John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator for his description of the situation, and I will be happy to continue to work to rectify this matter.

Mr. McCAIN. I will be happy to yield to the senior Senator from Georgia.

Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding that a similar provision was included in the Statement of Managers accompanying the Transportation appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2000.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Stevens, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Elwell, a congressional fellow in Senator Stevens' office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the pendency of the Senate consideration of S. 82.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the 10 a.m. filing requirement, it be in order for a managers' amendment and, further, the majority and minority leaders be allowed to offer one amendment each.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am sorry that I was not here yesterday when the debate began. Nevertheless, I rise in support of S. 82, the Air Transportation Improvement Act. As everyone should be aware, this is ``must-pass'' legislation that includes numerous provisions to maintain and improve the safety, security and capacity of our nation's airports and airways. Furthermore, this bill would make great strides in enhancing competition in the airline industry. If Congress does not reauthorize the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will be prohibited from issuing much needed grants to airports in every state, regardless of whether or not funds have been appropriated. We have now entered fiscal year 2000, and we cannot put off reauthorization of the AIP. The program lapsed as of last Friday. Every day that goes by without an AIP authorization is another day that important projects cannot move ahead. If we fail to reauthorize this program, we may do significant harm to the transportation infrastructure of our country. AIP grants play a critical part of airport development. Without these grants, important safety, security, and capacity projects will be put at risk throughout the country. The types of safety projects that airports use AIP grants to fund include instrument landing systems, runway lighting, and extensions of runway safety areas. But the bill does more than provide money. It also takes specific, proactive steps to improve aviation safety. For example, S. 82 would require that cargo aircraft be equipped with instruments that warn of impending midair collisions. Passenger aircraft are already equipped with collision avoidance equipment, which gives pilots ample time to make evasive maneuvers. The need for these devices was highlighted a few months ago by a near-collision between two cargo aircraft over Kansas. Unfortunately, that was not an isolated incident. On the aviation safety front, the bill also: provides explicit AIP funding eligibility for the installation of integrated inpavement lighting systems, and other runway incursion prevention devices, requires more types of fixed-wing aircraft in air commerce to be equipped with emergency locator transmitters by 2002, provides broader authority to the FAA to determine what circumstances warrant a criminal history record check for persons performing security screening of passengers and cargo, reauthorizes the aviation insurance program, also known as war risk insurance. This program provides insurance for commercial aircraft that are operating in high risk areas, such as countries at war or on the verge of war. Commercial insurers usually will not provide coverage for such operations, which are often required to advance U.S. foreign policy or to support our overseas national security operations. The program expired on August 6, 1999, and cannot be extended without this authorization, gives the FAA the authority to fine unruly airline passengers who interfere with the operation or safety of a civil flight, up to $10,000 per violation, authorizes $450,000 to address the problem of bird ingestions into aircraft engines, authorizes $9.1 million over three years for a safety and security management program to provide training for aviation safety personnel. The program would concentrate on personnel from countries that are not in compliance with international safety standards, authorizes at least $30 million annually for the FAA to purchase precision instrument landing systems (ILS) through its ILS inventory program, authorizes at least $5 million for the FAA to carry out at least one project to test and evaluate innovative airport security systems and related technologies, including explosive detection systems in an airport environment, requires the FAA to maintain human weather observers to augment the services provided by the Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) weather stations, at least until the FAA certifies that the automated systems provide consistent reporting of changing meteorological conditions, allows the FAA to continue and expand its successful program of establishing consortia of government and aviation industry representatives at individual airports to provide advice on aviation security and safety, requires that individuals be fined or imprisoned when they knowingly pilot a commercial aircraft without a valid FAA certificate, requires the FAA to consider the need for (1) improving runway safety areas, which are essentially runway extensions that provide a landing cushion beyond the ends of runways; (2) requiring the installation of precision approach path indicators, which are visual vertical guidance landing systems for runways, prohibits any company or employee that is convicted of an offense involving counterfeit aviation parts