with the program levels in the three-year 
reauthorization bill. As I said during the Small Business Committee's 
hearing on SBA's budget earlier in the year, I believe the program 
levels are realistic and appropriate based on the growing demand for 
the programs and the prosperity of the country. I also think they are 
adequate should the economy slow down and lenders have less cash to 
invest. Consistent with SBA's mission, in good times or bad, we need to 
make sure that small businesses have access to credit and capital so 
that our economy benefits from the services, products and jobs they 
provide. As First Lady and Senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton says, 
we don't want good ideas dying in the parking lot of banks. We also 
want a safety net when our states are hit hard by a natural disaster. 
There are many members of this Chamber, and their constituents, who 
know all too well the value of SBA disaster loans after floods, fires 
and tornadoes.
  Mr. President, I am extremely pleased that we included legislation to 
extend the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program for 8 more 
years as part of this comprehensive SBA reauthorization bill. While I 
am very sorry the process has taken this long, in no way should that 
imply that there is not strong support for the SBIR program, the Small 
Business Administration, or our nation's innovative small businesses.
  The SBIR program is of vital importance to the high-technology sector 
throughout the country. For the past decade, growth in the high-
technology field has been a major source of the resurgence of the 
American economy we now enjoy. While many Americans know of the success 
of Microsoft, Oracle, and many of the dot.com companies, few realize 
that it is America's small businesses, working in industries like 
software, hardware, medical research, aerospace technologies, and bio-
technology, that are helping to fuel this resurgence--and that it is 
the SBIR program that makes much of this possible. By setting aside 
Federal research and development dollars specifically for small high-
tech businesses, the SBIR program is making important contributions to 
our economy.
  These companies have helped launch the space shuttle; conducted 
research on Hepatitis C; and made B-2 Bomber missions safer and more 
effective.
  Since the start of the SBIR program in 1983, more than 17,600 firms 
have received over $9.8 billion in SBIR funding agreements. In 1999 
alone, nearly $1.1 billion was awarded to small high-tech firms through 
the SBIR program, assisting more than 4,500 firms.
  The SBIR program has been, and remains, an excellent example of how 
government and small business can work together to advance the cause of 
both science and our economy. Access to risk capital is vital to the 
growth of small high technology companies, which accounted for more 
then 40 percent of all jobs in the high technology sector of our 
economy in 1998. The SBIR program gives these companies access to 
Federal research and development money and encourages those who do the 
research to commercialize their results. Because research is crucial to 
ensuring that our nation is the leader in knowledge-based industries, 
which will generate the largest job growth in the next century, the 
SBIR program is a good investment for the future.
  I am proud of the many SBIR successes that have come from my state of 
Massachusetts. Companies like Advanced Magnetics of Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, illustrate that success. Advanced Magnetics used SBIR 
funding to develop a drug making it easier for hospitals to find tumors 
in patients. The development of this drug increased company sales and 
allowed Advanced Magnetics to hire additional employees. This is 
exactly the kind of economic growth we need in this nation, because 
jobs in the high-technology field pay well and raise everyone's 
standard of living. That is why I am such a strong supporter and 
proponent of the SBIR program and fully support its reauthorization.
  This legislation also includes my legislation establishing a New 
Markets Venture Capital program at SBA. This small business legislation 
is designed to promote economic development, business investment, 
productive wealth and stable jobs in ``new markets,'' low- and 
moderate-income communities where there is little to no sustainable 
economic activity but many overlooked business opportunities. The 
venture capital program is modeled after the Small Business 
Administration's successful Small Business Investment Company program. 
The SBIC program has been so successful that it has generated more than 
$19 billion in investments in more than 13,000 businesses since 1992.
  With the passage of the ``New Markets'' legislation, low- and 
moderate-income areas will have increased opportunities to join the 
economic boom in America and this targeted venture capital will make a 
powerful difference in places like the inner-city areas of Boston's 
Roxbury or New York's East Harlem, and rural areas like Kentucky's 
Appalachia or the Mississippi's Delta region.
  This legislation also contains H.R. 2614, which reauthorizes SBA's 
504 loan program, which passed the Senate on June 14, 2000. The bill 
and our improvements make common-sense changes to this critical 
economic development tool. These changes will greatly increase the 
opportunity for small business owners to build a facility, buy more 
equipment, or acquire a new building. In turn, small business owners 
will be able to expand their companies and hire new workers, ultimately 
resulting in an improved local economy.
  Since 1980, over 25,000 businesses have received more than $20 
billion in fixed-asset financing through the 504 program. In my home 
state of Massachusetts, over the last decade small businesses have 
received $318 million in 504 loans that created more than 10,000 jobs. 
The stories behind those numbers say a lot about how SBA's 504 loans 
help business owners and communities. For instance, in Fall River, 
Massachusetts, owners Patricia Ladino and Russell Young developed a 
custom packing plant for scallops and shrimp that has grown from ten to 
30 employees in just two short years and is in the process of another 
expansion that will add as many as 25 new jobs.
  Under this reauthorization bill, the maximum debenture size for 
Section 504 loans has been increased from $750,000 to $1 million. For 
loans that meet special public policy goals, the maximum debenture size 
has been increased from $1 million to $1.3 million.

[[Page 27174]]

It has been a decade since we increased the maximum guarantee amount. 
If we were to change it to keep pace with inflation, the maximum 
guarantee would be approximately $1.25 million instead of $1 million. 
By not implementing such a sharp increase, we are striking a balance 
between rising costs and increasing the government's exposure.
  I am pleased to say that this legislation also includes a provision 
assisting women-owned businesses, which I first introduced in 1998 as 
part of S. 2448, the Small Business Loan Enhancement Act. This 
provision adds women-owned businesses to the current list of businesses 
eligible for the larger public policy loans. As the role of women-owned 
businesses in our economy continues to increase, we would be remiss if 
we did not encourage their growth and success by adding them to this 
list.
  Mr. President, the 504 loan program gets results. It expands the 
opportunities of small businesses, creates jobs and improves 
communities. It is crucial that it be reauthorized, I am pleased this 
legislation has been included in this package.
  Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) are also reauthorized under 
this legislation. SBDCs serve tens of thousands of small business 
owners and prospective owners every year. This bill takes a giant step 
to retool the formula that determines how much funding each state 
receives. This is an important program for all of our states and we 
want no confusion about its funding. Without this change, some states 
would have suffered sharp decreases in funding, disproportionate to 
their needs. I appreciate and am glad that the SBA and the Association 
of Small Business Development Centers worked with me to develop an 
acceptable formula so that small businesses continue to be adequately 
served. As I said previously, I plan to revisit the Native American 
SBDC Network issue next Congress.
  This legislation also reauthorized the National Women's Business 
Council. For such a tiny office, with minimal funding and staff, it has 
managed to make a significant contribution to our understanding of the 
impact of women-owned businesses in our economy. It has also done 
pioneer work in raising awareness of business practices that work 
against women-owned business, such as some in the area of Federal 
procurement. Recently, the Council completed two studies that 
documented the world of Federal procurement and its impact on women-
owned businesses.
  According to the National Foundation for Women Business Owners, over 
the past decade, the number of women-owned businesses in this country 
has grown by 103 percent to an estimated 9.1 million firms. These firms 
generate almost $3.6 trillion in sales annually and employ more than 
27.5 million workers. With the impact of women-owned businesses on our 
economy increasing at an unprecedented rate, Congress relies on the 
National Women's Business Council to serve as its eyes and ears as it 
anticipates the needs of this burgeoning entrepreneurial sector. Since 
it was established in 1988, the bipartisan Council has provided 
important unbiased advice and counsel to Congress.
  This Act recognizes the Council's work and re-authorizes it for three 
years, from FY 2001 to 2003. It also increases the annual appropriation 
from $600,000 to $1 million, which will allow the council to support 
new and ongoing research, and produce and distribute reports and 
recommendations prepared by the Council.
  The Historically Underutilized Business Zone, or ``HUBZone'' program, 
which passed this Committee in 1997, has tremendous potential to create 
economic prosperity and development in those areas of our Nation that 
have not seen great rewards, even in this time of unprecedented 
economic health and stability. This program is similar to my New 
Markets legislation in that it creates an incentive to hire from, and 
perform work in, areas of this country that need assistance the most. 
This bill would authorize the HUBZone program at $10 million for the 
next 3 years, which is $5 million above the Administration's request.
  Additionally, this legislation includes very important provisions to 
allow those groups which were inadvertently missed when this 
legislation was crafted--namely Indian tribal governments and Alaska 
Native Corporations--to participate in the program. I appreciate the 
willingness of the Committee on Indian Affairs to work with our 
Committee to create increased HUBZone opportunities for Native 
Americans.
  As I stated, the HUBZone section does not contain any provision 
addressing the interaction of the HUBZone and 8(a) minority contracting 
programs. I believe that the 8(a) program is an important and necessary 
tool to help minority small businesses receive access to government 
contracts. The Chairman and I agree that there is a need to enhance the 
participation of both 8(a) and HUBZone companies in Federal 
procurement. It is my intention that the Senate Committee on Small 
Business consider the issue of enhancing small business procurement in 
the next Congress.
  This legislation also includes a provision relating to SBA's 
cosponsorship authority. This authority allows SBA and its programs to 
cosponsor events and activities with private sector entities, thus 
leveraging the Agency's limited resources. The legislation extends this 
authority for three additional years.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by reminding my colleagues that all of 
our states benefit from the success and abundance of small businesses. 
This legislation makes their jobs a little easier. I ask my colleagues 
for their support of this important legislation.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as we draw the 106th Congress to a 
close, I wish only to take a moment to express my appreciation to 
Senator Stevens and others who concluded the negotiations on this final 
appropriations bill. They have worked under difficult circumstances, 
and I commend them for their accomplishment. I particularly acknowledge 
the effort of the Senator Stevens. He is an outstanding chairman. He 
has devoted months of effort to this bill at great personal sacrifice. 
He is extremely capable and is always courteous and I express my 
personal thanks to him for his good work.
  I am particularly gratified that the Appropriations Committee found a 
way to fund a leadership development program for the Boys and Girls 
Clubs of America. I have a long held interest in and concern for the 
young people of our Nation. The funding contained in this bill for a 
National Training Center will assist this worldwide organization in its 
mission of serving youth. The Center will offer a full array of 
programs, training, and research for participants from across the 
entire Nation. As a result, significant progress will be make toward 
the goals of promoting citizenship, leadership, and character 
development; the prevention of drug and alcohol abuse; and similar 
initiatives. On behalf of the youth of this Nation, I again express my 
appreciation for the Congress supporting this measure.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak to 
the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations legislation that is contained 
in this bill. Unfortunately, I've got some good news and some bad news. 
The good news is that this bill recognizes the need to dedicate more 
resources to foreign policy needs; the bad news is that the bill fails 
to contain funding for three important programs in the Justice portion 
of this legislation.
  The State Department does important work--protecting our citizens and 
pursuing our foreign policy objectives--in some of the most dangerous 
and difficult places in the world. Unlike the U.S. military, State 
Department employees go into areas of conflict unarmed, and generally 
unprotected. We have State Department officials in Sierra Leone, in 
Syria, in Lebanon and Liberia, and throughout the war-torn corners of 
the former Yugoslavia.
  That is why I am particularly pleased to see that funding for embassy 
security in the Commerce-Justice-State bill is at the levels requested 
by the Administration. I strongly support full funding of two critical 
accounts--embassy security and maintenance, and embassy security 
equipment and personnel--in the legislation to authorize

[[Page 27175]]

State Department activities which was initiated by the Committee on 
Foreign Relations last year.
  Failure to fully fund the State Department's security account would 
have had a devastating effect on the safety of the Americans who serve 
us overseas, both in the number of security agents who protect them 
against terrorist threats and construction of new, safe embassies. 
Fortunately both these security programs will be well-funded. I regret, 
however, that agreement was not reached to fund a new Center for Anti-
terrorism and Security Training. I hope we can give this careful 
consideration next year.
  In addition, after many years of decline, funding for the State 
Department's most basic needs--including salaries and administrative 
expenses--has been increased. The final funding for this account 
exceeds the Administration's original request by $65 million, which 
should help offset the many reductions in the State Department budget 
during the 1990s.
  As the Secretary of State has said numerous times, diplomats are our 
first line of defense. Just as we are concerned about military 
readiness, so we must be attentive to diplomatic readiness overseas. We 
need to do as much as we can--and in my opinion, this funding goes only 
part way--to ensure that we retain the best and the brightest in our 
Foreign Service.
  I am pleased that the amount of money dedicated to United Nations 
Peacekeeping operations exceeds the Administration's original request. 
The final figure is based on more recent calculations of the U.S. dues 
to the United Nations and will allow us to help fund these important 
missions, thereby alleviating suffering and improving stability around 
the world.
  I understand the frustration that many of my colleagues feel toward 
the United Nations. Earlier this week, I visited the UN. I want to 
assure my colleagues that reform is happening. Ambassador Holbrooke has 
kept his commitment, made to the Committee on Foreign Relations during 
his confirmation hearings, that reform will be his ``highest sustained 
priority.'' He and his team in New York continue to push effectively 
for needed reforms in the areas of peacekeeping and general operations. 
The recommendations made by the Brahimi panel, in particular, will 
result in better focused, trained and equipped peacekeeping missions--
changes I believe that we all agree are needed.
  I wish that I could be as positive about the Justice Department 
portion of the bill, but I cannot. I am disheartened that the 
legislation does not contain three crucial provisions--reauthorization 
of the COPS program, the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, and full 
funding for the Violence Against Women Act.
  Although we have 49 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle and 
letters of support from every major law enforcement organization, a few 
powerful members on the other side have refused to allow a vote on the 
continuation of the COPS program.
  In 1994, we set a goal of funding 100,000 police officers by the year 
2000. We met that goal months ahead of schedule. As of today, there 
have been 109,000 officers funded and 68,100 officers deployed to the 
streets.
  Because of COPS, the concept of community policing has become law 
enforcement's principal weapon in fighting crime. Community policing 
has redefined the relationship between law enforcement and the public. 
But, more importantly, it has reduced crime. And that is what we 
attempted to do.
  All across the country, from Wilmington to Washington--from 
Connecticut to California, we are seeing a dramatic decline in crime. 
Just a few weeks ago, the FBI released its annual crime statistics 
which showed that once again, for the eighth year in a row, crime is 
down. In fact, crime was down 7 percent from last year and 16 percent 
since 1995. But we can't become complacent. We have to continue to help 
state and local law enforcement by putting more cops on the street. 
Mark my words, the day we become complacent is the day that crime rates 
go up again. And refusing to even allow a vote on this bill is even 
worse than complacency--it is irresponsible.
  And I will say again that I firmly believe that reauthorization of 
the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund is the single most significant 
thing that we can do to continue the war on crime.
  Since the Fund was established in the 1994 Crime Act, Congress has 
appropriated monies from the fund for programs including the Local Law 
Enforcement Block Grant Program and numerous programs contained in the 
Violence Against Women Act. The money has gone to hire more cops and it 
has brought unprecedented resources to defending our southwest border. 
It has funded runaway youth prevention programs and numerous innovative 
crime prevention programs. And there are many more.
  The results of these efforts have taken hold. Crime is down--way 
down. And we didn't add 1 cent to the deficit or the debt.
  This was the single most important paragraph in the 1994 Crime bill 
because no one can touch this money for any other purpose. It can't be 
spent on anything else but crime reduction. It is the one place where 
no one can compete. It is set aside. It is a savings account to fight 
crime.
  This fund works. It ensures that the crime reduction programs that we 
pass will be funded. It ensures that the crime rate will continue to go 
down instead of up. It ensures that our kids will have a place to go 
after school instead of hanging out on the street corners. It ensures 
that violent crimes against women get the individualized attention that 
they need and deserve. It gives States money to hire more cops and get 
better technology.
  This bill also is unsatisfactory because it leaves the landmark 
Violence Against Women Act underfunded, seriously jeopardizing the 
tremendous strides we have made in every State across this country to 
reduce domestic violence and sexual assault against women. Congress 
originally approved this legislation in 1994 and then reauthorized it 
unanimously this past October. In the bill before us, however, Congress 
fails to live up to its commitment to women and children who are the 
victims of domestic violence and sexual assault by not appropriating 
the necessary funds authorized in the Violence Against Women Act of 
2000.
  Reauthorization of the COPS program, the Trust Fund, and full funding 
for the Violence Against Women Act should have been a part of this 
package, and I'm disappointed that some on the other side have decided 
to put politics ahead of the people.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today I am proud to add my voice in support 
of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. This legislation 
represents the end product of work that began in S. 2697, which Senator 
Lugar and I introduced on June 8. The Commodity Futures Modernization 
Act of 2000 completes the work of last year's financial services 
modernization law, bringing our financial regulation in line with the 
rapid pace of developments in the global marketplace. The Commodity 
Futures Modernization Act of 2000 will now allow new and important 
financial products--single stock futures--to be sold in America. It 
protects financial institutions from over-regulation, and provides 
legal certainty for the $60 trillion market in swaps.
  Significant portions of this legislation, particularly in Titles II, 
III and IV of the Act, concern issues within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Title II establishes the authority and framework for the offering of 
single stock futures, removing the ban embodied in the so-called Shad-
Johnson Accord. I would like to take this opportunity to echo the views 
expressed by my colleague, Congressman Bliley, Chairman of the 
Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, at the time of 
House adoption of this bill. It is my understanding that nothing in 
Title II of H.R. 5660 would (i) authorize any bank or similar 
institution to engage in any activity or transaction, or hold any 
asset, that the institution is not authorized to engage in or hold 
under its chartering or authorizing statute; (ii) authorize depository

