Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time currently running virtually equally between the two sides be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, am I correct in my assumption that the previous order calls for a vote now on the conference report?

Mr. BENNETT. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the conference report.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his inquiry. Since I have no prepared remarks, I am responding directly to the remarks of the Senator from Arizona. I can't put an exact timeframe on it. I will try to restrain my enthusiasm for the sound of my own voice and finish in maybe 15 or 20 minutes--something in that timeframe. I will do my best to do it faster. I understand the Senator from Alaska no longer requires any time. So the Senator from Massachusetts could speak right up to the time we go into the session with the former Vice President.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, a slight change has been worked out in the order of speeches. I now yield to the Senator from Colorado, who will address the Treasury-Postal portion of this bill. That has been done with the understanding and approval of the minority.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I listened with interest when the Senator from Arizona spoke about the GAO report with respect to the Olympics. I believe the Senator from Arizona has made a significant contribution and is attempting to move the Congress in a direction in which we should go with respect to the Olympic games. I think he has raised appropriate concerns. I can be specific about some of them. I will not attempt to be specific about them all because they are quite lengthy. For example, the $14.8 million for communications infrastructure to which he objects in the Department of the Treasury portion of the conference report before us was inserted there at the request of the Secret Service, which told the Appropriations Committee that was the amount they required. This was not something that was asked for by the Salt Lake organizing committee or the Senator from Utah specifically. It came from the Department of the Treasury. That is true of some of the other items. But rather than getting bogged down in a debate over the appropriateness of this amount or that amount, every one of which has had that debate in one form or another in the process of getting to the conference report, I want to address the issue of the GAO report and the comments that the Senator from Arizona made about it. He said, very accurately, that the Federal role with respect to the Olympic games has increased dramatically from the $75 million that was appropriated in 1984 for the Olympics in Los Angeles to the amount that has now been appropriated and is going to be appropriated for the Olympics in Salt Lake City, showing the step-up from Los Angeles to Atlanta to Salt Lake City. Inasmuch as Washington, DC, has announced its intention to bid on the Olympic games in either 2008 or 2012, I think now is an appropriate time, as the Senator from Arizona has suggested, to talk about the role of the Federal Government with respect to the Olympic games. The GAO report makes this comment with which I am sure the Senator from Arizona would agree and with which I agree. I think it is a very appropriate comment. It says: Despite the lack of a specifically authorized Government- wide role in the Olympic games, the Federal Government has, in effect, become a significant supporter of the Games when hosted in the United States. Accordingly, Congress may want to consider enacting legislation to establish a formal role for the Federal Government and a Government-wide policy regarding Federal funding and support for the Olympic Games when hosted in the United States. I think that is a very sound recommendation on the part of GAO. It resonates with the concerns raised by the Senator from Arizona. I lived in Los Angeles in 1984 and watched the Olympic games from the standpoint of a resident. Let me add a little history to the history that has been referred to on the floor this afternoon. In 1984, as I recall--I could be wrong, but my memory tells me--Los Angeles was the only city bidding for the Olympic games. The games were seen as an economic disaster for any city unfortunate enough to end up as the host. There were examples all over the world of cities that had hosted the Olympic games and ended up with huge deficits which took them years and years to pay off. Nobody wanted the Olympic games. Los Angeles got the Olympic games almost by default. They hired an extraordinary individual named Peter Ueberroth to serve as the manager of that event, and Peter Ueberroth did something that was both very good and, in retrospect, maybe not so good for the Olympic movement. He brought in for the first time on a serious basis big money sponsors. I remember reading in the Los Angeles Times after the Olympic games were over that there was a surplus in the Olympic account of $30 million that would be turned over to the city of Los Angeles. There were further newspaper stories that said: No, the surplus is $60 million. No, we have looked through the books, the surplus is $100 million. I don't remember now what it ended up being. But it was, for the time, a comparatively staggering amount of money. There were jokes made in Los Angeles about the fact that everything was available as the official filled in the blanks. I remember going with my family to watch the women's marathon. It was the only event we attended in the Los Angeles 1984 Olympic games because it was the only one that was free. We couldn't afford to buy the tickets at that time. As the father of six children, I think other people can understand that particular problem. We stood there on the sidelines and watched the Olympic runners come down. We cheered for the Americans. We were excited. Then after it was over, in the spirit of the time, one of the officials of the games turned to us and said, Do you want an official Olympic sponge? They had handed sponges filled with water to the runners as they went by, and the runners cast them off. Everything was an ``official Olympic'' this or that and had a price tag attached to it. I remember Kodak was very concerned because Peter Ueberroth put the official Olympic film up for bid and Kodak said: You can't possibly have an official Olympic film that isn't an American film. Ueberroth said: Make your bid. Fuji Film outbid Kodak. We had over the Olympics in Los Angeles a large green blimp with ``Fuji Film'' on it. Fuji Film was the official Olympic film for the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. As I say, the number came out to be ultimately something close to $100 million. It transformed the Olympic movement. From that moment forward, everybody wanted to be the host city for the Olympic games. And everybody assumed that if they could somehow get that plum for their city, they would receive a very substantial economic payoff. But once you start down that road psychologically, a number of interesting things happen. And an interesting thing happened to the Olympic movement.