from keeping or obtaining an FAA certificate. Air carriers, repair stations, manufacturers, and any other FAA certificate holders would be prohibited from employing anyone convicted of an offense involving counterfeit parts. This bill requires the FAA to accelerate a rulemaking on Flight Operations Quality Assurance. FOQA is a program under which airlines and their crews share operational information, including data captured by flight data recorders. Information about errors is shared to focus on situations in which hardware, air traffic control procedures, or company practices create hazardous situations. It requires the FAA to study and promote improved training in the human factors arena, including the development of specific training curricula. It provides FAA whistleblowers who uncover safety risks with the ability to seek redress if they are subject to retaliation for their actions. The legislation provides employees of airlines, and employees of airline contractors and subcontractors, with statutory whistleblower protections to facilitate their providing air safety information. These provisions will be critical in the continuing effort to enhance safety and reduce the accident rate. Of all the bills that the Senate may consider this year, the Air Transportation Improvement Act should be easy. This bill is substantially the same as the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation System Improvement Act, which this body approved last September by a vote of 92-1. If anything, this bill is better than last year's. There is no rational reason why we can't take care of this quickly. Because S. 82 is so similar to last year's FAA reauthorization bill, I will skip a lengthy description of every provision, particularly those that have not changed. Nevertheless, I do want to remind my colleagues of a few key items in this legislation and describe what has changed since last year. The manager's amendment to this bill, which is in the nature of a substitute, has at least three critical parts that are worth highlighting. First and foremost, S. 82 reauthorizes the FAA and the AIP through fiscal year 2002. Second, the bill contains essential provisions to promote a competitive aviation industry. Third, it will protect the environment in our national parks by establishing a system for the management of commercial air tour overflights. With the help of my colleagues, I have worked long and hard on all of these issues. The provisions in S. 82 that have generated the most discussion are the airline competition provisions. As I have said many times, the purpose of these provisions is to complete the deregulation of our domestic aviation system for the benefit of consumers and communities everywhere. According to the General Accounting Office, there still exist significant barriers to competition at several important airports in this country. These barriers include slot controls at Chicago O'Hare, Reagan National, and LaGuardia and Kennedy in New York, and the Federal perimeter rule at Reagan National. In a recent study, the GAO found that the established airlines have expanded their slot holdings a the four-slot constrained airports, while the share held by startup airlines remains low. Airfares at these airports continue to be consistently higher than other airports of comparable size. It does not take a trained economist to figure that out. If you restrict the number of flights, then obviously the cost of those flights will go up. Additionally, the federal permimeter rule continues to prevent airlines based outside the perimeter from gaining competitive access to Reagan National. This GAO report reinforces my view that the perimeter rule is a restrictive and anti-competitive Federal regulation that prohibits airlines from flying the routes sought by their customers. According to testimony presented to the Commerce Committee by the Department of Transportation, the perimeter rule is not needed for safety or operational reasons. For that matter, neither are slot controls. Therefore, these restrictions simply are not warranted. So long as the Federal Government maintains outdated unneeded restrictions, which favor established airlines over new entrants, deregulation will not be complete. Slot controls and the perimeter rule are Federal interference with the market's ability to reflect consumer preferences. We should not be in the position of choosing sides in the marketplace. With respect to Reagan National, I would like to make one final point. Just last month, the GAO came out with another study confirming that the airport is fully capable of handling more flights without compromising safety or creating significant aircraft delays. The GAO also found that the proposal in this bill pertaining to perimeter rule would not significantly harm any of the other airports in this region. I believe the GAO's findings demonstrated that there are no credible arguments against the modest changes proposed in this bill. Although the reported version of S. 82 increased the number of new opportunities for service to Reagan National compared to last year's bill, an amendment that will be offered by Senators Gorton and Rockefeller will bring the total number of slot exemptions back to the level approved by the Senate last year. It is sadly ironic that an airport named for President Reagan, who stood for free markets and deregulation, will continue to be burdened with two forms of economic regulation--slots and a perimeter rule. But some loosening of these unfair restrictions is better than the status quo, and so I will not oppose the amendment. Fortunately, the competition-related amendment being offered by Senator Gorton and others includes several significant improvements to the reported bill. Most