[[Page 27176]]

 institutions either to take delivery of equity securities under a 
single stock future or under any other circumstance, or otherwise to 
invest in any equity security otherwise prohibited for depository 
institutions; or (iii) allow a depository institution to use single 
stock futures to circumvent restrictions in the law on ownership of 
equity securities under its chartering or authorizing statute.
  Under Title III of the bill, the SEC is granted new authority to 
undertake certain enforcement actions in connection with security-based 
swap agreements. It is important to emphasize that nothing in the title 
should be read to imply that swap agreements are either securities or 
futures contracts. To emphasize that point, the definition of a ``swap 
agreement'' is placed in a neutral statute, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 
that is, legislation that is not specifically part of a banking, 
securities, or commodities law. However, drawing upon the SEC's 
enforcement experience, the SEC is permitted, on a case-by-case basis, 
with respect to security-based swap agreements (as defined in the 
legislation) to take action against fraud, manipulation, and insider 
trading abuses.
  Title III makes it clear that the SEC is not to impose regulations on 
such instruments as prophylactic measures. Banks are already heavily 
regulated institutions. Further regulatory burden, rather than 
discouraging wrongdoing, would be more likely to discourage development 
and innovation, during business overseas instead. The SEC is directed 
to focus on the wrong doers rather than provide new paperwork burden 
and regulatory costs on the law abiding investors and financial 
services providers. For example, the SEC is directed not to require the 
registration of security-based swap agreements. If a registration 
statement is submitted to the SEC and accepted by the SEC, the agency 
is required promptly to notify the registrant of the error, and the 
registration statement will be null and void.
  Insider trading provisions of the Securities Exchange Act will be 
applied to single stock futures transactions as well.
  Title IV of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 contains 
the Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000. This title is a free 
standing provision of law, part of neither the banking statutes not the 
commodities statutes. The provisions of this title clarify the 
jurisdictional line between the regulation of banking products and 
futures products.
  Under section 403 of Title IV, no provision of the Commodity Exchange 
Act (CEA) may apply to, and the CFTC is prohibited from exercising 
regulatory authority with respect to, an ``identified banking product'' 
if: (1) an appropriate banking agency certifies that the product has 
been commonly offered, entered into, or provided in the United States 
by any bank on or before December 5, 2000, and (2) the product was not 
prohibited by the CEA and was not in fact regulated by the CFTC as a 
contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery (or an option on 
such a contract or on a commodity) on or before December 5, 2000. This 
provision is intended to provide legal certainty for existing banking 
products so that they can continue to be offered, entered into, or 
provided by banks without being subject to CFTC regulation.
  An existing banking product is one that is certified by the 
appropriate banking regulator as being a product is ``commonly'' 
offered, entered into, or provided, on or before December 5, 2000, in 
the U.S. by any bank. To rely upon that test a particular bank would 
not need to have certified that the particular bank had offered the 
product. The certification would apply if it or any other bank had 
offered such a product on or before December 5, 2000. The term 
``commonly offered'' means, in effect, that the product was not 
obscure, or offered only briefly. It is not to be construed to mean 
that the product must be of a type that is appropriate or suitable for 
any and all users, since many common bank products are tailored for 
specific customers, small business loans or low cost checking accounts 
for seniors being two such examples.
  New banking products not excluded from the CFTC's jurisdiction under 
Title IV will be, if indexed to a commodity, subject to a test to 
determine whether they are predominantly banking products, in which 
case, the CFTC is precluded from exercising regulatory authority over 
them. The predominance test is a self test. Banks themselves may apply 
the factors of the predominance test with respect to the development of 
new products, without making prior application to any regulator. The 
predominance test as contained in the law is intended to replace 
regulatory provisions under the Commodity Exchange Act concerning the 
application of a predominance test with respect to hybrid instruments.
  Under the predominance test, a hybrid instrument will be considered 
to be predominantly a banking product if (1) the issuer of the 
instrument receives payment in full of the purchase price of the 
instrument substantially contemporaneously with its delivery, (2) the 
purchaser or holder of the hybrid is not required to make any payment 
to the issuer in addition to the purchase price during the life of the 
instrument or at maturity, (3) the issuer is not subject to mark-to-
market margining requirements, and (4) the hybrid is not marketed as a 
contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery or an option 
subject to the CEA.
  If a bank, having applied the predominance test to a new product, 
determines that the product is predominantly a banking product not 
subject to CFTC regulation, and the CFTC later challenges the bank's 
conclusion, the CFTC is still prohibited from exercising regulatory 
authority over the product unless the Commission obtains the 
concurrence of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board 
(Board). If the Board does not concur in the CFTC's decision, the Board 
may submit the controversy for determination by the United States Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
  The CFTC is expected to be circumspect in applying the predominance 
test. For example, it does not necessarily follow that a hybrid 
instrument not satisfying the predominance test is inevitably a futures 
contract subject to CFTC regulation. The CFTC must not interpret normal 
or traditional banking practices and activities, or prudent actions 
taken by a bank to maintain safety and soundness, to be hybrid 
instruments that the CFTC may regulate. For example, a loan made by a 
bank is an identified banking product under section 206(a)(3) of the 
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Some may argue that a new loan product offered 
after December 5, 2000, may be interpreted to be covered by the 
definition of a hybrid instrument if it has one or payments indexed to 
the value of, or provides for the delivery of, one or more commodities. 
However, there would be little justification for the CFTC to construe 
the pledging of a commodity as collateral for a loan, or that providing 
that a commodity may be offered as part or full satisfaction of a loan, 
to be representative of a futures contract over which the CFTC may 
exert jurisdiction. No such result is contemplated under this 
legislation.
  Moreover, the fact that a loan may be renegotiated or sold, or that a 
loan or other identified banking product may not be held until 
maturity, is not a violation of the predominance test. These are merely 
examples of the reasonable interpretations that the CFTC must adhere to 
when it applies the predominance test for purposes of the statute.
  The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 excludes from its 
coverage agreements, contracts or transactions in an excluded commodity 
entered into on an electronic trading facility provided that such 
agreements, contracts or transactions are entered into only by eligible 
contract participants on a principal-to-principal basis trading for 
their own accounts. In some cases, a party may enter into an agreement, 
contact or transaction on an electronic trading facility that mirrors 
another agreement, contract or transaction entered into at about the 
same time with a customer. The risk of one transaction may be largely 
or completely offset by the other; and that

[[Page 27177]]

may be the purpose for entering into both transactions. But the party 
entering into both transactions remains liable to each of its 
counterparties throughout the life of the transaction. That party is 
similarly exposed to the credit risk of each of its counterparties. The 
fact that a party has entered into back-to-back transactions as 
described above does not alter the principal-to-principal nature of 
each of the transactions and must not be construed to affect the 
eligibility of either transaction for the electronic trading facility 
exclusion.
  Mr. President, enactment of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act 
of 2000 will be noted as a major achievement by the 106th Congress. 
Taken together with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the work of this 
Congress will be seen as a watershed, where we turned away from the 
outmoded, Depression-era approach to financial regulation and adopted a 
framework that will position our financial services industries to be 
world leaders into the new century.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in commending the Democratic and 
Republican leaders for reaching this bipartisan agreement to give 
early, full and fair consideration to the Amtrak bond proposal in the 
next Congress.
  The legislation is needed to ensure that Amtrak has the resources to 
maintain passenger rail service across the country.
  This funding will undoubtedly strengthen train service in the 
Northeast Corridor. But this financing package can do much more to 
provide similar service to communities throughout the country. It will 
provide the financial stability that Amtrak needs to plan adequately 
for the future.
  With the increasing congestion and delays we're seeing at major 
airports across the country, we need other options for transportation 
in the 21st century.
  I look forward to the enactment of this important legislation early 
in the next Congress, so that passenger rail service will continue to 
be a key component of our transportation network.
  Amtrak helps states meet clean air requirements by giving people a 
viable alternative to driving and flying. It's more energy efficient, 
which is particularly important for the New England region.
  For many business commuters and vacationers, it's a more appealing 
way to travel. And for many workers, it's their chosen profession to 
which they've devoted years of their lives, and their families depend 
on it to pay the bills.
  As a nation, we need a firm commitment to support passenger rail 
service, just as we do for highways and airports.
  So again, I commend the leaders for the commitments made today for a 
financing plan to strengthen passenger rail service in the United 
States.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate-House 
conferees have adopted an amendment I sponsored to inform Congress and 
our citizens about potential violations of their privacy on Federal 
agency Web sites. The public has a right to know whether the Federal 
Government is respecting personal privacy. This amendment would require 
all Inspectors General to report to Congress within 60 days on how each 
department or agency collects and reviews personal information on its 
web site. The amendment is based on similar language offered by 
Congressman Jay Inslee in the House that would have applied exclusively 
to the agencies funded by the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill. Our 
final language was adopted by the Senate-House conferees in the bill 
providing appropriations for the Legislative Branch and Treasury-Postal 
Appropriations Act, and it was included in the Omnibus Appropriations 
Act.
  The Internet has brought great benefits to our society, but 
understandably, the public is becoming more and more concerned about 
the way personal information is collected and handled on the Internet. 
The Federal Government should set an example for how personal privacy 
is handled in cyberspace. But unfortunately, concerns have been raised 
that some Federal agencies may be engaging in information-gathering 
practices that could only further deepen the public's distrust of 
government. We need to find out whether these concerns are real, and if 
they are, we need to decide what do about it.
  Although the Clinton Administration established a privacy policy in 
June 1999 to guide the agencies, it is not clear whether the policy did 
much to protect privacy. In particular, the policy seemed to condone 
agencies' use of ``cookies''--small bits of software placed on web 
users' hard drives to collect personal information. The policy stated, 
``In the course of operating a web site, certain information may be 
collected automatically in logs or by cookies.'' It also stated that 
``some agencies may be able to collect a great deal of information,'' 
but went on to state that some agencies might make a policy decision to 
limit the information collected. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB 
is supposed to direct the agencies on privacy policy, but OMB's 
original privacy guidance seemed to give the agencies free rein to 
decide their own privacy policy for themselves. But OMB's original 
guidance did require the agencies to post privacy policies making clear 
whether they were collecting information.
  Earlier this year, it was revealed that the White House Office of 
National Drug Control Policy had contracted with a private company to 
use cookies to track users of the ONDCP web site. ONDCP failed to warn 
the public about this practice in its privacy policy.
  When the press reported ONDCP's practices, there was a swift and 
sharp public outcry. The White House's Office of Management and Budget 
quickly shifted into damaged control mode and issued a June 22 
memorandum reversing its previous guidance and creating a presumption 
against the use of cookies on Federal web sites. However, more recently 
GAO reported to me that a number of agencies continued to use cookies, 
and it was not clear how these cookies were being used. This whole 
episode raises questions about the Federal Government's commitment to 
citizens' privacy. It also could undermine citizens' trust in 
government Web site.
  I am not suggesting that cookies are inherently bad devices under all 
circumstances. Cookies can perform beneficial tasks on the Internet, 
such as counting the number of visitors to a site, assessing the 
popularity of certain Web pages, and briefly storing information 
already entered into to a form so that users don't have to enter the 
same information multiple times. At the same time, cookies can be used 
to identify specific computers and track a user's actions all over the 
Internet. The real questions I have are, ``What are cookies on Federal 
agency web sites being used for, and what are the information-gathering 
practices of the agencies?'' Right now, I don't know. And the American 
people don't know.
  I have asked GAO to investigate which agencies are using cookies, how 
they are using them, and whether the practice violates the law and 
Administration policy. The amendment I have sponsored will provide 
further information from the Inspectors General on how agencies collect 
and use personal information. The language is based on a similar 
amendment that was offered to the House Treasury-Postal bill by 
Democratic Congressman Jay Inslee. I want to thank Congressman Inslee 
for working in a bipartisan way to protect citizens' personal privacy.
  Mr. President, the American people have a right to know what 
information is being collected about them on Federal Web sites. This 
amendment would ensure that we know agencies' data collection practices 
so that we in Congress can make sure that privacy rights of citizens 
are not being violated.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are finally at the finish line at the 
end of a legislative triathalon. It's been a long, difficult road, but 
we've finally come up with a health and education appropriations bill 
for this fiscal year. It truly was a test of endurance. Not only can we 
take pride in having survived the experience, but, even more 
importantly, we've produced a bipartisan agreement that is a victory 
for the health and education of our nation.

[[Page 27178]]

  This agreement is not only a model for giving our nation the building 
blocks we need for a strong and secure future. It is a model of how 
Democrats and Republicans can work together across party lines to do 
what is the best interest of the American people.
  Believe me, it hasn't been easy. Before the election, Senator 
Stevens, Senate Byrd, Senator Specter, and I, along with Congressmen 
Bill Young, Dave Obey, and John Porter worked for months to craft a 
solid bipartisan agreement. At times the negotiations got heated, but 
both sides hung in there, and in the end we came up with a good 
compromise.
  That bipartisan agreement would have passed overwhelmingly in both 
the House and the Senate--which is why we were all just baffled when, 
less than 12 hours after we had signed our names to the bill, a tiny 
faction of the House Republican leadership decided to kill it.
  As a result, some reductions had to be made, some of which were very 
disappointing. I hope that in the next Congress, a spirit of 
cooperation and civility will prevail and prevent these sort of last-
minute, partisan maneuvers.
  That being said, I believe that the version of our bill that we have 
here today is a very, very good one. It maintains most of our hard 
fought gains and provides critical investments to improve health care, 
education, and labor conditions for all Americans.
  I want to extend my sincere thanks and commendation to my long-time 
partner, Senator Arlen Specter and his staff. We have had a great 
bipartisan partnership on this bill for a decade. Year after year, 
Senator Specter has done yeoman's work, and it is a pleasure to work 
with him. This is always a difficult bill to maneuver and this year may 
have been our toughest.
  I also want thank and commend our chairman, Senator Stevens, and 
ranking member Senator Byrd for their great work. This bill would not 
be possible without their outstanding and steadfast efforts.
  Finally, I want to thank our colleagues on the House side, 
Congressman Obey, Congressman Porter, and Chairman Bill Young. I 
especially want to commend Congressman Porter who is retiring this 
year.
  Here are some of the reasons why I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this important bipartisan agreement.
  Education funding: $1.6 billion to lower class sizes, up from $1.3 
billion last year; $900 million to repair and modernize crumbling 
schools: should result in over $5 billion in school repairs, based on 
successful Iowa model; and increase to $3,750 for the maximum Pell 
grant--that's a record increase in the grants to make college more 
affordable; and $6.2 billion for Head Start: that's a $933 million 
increase from last year which will allow thousands of additional 
children to be served.
  Afterschool care: $850 million for after school care: nearly 50 
percent increase.
  Home heating: $1.4 billion for LIHEAP to help low-income Americans 
heat their homes this winter: a $300 million increase.
  Health care: $20.3 billion for NIH funding: $2.5 billion increase, 
the largest increase ever; thousands of new research projects on 
Alzheimer's, cancer, childhood diabetes, HIV, Parkinson's disease, 
cerebral palsy, and others; $125 million for new program to assist 
family caregivers struggling to keep elderly loved ones in their 
homes--provide respite and other needed services.
  I am also especially excited about the funding in this bill for the 
Medical Errors Reduction Act of 2000 which Senator Specter and I 
introduced. Medical errors are estimated to be the 5th leading cause of 
death in this country. In fact, more people die from medical errors 
each year than from motor vehicles accidents (43,458), breast cancer 
(42,297), or AIDS (16,516). Our bill gives grants to states to 
establish reporting systems designed to reduce medical errors. It also 
calls for better research, training and public information on the issue 
of medical errors.
  I'm also very proud of the funding in this bill for numerous programs 
that will give people with disabilities a real choice to live in their 
own communities near their families and friends. Most notably, this 
bill includes $50 million for systems change grants to help states 
reform their long-term care systems and make it easier for people with 
disabilities and the elderly to live at home.
  This is just the beginning of our work to help states meet their so-
called Olmstead obligation to provide services and supports to people 
with disabilities in the most integrated settings appropriate and 
feasible. This year is the 10th anniversary of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, and these provisions are a great way to implement the 
ADA's ideals of independence and justice for all.
  Finally, I would like to mention how pleased I am with the FAIR Act--
the Medicare Fairness in Reimbursement Act--that is attached to the 
LHHS Appropriations Bill, I, Senator Thomas, and several other Members 
of Congress introduced this bipartisan bill to provide Medicare 
providers relief from the excessive payment reductions resulting from 
the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. This bill will allow approximately 30 
states, including Iowa, to benefit from fairer Medicare payments to 
states below the national average.
  This bill allots approximately $35 billion over 5 years for 
reimbursement improvements to hospitals, home health agencies, nursing 
facilities, rural health providers and Medicare managed care. It will 
help our struggling rural hospitals, nursing facilities and home health 
agencies continue to provide quality care to seniors in Iowa and across 
the nation.
  The bill will also help to improve enrollment rates for families and 
children in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
  While I'm disappointed that our original LHHS Appropriations 
compromise was derailed, this bill is still a major step forward. It 
provides important investments in the health, education and 
productivity of all Americans.
  This bill would not have been possible without the tireless, often 
heroic work of my staff. They's worked late nights and long weekends, 
and I am incredibly grateful for their expertise and excellent advice. 
I would especially like to thank Ellen Murray, Lisa Bernhardt, Peter 
Reinecke, Katie Corrigan, Sabrina Corlette, and Bev Schroeder for their 
outstanding work.
  In passing this bill, I am hopeful that we will move beyond the 
partisan bickering that stalled our negotiations for so long.
  With this year's elections, the American people sent us a strong 
message. They gave us one of the closest Presidential elections in 
history along with an evenly divided Senate and a closely divided 
House.
  Clearly, they are tired of the bickering and bitterness that have 
characterized our politics, and they want us to bridge our differences 
and work together for their best interests. It is now time for us to 
come together and heed their call.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the passage of the 
FY 2001 Omnibus Appropriations bill. Had I been given the opportunity 
to cast a recorded vote on this legislation, I would have voted ``no.''
  There were a lot of things slipped in without prior authorization for 
the spending. I hope in the next Congress we can work with a new 
administration to clean up the process. Projects should go through a 
separate authorization process. All Members should have the same 
opportunity to review the projects in the bill and the public should 
know what is being funded. There are a number of us who would also like 
to see biennial budgeting so we have a chance to really evaluate how 
taxpayer money is being used.
  We didn't even have a final funding total available to us before the 
vote. I know funding for labor and health and other related areas 
increased dramatically in this deal to nearly $13 billion more than 
last year's levels. These significant funding levels are not a one-time 
activity in the Congress--it has become an annual ritual. It's just too 
much. This is money that should be going to pay off the national debt. 
We