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair. I will use time when the Senator from Florida has finished.

Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield for an inquiry? Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have left under my control?

Mr. BENNETT. That is correct, the Senator from Minnesota has his own time. We have no objection to his using the time in that sequence. With that, I yield to Senator Bond such time as he may require.

Mr. BENNETT. If you have the time, fine

Mr. BENNETT. I yield to Senator Bond.

Mr. BENNETT. I understand that I have 1 hour under my control.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 4516), and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BENNETT. With Senator Harkin not currently on the floor, Senator Bond desires a few moments. Could we ask unanimous consent that Senator Bond be allowed to proceed with Senator Harkin to follow?

Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I hope that hour will not be necessary. I am prepared to deal with it. I am prepared to stay on the floor during the hours that are allocated to other Members of this body. But I hope we can move this more rapidly than the 6 hours. This is my fourth year as chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee and the second year that I have had the privilege of serving with Senator Feinstein as the ranking member. I want to begin this report by thanking Senator Feinstein for her assistance in working on the conference report in the House. She, as you know, Mr. President, is a former mayor. That experience gives her a unique insight into some of the issues that we face in this subcommittee. So I pay tribute to her and to her staff and to the professional way in which she has handled her responsibilities. In our final session of the conference, the question was raised by Mr. Obey in the other body as to whether or not there would be additional legislation added to the conference report. I told him at the time that I knew of no such plan or program. I spoke accurately at the time. However, as things often happen around here, changes did occur under the sponsorship of the leadership of both Houses. As a consequence, the conference report is somewhat expanded from that which was negotiated. Division A of H.R. 4516 contains the conference agreement for the legislative branch appropriations for fiscal year 2001, and additional funding for the credit subsidy which supports the FHA multi-family housing insurance programs. Provision B contains the conference agreement for the Treasury-general government appropriations and repeal of the excise tax on telephones. This bill has attracted attention, and the allocation of time that has been set up around this bill is demonstrated by the time under the control of Senators who have nothing to do with the Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative Branch and who presumably will talk about other issues than those that are directly connected with the legislative branch appropriations. I will limit my comments to the conference agreement on the legislative branch and defer to the other subcommittee chairmen and other Senators who will address the funding that is contained in this bill under their jurisdiction. This conference agreement appropriates $2.53 billion for fiscal year 2001, which is approximately a 1.6-percent increase over the funding for the fiscal year 2000 level, including the supplemental funding. Both Senator Feinstein and I are proud of the fact that we have kept the increase at such a low level, as we have tried to be as responsible as possible in allocating funds for the legislative branch. We spent a great deal of time going over the accounts and the increases that agencies have had over the last 4 years to find where we could best and most fairly cut or hold down expenditures without impacting employees. Our goal was to ensure that funding would be provided for all current legislative branch employees. We have met that goal. No RIFs, or reductions in force, will be required under this agreement. Another priority was to make sure that adequate funding is provided for maintenance projects, particularly the projects that involve health and safety issues. I have long since learned in my business career that one of the quickest ways to temporarily show an increase on the bottom line is to cut back on maintenance. One of the surest ways to guarantee that you will get into trouble long term is to cut back on maintenance. We have tried to make sure that we didn't make that mistake here in our desire to hold down the total amount that was being spent. We have also spent a great deal of time talking about security. We made sure that the resources were made available to the men and women who protect the Capitol, its visitors, and Members and staff. I think we have accomplished all of our goals within the current funding restraints. The conference agreement on the legislative branch is a good agreement. I urge my colleagues to support it. Before I yield so that Senator Feinstein can make her comments, I would like to thank the staff for their hard work: Christine Ciccone, who acts as the majority clerk; Chip Yost, my legislative director; Jim English, who represents the Democratic staff director; Edie Stanley with the Appropriations Committee; and Chris Kerig from Senator Feinstein's office, all of whom have performed yeomen service, staying up late nights and coming in the early morning to make sure those who get the spotlight on the television look better than perhaps we really are. I pay them that tribute and extend to them my personal thanks for all the work they have done. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. Yes.

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, to clarify the situation, I understand that we are now engaged in 6 hours that will lead ultimately to a vote on the conference report on the legislative branch appropriations bill; is that correct?

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 5173 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.