notably, the slot controls at O'Hare, Kennedy, and LaGuardia airports will eventually be eliminated. This is a remarkable win for consumers and a change that I endorse wholeheartedly. Furthermore, before the slot controls are lifted entirely, regional jets, and new entrant air carriers will have more opportunities to serve these airports. The typically low cost, low fare new entrants will bring competition to these restricted markets, which will result in lower fares for travelers. Travelers from small communities will benefit from increased access to these crucial markets. I am not alone in believing that the competition provisions in the bill are a big step forward for all Americans. Support for these competition-enhancing provisions is strong and widespread. I have heard from organizations as diverse as the Western Governor's Association of Attorneys General, the Des Monies International Airport, and Midwest Express Airlines. All of them support one or more of the provisions that loosen or eliminate slot and perimeter rule restrictions. But it was a letter from just an average citizen in Alexandria, VA that caught my attention. He said that he feels victimized by the artificial restrictions placed on flights from Reagan National. His young family is living on one paycheck. He says that his family budget does not allow them the luxury of using Reagan National, which is less than ten minutes from his home. To him, using Reagan National seems to be ``a privilege reserved for the wealthy and those on expense accounts.'' For the sake of his privacy I will not mention his name, but this is precisely the type of person who deserves the benefits of more competition at restricted airports like Reagan National. In summary, this bill represents two years of work on a comprehensive package to promote aviation safety, airport and air traffic control infrastructure investment, and enhanced competition in the airline industry. Our air transportation system is essential to the Nation's well being. We must not neglect its pressing needs. If we fail to act, the FAA will be prevented from addressing vital security and safety needs in every State in the Union. I urge all of my colleagues to support swift passage of this legislation. I thank Senator Hollings and his staff, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Gorton, and all members of the Commerce Committee who have taken a very active role in putting this legislation together. It is a significantly large piece of legislation reflecting a great deal of complexities associated with aviation and the importance of it. Approximately a year ago, a commission that was mandated to be convened by legislation reported to the Congress and the American people. Their findings and recommendations were very disturbing. In summary, these very qualified individuals reported that unless we rapidly expand our aviation capability in America, every day, in every major airport in America, is going to be similar to the day before Thanksgiving. I do not know how many of my colleagues have had the opportunity of being in a major airport on the busiest day of the year in America. It is not a lot of fun. I do a lot of flying, a great deal of flying this year, more than I have in previous years. I see the increase in delays, especially along the east coast corridor. I have seen when there is a little bit of bad weather our air traffic control system becomes gridlocked and hours and hours of delay ensue. These delays are well documented. The committee is going to have to look at what we have done in the air traffic control system modernization area. We are going to have to look at what they have not done. There are a number of recommendations, some of which we have acted on in this committee, some of which we have not. But if we do not pass this legislation, then how can we move forward in aviation in this country? I believe any objective economist will assure all of us that deregulation has led to increased competition and lower fares. But some of that trend has leveled off of late because of a lack of competition, because of a lack of ability to enter the aviation industry. This is disturbing to me because the one thing, it seems to me, we owe Americans is an affordable way of getting from one place to another; and more and more Americans, obviously, are making use of the airlines. I can give you a lot of anecdotal stories about what the effective competition is. For example, at Raleigh-Durham Airport, when it was announced that a new, low-cost airline was going to be operating out of that airport, the day after the announcement, long before the airline started its competition, the average fares dropped by 25 percent--a 25- percent drop in average airfares. We have to do whatever we can to encourage the ability of new entrants to come into the aviation business. My greatest disappointment in deregulation of the airlines is that the phenomenon which was generated initially has not remained nearly at the level we would like to see it. There are problems many of my colleagues, including the Senator from West Virginia, have talked about at length--of rural areas not being able to have just minimal air services. That is why we are dramatically increasing the essential air service authorization, so that more rural areas can achieve it. I also think it is very clear the air traffic control system is lagging far behind. I think there is no doubt that we have had problems with passengers receiving fundamental courtesies and rights which they deserve. That is why there has been so much attention generated concerning the need for some fundamental, basic rights that passengers should have and receive from the airlines. For example, the debacle of last Christmas at