[[Page 27179]]

must break the pattern of spending our children's future.
  Some increases in the overall spending package were needed, including 
more support for education and nearly $36 billion in Medicare payments 
to healthcare providers. Wyoming rural hospitals and nursing homes will 
benefit from this effort. There are some very good things in this bill, 
but looking at the whole picture, the bad outweighed the good.
  I am also very displeased that budget negotiators left out of the 
package a previously passed amendment which would have prevented the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from going forward 
with a massive new repetitive stress injury rule. The ergonomics rule 
could leave injured workers' compensation systems in ruin, close 
nursing homes and overshadow existing safety needs. The Senate and 
House agreed by a bipartisan vote on identical language that would 
require OSHA to slow its furious rush. The amendment would give the 
agency time to go back and fix the terrible flaws with this rule that 
have been brought to light. This new regulation will affect the whole 
of workplaces in America. It carries serious consequences. I am most 
displeased that this rule will be finalized and I will work with my 
colleagues to overturn it.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Although I am unable to vote for or against the omnibus 
legislation before the Senate today, I would like to comment on the 
process that brought us here. In an effort to improve the economy of my 
state and to facilitate trade between America and its East Asian 
trading partners, I have led a trade mission of Montanans to East Asia 
for the last several days, meeting with trade officials in Japan, China 
and Korea.
  Mr. President, I am extremely concerned about the process that has 
brought about this omnibus bill's passage. It is unfortunate that the 
Senate finds itself in virtually the same position as it did the last 
two years with appropriations matters. As my colleagues will recall, in 
1998 we voted on a giant omnibus appropriations bill which contained 
eight appropriations bills, plus numerous other authorizing 
legislation. It ran on for nearly 4,000 pages and was called a 
``gargantuan monstrosity'' by the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia, Senator Byrd.
  Unfortunately, we did not learn our lesson in 1998. Last year 
Congress wrapped Medicare provider payments into appropriations for 
Commerce-State-Justice, Foreign Operations Appropriations, Interior and 
Labor-HHS, again passing it in omnibus fashion without time for 
senators to read through the bill and raise concerns about its 
contents.
  I voted against the 1998 and 1999 omnibus bills, not because they did 
not contain good provisions for the country and my State of Montana. 
They did. I opposed these bills because I believed--as I do now--that 
writing such legislation behind closed doors among a small group of 
people dangerously disenfranchises most senators, House members, and 
the American people.
  And here we are again, passing Labor-HHS along with Treasury-Postal 
and Legislative Appropriations--all in one bill, with the input of very 
few members of Congress. Despite statements in 1998 and 1999 that such 
a process would not happen again, we find ourselves in the same 
position as the last two years. Mr. President, we already face a 
population that is increasingly cynical of government and those who 
serve it, and the wrangling over the presidential election that just 
ended has not helped matters. People believe more and more that 
government does not look after their interests, but only after special 
interests. And the more we operate behind closed doors, without an 
open, public process, the more we feed that cynicism. That is not 
healthy for our democracy or our people, and it's why I cannot support 
this omnibus bill.
  That said, Mr. President, there is good news for Montana health care 
in this bill, provisions that I have fought for all year. In 
particular, I want to reiterate my support for year-long efforts to 
restore funding to health care providers negatively impacted by the 
Balanced Budget Act, BBA, of 1997.
  When the BBA was passed in 1997, it was heralded as landmark 
legislation to extend the life of Medicare's trust fund and impose some 
much-needed fiscal discipline on the program. Indeed, just eight years 
ago, estimates indicated that Medicare's hospital trust fund would run 
dry in 1999. But a strong economy and reductions in payments to 
Medicare providers through the BBA have extended the life of the Part A 
Trust Fund for probably a couple of decades. Unfortunately, access to 
quality health care may have been compromised in the process.
  For example, the BBA included new prospective payment systems for 
Medicare providers of hospital, skilled nursing and home health care. 
While these payment systems are intended to introduce efficiency to 
Medicare and ultimately increase the quality and availability of 
patient care, in some cases they may not make sense. I am concerned 
that PPSs may be ill-applied in the case of small, rural facilities, 
which do not have the patient volume to survive under a system of flat-
rate payments.
  Consider home health care, for example. As costs for this important 
benefit spiraled out of control, and as reports circulated of fly-by-
night home care agencies defrauding the government and harming 
patients, Congress passed a home health prospective payment system as 
part of the BBA. Payments were reduced drastically. While these cuts 
were justified in regions of the US with too many home care providers, 
they also took effect where there was not a redundancy of agencies. Now 
there are some Montana counties lacking home care providers altogether. 
Montana has lost seven home health agencies, and there are currently 
three counties in my state with no home care provider at all. Together 
these three counties--Rosebud, Treasure and Big Horn--have an area over 
23,000 square miles, an area nearly the size of West Virginia.
  I believe BBA changes have gone too far in the area of hospital care 
as well. Last year I pushed legislation to spare small rural hospitals 
drastic cuts in Medicare reimbursement to their outpatient departments 
by exempting them from the negative impacts of the outpatient 
prospective payment system. Based on estimates from the Health Care 
Financing Administration, the effects of the outpatient PPS would have 
been devastating on small Montana hospitals. Madison Valley Hospital in 
Ennis, Montana, for example, would have lost an estimated 62 percent of 
its outpatient Medicare payments without an exemption from the 
outpatient PPS; Liberty County Hospital in Chester would have lost over 
50 percent.
  I was pleased that Congress acted to prevent cuts to these outpatient 
facilities last year, through passage of the Balanced Budget Refinement 
Act of 1999, BBRA, legislation restoring $16 billion in Medicare and 
Medicaid payments over a five-year period.
  This year's budget bill has significant BBA relief as well. Although 
I believe too much of the funding is directed toward Medicare+Choice 
plans, there is significant help in the package for the well-being of 
Montana health care and Medicare in general. These provisions include 
increased reimbursement for telemedicine; special payments for rural 
home care agencies and rural disproportionate hospitals; correction of 
a mistake affecting Critical Access Hospitals' outpatient lab 
facilities; relief for community health centers and rural health 
clinics; and redistribution of unspent funding from the State 
Children's Health Program, SCHIP. In short, I am pleased that BBA 
relief is set for passage, and I commend the Administration and my 
colleagues for setting aside politics to get this bill done.
  I would also like to make a couple of comments about the tax 
legislation in this omnibus bill. In this area too, I object not so 
much to what is in this bill as I do to what is not. The tax title of 
the bill includes a number of provisions to encourage economic 
development in distressed communities, the so-called Community Renewal 
and New Markets provisions. I support these provisions

[[Page 27180]]

because I believe they can help spur economic development in many areas 
in the country, including in my own home State of Montana. I also 
support the language that allows Indian tribes to be treated like state 
and local governments in their payment of Federal unemployment taxes.
  However, in this closed process of negotiation by the few, several 
good ideas that were in the Senate version of the Community Renewal 
bill somehow never made it into this conference report. There is not 
one single dollar in this bill to help Americans save for their 
retirement, which is a high priority of mine because I believe our 
country needs to begin preparing for the wave of baby boom retirements. 
The Senate bill included a wide-ranging farm package that is very 
important for rural areas that you won't see in this bill. It also 
included environmental and energy incentives that were designed to help 
us plan for the future. The loss of these provisions will become much 
more noticeable as our land and energy needs keep growing.
  The bottom line is that there is a reason that tax items should not 
be included in an appropriations omnibus bill at the last minute, 
particularly when the tax-writing committees are left out of the 
process of writing the bill. That is exactly what has happened again 
this year, and I again voice my objections to the process.
  Ms. COLLINS. I rise in support of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP 
Benefits Improvement and Protection Act which we are considering as 
part of this omnibus package and which provides over $30 billion in 
much needed financial relief to our nation's beleaguered hospitals, 
home health agencies, hospices and other Medicare providers over the 
next five years.
  In 1997, Congress and the White House faced a large and seemingly 
intractable federal budget deficit and projection that the Medicare 
Trust Fund would be bankrupt by 2002 unless Congress acted. The rapid 
growth in Medicare spending and pending insolvency of the trust fund 
understandably prompted the Congress and the Administration, as part of 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, to initiate changes that were intended 
to allow the spending growth and make Medicare more cost-effective and 
efficient.
  These measures, however, have inadvertently produced cuts in Medicare 
spending far beyond what Congress intended. In 1997, the Congressional 
Budget Office estimated that the BBA would cut Medicare spending by 
$116 billion from 1998 to 2002. It now appears that the five-year 
impact of the BBA for hospitals, home health agencies and other 
Medicare providers is closer to $227 billion--almost twice the original 
estimates.
  These deeper than expected cuts in Medicare spending, coupled with 
onerous regulatory requirements imposed by the Clinton Administration, 
are inhibiting the ability of hospitals, home health agencies, and 
other providers to deliver much-needed care, particularly to 
chronically-ill patients with complex care needs. While the Balanced 
Budget Refinement Act of 1999 did provide some relief, I believe that 
it is imperative that we do more. As we approach the end of the 106th 
Congress, we should have no higher priority.
  I am particularly pleased that the package we are considering today 
provides overdue relief for our nation's rural hospitals. Small, rural 
hospitals in Maine and elsehwere face unique challenges in the delivery 
of health care services. Shortages of physicians, nurses and other 
health professionals make it difficult to ensure that rural residents 
have access to all of the care that they need. Moreover, Medicare 
reimbursement policies tend to favor urban areas and often fail to take 
the special needs of rural providers into account.
  One relatively simple, but nevertheless important step we can take is 
to enable more small, rural hospitals in Maine and elsewhere to qualify 
for enhanced Medicare payments under the Medicare Dependent, Small 
Rural Hospital Program. I am therefore pleased that this bill includes 
legislation that I introduced, the Small Rural Hospital Program 
Improvement Act, to update the antiquated and arbitrary classification 
requirements that prevent otherwise-qualified hospitals from receiving 
assistance under this program.
  Despite the fact that most of the small rural hospitals in Maine 
treat a disproportionate share of Medicare beneficiaries, none of them 
currently qualifies for this program. Not a single one. If updated in 
the way that this bill proposes, as many as nine Maine hospitals will 
be eligible for the program, which will qualify them to receive over $9 
million in additional Medicare dollars each year.
  The bill also includes legislation introduced by the senior Senator 
from Maine, Senator Snowe, to correct a drafting error that precluded 
some of Maine's sole community hospitals from benefiting from the 
rebasing provisions in the Balancing Budget Refinement Act. This 
provision will bring an additional $2.8 million in Medicare 
reimbursements to Maine's hospitals each year.
  In addition, the legislation corrects the current inequity in the 
Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital program that discriminates 
against rural hospitals that care for proportionately greater numbers 
of low-income patients. By treating rural hospitals the same as urban 
hospitals, as this bill would do, we will increase Medicare 
disproportionate share payments to at least 18 of Maine's hospitals by 
more than $8 million a year.
  And finally, the legislation will provide increased Medicare payments 
to all Maine hospitals by providing them with a full 3.4 percent 
inflation increase in FY 2001, up from the 2.3 percent they would 
receive under current law.
  Increasing Medicare payments rates is critically important to the 
hospitals in Maine. For the past several years, Maine has ranked 49th 
or 50th in the nation in terms of Medicare reimbursement-to-cost 
ratios. While hospitals in some states receive more than it costs them 
to provide care to older and disabled patients, Maine's hospitals are 
only reimbursed about 80 cents for every $1.00 they actually spend 
caring for Medicare beneficiaries.
  As a consequence, Maine's hospitals have experienced a serious 
Medicare shortfall in recent years. The Maine Hospital Association 
anticipates a $174 million Medicare shortfall in 2002, which will force 
Maine's hospitals to shift costs on to other payers in the form of 
higher hospital charges. This Medicare shortfall is one of the reasons 
that Maine has among the highest insurance premiums in the nation. 
These provisions will not solve all of Maine's Medicare shortfall 
problems, but they will help to close the gap.
  I am also pleased that this bill extends and increases funding for 
two diabetes research programs created by the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997, one focused on juvenile diabetes and the other focused on 
diabetes in Native Americans. These two programs are currently only 
funded through 2002. The Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP Benefits 
Improvement and Protection Act would extend funding for these two 
programs for one year and increase their funding levels from $30 
million a year to $100 million a year.
  As the founder and Co-Chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I have 
learned a great deal about this serious disease and the difficulties 
and heartbreak that it causes for so many Americans and their families 
as they await a cure. We were all encouraged by the news earlier this 
year that twelve individuals from Canada appear to have been cured of 
their diabetes through an experimental treatment involving the 
transplantation of islet cells, and I believe that it is becoming 
increasingly clear that diabetes is a disease that can be cured, and 
will be cured in the near future, if sufficient funding is made 
available.
  Last year, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which 
I chair, held an oversight hearing to determine if the funding levels 
for diabetes research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are 
sufficient. At the hearing, the Committee heard testimony from the 
Diabetes Research Working Group (DRWG), an expert panel that studied 
the status of diabetes research at the NIH and across

[[Page 27181]]

the country. The study revealed that diabetes research has been 
seriously underfunded. According to the DRWG, diabetes research 
represents only about 3 percent of the NIH research budget, which is 
clearly too small an investment for a disease that affects 16 million 
Americans and accounts for more than 10 percent of all health care 
dollars and nearly a quarter of all Medicare expenditures. Moreover, 
the DRWG report found that ``many scientific opportunities are not 
being pursued due to insufficient funding,'' and that the current 
``funding level is far short of what is required to make progress on 
this complex and difficult problem.'' According to the DRWG, the 
funding levels for diabetes at the NIH are roughly $300 million short 
of what is necessary to ensure that the promising scientific 
opportunities in diabetes research are realized.
  The legislation we are considering today will help to close that gap 
and will make an enormous difference to the millions of Americans whose 
lives are affected every day by diabetes. By extending and increasing 
the funding for these two important research programs, we are providing 
the additional resources necessary to take advantage of the 
unprecedented opportunities for medical advances that should lead to 
better treatments, a means of prevention, and eventually a cure for 
this devastating disease.
  Finally, I am pleased that the bill we are considering today does 
provide a small measure of relief to our nation's struggling home 
health agencies, and in particular to those agencies that serve 
patients in rural areas. I am, however, disappointed that it does not 
do more. I will therefore continue to push not just for a delay--as 
this measure proposes--but for a full repeal of the automatic 15 
percent reduction in home health payments that is currently scheduled 
to go into effect on October 1, 2001.
  The Medicare home health benefit has already been cut far more deeply 
and abruptly than any other benefit in the history of the Medicare 
program. An additional 15 percent cut in Medicare home health payments 
would ring the death knell for those low-cost agencies that are 
struggling to hang on and would further reduce our senior's access to 
critical home health services.
  Moreover, the savings goals set for home health in the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997 have not only been met, but far surpassed. The CBO 
projects that the post-BBA reductions in home health will be about $69 
billion between fiscal years 1998 and 2002. This is over four times the 
$16 billion that Congress expected to save when it passed the 1997 law. 
Further cuts clearly are not necessary and the 15 percent cut should be 
repealed. To simply delay the cut for an additional year is to leave 
this ``sword of Damocles'' hanging over the head of our nation's home 
health agencies.
  I have also been disappointed that the process under which we are 
considering this critical piece of legislation has not allowed for any 
amendments. The Home Health Payment Fairness Act, which I introduced 
with my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, to repeal the 15 percent 
cut currently has 55 Senate cosponsors. If I had been allowed to offer 
my bill as an amendment, as I had planned, it almost certainly would 
have passed.
  Thank you, Mr. President, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting for this important legislation.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Hart-Scott-
Rodino Act reform included in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations 
bill. Our provision updates the law, which hadn't been adjusted for 
inflation since it was enacted in 1976, and makes several improvements 
to the merger review process undertaken by the Antitrust Division of 
the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. It is a 
bipartisan measure, authored by Senators Hatch, Leahy, DeWine, and 
myself and Representatives Hyde and Conyers, and it deserves our 
support.
  The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act is crucial to the enforcement of 
competition policy in today's economy--it ensures that the antitrust 
agencies have sufficient time to review mergers and acquisitions prior 
to their completion. The statute requires that, prior to consummating a 
merger or acquisition of a certain minimum size, the companies involved 
must formally notify the antitrust agencies and must provide certain 
information regarding the proposed transaction. For those transactions 
covered by the Act, the parties to a merger or acquisition may not 
close their transaction until the expiration of a waiting period after 
making their Hart-Scott-Rodino Act filing. It also authorizes the 
government to subpoena additional information from merging parties so 
that the government has sufficient information to complete its merger 
analysis.
  While this statute has a very laudable purpose, especially with the 
tremendous numbers of mergers and acquisitions taking place in recent 
years, some of its provisions are in need of revision. Most 
importantly, while inflation has caused the value of a dollar to drop 
by more than a half in the past 25 years, the monetary test that 
subjects a transaction to the provisions of the statute has not been 
revised since the law's enactment in 1976. As a result, many 
transactions that are of a relatively small size and pose little 
antitrust concerns are nevertheless swept into the ambit of the Hart-
Scott-Rodino review process. This legislation updates this statute to 
better fit into today's economy by raising the minimum size of 
transaction covered by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act from $15 million to 
$50 million. This will both lessen the agencies' burden of reviewing 
small transactions unlikely to seriously affect competition and enable 
the agencies to allocate their resources to properly focus on those 
transactions most worthy of scrutiny.
  Further, exempting small transactions from the Hart-Scott-Rodino 
process will significantly lessen regulatory burdens and expenses 
imposed on small businesses. The parties to these smaller transactions 
will no longer need to pay the $45,000 filing fee--or face the often 
even more onerous legal fees and other expenses typically incurred in 
preparing a Hart-Scott-Rodino filing--for mergers and acquisitions that 
usually don't pose any competitive concerns.
  In exempting this class of transactions from Hart-Scott-Rodino 
review, however, it is important that we not cause the antitrust 
agencies to lose the funding they need to carry out their increasingly 
demanding mission of enforcing the nation's antitrust laws. This bill 
will reduce the number of Hart-Scott-Rodino filings and therefore 
reduce the revenues generated by these filings if the filing fees were 
kept at their present level. Of course, in a perfect world, we wouldn't 
finance the Antitrust Division and the FTC on the backs of these filing 
fees. But because they are a fact of life, the antitrust agencies 
should not be penalized by these reforms by suffering such a reduction 
in revenues. As a result, in order to assure that this reform is 
revenue neutral, we have worked with the Appropriations Committee to 
ensure that this bill raises the filing fees for the largest 
transactions. Consequently, filing fees are to be increased for 
transactions valued at over $100,000,000, which makes sense because 
these transactions require more scrutiny.
  This legislation makes other changes designed to enhance the 
efficiency of the pre-merger review process. The waiting period has 
been extended from twenty to thirty days after the parties' compliance 
with the government's request for additional information, a more 
realistic waiting period in this era of increasingly complex mergers 
generating enormous amounts of relevant information and documents. And, 
as in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when a deadline for 
governmental action occurs on a weekend or holiday, the deadline is 
extended to the next business day. This simple provision will eliminate 
gamesmanship by parties who currently may time their compliance so that 
the waiting period ends on a weekend or holiday, effectively shortening 
the waiting period to the previous business day.
  Finally, in recent years may have expressed concerns regarding the 
difficulties and expense imposed on business in

[[Page 27182]]

complying with allegedly overly burdensome or duplicative government 
request for additional information. So our legislation also contains 
carefully crafted provisions to ensure that business is not faced with 
unduly burdensome or overbroad requests for information, while assuring 
that the antitrust agencies' ability to obtain the information 
necessary to carry out a merger investigation is not hampered. 
Specifically, our legislation mandates that the FTC and Antitrust 
Division designate a senior official who does not have direct authority 
for the review of any enforcement recommendation to be designated to 
hear appeals to the appropriateness of the government's information 
request (the so called ``Second Requests''). The bill also sets forth 
the specific standards that this senior official is to utilize when 
considering such an appeal and mandates that these appeals be heard in 
an expedited manner.
  In sum, I believe this legislation to be a reasonable and well 
balanced reform of our government's vital merger review procedures. It 
will make long overdue adjustments in the filing thresholds--ensuring 
review of those mergers in most need of governmental scrutiny while 
reducing the burden and expense on government and private parties by 
exempting smaller transactions from often expensive and time consuming 
pre-merger filings. It will also significantly reform the merger review 
process to ensure that the government has sufficient time to analyze 
increasing complex merger transactions, while also adding protections 
so that private parties do not face unduly burdensome or duplicative 
information request. I urge swift passage of this measure.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns about 
the lack of commitment for forward funding for the Low Income Heating 
Energy Assistance Program for fiscal year 2002. Mr. President, as you 
know, LIHEAP is a block grant program to the states to assist needy 
households with energy assistance. Since FY1999, the program has been 
funded at $1.1 billion, plus $300 million for weather emergencies. I am 
pleased to note that, through our efforts, the Labor-HHS Conference 
Report provides $1.4 billion for FY2001, with a contingency fund of 
$300 million for emergencies. To my great dismay, however, the $1.4 
million provided to help the States budget for next winter--the winter 
of 2001-2002--was cut from the final package.
  We need to face the fact that our nation is budgeting by emergency 
when it comes to making sure that our low-income citizens, particularly 
the elderly, can keep warm in the winter. This past year, there were 
four different releases of the FY2000 emergency funds, most of which 
were released by mid-February, 2000. Currently, there is only 
$155,650,000 remaining in the FY2000 emergency funds and I am aware 
that the White House is coming to a decision soon as to how to dispense 
these much-needed funds. I have joined many of my colleagues at 
different times over the past year urging these releases along with the 
currently needed release.
  I have also urged an increase in the regular funding for the States 
programs, along with forward funding for the next fiscal year so that 
the States can appropriately budget for each successive year so as to 
extend the benefits to as many eligible people in need as possible.
  Currently, Mr. President, Maine's LIHEAP program has borrowed from 
the State's ``rainy day fund'' in the hopes that the State would 
ultimately get paid back. Today is December 15--two and a half months 
into the fiscal year--and they are still waiting. Because the 
Legislature had the foresight to lend out this money, the Community 
Action Agencies were able to get funding to LIHEAP beneficiaries last 
July so they could buy home heating oil when it was cheaper.
  Like last winter, Maine's LIHEAP program is currently receiving an 
extraordinary amount of applications for help. Anticipating a colder 
winter and higher prices this winter, the State has budgeted to 
accommodate more applications--they have already processed over 
26,000--but to do this, they have had to reduce the benefit from $488 
last year down to $350 currently. They are hearing that, because of the 
high prices--as high as $1.63 per gallon--the $350 does not allow 
LIHEAP recipients to fill their oil tank even once as we move into the 
colder New England winter months ahead.
  We have a critical problem facing the country in the upcoming winter 
months, Mr. President. It is said that misery loves company, and it is 
my sense that, given the skyrocketing natural gas prices being 
experienced by all parts of the country, the Northeast will have lots 
of company this winter as more and more constituents with low incomes, 
particularly the fixed-income elderly, worry about where the money will 
come from to pay their heating bills to keep warm. This is a very 
unhealthy situation.
  I have spent this entire year appealing for more LIHEAP funding to 
protect the most vulnerable members of our society so they will have 
energy assistance when they need it most. I will continue to do so in 
the next Congress in the hopes that we will all step up to the plate 
and not only increase the overall LIHEAP funding but to forward fund 
the program so the states an be fiscally responsible and accommodate as 
many people as possible with this vital benefit.
  The ongoing problem continues to be one of supply and demand as 
natural gas and heating oil inventories remain historically low, and 
the increased costs caused by this imbalance will not right itself in 
time for the cold winter weather when demand will rise sharply. This 
situation prices the low-income households right out of the market and 
they find themselves making ``Solomon choices'' for heating or eating, 
or by cutting down on necessary and costly prescription drugs.
  It is logical that when costs are doubled, those served by the LIHEAP 
program are decreased by the same amount. And, we should keep in mind 
that only around 13 percent of households that are eligible for the 
LIHEAP program actually even receive Federal assistance. Colder 
weather, higher costs and tighter budgets could have the effect of 
raising this percentage upward.
  Because Maine received over $5.3 million in emergency LIHEAP funds 
this past winter, my State was able to increase the income limits to 
serve more eligible residents with their high energy costs. Maine was 
able to increase the income guidelines to 170 percent of the Federal 
Poverty Guidelines and assist over 50,400 households with a fuel 
assistance benefit averaging $488, almost twice last year's $261.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with you on increased long-
range funding that will allow the Community Action Agencies in Maine 
and other States' LIHEAP programs to plan and budget in advance, so 
that as many energy needs are addressed as possible. I hope my 
colleagues will join me next year in efforts for increasing funds so 
that our States can budget for a safety net that can be extended to as 
many low-income citizens as possible--and to make sure they do not find 
themselves literally out in the cold.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of provisions in 
the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 that would 
transfer a Coast Guard lighthouse on Plum Island to the city of 
Newburyport, Massachusetts and land on Nantucket Island from the Coast 
Guard Loran station to the town of Nantucket, Massachusetts. I wish to 
thank the conferees for including these provisions in this bill.
  Mr. President, the Plum Island lighthouse is a national treasure. 
This conveyance ensures that this historic treasure will be preserved 
and protected for generations to come. This was included at the request 
of my constituents in the area. The Coast Guard has always been a good 
friend and neighbor in Massachusetts. I am pleased that this historic 
landmark will transferred to Newburyport so that it can be preserved 
and protected for the citizens and visitors of the City to enjoy for 
years to come.
  Mr. President, the town of Nantucket needs a small amount of property 
from the Coast Guard Loran Station to build

[[Page 27183]]

a sewage treatment plant. The Coast Guard has been working with local 
government officials on the Island to find a solution to this problem. 
Initially the Coast Guard considered leasing this property to 
Nantucket, however the Coast Guard later determined that a conveyance 
was the better solution. I applaud the Coast Guard for working with 
Nantucket to develop this workable solution.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate 
passed regulatory accounting legislation in the Treasury-Postal title 
of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, section 624, also known as the 
Regulatory Right-to-Know Act. I want to thank Chairman Ted Stevens and 
Senator John Breaux for helping me pass this important legislation. We 
have worked together over the last several years to further some basic 
important goals: to promote the public's right to know about the costs 
and benefits of regulatory programs; to increase the accountability of 
government to the people it serves; and ultimately, to improve the 
quality of our regulatory programs. This legislation will help us 
assess what regulatory programs cost, what benefits we are getting in 
return, and what we need to do to improve agency performance.
  By any measure, the burdens of Federal regulation are enormous. By 
some estimates, Federal rules and paperwork cost about $700 billion per 
year, or $7,000 for the average American household. I hear concerns 
about unnecessary regulatory burdens and red tape from people all 
across the country and from all walks of life--small business owners, 
governors, state legislators, local officials, farmers, corporate 
leaders, government reformers, school officials, and parents.
  There is strong public support for sensible regulations that can help 
ensure cleaner water, quality products, safer workplaces, reliable 
economic markets, and the like. But there is substantial evidence that 
the current regulatory system is missing important opportunities to 
achieve these goals in a more cost-effective manner. The depth of this 
problem is not appreciated fully because the costs of regulation are 
not as apparent as other costs of government, such as taxes, and the 
benefits of regulation often are diffuse. The bottom line is that the 
American people deserve better results from the vast resources and time 
spent on regulation. We've got to be smarter.
  We often debate the costs and benefits of on-budget programs, but we 
are just breaking ground on creating a system to scrutinize Federal 
regulation. This legislation will provide better information to help us 
answer some important questions: How much do regulatory programs cost 
each year? Are we spending the right amount, particularly compared to 
on-budget spending and private initiatives? Are we setting sensible 
priorities among different regulatory programs? As the Office of 
Management and Budget stated in its first ``Report to Congress on the 
Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations'':

       [R]egulations (like other instruments of government policy) 
     have enormous potential for both good and harm....The only 
     way we know how to distinguish between the regulations that 
     do good and those that cause harm is through careful 
     assessment and evaluation of their benefits and costs. Such 
     analysis can also often be used to redesign harmful 
     regulations so they produce more good than harm and redesign 
     good regulations so they produce even more net benefits.

  This legislation continues the efforts of my precedessors. Senator 
Bill Roth proposed a regulatory accounting provision in a broader 
reform measure that he worked on when he chaired the Governmental 
Affairs Committee in 1995. In 1996, when Ted Stevens became our 
chairman, he passed a one-time regulatory accounting amendment on the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act. After I became the chairman of Governmental 
Affairs, I supported Senator Stevens' amendment when it passed again in 
1997. In 1998, I sponsored an amendment to strengthen the Stevens 
provision with the support of Senators Lott, Breaux, Shelby, and Robb, 
as well as a bipartisan coalition in the House. This year, I worked 
with Senators Stevens and Breaux to make this legislation permanent.
  This legislation continues the requirement that OMB shall report to 
Congress on the costs and benefits of regulatory programs, which began 
with the Stevens amendment. This legislation also adds to previous 
initiatives in several respects. First, it will finally make regulatory 
accounting a permanent statutory requirement. Regulatory accounting 
will become a regular exercise to help ensure that regulatory programs 
are cost-effective, sensible, and fair. The costs and benefits of 
regulation can become a regular part of the annual debate between the 
Congress and the executive branch on the Federal budget. Second, this 
legislation will require OMB to provide a more complete picture of the 
regulatory system, including the incremental costs and benefits of 
particular programs and regulations, as well as an analysis of 
regulatory impacts on State, local, and tribal government, small 
business, wages, and economic growth. Finally, this legislation will 
help ensure that OMB will provide better information as time goes on. 
Requirements for OMB guidelines and independent peer review should 
continually improve future regulatory accounting reports.
  The government has an obligation to think carefully and be 
accountable for requirements that impose costs on people and limit 
their freedom. We should pull together to contribute to the success of 
responsible government programs that the public values, while enhancing 
the economic security and well-being of our families and communities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Regulatory 
Right-to-Know Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Sec. 624. (a) In General.--For calendar year 2002 and each 
     year thereafter, the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall prepare and submit to Congress, with the budget 
     submitted under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, 
     an accounting statement and associated report containing--
       (1) an estimate of the total annual costs and benefits 
     (including quantifiable and nonquantifiable effects) of 
     Federal rules and paperwork, to the extent feasible--
       (A) in the aggregate;
       (B) by agency and agency program; and
       (C) by major rule;
       (2) an analysis of impacts of Federal regulation on State, 
     local, and tribal government, small business, wages, and 
     economic growth; and
       (3) recommendations for reform.
       (b) Notice.--The Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall provide public notice and an opportunity to 
     comment on the statement and report under subsection (a) 
     before the statement and report are submitted to Congress.
       (c) Guidelines.--To implement this section, the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget shall issue guidelines to 
     agencies to standardize--
       (1) measures of costs and benefits; and
       (2) the format of accounting statements.
       (d) Peer Review.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall provide for independent and external peer 
     review of the guidelines and each accounting statement and 
     associated report under this section. Such peer review shall 
     not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
     U.S.C. App.).

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a provision in 
the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 that would 
transfer Coast Guard Station Scituate to the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. NOAA will use the facility to serve 
as the headquarters for the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National 
Marine Sanctuary. Since the mid-90s the Coast Guard has shared the 
facility with both NOAA and the Massachusetts Environmental Police, 
MEP. Once the Coast Guard has relocated to a new facility NOAA and the 
MEP will jointly use the facility to both manage and study the marine 
sanctuary and to perform cooperative enforcement on the water. I am 
happy to report that NOAA is teaming with the MEP to share resources 
and facilities to improve fisheries and sanctuary enforcement. It is my 
understanding that NOAA will be offering the same working and living 
spaces to the MEP that have been provided in the past by the U.S. Coast 
Guard. In addition the MEP will have the same

[[Page 27184]]

berthing and dock space for their vessels. Furthermore it is my 
understanding that this agreement between the two agencies will mirror 
the current U.S. Coast Guard agreement with the MEP with respect to 
terms and conditions.
  The Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary is located at the mouth of 
Massachusetts Bay. It was first described in the diary of Captain Henry 
Stellwagen, a hydrographer for the U.S. Navy, as ``an important 
discovery in the location of a fifteen fathom bank lying in a line 
between Cape Cod and Cape Ann.'' The wealth of sea life that moved 
below the surface of Captain Stellwagen's vessel has drawn commercial 
fishing fleets for centuries. The continued use for maritime commerce, 
whether shipping, fishing or whale watching excursions, presents a 
major challenge in the enforcement of sanctuary rules.
  Today the sanctuary draws as many as one million visitors a year, 
many of them whale watchers, intent on experiencing a close encounter 
with a whale--particularly the gregarious and acrobatic humpback. While 
its numbers at Stellwagen Bank are relatively strong, the species is 
nevertheless listed as endangered based on its worldwide numbers. The 
Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act have been 
enacted to help protect this and other species; but the oceans are 
large and enforcement is difficult. I applaud the cooperation shown by 
NOAA and the MEP to address this critical issue in the sanctuary. This 
conveyance of property form the Coast Guard to NOAA will solidify this 
relationship between the MEP and NOAA and will at the same time provide 
office space and research facilities for teams of scientists to study 
one of the true treasures of New England, the Stellwagen Bank National 
Marine Sanctuary.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in the final days of the 106th Congress, I 
wanted to take this opportunity to speak about the issue of debt relief 
and reform of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
  A great deal of attention has been paid recently to a complicated 
issue that has faced Congress--the international lending practices of 
the World Bank group and the IMF. The complexity increases when you 
factor in calls for the United States to contribute to efforts to write 
off debt owed by the world's heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs).
  As vice chairman of the Senate Banking Subcommittee on International 
Trade and Finance, I have conducted a series of oversight hearings on 
the functioning of the IMF and World Bank. These hearings have only 
strengthened my belief that the evidence is clear--we should not grant 
debt relief without demanding that the international lending 
institutions such as the World Bank and IMF change their current 
practices.
  I supported Senate passage of the fiscal year 2001 foreign operations 
appropriations conference report with much reservation.
  The bill collectively provides about $435 million toward debt 
forgiveness for the HIPCs. Of this money, $210 million comes disguised 
as ``emergency'' spending.
  Regrettably, this all goes without any link between relief and 
reform. The legislation calls for a couple of reports to Congress and a 
few policy suggestions that the U.S. ought to urge these institutions 
to adopt, but it has no teeth to force change. The lending institutions 
pay no consequences for failing to mend their ways . . . this means the 
consequences of inaction will be borne by, among others, American 
taxpayers and people in need.
  Essentially, the IMF, World Bank, and other international lending 
institutions are supposed to improve economies of impoverished 
countries and the health and well-being of people throughout the world.
  In the U.S., we are a compassionate people; we share our bounty with 
many other countries. But many question the effectiveness of how the 
World Bank and the IMF perform their missions.
  The World Bank and IMF lend money to certain countries to use for 
various purposes--improving infrastructure needs, feeding and 
immunizing children, and stabilizing the economy, to name a few. But 
these noble goals have been stymied by corruption, greed, and poor 
management. What has developed is sadly lacking in results and in much 
need of reform.
  Some advocates of debt relief have tried to delink the issue of debt 
relief from the issue of reform. I agree with recent remarks that these 
lending institutions are at the ``root'' of the debt problem. And if we 
are to weed out the problem, we must pull it up by its roots. We all 
know that, if you don't pull up weeds by their roots, they merely 
sprout up again. This serves nobody's interest--least of all the people 
currently suffering.
  We need transparency, accountability, and effectiveness. We need to 
know where the money is being spent, who is spending it, and how it is 
benefiting that country and achieving the goals of the World Bank and 
the IMF.
  A General Accounting Office (GAO) report on the World Bank concluded 
``[management] controls are not yet strong enough to provide reasonable 
assurance that project funds are spent according to the Bank's 
guidelines.''
  Simply put, the World Bank can't tell us with any reasonable level of 
certainty that funds are being spent efficiently and as they are 
intended to be spent. Other reports have questioned the IMF's 
practices.
  Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm spoke eloquently about 
this issue recently on the Senate floor. I know he talked about the 
Uganda situation at some length. And keep in mind that Uganda has been 
used as the ``poster child'' of success. It has qualified for debt 
relief under the original and enhanced HIPC initiatives.
  Let me echo the chairman. In May, I wrote Treasury Secretary Lawrence 
Summers about the Ugandan Government's multi-million dollar expenditure 
on a presidential Gulfstream jet. As I noted in my letter, Idahoans and 
others throughout this country sympathize with the plight facing 
impoverished Ugandans whose annual per capita income is roughly $330. 
People throughout the world deserve the chance to succeed and thrive. 
What troubled me was the Ugandan Government's failure to place a high 
priority on reducing poverty and choosing to expend millions on a 
luxury aircraft, then essentially asking for and receiving millions in 
debt relief.
  This situation has deeply troubled me. I was even more troubled by 
Secretary Summers' reply. Secretary Summers basically said the purchase 
of the plane was not out of the ordinary and he was satisfied that 
Uganda didn't take money from poverty relief programs to pay for it. As 
he stated, ``The Ugandan authorities have committed to offset the cost 
of the aircraft against defense and other non-priority, non-wage 
expenditures.'' But to me, money is money; if Uganda can find money in 
its budget to pay for an extravagant jet, it should be able to find 
money to help its own people in poverty. I imagine $37 million would go 
a long way toward helping people in a country where the average per 
capita income is less than $350 a year.
  As I have repeatedly noted, when the U.S. Federal Government helped 
bail out Chrysler, former chairman Lee Iacocca was required to sell the 
company jets.
  And there is another problem--``moral hazard.'' In simple terms, 
people must be made to bear the consequences of their decisions. If 
not, they have less incentive to act prudently. If a country knows the 
IMF will come in and bail them out after making bad decisions, there is 
little incentive for the country to change its decisionmaking process. 
Or, if the country knows it will receive IMF funding, perhaps it uses 
other monies to prop up companies that should be allowed to fail. The 
moral hazard problem pervades this system. We might all like someone to 
step in and alleviate the negative impact of bad decisions we make, but 
this would not encourage us to act wisely. Furthermore, someone else 
bears those consequences. In the case of troubled countries and the 
international lending institutions, it is contributors such as U.S. 
taxpayers who bear the burden. And, honestly, the citizens of the 
country in question whose situation fails to improve.