Detroit should never be repeated in America, what airline passengers were subjected to on that unhappy occasion. Yes, it was generated by bad weather, but, no, there was no excuse for the treatment many of those airline passengers received on that day and other passengers have received in other airports around the country, only the examples were not as egregious, nor did they get the widespread publicity. If you believe, as I do, if we continue the economic prosperity that we have been enjoying in this country, we will continue to see a dramatic and very significant increase in the use of the airlines by American citizens, we have major challenges ahead. I do not pretend that this legislation addresses all of those challenges, but I do assert, unequivocally, that if we pass this legislation, pass it through the body, get it to conference, and get it out, we will make some significant steps forward, including in the vital area of aviation safety. I again thank Senator Gorton and Senator Rockefeller for all their hard work on this issue. I remind my colleagues that in about 5 minutes, according to the unanimous consent agreement, all relevant amendments should be filed. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, finally, I send to the desk amendment No. 1904 on behalf of Senator Snowe, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of the pending amendments to the FAA bill. Senators should be aware that rollcall votes are possible today prior to the 12:30 recess in an attempt to complete action on the bill by the end of the day. As a reminder, first-degree amendments to the bill must be filed by 10 a.m. today. As a further reminder, debate on three judicial nominations took place last night and by previous consent there will be three stacked votes on those nominations at 2:15 p.m. today. Following the completion of the FAA bill, the Senate will resume consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I wish to express my strong opposition to the conference agreement on H.R. 2084, the Fiscal Year 2000 Transportation Appropriations Bill as recently approved by the House and Senate conferees. I recognize that there are very important provisions in the legislation, sections that appropriate funds for programs vital to the safety of the traveling public and our national transportation system over all. Yet despite that necessary funding, the legislation once again goes overboard on pork barrel spending. It is extremely disappointing the conferees chose to meld the enormous number of listed projects that were earmarked in the House and Senate reports accompanying the transportation appropriations bill this year. Many additional projects were also included by the conferees. It seems that there is never a dearth of special projects that come to the attention of appropriators--even after both chambers have already passed their versions of the legislation. One would have thought with the windfall enjoyed by most states due to the new budgetary scheme under Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, there would have been less project earmarking, but unfortunately that was not the case. And, there always seems to be a ready list of towns, airports, universities, or research organizations that appropriators want to reward with more money to work on a transportation project. For example, many airports that failed to be included when the House and Senate considered the transportation funding legislation somehow managed to be included in the conference agreement. Some of the new entrants on the airport funding priority list are the Aurora Municipal Airport in Illinois, the Upper Cumberland Regional Airport in Tennessee, the Abbeyville Airport in Alabama, and the Eastern West Virginia Airport in West Virginia. Like some airports, transit projects that failed to make the cut when the House and Senate considered their respective funding bills also somehow made the cut in the conference report. Further, the conferees deemed it necessary to provide specific recommendations to allocate 65 percent of the dollars set aside for the new jobs access and reverse grants program established under TEA-21. And, yet the House approprators had acknowledged in the House report accompanying the bill that this program was created ``to make competitive grants.'' If the funding is to be competitively awarded, why did the conferees find the need to provide a listing of 47 specific recipients? I have consistently fought Congressional earmarks that direct money to particular projects or recipients, believing that such decisions are far better made through nationwide competitive, merit-based guidelines and procedures. I continue to find this practice an appalling waste of taxpayer dollars. Bill after bill, year after year, earmarks continue to divert needed federal resources away from more meritorious and deserving projects. It is simply unconscionable that Congress condones wasting so much of our taxpayers dollars by funneling funds to special interest projects while at the same time, so many of our young men and women serving in the armed services go underpaid and in some cases, are forced to accept food by Congress, have been classic examples. Let me share with my colleagues some of the university-related pork. $500,000 is provided for Crowder College in Missouri for a truck driving center safety initiative. $875,000 is set aside for the University of South Alabama to begin a research project on rural vehicular trauma victims. $250,000 is set aside for Montana State University at Bozeman to pilot real-time diagnostic monitoring of rail rolling stock. $250,000 is set aside for the University of Missouri- Rolla to work on advanced composite materials for use in repairing old railroad bridges. As