[[Page 27185]]

  So, while we are and should continue to be a compassionate nation, I 
also recognize the duty of Congress to set good public policy and 
represent the interests of hard-working Americans.
  Chairman Gramm and I, along with others, only asked that we adopt a 
proposal that recognizes all of these goals. This was achievable if 
everyone had been willing to work together.
  Unfortunately, the Treasury Department refused to engage in 
meaningful dialog and compromise with Congress on this issue.
  What is even more amazing is that the Treasury Department fought for 
this spending when estimates suggest that the maximum amount that would 
be necessary for the U.S. to fund its obligations to the HIPC Trust for 
this year and next is less than $100 million.
  We should not be granting relief without reform.
  I assure you that follow-up will be done during the next Congress to 
illustrate the continued need for Congress and the next administration 
to alter current U.S. policies and practices.
  I completely agree with an editorial in the October 12 Wall Street 
Journal which stated that ``Any debt write-off that doesn't include 
radical reform of the international financial institutions . . . will 
renew the cycle of non-performance.''
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want the Record to reflect my strong 
support for the final appropriations measure that we are completing 
today.
  Since the first day I walked into this distinguished Chamber, I have 
been fighting to bring the priorities of our budget closer to the 
priorities of America's families. As I talk to parents and students in 
my State about what would improve their lives, over and over, I hear 
that a quality education for our students is a top priority for 
families across this country.
  Today is a victory for families. The Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations bill shows this Congress is listening to people across 
this country. It provides a $6.5 billion increase in education 
spending. This is a 17 percent increase. It makes an investment in the 
things that matter--reducing class size, improving teacher quality, and 
repairing and constructing schools. This bill gives the Congress a 
benchmark to work with the new President who has made education a 
personal priority.
  I have come to the Senate floor numerous times over the years to ask 
for an investment in reducing class size. This is something that 
matters to parents, teachers and students across this country. After a 
year long battle against efforts to eliminate class size reduction 
funds, this bill provides $1.62 billion final appropriations bill for 
the purpose of reducing class size.
  By making this investment, we are sending an important message to 
every community in this Nation. Class size reduction is important 
because it makes a tangible difference in real-world public schools.
  I've talked to teachers in my State about class size reduction. These 
teachers told me the benefits of smaller class size. They say that when 
class sizes are smaller, they see better student achievement, fewer 
discipline problems, more individual attention, better parent-teacher 
communication, and dramatic results for poor and minority students.
  These are the kinds of things we need in our public schools. Our kids 
deserve this investment.
  In Washington State, the funds included in this bill will provide 
over $25 million to the State for the purpose of reducing class size. 
Currently, over 600 teachers have been hired with Federal class size 
reduction funds across the State to reduce class size. With the funds 
secured this year, Washington State will be able to hire approximately 
additional 130 new teachers to reduce class size.
  This appropriations agreement also makes an important investment in 
school construction. Students across this country are going to school 
in inadequate facilities. The majority of students in this country 
attend schools that are over 40 years old. These have leaky roofs, 
inadequate heating and cooling, and are not the type of learning 
environment that goes hand in hand with expecting our students to 
achieve high standards. This bill makes an investment in school 
construction, providing $1.2 billion for this purpose.
  In addition, it makes an investment in teacher quality. Our districts 
need help in the area of teacher quality. The districts need to be able 
to provide teachers the support they need, and make efforts to reach 
out and bring more highly qualified people into the teaching 
profession. This appropriations bill provides a $150 million increase 
over last year in our investment to improve teacher quality.
  This bill provides more than a 30-percent increase for IDEA, the 
biggest increase in the program history. I'm sure there is not a member 
of this Senate who has not visited a school district and heard the 
struggles the district faces in funding special education services. 
This bill provides $1.35 billion more for IDEA than last year. We 
should not back down from this commitment to our schools.
  The bill provides close to a 50-percent increase for after school 
programs. The funding is raised from $435 million to $851 million.
  There is a much needed investment in child care. There is a 70-
percent increase in child care funding, bringing the funding up to $2 
billion. With these additional funds, nearly 150,000 children will 
receive child care subsidies.
  An increase of over $1 billion in Head Start: These funds would allow 
an additional 70,000 children to participate in Head Start.
  The bill invests in college opportunities for students. The $450 
increase in the Pell Grant Program and the substantial increase for 
SEOG, LEAP, and Federal work-study will give more families the ability 
to send their children to college.
  While I am extremely disappointed that this Congress failed to finish 
consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I am glad 
we were able to make a commitment to kids through this appropriations 
bill. Investing in reducing class size, teacher quality, college 
affordability, and things to help our young children like Head Start 
and child care are the kind of investments we need in this country.
  While these investments are not quite as high as the ones agreed to 
in October, I still believe we are moving the right direction in this 
bill by investing in the things that we know work. Kids, teachers and 
parents across this country deserve these investments.
  And while I have focused my remarks on education, I should note that 
this bill contains vital investments in many key areas like health 
care. I am immensely proud of the increased investments we are making 
in health care research at the National Institutes of Health and the 
Centers for Disease Control. These investments represent our strong 
commitment to finding cures to life threatening ailments like breast 
and prostrate cancer, Parkinson's disease, and multiple sclerosis. This 
bill funds key health projects in Washington State like Children's 
Hospital and others.
  This bill makes an essential investment in health care with $35 
billion for BBRA relief. These improvements are imperative for access 
to quality health care for people everywhere. I cannot emphasize enough 
the importance of these changes to hospitals, home health, skilled 
nursing facilities which serve the elderly. Ensuring this population 
has high quality health care is high priority, and I commend my 
colleagues for recognizing this pressing need.
  As a member of the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee, I urge my 
colleagues to join in support for this bill.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to lodge my objection to H.R. 
4577. I understand that there will not be a rollcall vote but if there 
were to be a rollcall vote I would vote ``no.''
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President I want to voice my strong objection to 
the process by which this legislation is being passed by the Senate. 
The Omnibus Appropriations conference report--containing numerous other 
pieces of unrelated legislation--is being passed by the Senate tonight 
under a consent agreement that was entered suddenly by the Majority 
Leader without the

[[Page 27186]]

normal notification process. We should have had a recorded vote. Since 
I first came to the Senate 9 years ago I have felt that it does the 
Senate no credit to pass such significant budgetary legislation--
literally hundreds of billions of dollars--without a recorded vote. We 
cannot be held accountable as Senators to our constituents when such 
bills are passed in this manner. I want to make it clear; I oppose this 
legislation and I would like the Record to show that I would have voted 
no had there been a recorded vote.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today we consider legislation that 
addresses crucial areas of our Nation's tax and health care policy. I 
applaud the hard work of appropriators and President Clinton in coming 
to a hard-won agreement on this year's final spending bill. And, I am 
pleased that we can finally wrap up the business of the 106th Congress 
and clear the deck for our new President and the 107th Congress.
  This bill includes many of my legislative priorities, which I believe 
will benefit Rhode Islanders, and all Americans.
  First: let's focus on those in the area of health care. The health 
care portion of this measure includes two legislative proposals I 
authored, and for which I worked hard to build bipartisan support this 
year: a version of the State Children's Health Insurance Program 
Preservation Act, and the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital 
Preservation Act.
  The SCHIP provision allows 40 states--including Rhode Island--to 
retain for two more years $1.2 billion in children's health insurance 
funds. In extending the deadline for states to spend these federal 
dollars, we give eligible children in 40 states the opportunity to 
receive health insurance. In Rhode Island, our state's low-income 
health care program--known as RIte Care--may be able to retain as much 
a $8 million in federal funds. That amount would go a long way to cover 
uninsured children between the ages of eight and 18 in my home state.
  My second priority--The Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital 
Preservation Act--would benefit hospitals that serve a disproportionate 
share of America's 43 million uninsured. It would increase Medicaid DSH 
payments to these hospitals to defray their costs of treating Medicaid 
patients--particularly indigent patients with complex medical needs. In 
all, it would strengthen the safety net for Rhode Island's hospitals--
that are struggling as a result of the budget cuts instituted by the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Indeed, this proposal could save Rhode 
Island hospitals $10 million over the next two years.
  What's more, the initiative before us increases Medicare 
reimbursements for teaching hospitals, and scales back deep cuts to the 
home health care industry. And, it bolsters the ability of nursing 
homes and community health clinics to provide high quality service to 
those in need. Together, these provisions will go a long way to improve 
the health care received by the children, the elderly, and the 
uninsured of our nation.
  Turning to the tax provisions, I am heartened that this bill contains 
many incentives to rebuild distressed communities, both in urban and 
rural areas. I've cosponsored legislation to foster urban renewal, and 
I am pleased that this package contains a version of it. Specifically, 
this measure would establish 40 renewal communities and designate 9 new 
empowerment zones that would be eligible for tax breaks.
  I am particularly heartened that this measure increases the low-
income housing tax credit caps over the next two years. Along with the 
Rhode Island Housing Authority, I am an ardent supporter of this 
increase because it will help many low-income families gain access to 
affordable housing.
  What's more, the initiative we consider today accelerates a scheduled 
increase in the state volume limits on tax-exempt private activity 
bonds. This provision has broad, bipartisan support, and I am glad we 
are moving forward with it.
  Finally, many of you know that, as a member of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, I have worked to win passage of legislation to 
spur cleanup of lightly contaminated industrial sites--so-called 
brownfields sites. This bill contains a brownfields expensing provision 
that promotes the clean-up of environmental contaminants. This is a 
modest step in the direction of the wholesale reform I've been 
pressing, but it is an important step towards that eventual goal.
  I am pleased that we have finally reached agreement with our 
counterparts on the other side of the aisle here in the Senate; with 
our colleagues in the House of Representatives; and most importantly, 
with the Clinton administration on this broad spending package.
  In that spirit of constructive compromise, I will vote in favor of 
this bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I thank the Chair.


              the cultural property procedural reform act

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in 1972, the Senate gave its advice and 
consent to ratification of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of 
Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of 
Ownership of Cultural Property, but subject to the passage of 
implementing legislation by Congress. The implementing legislation--the 
Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CCPIA)--became law 
in 1983. I wrote this legislation in the Senate in cooperation with 
Senators Robert J. Dole and Spark M. Matsunaga. It is technically a 
revenue measure and came under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance 
Committee of which I was then a senior member, later chairman. Earlier 
I had been Ambassador to India and to the United Nations and was much 
aware of the issues surrounding cultural property. As Ambassador in 
Delhi I was responsible for negotiating the return of the Shiva 
Nataraja. I also was serving at the time as chairman of the board of 
trustees of the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, and in that 
capacity I dealt at length with similar issues.
  The CCPIA sets forth our national policy concerning the importation 
of cultural property. As part of the statute, we created the Cultural 
Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), an 11-member body appointed by the 
President to advise him concerning foreign government requests that 
import restrictions be placed on certain archaeological and 
ethnological material. The statute specified that each member should 
represent one of four categories: museums (two members), 
archaeologists/anthropologists (three members), dealers (three 
members), and the public (three members). There are different interests 
here, and my purpose was to see that these were represented in any 
recommendation the CPAC would make. In addition, the CCPIA explicitly 
states that the CPAC is subject generally to the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act provisions relating to open meetings, public notice, and 
public participation in its proceedings. As the last of the authors of 
the CCPIA remaining in the Senate, it fell to me to keep an eye on its 
implementation.
  Earlier this session I introduced S. 1696, the Cultural Property 
Procedural Reform Act. Joining me as cosponsors on the bill are 
Chairman Roth, and Senators Schumer, Gramm, and Breaux. Congressman 
Rangel introduced companion legislation on the House side. I have 
pressed this legislation because I feel it provides an essential 
clarification of the CCPIA.
  Unfortunately, time has run out in this session of Congress to pass 
S. 1696. Although some halting progress has been made by the executive 
branch in responding to the problems that S. 1696 sought to address, it 
is clear that the fundamental issues of procedural reform raised by S. 
1696 have not been resolved. Therefore, it is imperative that 
congressional oversight continue in an effort to ensure that the 
implementation of the Act is faithful to the terms Congress 
promulgated.
  We have seen a number of serious shortcomings in the administration 
of the CCPIA which led to the introduction of S. 1696. A central 
concern has been that the procedures of the CPAC remain essentially 
closed to nonmembers of the committee despite the provisions of the 
1983 Act, such as 19 U.S.C. section 2605(h), that generally

[[Page 27187]]

require open meetings and transparent procedures. I remain concerned 
that past proceedings before the CPAC and the administering agency have 
been conducted in almost total secrecy, thus denying interested parties 
a meaningful opportunity to respond to evidence presented by foreign 
nations concerning alleged pillage and with respect to the statutory 
requirements that must be satisfied. The result is that the CPAC is 
denied a full, unbiased record upon which to make its decisions. A 
central goal of S. 1696 is to open those proceedings.
  The initial step in a CPAC proceeding is the publication of a notice 
in the Federal Register informing the public of the filing of an 
application by a foreign government. However, that notice of the 
request is often so cursory as to effectively deny interested persons 
an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to CPAC proceedings. An 
adequate notice should provide descriptive information from the foreign 
nation about the archaeological or ethnological materials, the pillage 
of which the requesting country claims is placing its cultural 
patrimony in jeopardy. This information is particularly important 
because the 1983 act explicitly authorizes the President to impose 
import restrictions only on particular archaeological and ethnological 
materials that are the subject of pillage, which, in turn, is 
jeopardizing the cultural patrimony of a requesting state.
  Any notice of a foreign government's request should, at a minimum, 
put on the public record the approximate dates during which the 
cultural material at issue was produced, the approximate dates during 
which that material is alleged to have been pillaged, the cultural 
group with respect to which the material is associated (if available), 
the medium, and representative categories or types of cultural material 
that the foreign nation asked by barred from import into this country. 
This information will permit interested parties to prepare themselves 
to participate in an informed fashion in proceedings before the CPAC.
  Requiring the approximate dates of the alleged pillage is essential 
to carry out the purposes of the statute. Evidence of contemporary 
pillage is central to the goals of the 1983 act, which is based on the 
concept that a U.S. import restriction is justified only if it will 
have a meaningful effect on an ongoing situation of pillage. It is 
quite obvious that an import restriction in the year 2000 cannot deter 
pillage that took place decades or even centuries ago. Thus, the 
approximate dates of the pillage, which a fair notice would provide, is 
imperative to ensure that the administrative process is faithful to the 
goals of the CCPIA.
  A second concern that led to the introduction of S. 1696 was the 
absence of meaningful art dealer participation in the proceedings of 
the CPAC. This year, in fact, art dealers have not been represented at 
all on the CPAC--all three dealer slots have been and continue to be 
vacant. This state of affairs is inconsistent with the CCPIA, which 
established an elaborate process to ensure that the views of 
archaeologists, art dealers, museums, and the public were taken fully 
into account when a foreign government asked us to prohibit the 
importation of archaeological and ethnological materials.
  It is reported that the White House is now moving forward to fill all 
these are dealer vacancies and perhaps the introduction of S. 1696 
helped move that process along. To ensure that in the future all 
interested constituencies are represented on the CPAC, it would be 
desirable to modify the CPAC quorum provisions to require the presence 
of at least one member from each statutory category. Moreover, the 
language describing the CPAC members should be made consistent across 
all four categories and consistent with Senate report language stating 
that the members are to be ``knowledgeable representatives of the 
private sector.''
  Further, discussions on the bill have revealed that the process 
whereby the Executive Branch reports to the Congress on its actions 
under the 1983 act needs to be strengthened. Under current law, the 
CPAC and the State Department are to provide copies of their reports to 
Congress. These reports have not been transmitted to the Senate Finance 
Committee, the committee of jurisdiction in the Senate. Significantly, 
consultations have not occurred routinely on these matters since the 
original statute was enacted in 1983.
  To implement the goals of the 1983 Act for open proceedings, the 
reporting requirements in the CCPIA should be made more consistent with 
the traditional consultation and layover provisions used by Congress to 
ensure adequate consultation. Thus, reports of the CPAC and State 
Department action should be sent to appropriate jurisdictional 
committees with a traditional layover period to permit consultation, as 
appropriate, between Congress and the executive branch. Consultation 
provisions can be developed that will not impair the executive branch's 
ability to proceed with import restrictions, after there is an 
opportunity for consultation with Congress. Such consultation would 
help ensure that executive branch procedures and actions do not stray 
from Congress' intent in passing the 1983 act, and would thus help 
allay concerns of interested persons that the statutory criteria are 
not being met.
  One concern that I have heard repeatedly is that the CPAC and the 
agencies to which it reports have simply disregarded the multinational 
response requirement in recent actions imposing far-reaching 
restrictions on cultural property. Central to our intention in drafting 
the CCPIA was the principle that the United States will act to bar the 
import of particular antiquities, but only as part of a concerted 
international response to a specific, severe problem of pillage. The 
rationale for this requirement is that one cannot effectively deter a 
serious situation of pillage of cultural properties if the United 
States unilaterally closes its borders to the import of those 
properties, and they find their way to markets in London, Munich, 
Tokyo, or other art importing centers. Congress intended that the 
multinational response requirement be taken seriously--indeed its 
inclusion ensured the passage of the 1983 Act. I am concerned that the 
executive branch may not be giving serious weight to this requirement.
  I am distressed that the procedural changes proposed in S. 1696 
cannot be made in this Congress. A fair administration of the 1983 act 
is vitally important to our citizens and our cultural life. The United 
States has long encouraged free trade in artistic and cultural objects 
which has helped create a museum community in our Nation that has no 
equal. That policy of free interchange of cultural objects was narrowly 
modified in the 1983 act to respond to specific, severe problems of 
pillage. A diversion from this posture, which the current 
administration of the law suggests, can deny the American public the 
opportunity to view, study, and appreciate cultural antiquities that 
reflect the multicultural heritage that is the essence of our nation.
  I trust, and urge, that the next Congress will address these issues 
vigorously.