I have said previously, I do not question that some--perhaps all-- of this research may be needed, but I do question whether the specifically selected universities are the best place to spend taxpayer dollars on those projects. It is conceivable that there may be other, more experienced entities, that could perform the research--but we will never know because earmarking ignores merit-based criteria. I vehemently object to the expenditure of scarce transportation funds on projects that have not been subject to uniform, objective funding criteria. I further object to the expenditure of scarce transportation funds on unauthorized programs. Section 365 provides $500,000 in grants to the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a program that allows employers in certain regions to receive credits for reduced vehicle-miles-traveled if that employer allows workers to telecommute. Section 365 was not in the House-passed bill. Section 365 was not in the Senate-passed bill. There have been no hearings on the provision in either the House or the Senate. I, for one, believe that the airport and surface transportation safety programs could far better use that half a million dollars than the Environmental Protection Agency. I have asked the following question before and I will continue to on other appropriations bills. I ask my colleagues, why are the appropriators so reluctant to permit projects to be awarded based on a competitive and meritorious process that would be fair for all the states and local communities? I ask my colleagues, why are the appropriators so quick to slip in provisions creating brand new authorizations. I suspect it is due to the fact they may doubt the merits and worth of the very projects they are earmarking and of the programs they are authorizing. I have only mentioned a few of the examples of earmarks and special projects contained in this measure and I will not waste the time of the Senate going over each and every earmark. However, a detailed listing of the many earmarked projects proposed in this bill and committee report are available from my office and can also be obtained from my website. Finally, I would like to express my grave concerns over a provision that would prevent certain very critical motor carrier safety functions from being administered by the Federal Highway Administration. Such a prohibition could be of grave consequence to the road traveling public and is short-sighted at best. Last year an attempt was made by the House Appropriations Committee to strip FHWA from its authority over motor carrier safety matters. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over most federal transportation safety policies, including motor carrier and passenger vehicle safety, I opposed this proposal, in part because it had never been considered by the authorizing committees of jurisdiction. The provision was ultimately not enacted and I pledged that I would work to address motor carrier safety concerns in this Congress. I have lived up to this commitment. At my request, the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation conducted a comprehensive analysis of federal motor carrier safety activities. Serious safety gaps have been identified, and as such, the authorizing Committees of jurisdiction have been working to move legislation to improve motor carrier safety. The Commerce Committee held a hearing on my specific safety proposal and we expect to mark up that measure during the next Executive session. Indeed, we are working to move legislation through the regular legislative process. In my opinion, it is very short-sighted and a serious jeopardy to public safety if Congress shuts off funds for motor carrier safety activities within the Department of Transportation. For example, under the conference agreement, the Department would not be permitted to access civil penalties for motor carrier safety violations. According to DOT, ``this provision would effectively shut down our safety enforcement program.'' While I am aware safety improvements are necessary and am working to accomplish those needed improvements, stipping critical authority is not in the interest of truck safety. I would urge the President to veto this legislation due to this unwise and unsound provisions and permit the authorization process to proceed responsibly.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I commend both Senator Specter and Senator Harkin for their dedicated work on this legislation which provides federal funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education. This appropriations bill provides funding for many critical programs directly helping American families and providing important assistance to our most important resource, our children. One of the most important components in this bill is its vital support for education. We owe it to each and every child to ensure that they have access to a high quality education. This is why I am pleased that this bill increases funding for Department of Education to almost $38 billion, including nearly $6 billion for educating children with special needs and $5.2 billion for the Head Start program. I am also pleased to note that this bill prohibits federally funded national education standards. It continues to be my strong belief that our nation must have higher learning expectations for our children but academic standards must be controlled by state and local authorities, not the bureaucrats in Washington. This bill contains important resources for helping make college and continuing education more affordable for all Americans. Under this bill, the maximum loan amount for post-secondary education would be the highest level in the program's history--$3,325 per student. In addition, this legislation