            the commodity futures modernization act of 2000

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Commodity 
Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (``CFMA''), the proposed legislation 
to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and 
to amend the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA''). This legislation is the 
Senate companion of H.R. 5660, which Congressman Thomas Ewing 
introduced yesterday in the House of Representatives and which is part 
of the final appropriations measure. As an original co-sponsor of the 
CFMA, I am proud to join Chairmen Gramm and Lugar in supporting 
legislation to provide much needed regulatory relief to the United 
States futures exchanges, to remove the eighteen-year-old ban on single 
stock futures, and to bring legal certainty in the multi-trillion 
dollar derivatives markets.
  The CFMA gives a substantial boost to Chicago's futures industry and 
the 200,000 jobs that depend on it. The Chicago futures exchanges will 
be given an

[[Page 27188]]

opportunity to compete on a level playing field with the world markets. 
Burdensome federal regulations will be removed and a new regulatory 
structure will be implemented that will give our nation's most 
important futures exchanges the ability to compete equally with world 
markets in product innovation and the ever-changing demands of the 
marketplace. Chicago's exchanges will now have the opportunity to offer 
single stock futures so that they can compete with global markets 
already trading those types of futures. This is potentially an enormous 
market for Chicago's exchanges and U.S. investors. It goes without 
saying that this market is absolutely necessary for Chicago to remain 
the center for world futures trading.
  I commend Chairman Lugar on his efforts to act swiftly to modernize 
the CEA and to implement the recommendations of the President's Working 
Group on Financial Markets (``PWG''). The challenges involved in such 
an undertaking are enormous and I appreciate Chairman Lugar's 
thoughtful and comprehensive approach to this complex task. As Chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition, and General Legislation, I 
have been actively involved in the evolution of the CFMA and am 
committed to working closely with Chairman Lugar, Chairman Gramm, and 
my other colleagues to ensure that the United States derivatives 
markets remain strong, competitive, and viable. The CFMA codifies the 
recommendations of the PWG to enhance legal certainty for over-the-
counter (``OTC'') derivatives by excluding from the CEA certain 
bilateral swaps entered into on a principal-to-principal basis by 
eligible participants. The market for OTC derivatives has exploded over 
the past two decades into a multi-trillion dollar industry. These large 
and sophisticated markets play an important role in the global economy 
and legal certainty is a critical consideration for parties to OTC 
derivative contracts. Accordingly, the CFMA recognizes that legal 
certainty for OTC derivatives is vital to the continued competitiveness 
of the United States markets and achieves this certainty by excluding 
these transactions from the CEA.
  The provisions of the CFMA also address the problem that federal 
regulation has not adapted to the rapid growth of the financial markets 
and today serves as a substantial restriction on market competitiveness 
and modernization. In order for the United States to maintain the most 
efficient markets in the world, regulatory barriers to fair competition 
must be removed. The CFMA reduces the inefficiencies of the CEA by 
removing constraints on innovation and competitiveness and by 
transforming the CFTC into an oversight agency with less front-line 
regulatory functions. The provisions for three kinds of trading 
facilities with varying levels of regulation provide needed flexibility 
to both traditional exchanges and electronic trading facilities by 
basing oversight of the futures markets on the types of products they 
trade and on the investors they serve.
  Finally, the CFMA removes the Accord's prohibitions on the trading of 
single stock futures and small indices. Stock index futures have 
matured into vital financial management tools that enable a wide 
variety of investment concerns to manage their risk of adverse price 
movements. The options markets and swaps dealers offer customers risk 
management tools and investment alternatives involving both sector 
indexes and single stock derivatives. It seems only fair that futures 
exchanges be allowed to compete in this important market.
  The CFMA lifts the ban on single and index stock futures restrictions 
to allow the marketplace to decide whether these instruments would be 
useful risk management tools and to enhance the ability of the U.S. 
financial markets to compete in the global marketplace. The bill 
reforms the Accord to allow both futures and securities exchanges to 
trade these products under the jurisdiction of their current 
regulators. The CFMA also allows both the SEC and the CFTC to enforce 
violations of their respective laws regardless of whether the products 
are traded on a futures or securities exchange and requires that the 
agencies share necessary information for enforcement purposes.
  The CFMA represents an arduous effort to remove burdensome regulatory 
structures and provide much needed legal certainty to the United States 
derivatives markets. This effort has produced comprehensive legislation 
that is designed to remove impediments to innovation and regulatory 
barriers to fair competition for the United States financial markets. 
The positive impact of this legislation on Chicago's futures markets 
cannot be overstated. The CFMA is vital to Chicago remaining the 
derivatives capital of the world and gives Chicago's futures exchanges 
the ability to lead the way in the potentially explosive single-stock 
futures market.


                    restricting cruise ship gambling

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senator from 
Hawaii in a colloquy regarding a provision of interest to him, that 
would restrict cruise ships from gambling in the State of Hawaii. For 
the benefit of our colleagues, I would like to ask the Senator if he 
would explain the clear intent of this provision.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would be happy to have a brief 
discussion with Chairman Stevens on this matter. As he knows, on many 
occasions I have expressed to my colleagues in this Chamber my strong 
opposition to gambling in the Hawaiian Islands. Our State of Hawaii is 
one of only two states in the entire country that prohibits gambling of 
all kinds. When Federal laws, including the Gambling Devices 
Transportation Act, more commonly known as the Johnson Act, affecting 
the ability of cruise ships to conduct gambling operations were relaxed 
over the past decade, I was involved in drafting those provisions to be 
sure that the longstanding Federal prohibition against the possession 
and operation of gambling devices be maintained with respect to the 
State of Hawaii. Unfortunately, I understand that a foreign cruise line 
seeks to exploit a loophole in Federal law and circumvent this long 
standing prohibition. This legislation closes this loophole.
  This recent announcement by a foreign cruise line--that is 
substantially owned by foreign gambling interests--to permanently based 
a large cruise ship with an extensive casino on board in Hawaii for 
year-round operation on cruises that will begin and end in Honolulu has 
prompted this amendment. This amendment ensure that there is no 
ambiguity in the intent of the Johnson Act's application to the State 
of Hawaii by expressly preserving the act's original prohibition of the 
transportation, possession, repair, and use of any gambling devices 
aboard vessels that embark and disembark passengers in the State of 
Hawaii, as defined in 19 C.F.R. 4.80a(a)4.
  I want to make clear to my colleagues that this provision would not 
affect any State other than Hawaii. Moreover, it would not prohibit 
current gambling operations on board cruise ships that, for example, 
begin or end their cruises on the mainland or in foreign countries, 
even if they call at multiple ports in Hawaii, so long as the gambling 
facilities are closed when the vessel is in Hawaii and the passengers 
do not begin and end their trip in Hawaii. Passengers could either 
begin or end their trip in the State, but could not do both. A vessel 
that is operating in dedicated service in Hawaii, however, cannot 
escape the Johnson Act's broad prohibitions simply by calling at 
Christmas Island or some other similar foreign port.
  I have made clear that I do not want gambling in Hawaii any time and 
in particular on the occasions that we have debated the Johnson Act and 
gambling on cruise ships. I have been unwavering in my position that 
gambling on voyages beginning and ending in Hawaii will not be accepted 
practice. This provision should clarify any ambiguity in the Johnson 
Act as to what types of gambling operations on board vessels are 
allowed and not allowed in Hawaii. I can assure my colleagues that if 
gambling interests believe they can exploit and circumvent the spirit

[[Page 27189]]

and intent of Federal laws prohibiting gambling in Hawaii, I will be 
back in this Chamber to attempt to make the necessary changes to 
continue our State's longstanding prohibition on such activities.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we all recognize the Senator's diligence 
in keeping the gambling industry out of Hawaii. Would I be correct then 
saying this provision would not have any impact on those cruise ships 
that begin or end their voyages in a foreign port or on the mainland so 
long as they don't gamble while in Hawaii?
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator for his explanation.
  Mr. INOUYE. I appreciate the opportunity to explain this matter for 
our colleagues.


               coal waste impoundment study clarification

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, conference report language has been added to 
H.R. 4577, the fiscal year 2001 Labor/HHS Appropriations bill to 
address concerns about the safety of coal waste impoundments. A study, 
which is to be completed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 
nine months, will be funded by monies included in the Mine Safety and 
Health Administration's (MSHA) Fiscal Year 2001 appropriations. Because 
MSHA has regulatory authority for coal waste impoundment oversight, I 
hope that MSHA officials will play an active role throughout the course 
of the study. The NAS study is intended to review the coal waste 
impoundments and report on viable methods and alternatives to prevent 
another dam failure like the one that occurred in Martin County, 
Kentucky, in October of this year.
  I would like to clarify the understanding of the chairman and ranking 
member of the Senate Labor/HHS Appropriations subcommittee regarding 
this conference report language. Is it their understanding that the NAS 
study should involve the participation of experts to include, but not 
be limited to, members of relevant state and federal agencies, such as 
the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the Office of Surface Mining 
and Enforcement, the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as 
industry, labor, citizen, and environmental groups, which have either 
been, or may be, impacted by impoundments in their areas? Further, in 
addition to addressing how best to assure the stability of existing 
impoundments, is it the understanding of my distinguished colleagues 
that this NAS study should also address alternative methods of coal 
mine waste disposal and placement in the future?
  Mr. SPECTER. As I, too, have had a long-running interest in coal 
mining and health and safety matters, I thank the Senator for his 
interest in this important coal matter. Yes, I believe that it is 
important for a range of stakeholders to be involved in this study as 
well as to look at both the current and future issues related to coal 
waste impoundments.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would like to thank the Senator from West Virginia for 
his leadership on this subject. It is also my understanding that 
relevant federal, state, industry, labor, citizen, and environmental 
parties should participate in this study so as to gain a broader range 
of views and recommendations on the current problem and future 
solutions in order to prevent such problems as he has described from 
occurring again.


                        Swan Lake-Tyee Intertie

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations subcommittee in a short 
discussion on an item which is included on page 171 of the conference 
report on the recently passed Interior appropriations bill, H.R. 4578. 
In that bill, there is a reference to utilizing the Alaska ``Job in the 
Woods'' program for projects ``that enhance the southeast Alaska 
economy, such as the southeast Alaska intertie.'' May I inquire of the 
distinguished chairman if that language refers specifically to the 
currently proposed Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie project for which the 
Forest Service completed its final environmental impact statement and 
issued its record of decision on August 29, 1997?
  Mr. GORTON. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee is correct. That reference is specifically intended to refer 
to the Swan Lake-Tyee Intertie project and was inadvertently referred 
to as the southeast Alaska intertie. I hope the Record will reflect 
this clarification and will result in an expeditious use of the funds.


                                 liheap

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. Chairman, as you know, many members on both sides of 
the aisle have concerns about the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program (LIHEAP) and the lack of an advance appropriation for that 
program in fiscal year 2002. As you know, home heating costs have 
skyrocketed over the past year in many areas of the country. The LIHEAP 
program helps over four million low-income households with their 
heating bills. Usually this appropriations bill includes advance 
funding for LIHEAP so that states have time to plan their program, but 
due to a provision in the budget resolution capping advance 
appropriations we were not able to do so this year.
  I hope, as I know you do, that we finish our work on this bill before 
October 1 next year. But if we do not, I think we should do everything 
we can to see that any continuing resolution for fiscal year 2002 would 
include sufficient funds for States to properly run their LIHEAP 
programs.
  Mr. SPECTER. As you know, I have been a strong supporter of the 
LIHEAP program and I am aware of how essential the program becomes in 
times of high fuel prices. While I hope that a continuing resolution 
will not be necessary next year, I would certainly support including 
funding for the full winter season in the first continuing resolution 
for fiscal year 2002, if that is necessary.


                        catholic social services

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Senate VA-HUD Appropriations subcommittee in a short 
discussion on an item which is included on page 79 of the Conference 
Report H. Rept. 106-988 (H.R. 4635) for the VA-HUD appropriations bill. 
In that bill, there is funding available for Catholic Community 
Services. I am told that reference is incorrect and that the funding 
should actually be made available for Catholic Social Services for 
renovations and construction at the Brother Francis Shelter and AWAIC's 
transitional housing. I would ask the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman whether it was his understanding that Catholic Social Services 
was the intended recipient of this funding rather than Catholic 
Community Services, and if so, would the chairman make note of this for 
the Record?
  Mr. BOND. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
is correct. That reference is specifically intended to refer to 
Catholic Social Services for renovations and construction at the 
Brother Francis Shelter and AWAIC's transitional housing and was 
inadvertently referred to as Catholic Community Services. I hope the 
Record will reflect this clarification and will result in an 
expeditious use of the funds.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank my colleague.


                       authoritative root server

  Mr. BURNS. Will the chairman yield for purposes of a colloquy?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. I understand that the Internet Corporation for Assigned 
Names and Numbers, ICANN, intends to request that the Department of 
Commerce transfer the Internet's authoritative root server to ICANN's 
control. The authoritative root server is the foundation of the 
Internet, which cannot function without it. Would the chairman agree 
that the Department of Commerce should retain control of the 
authoritative root server until the appropriate committees of Congress 
have reviewed the legality, appropriateness and implications of such a 
transfer?
  Mr. GREGG. I agree with the Senator from Montana that Congress should 
be given the opportunity to exercise its oversight responsibility over 
this important issue.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the chairman yield to me on this issue?

[[Page 27190]]


  Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join you in supporting 
the statements made by the Senator from Montana. As managers of the 
Commerce, Justice, State bill, you and I have the responsibility and 
expectation of providing agencies under our jurisdiction with 
congressional input and guidance. On an issue of this great 
importance--transferring the a-root server to ICANN--it is critical we 
carefully look at the implications a decision like this would have.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Will the chairman yield to me on this issue?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRY. I share the concerns expressed by the Senators from 
Montana and South Carolina about the premature transfer of the 
authoritative root server to ICANN. Control of this root server 
includes the power to dramatically affect all aspects of Internet 
activity, including e-commerce and our national security. The 
Department of Commerce should not transfer the root server to ICANN 
until Congress has had the opportunity to review the wisdom of such a 
transfer.
  Mr. GREGG. I agree with the views expressed by my ranking member, 
Senator Hollings, and the Senators from Washington and Montana on this 
matter.


                           Antidumping duties

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman of 
the Finance Committee for his bipartisan efforts which resulted in the 
passage of section 1425 of H.R. 4868, the Miscellaneous Tariff Act. 
This section is intended to address an unfortunate situation involving 
the imposition of antidumping duties on a number of entries of conveyor 
chain from Japan. At the time of these entries, the applicable 
antidumping duty cash deposit rate was 0 percent. As a result, no cash 
deposits were made on these entries by the U.S. importer. Through no 
fault of the U.S. Customs Service, the antidumping duties and interest 
subsequently imposed when these entries were liquidated as a result of 
the Department of Commerce administrative review process now represents 
a severe and unanticipated hardship on the U.S. importer, Drives, Inc., 
based in Fulton, Illinois. This legislation is intended to address this 
situation by having the Customs Service reliquidate the entries at the 
antidumping duty cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry.
  Mr. ROTH. The senior Senator from Illinois is correct and I thank him 
for his kind words. He is correct with regard to the purpose and 
intended effect of this section. My understanding is that the 
antidumping duty order covering these entries has recently been 
revoked. I also understand that the domestic industry association that 
was the complainant in the dumping proceedings is aware of this 
legislation and does not object.
  Mr. DURBIN. That is correct. In accordance with this legislation, the 
identified entries will be re-liquidated with no antidumping duties 
assessed. Moreover, no interest charges which relate in any way to 
antidumping duties will be assessed. Since the deposit rate at the time 
of entry of all of the identified entries was 0 percent, this will have 
the effect of liquidating the entries at the cash deposit rate in 
effect at the time of entry.
  Mr. ROTH. We should note for the record that during the drafting of 
this legislation, a few words were inadvertently left out, with the 
unintended consequence of the language being not as clear as we would 
like for Customs' interpretation. It was our intent with this 
legislation that re-liquidation should occur within 90 days of 
enactment. This was the intent of the Congress when it reviewed and 
passed this section.
  Mr. DURBIN. The senior Senator from Delaware is correct. There was a 
mistake made in drafting the language. Regardless, the intent of the 
original legislation, and the intent that can still be interpreted from 
the law as enacted, is to have the Customs Service re-liquidate the 
entries at the antidumping duty cash deposit rate in effect at the time 
of entry. I thank the Senator from Delaware for his guidance and 
appreciate working with him on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator from Illinois.


                            asbestos victims

  Mr. DeWINE. I notice my colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich is on 
the floor as well as the majority leader. I think I speak for my 
colleague when I say we are extremely disappointed that our bill, S. 
2955, was not able to be passed in this Congress. That bill is very 
important to asbestos victims and two of our State's largest employers. 
As we all probably know, our nation is facing an asbestos litigation 
crisis. A crisis for which the federal government, in my opinion, 
shares responsibility. From World War II through the Vietnam war, the 
government mandated the use of asbestos to insulate our naval fleet 
from secondary fires. This mandate is the cause of many tragic 
disabilities. Unfortunately, while the federal government would be one 
of the largest asbestos defenders due to this mandate, an aggressive 
and successful litigation strategy to assert sovereign immunity has 
allowed them to evade any monetary culpability.
  Since the federal government is not paying their fair share of the 
costs, the former asbestos manufacturers are burdened with asbestos 
claims. Of the approximately 30 original core defendants, over two 
dozen have gone bankrupt, in large part due to asbestos claims. The 
situation has reached the crisis stage. Good companies, providing good 
jobs, and providing payments to victims, are in significant peril. The 
recent bankruptcies of several former asbestos manufacturers have 
placed an even more overwhelming burden on the remaining defendants. 
Due to joint and several liability, the remaining defendant companies 
are now paying an even higher share of asbestos claims. The markets 
have taken note. Stock market values are declining, making it more and 
more difficult for these companies to receive the financing they need 
to survive. The very future of these companies, the very future of 
these jobs are at stake.
  But, it is not just the companies who are suffering. Asbestos victims 
are also suffering greatly. They are not receiving the awards to which 
they are entitled. If something is not done to correct this situation, 
good companies will continue to go bankrupt, good jobs will continue to 
be lost, and asbestos victims will not receive any compensation.
  We must act now to do this. I understand the majority leader 
understands and appreciates the urgency of this situation. I would ask 
that the bill that Senator Voinovich and I have introduced would be one 
of the first bills considered when we return for the 107th.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague, Senator 
DeWine. I do not think we can stress enough that this really is a 
matter of survival for these companies and their employees. The 
government bears some responsibility here, we simply must get this bill 
done as soon as possible. The companies, their workers, and asbestos 
victims--after all when the companies go bankrupt it affects payments 
to victims--need certainty that this will be brought to the Senate 
floor at the earliest possible date next year. We need to work to keep 
these companies afloat.
  Mr. LOTT. I appreciate the concerns of the two Senators from Ohio. 
They have made a very strong and convincing case on the need for a 
solution to this problem. I pledge to work with them to see that this 
issue is addressed as early as possible in the 107th Congress.


              disaster-resistant wood construction program

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as you know, natural disasters exact a 
tremendous toll on our nation. In just two decades (1975-1994), 24,000 
individuals nationwide lost their lives to natural disasters. An 
additional 100,000 were injured, and the resulting property damage 
reached a staggering $500 billion.
  Hurricanes are responsible for 80 percent of these $500 billion in 
damages. The continued rapid building of homes and commercial 
facilities along our

[[Page 27191]]

coastlines increases the potential for even higher natural disaster 
costs in the future. Since Congress often responds to these disasters 
with emergency supplemental appropriations, it makes sense to also 
support the development of technologies and building techniques to 
mitigate damage resulting from hurricanes and other natural disasters.
  Mr. GREGG. I agree with my distinguished colleague from Maine that we 
need to do what we can to mitigate the devastation caused each year by 
natural disasters. Exciting new building techniques and technologies 
hold promise in this regard.
  Ms. COLLINS. They certainly do. And one of the most exciting 
technologies involve wood composites. The fact is, most natural 
disasters directly affect wood construction, which is used for 99 
percent of houses constructed nationally. The University of Maine 
Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center (AEWC) has developed new 
technologies to reinforce wood construction materials with fiberglass 
material. These fiberglass-reinforced wood composites are two to three 
times stronger, more impact resistant and more ductile than their 
unreinforced counterparts. Homes and buildings constructed with these 
advanced materials should greatly enhance occupant protection from 
hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadic missiles, and other natural threats. 
In addition to their benefits in new construction, these technologies 
can be used to retrofit and strengthen existing wood buildings. The 
University of Maine and its industry partners require $4 million in 
fiscal year 2001 funds to complete material and wood panel testing on 
these technologies, and to start developing building code provisions to 
transition the new disaster resistant panels into residential and 
commercial construction.
  I commend my good friends, Chairman Gregg and the subcommittee's 
ranking member, Senator Hollings, for their efforts thus far to 
allocate additional funds to the National Institute of Standards 
Scientific and Technical Research Services programs. I am particularly 
pleased with the additional funds that have been allocated to the NIST 
Building and Fire Research Laboratory, which is ideally suited to 
develop improved building technologies resistant to natural disaster.
  I would strongly encourage the NIST Building and Fire Research Lab to 
support development work on advanced wood composites, demonstrate the 
performance of reinforced-wood composites under simulated hurricane 
wind conditions, and introduce the new construction materials into 
national building codes and standards.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Collins, 
for her kind remarks regarding this subcommittee's work on the FY '01 
Commerce, Justice, State, and judiciary appropriations bill. I 
recognize the importance of investing in advanced building technologies 
that can resist damage from hurricanes. As you know, South Carolina has 
experienced several costly and disastrous hurricanes. Yet our coastal 
economy continues to expand and to serve as a commercial and recreation 
resource to our State and the Nation.
  I agree with my colleague that development of fiberglass-reinforced 
wood composites is important, and I also encourage the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology to support the development and 
deployment of these materials. Improvements to wood building materials 
will result in direct benefits to the people of South Carolina and all 
other coastal communities in the United States.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank my distinguished colleague from Maine as well and 
share her concerns about the impact of natural disasters on the lives 
of people and on the economy. In the past, government has worked 
effectively with the building industry to make homes and commercial 
buildings better and safer through building codes and standards, and by 
supporting improvements in building technology.
  The subcommittee is very interested in the contributions that the 
NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory can make to improve the 
quality of building products. Fiberglass-reinforced wood composites can 
greatly increase the safety of homes subjected to natural disasters. I 
agree that the National Institute of Standards should pursue with the 
University of Maine the development and demonstration of fiberglass-
reinforced wood composites for improved building materials.


            expansion of a successful executive mba program

  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the intent of 
the conferees regarding a provision in the conference report 
accompanying H.R. 4576, FY01 Defense appropriations bill (H. Rept. 106-
754). Within this legislation is $2 million for the expansion of a 
successful Executive MBA program, jointly administered by the Naval 
Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC), Newport, Rhode Island and Bryant 
College, Smithfield, Rhode Island. The funding will be used to expand 
the current student enrollment from 30 to 60 Navy personnel and to 
expand and upgrade Bryant's technical capabilities. Specifically, funds 
will be used to expand and upgrade Bryant's network bandwidth to 
gigabit speed, as well as fund technological enhancements to Bryant's 
new Bello Center for Information and Technology, allowing Executive MBA 
students better access to valuable information resources. This, in 
turn, will assist them in their studies at Bryant. The $2 million for 
the expansion of this program will not only allow 30 more military/
government personnel to earn an MBA at Bryant, but will link those 
students with expanded technical resources at Bryant. This linkage will 
allow Executive MBA students access to all information available within 
Bryant's resources and create the capability to interact with each 
other and with other students on and off campus.
  Is this description what the conferees intend?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I do not mean to be the skunk at the 
picnic party, but I believe there are some realities to be faced. Those 
realities are that we are establishing on the last evening of the 106th 
Congress some standards that are going to be either positive paths 
towards greater cooperation in the next Congress or will be impediments 
to achieving success in what will be the most divided National 
Government in our Nation's history.
  I am afraid what we are doing tonight will not make a positive 
contribution. The fact is that at 7:08 p.m. on a Friday evening, we are 
taking up in one enormous piece of legislation--a piece of legislation 
which dwarfs the New York City telephone directory in size, a piece of 
legislation which not one single Member of this body or the House of 
Representatives has ever had an opportunity to read.
  The fact that we are about to adopt this legislation without the 
normal debate and opportunity to understand what is in this bill is not 
a positive sign because, in my judgment, the kinds of bipartisan 
cooperation that we will require in the future are going to be based 
upon respect, understanding, and a due regard for our constituents who 
also deserve to be served better than we are doing this evening.
  It also, frankly, has to be based on a level of trust among Members 
when commitments are made, that there is a sense of a solemn 
obligation. This body cannot function, as no human institution can 
function, unless there is a fundamental level of trust and regard among 
its membership. This document does not reflect that trust.
  My fundamental concern about this appropriations bill, which will 
expend approximately $180 billion of our taxpayers' money, is that it 
takes the wrong fundamental path.
  Contrary to myth, the 21st century has not begun. The new century 
will actually commence at 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2001. The first 
Congress of the new millennium, the 107th Congress, will convene on 
January 3. This historic Congress will find itself at the proverbial 
commencement of the century and a fork in the road. Two very different 
fiscal paths will lie in front of it.
  The path we select will play a major role in shaping our country's 
future in the 21st century. One path maintains the fiscal discipline 
that has marked

[[Page 27192]]

the latter half of this decade. It has played an integral part in 
creating the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. This expansion 
has created over 20 million jobs since 1993. It has reduced 
unemployment to a 30-year low of 3.9 percent in October of this year. 
During all of this, inflation has remained at its lowest core rate 
since 1965. Those are all achievements for which we can take 
considerable pride.
  This first path views the projected budget surplus as a means to 
continue this economic success by continuing to pay down the national 
debt.
  This first path also recognizes that a portion of the surplus should 
be used to address some of the long-time intergenerational challenges 
which are confronting our Nation--securing Social Security's future and 
modernizing Medicaid. Social Security is in fine shape today. Payroll 
tax revenues exceed the funds needed to pay current benefits by record 
amounts.
  This positive cash-flow, however, will not last long. In just 15 
years, payroll tax revenue will no longer be sufficient to pay 
benefits. We need to act now to strengthen the program's finances so 
that today's workers and tomorrow's retirees will have the security of 
knowing that their Social Security benefits will also be paid.
  Medicare faces a similar long-term funding shortfall, only it begins 
5 years earlier, in 2010. In addition, Medicare has one substantial 
deficiency. That is its focus on sickness rather than wellness. Thus, 
Medicare needs to be fundamentally reformed to conform with modern 
medicine and the desires of its beneficiaries. That will require the 
inclusion in Medicare of a prescription drug benefit. Virtually every 
preventive program currently in use has prescription drugs as a 
substantial component of its treatment modality. A portion of the 
surplus should be devoted to fixing these deficiencies in Social 
Security and Medicare.
  I just described the first path. There is a second path. That 
alternate path veers off to a far different destination. That path 
focuses on short-term desires, the here and now, and foregoes fiscal 
discipline in favor of new spending programs and tax cuts. It views the 
surplus as a giant windfall to be doled out to favored constituencies 
as if Christmas lasted 365 days. In short, this is a path back to the 
past.
  This final bill of the 106th Congress represents another step down 
the wrong path, the path to the past. The Senate is considering the 
final 2001 appropriations bill, a bill that combines the Department of 
Labor and HHS, the Departments of Treasury, Postal, and the legislative 
branch. This agreement also clears the Department of Commerce, 
Department of State, and Department of Justice bill for signature.
  Discretionary spending in these combined bills totals nearly $182 
billion. This bill follows the pattern established by most of the 
previous appropriations bills considered by the Senate. Its total 
spending greatly exceeds the standard established by the Senate in the 
budget resolution adopted in April of this year. Section 206 of the 
budget resolution proposed a cap on discretionary appropriation 
spending for the fiscal year 2001 at $600 billion. That level would 
have allowed discretionary spending to grow at a rate that was above 
inflation, a rate of approximately 3.5 percent. What do we have before 
the Senate at 7:15 in the evening of December 15? We have a bill which 
allows spending to grow by 8 percent, more than twice that tolerated 
under the budget resolution.
  I admit I support many of the programs funded in this bill, but we 
must exercise restraint. We must establish some sense of priorities. I 
have spoken on the Senate floor on several occasions earlier this year 
to decry specific appropriations bills as they were being considered. 
The common complaint I have had with each of these bills has been that 
they have been crafted in a vacuum without a clearly defined blueprint 
to give Congress the full picture of the implications of its actions 
before it acts. It is as if a carpenter about to build a home would 
start to build the living room without any awareness of what the rest 
of the house was going to look like.
  The budget resolution should have provided exactly such a blueprint. 
But it has failed to do so. A good part of the reason it has failed to 
do so is that it was developed without the full participation of all 
Members of the Senate. It was a partisan document, representing one 
point of view but not providing the context around which all Members of 
this body as reflective of the public of the United States could give 
their support. In addition, it was crafted with wholly unrealistic 
expectations of where we were headed.
  Let me demonstrate in this chart back to the year 1997. In 1997, we 
passed a budget resolution that capped discretionary spending at $528 
billion; we actually spent $538 billion. By 1998, our commitment to 
fiscal discipline had grown stronger and we only exceeded the budget 
resolution by $2 billion. Since that year, every year, we have had 
substantial deviations from our budget resolution. In every year, we 
have spent substantially more than we had committed ourselves to do in 
our budget resolution.
  To go back to that example of the carpenter and the house, it is as 
if the family said: we have a budget. We can afford, based on our 
income, to build a $100,000 house. But they build a $125,000 house 
which stretches their financial capability.
  This year we had a resolution that said we spent $600 billion; with 
this legislation tonight, we will spend $634 billion. We have overspent 
our budget by $34 billion. This chart exposes the failure of our 
current budget process. Each year we pass a budget resolution which 
establishes limits, and each year we break the resolution.
  The fiscal year 1999 budget resolution which was supposed to be a 
spending limit of $533 billion had a final tally of $583 billion. In 
the year 2000, the limit was supposed to be $540 billion and the final 
tally was $587 billion. As I indicated, this year was supposed to be 
$600 billion and we have concluded now at $634 billion.
  The last 3 years highlight the dangers of considering spending bills 
without a credible budget, one that establishes reasonable parameters 
and results from the participation of both parties.
  While that is my fundamental objection to this budget and why I will 
request to be counted as voting no when we take the final voice vote on 
this matter, this legislation also includes changes to the Medicare 
program that will result in greater payments to providers. This bill 
increases payments to Medicare providers by $35 billion over the next 5 
years, $85 billion over the next 10 years. My primary objection to 
these changes is that too much of the $35 billion for the first 5 years 
and $85 billion for the next decade is funneled into one aspect of the 
Medicare program--health maintenance organizations, HMOs. In my 
opinion, and more importantly, in the opinion of the experts, the HMOs 
do not need and cannot justify the level of additional appropriations 
which they are about to receive.
  While I appreciate the modest improvements for beneficiaries which 
are included in this bill, the fact remains that HMOs, which enroll 
less than one out of six Medicare beneficiaries, will receive almost 
one-third of the overall funding. I am alarmed by increasing payments 
to HMOs because we are told by the experts that the payments are 
already too high. The General Accounting Office says under current law:

       Medicare's overly generous payment rates to HMOs well 
     exceed what Medicare would have paid had these individuals 
     remained in the traditional fee-for-service program.

  The General Accounting Office concluded that Medicare HMOs have never 
been a bargain for the taxpayers. Increasing HMO payments will not keep 
them from leaving the markets where they are most needed.
  One of the several outrages in this area is the requests that were 
made that if we were going to provide this generous additional payment 
to HMOs, one-third of the money for less than one-sixth of the Medicare 
beneficiaries, that they would have to commit they would not, as they 
have done in many areas in my State and virtually every other State, 
pack up leaving beneficiaries without coverage.

[[Page 27193]]

  Or in other areas, as I recently experienced in the city of 
Jacksonville, HMOs have been driving down the benefits within their 
plans. I found while working at a pharmacy in Jacksonville earlier this 
year, most of the HMOs in that city have now put a cap on the annual 
payments of prescription drugs, and that cap is $500. As anyone who 
knows about the cost of prescription drugs, a $500 annual limit, 
particularly for an elderly population, is a very meager benefit. If 
you take this overly generous additional payment, you have to make some 
commitments to the beneficiaries relative to your willingness to stay 
and serve in the communities where you are currently providing services 
and to maintain your service benefit level. None of that is in this 
final bill. This is a check being written with no response, in terms of 
protection for beneficiaries.
  According to the testimony from Gail Wilensky, chair of the Medicare 
Payment Advisory Commission, she states that plan withdrawals--that is, 
withdrawals from HMOs:

       . . . have been disproportionately lower in counties where 
     payment growth has been the most constrained.

  What Ms. Wilensky is saying is that where you have constrained 
reimbursements to HMOs, you have less withdrawals than you do where you 
are, as we proposed to be in this legislation, excessively generous.
  It comes down to priorities. Should we spend billions on HMOs or try 
to help frail and low-income seniors, people with disabilities and 
children?
  The managed care industry and its advocates in Congress have thwarted 
every effort to reform the Medicare+Choice Program so that it does what 
it was designed to do--save money while providing reliable, effective 
health care services.
  A prime example of this occurred almost a year ago in this Chamber. 
In 1997, under the Balanced Budget Act, we provided for two 
demonstration projects to provide for the outrageous idea that there be 
competitive bidding among HMOs, to let the marketplace--which we all 
laud as being the best distributor of resources--let the marketplace 
decide what should an HMO be paid. This happens to be the same practice 
which is used in the private sector in its selection of HMOs and in 
some of the largest public employee HMO plans. Implementation of such a 
process had the potential of saving taxpayers and the Medicare program 
millions of dollars. It could have ensured that HMOs with the best bids 
were awarded contracts. It would have eliminated the discrimination 
against rural and smaller communities vis-a-vis the large communities 
which now get the largest HMO reimbursement.
  Unfortunately for the American public, last year the managed care 
industry convinced their friends in Congress to beat back even these 
two demonstration projects. In so doing, they assured that we would not 
have a competitive system, a system that based contracts on merit. In 
fact, they would not have to compete at all. In fact, there would be no 
basis by demonstration of what would be the potential benefits to 
competition.
  This year the HMOs have launched a multimillion-dollar lobbying 
effort to pressure Congress to increase their payment rates, and they 
have been successful. The HMOs are claiming that their current rates 
are too low, yet these are the same HMOs that committed congressional 
homicide when they killed a proposal that would have allowed a more 
market oriented system which would have resulted in higher 
reimbursement rates if the market indicated that was appropriate. This 
is the equivalent of a man shooting his mother and father and throwing 
himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.
  Worse yet, the bill fails to provide adequate accountability 
requirements for these plans. The House bill, when it was originally 
passed, required that any new funds be used for beneficiary 
improvements. This bill, this conference bill, contains no such 
requirement.
  To be honest, there are some high points in this bill, as few and far 
between as they might be. I was pleased to learn the bill being 
considered added new preventive benefits for Medicare beneficiaries.
  I strongly believe Medicare must be reformed from a system based on 
illness to one based on maintaining the highest standard of health. I 
have introduced legislation to this effect. The benefits I included 
were based on recommendations made by the experts in the field: the 
United States Preventive Services Task Force. Therefore, I was 
disappointed to find that this bill fails to provide Medicare coverage 
for hypertension screening and smoking cessation counseling, which are 
the highest two priorities as identified by the United States 
Prevention Services Task Force in its ``Guide to Clinical Preventive 
Services.''
  This bill also provides access to nutrition therapy for people with 
renal disease and diabetes, but leaves out the largest group of 
individuals for whom the Institute of Medicine recommends nutrition 
therapy, people with cardiovascular disease. This is the recommendation 
of the Institute of Medicine, a recommendation which has been 
politically rejected.
  I believe strongly that additions to the Medicare program must be 
based on scientific evidence and medical science, not on the power of a 
particular lobbying group or the bias of a single Member. It appears to 
me that instead of taking a rational, scientific approach to 
prevention, the Members who constructed this Medicare add-back 
provision used a ``disease of the month'' philosophy, leaving those who 
need help the most without relevant new Medicare services.
  When I asked why did the authors of this bill ignore the expert 
recommendations, why did they provide that seniors with cardiovascular 
disease could not take advantage of the nutrition therapy, what was the 
answer? I was told that it was excluded because it was too expensive.
  It does not take a Sherlock Holmes, or even a Dr. Watson, to 
understand what is happening. This bill provides $1.5 billion over 5 
years for prevention services to our older citizens. It provides a 
whopping $11.1 billion for the HMO industry. Clearly, the money is 
there but the real goal is not to direct it to the greatest need. It 
is, rather, to herd seniors into HMOs as a means of avoiding the 
addition of a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit for our 
Nation's seniors.
  Whether you believe in the broad Government subsidization of the 
managed care industry or in providing benefits to seniors and children, 
we should all agree that taxpayers' money should be spent responsibly. 
This legislation does not meet that test. Congress has the 
responsibility to make certain that the payment increases we offer are 
based on actual data rather than anecdotal evidence or speculation. How 
can we justify that over the next 10 years the managed care industry--
Mr. President, I ask you and our Members to listen to this startling 
fact--over the next 10 years the HMO industry will walk away with 
almost the same amount of funding increase as hospitals, home health 
care centers, skilled nursing facilities, community health centers, and 
the beneficiaries combined. That allocation makes no sense.
  One of the most appalling omissions of this bill is the exclusion of 
a provision which would have given the States the option, under another 
important program, Medicaid and children's health insurance coverage, 
to make that coverage available to legal immigrant children and 
pregnant women.
  Current census data shows us that last year nearly half of low-income 
immigrant children in America had no health coverage. Congressional 
Republicans and Democrats, Governors--and I am proud to say including 
Gov. Jeb Bush of the State of Florida, Christie Todd Whitman of New 
Jersey, Paul Cellucci of Massachusetts, and the Clinton 
administration--have been advocating for the inclusion of this 
commonsense provision in this balanced budget add-back bill. But some 
in Congress have opposed the inclusion of a provision that will provide 
health care coverage for indigent immigrant women and children, arguing 
that the welfare reform law removed legal immigrants from the health 
rolls.

[[Page 27194]]

  There was a reason why they were removed, and that reason was money. 
By limiting the number of people eligible for Medicaid and children's 
health insurance, the Federal Government was able to save some dollars. 
This provision had nothing to do with the overall worthy goals of 
welfare reform, which were encouraging self-reliance, self-sufficiency, 
and discouraging single parenting. There is no evidence that legal 
immigrants come to the United States to secure health benefits. In 
fact, in the last decade immigrants have been moving from high benefit 
States such as California and New York to low benefit States such as 
North Carolina and Virginia.
  There is also no denying that the money to cover this population of 
approximately 200,000 persons is available if we choose to use it. The 
proof is covering children and pregnant women is not only humane, it is 
fiscally responsible. The Medicare ``give back'' package is aimed at 
keeping strapped hospitals solvent. These same struggling hospitals 
bear the brunt of providing uncompensated emergency room care for 
children without health insurance whose families cannot afford to pay. 
Taxpayers are eventually going to wind up paying the cost of citizen 
children born prematurely because their legal immigrant mothers could 
not get prenatal care.
  This bill is disturbing for both what it has and what it does not 
have. As I said, it does not have a clear blueprint towards a path of 
sustained fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my 
remarks an article written by Dr. Robert Reischauer entitled ``Bye-Bye 
Surplus'' be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Dr. Reischauer outlines the four ingredients present in 
today's political environment that are likely to lead to a feeding 
frenzy that will lay waste to the surplus that we have until now 
guarded. Those ingredients are: No. 1, the need for the next President 
to affirm his administration's legitimacy; No. 2, even larger budget 
provisions; and a compliant Congress, and finally a weakening economy.
  Why should we worry about all this? Why should we at this stage, at 
7:35 on a Friday evening, suddenly become exercised about the issue of 
fiscal discipline? Some budget observers believe the Federal surplus 
may be revised upward by as much as $1 trillion when the new budget 
estimates are revealed. If that is the case, the unified budget surplus 
for the next 10 years will rise to roughly $5.5 trillion.
  Given these larger surplus projections, one may ask why Americans 
should be concerned with the deterioration of budget discipline. 
Americans should worry because Congress is frittering away the hard-won 
surplus without a real plan for utilizing those surpluses, without 
addressing the long-term, major challenges facing Americans--Social 
Security, Medicare, and paying down a $5.5 trillion national debt. 
Americans should care because we are sleepwalking through the surplus. 
We are denying ourselves the chance to face major national challenges. 
We are leaving to our grandchildren the credit card bills that our 
generation has accumulated.
  The Congressional Budget Office recently released its long-term 
budget outlook. The findings in that report are not encouraging, but 
they are not surprising. That may explain why the report garnered such 
little attention.
  What were the Congressional Budget Office findings?
  The Federal Government spending on health and retirement programs--
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security--will dominate the long-term budget 
outlook. Spending on major health and retirement programs will more 
than double, rising from 7.5 percent of gross domestic product today to 
16.7 percent 40 years from now. Why? The retirement of the baby boom 
generation will drastically increase the number of Americans receiving 
retirement and health care benefits, and the cost of providing health 
care is growing faster than the overall economy.
  Saving most or all of the budget surpluses that CBO projects over the 
next 10 years--using them to pay down the debt--would have a positive 
impact on these projections and substantially delay the emergence of a 
serious fiscal imbalance.
  There could be no more clear delineation of the long-term problem. 
Equally clear is the proffered outline of the short-term steps Congress 
can take to begin to address this problem: Save the surplus; pay down 
the debt.
  Yet despite the obvious, Congress seems content to take the easier 
path and to fritter away the surplus. We have an obligation not to let 
this happen.
  The ugly days of deficits taught Congress some very valuable lessons. 
One of those lessons was the need to prioritize. We all have 
expectations. We all are representing our constituents to the best of 
our ability. We all have a sense of our national responsibility. But 
the tool that forced us to do what was required was the one that said 
that for each additional dollar of spending, a dollar of spending had 
to be reduced or a dollar of taxes had to be raised. That is what 
discipline is about.
  The surplus has eroded that discipline. We are failing the American 
public by not having honest, open debate about the tradeoffs that are 
necessary if we create programs, build projects, or cut taxes.
  Few Congresses in the history of this Nation have squandered their 
opportunities as much as the 106th. Few Congresses in the history of 
this Nation have had the opportunity of redemption that awaits the 
107th Congress. Few Congresses will be judged more harshly for 
avoiding, trivializing, and ultimately failing to seize that 
opportunity.
  For those reasons, I have asked that I be recorded as ``no'' on the 
final vote on the omnibus appropriations bill.
  I thank the Chair.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the Washington Post, Dec. 5, 2000]

                            Bye-Bye, Surplus

                       (By Robert D. Reischauer)

       A president with no mandate to pursue his campaign 
     promises. A Congress hardened by four years of partisan 
     combat, scarred by a bitter election and immobilized by the 
     lack of a party with a clear majority. Isn't this the recipe 
     for continued gridlock? Won't legislative paralysis leave the 
     growing budget surpluses safe from plunder for another two 
     years?
       Don't bet on it. A torrent of legislation that squanders 
     much of the projected surplus is much more likely than 
     continued gridlock, because four key ingredients needed to 
     cook up a fiscal feast of historic proportions will all be 
     present next year.
       First, there will be the new president's desperate need to 
     affirm his administration's legitimacy. There's no better way 
     to do this than to quickly build a solid record of 
     legislative accomplishment, one that convinces Americans that 
     the era of partisan gridlock is over and the new occupant of 
     the Oval Office deserves to be president of all the people, 
     even if he didn't win a convincing majority of the popular 
     vote.
       The second ingredient will be new and even larger 
     projections of future surpluses. These will make the 
     president's legislative agenda look like the well-deserved 
     reward for a decade of fiscal fasting rather than a return to 
     reckless budget profligacy. During the presidential campaign, 
     the two candidates debated how best to divide an estimated 
     $2.2 trillion 10-year surplus among tax cuts, spending 
     increases and debt reduction. The budget offices' new 
     projections, which will be released early next year, will 
     almost certainly promise even fatter, juicier surpluses, 
     surpluses that will boost the expectations of all of the 
     greedy supplicants.
       Rather than being bound by gridlock, the 107th Congress 
     will be poised for a feeding frenzy, the third ingredient for 
     the fiscal feast. Nervously eyeing the 2002 election, when 
     each party will have a reasonable shot at gaining effective 
     control of Congress, Democrats and Republicans will curry 
     favor with all important--and many not so important--interest 
     groups. While the election campaign underscored the different 
     priorities of the two parties, it also revealed many areas 
     where there was bipartisan agreement that more should be 
     spent. Education, the top priority of both candidates and the 
     public's primary concern, could benefit from a bidding war if 
     each side tries to prove that it is the ``Education Party.'' 
     Increases in defense spending also have broad bipartisan 
     support. And then there is the irresistible impulse to shower 
     resources on health research (NIH), Medicare providers and 
     farmers, to name but a few.

[[Page 27195]]

       The size of the projected surpluses, the uncertain 
     political environment, and the argument that those surpluses 
     are ``the hardworking people of America's money . . . not the 
     government's money'' will make a large tax cut almost 
     inevitable. No one will stop to ask whose money it was when 
     the hard-working people's representatives racked up $3.7 
     trillion in deficits between 1980 and 1998 or whether we owe 
     it to our kids to pay down the increased public debt these 
     deficits generated. Instead, large bipartisan majorities will 
     rally around and add to a presidential proposal that includes 
     marriage penalty relief, rate cuts, tax credits for health 
     insurance, new incentives for retirement saving, and an 
     easing of the estate tax for struggling millionaires who have 
     had to suffer through a period of unprecedented prosperity 
     and soaring stock values.
       A weakening economy--the final ingredient--will wipe away 
     any lingering qualms lawmakers may have about wallowing again 
     in waters of fiscal excess. No matter that the vast majority 
     of economists welcome slower growth because they believe that 
     the current 4 percent unemployment rate is incompatible with 
     price stability. If the unemployment rate drifts up close to 
     5 percent--a level that labor, business and the Fed 
     considered unattainable as recently as 1995--the summer 
     soldiers of fiscal prudence will cut and run, slashing taxes 
     and boosting spending, claiming as they retreat that these 
     actions are the only way to save the nation from another 
     Great Depression.
       The current fiscal year will be the third consecutive one 
     in which the budget, excluding Social Security, has been in 
     surplus. The last time such a record was achieved was 1928 to 
     1930. If the new president and the 107th Congress do what 
     comes most naturally, we may have to wait another 70 years to 
     celebrate such an accomplishment. Worse yet, we will wake up 
     after the fiscal feast to discover that the surplus has been 
     squandered while the nation's foremost fiscal challenge--
     providing for the baby boomers' retirement--has not been 
     addressed because that required difficult choices and 
     political courage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the conference 
report is agreed to.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail is 
a treasure that thousands of Americans enjoy every year. From day 
hikers to adventures making the 2,167 mile trip from Georgia to Maine, 
all who travel the footpath enjoy a remarkable wilderness experience.
  The National Trails System Act of 1968 designated the Appalachian 
Trail as one of our nation's first scenic trails and authorized the 
Secretary of Interior to protect the trail through the acquisition of 
land along the trail or by other means. Over the years, Congress has 
supported this important effort through appropriations that have 
enabled the National Park Service to acquire more than 3000 parcels of 
land, protecting ninety-nine percent of the trail for future 
generations.
  Despite the success of the last thirty years, more work needs to be 
done to ensure that the trail is preserved in its entirety. The longest 
remaining unprotected segment of the Appalachian Trail crosses 
Saddleback Mountain, in the Rangeley Region of western Maine. The 3.1 
miles that traverse the Saddleback Mountain range is one of the trail's 
highest stretches, offering hikers an alpine wilderness trek and 
extraordinary vistas. The mountain is also home to Saddleback Ski Area, 
which draws skiers to an area of Maine where many are employed in the 
tourism industry.
  For nearly twenty years, the National Park Service and the owners of 
the ski area have sought an agreement that balances the preservation of 
the trail experience as it exists today and development opportunities 
at the mountain that would draw additional skiers to the resort and the 
region. Some have been inclined to suggest that skiers and hikers 
cannot share Saddleback Mountain, but I have always maintained that 
with careful planning, preservation and economic development can 
coexist. Consequently, I have long urged both sides to work together to 
find a resolution that satisfies the interests of those who cherish the 
Appalachian Trail, as well as those who live and work in the Rangeley 
Region.
  Mr. President, the impasse between the National Park Service and the 
owners of Saddleback Mountain is drawing to a close. The agreement so 
many have labored to achieve has been all but finalized, and with the 
passage of the bill before us today, Congress will establish the 
framework by which this matter can be resolved. Included in the bill is 
a provision proposed by me and Senator Snowe directing the Secretary of 
Interior to acquire the land necessary to protect the Appalachian Trail 
as agreed to by both the Department and the owners of Saddleback 
Mountain. The language also directs the Secretary to convey the land to 
the State of Maine.
  I would like to express my appreciation to Appropriations Committee 
Chairman Stevens and Subcommittee Chairman Specter for working with 
Senator Snowe and I on this matter of importance to our State. I would 
also like to thank Interior Subcommittee Chairman Gorton for including 
the Saddleback acquisition in the list of projects approved for Title 
VIII funds in the FY 2001 Interior Appropriations bill. Their support, 
along with the dedication of many others who have been involved in the 
negotiations, will ensure that skiers and hikers can share in the 
enjoyment of the natural beauty and wonders of Saddleback Mountain for 
generation to come.
 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I oppose the conference report of 
the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill, which has 
become the vehicle for the final budget agreement for fiscal year 2001, 
and I regret the need to do so for there are many laudable provisions 
included in this package. I was particularly pleased with the boost in 
funding for Pell grants, an absolutely critical program that ensures 
lower income students have the opportunity to go to college. Welcome, 
too, was the additional support for class size reduction and special 
education funding. This latter program, though, is still far short of 
where it ought to be. While this spending package brings funding for 
the Federal share of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to 
15 percent, the highest it has ever been, it is still far short of the 
40 percent which represents the maximum Federal contribution under 
IDEA. I was proud to join with my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, 
in offering an amendment to the budget resolution earlier this year 
which would have provided that full funding for IDEA, and though we 
were not successful, I very much hope my colleagues will make full 
funding of this program a high priority.
  I was also pleased that this measure includes needed increases in 
support for Social Services Block Grants, a vitally important program 
that helps counties and social service providers serve our most 
vulnerable citizens and that had been drastically cut in earlier 
versions of the Labor, Health and Human Services spending bill. As 
well, I was glad that additional funding was provided to the National 
Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control, and that 
additional resources were included to relieve funding pressures on 
those who provide Medicare services. In this last area, I was 
especially pleased that the legislation will provide relief for 
Medicare services delivered in rural areas and that it will delay for 
one year the scheduled 15 percent cut to home health care agencies.
  Unfortunately, this massive spending bill also includes a number of 
highly questionable provisions. I am deeply concerned that the Medicare 
package is disproportionately skewed toward HMOs, providers that do not 
serve the vast majority of Wisconsinites. The underlying reimbursement 
formula for Medicare HMOs is grossly unfair, punishing those areas, 
like Wisconsin, with efficient, low-cost health care providers. 
Significant reform is needed for the Medicare HMO reimbursement 
formula, and until that reform is undertaken, we should not pour 
billions and billions more into a Medicare HMO system that is so 
fundamentally unfair. Instead, those funds should have been targeted 
toward provisions to ensure adequate access to home health care and 
funding a significant prescription drug benefit. In this regard, I am 
particularly disappointed that Congress only delayed, and did not 
eliminate, the 15 percent reduction in payments to home health care 
agencies and only ordered a study of the inclusion of medical supplies 
in new payment system.
  More broadly, this measure contains the same defects that previous 
large

[[Page 27196]]

end-of-session omnibus spending bills have contained; namely, special 
interest provisions that are slipped into the must-pass bill to avoid 
the usual committee scrutiny and full review on the floors of the House 
and Senate. My good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. McCain, has identified at least $1.9 billion in pork 
barrel spending in this year's version of the omnibus spending bill. He 
notes that in the conference report for the Commerce, State, and 
Justice appropriations bill, itself an add-on to the Labor, Health, and 
Social Services appropriations bill, are many earmarked spending 
provisions that have never undergone appropriate review, including: 
$200,000 for the Kotzebue Sound test fishery for king crab and sea 
snail; $3 million for Red Snapper research; $300,000 for research on 
the Charleston bump; $150,000 for lobster sampling; $1 million for 
Hawaiian coral reef monitoring; and $1 million for the implementation 
of the National Height Modernization system in North Carolina.
  I am willing to concede that some of these programs may have merit. 
But if they do have merit, those who advocate funding for them ought to 
make their case before the appropriate authorizing committees and 
submit their case to the floor of the House and Senate in the normal 
way. That they chose instead to slip these matters secretly into a 
massive, must-pass spending bill at least suggests that some of these 
programs would not have withstood thorough scrutiny.
  Mr. President, these special interest provisions continue to be one 
of the best arguments for reforming an appropriations and budget 
process that has led to an annual, end of the fiscal year budget wreck. 
Unwarranted and wasteful special interest provisions flourish in such 
an environment, and fundamental reform, including moving to a biennial 
budget process, is the only solution. I very much hope such reform will 
be the very highest priority of this body during the 107th Congress and 
that this year's pork-laden omnibus appropriations bill will be the 
last of its kind.

                          ____________________