provides $1.4 billion for higher education opportunities, including $180 million for GEAR UP which assists under- privileged children and $5 million to provide access to affordable child care for parents struggling to complete their college education while raising their children. I am particularly pleased that this bill provides significant funding for medical research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, $17.6 billion, which is an increase of $2 billion from last year. I am sure that my colleagues share my support for this 13 percent increase in funding for vital research which could lead to important scientific breakthroughs which will improve the health of our citizens. Finally, I am encouraged to note that this bill took an important step towards meeting the needs of over 7,000 children and families whose lives have been devastated by hemophilia-related AIDS, by beginning to fund the Ricky Ray Act as authorized by Congress last year. Furthermore, I was pleased to learn that the sections allocating funding for Labor, HHS and Education were free of direct earmarks, set asides or unauthorized appropriations. However, my initial enthusiasm was dampened somewhat upon reviewing the report language. While the Committee made a concerted effort to not include any specific earmarking in those Departments' budgets, the report contains an exorbitant amount of directive language that is clearly intended to have the same effect as an earmark. By this, I mean the use of words like ``encourage'', ``urge'', and ``recommend'' in connection with references to particular institutions, projects, or proposals that the Committee would obviously like the relevant agencies to fund. These are not direct earmarks, but I am sure the programs which the Committee ``encourages'' or ``urges'' the agencies to support will receive special consideration. While the Committee avoided providing a line item for funding specific projects, it stated its strong preference for the funding or continued funding of many specific projects which would clearly bypass the competitive funding process. I will highlight a few examples of report language that contain a multitude of expressions of support, short of earmarks, for particular projects. These include: The Committee urges the Department of Labor to give full and fair consideration to funding requests submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to retrain incumbent workers. The Committee encourages the Department of Labor to support agricultural training for dislocated sugarcane workers in Hawaii. The Committee recommends continued support by the Department of Labor for the Alaska Federation of Natives Foundation to develop and train Alaska native workers for year-round employment within the petroleum industry. The Committee encourages the agency to contribute technical assistance to the University of Nevada at Reno and Las Vegas toward the establishment of educational channels for a school of pharmacy. The Committee stated its awareness of the San Bernardino County Medical Center proposal to create a ``hospital without walls.'' In addition, the Committee notes that the Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital is proposing the creation and implementation of a Northern California Telemedicine Network. The Committee is aware of a proposal by the Montana State University- Billings to develop in collaboration with medical facilities in the area a telemedicine program to provide preventive medicine and support services to the large elderly population in Billings and eastern Montana. The Committee continues to be supportive of the work being conducted by the Low Country Health Care Systems. The Committee encourages priority be given to the University of Hawaii at Hilo Native Language College when allocating funds for native Hawaiian education. The Committee is concerned about the absence of technology integration in the north central communities of Pennsylvania. The committee notes the efforts of the Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania for its development of two regional networks to link these rural communities. Mr. President, I could continue listing the specific projects, which the report highlights and for which the Committee provides encouragement for continued or new funding, but I will not waste the Senate's valuable time. Due to its length, the list I compiled of objectionable provisions included in the Senate report cannot be printed in the Record. This list will be available on my Senate website. It is simply inappropriate that the committee is attempting to influence the open, competitive funding process, thereby limiting the funds available to workers, schools, hospitals, and communities around the country which are not fortunate enough to live in a State with a Senator on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I congratulate my respective colleagues on both sides of the aisle for successfully completing work on this important spending bill. I regret that I was not able to be here to vote on the final Energy and Water conference report for fiscal year 2000. The conferees deserve credit for their notable efforts in forging this conference agreement and continuing funding for the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation and other critical energy programs important to our nation. I am disappointed to say that, just as this final report ensures that necessary functions and programs of the Federal Government are funded, the practice of pork-barrel spending also continues. When the Senate passed its version of the energy and water appropriation bill just 2 months ago, I found $531 million in low- priority, unnecessary, and wasteful spending. While a half a billion dollars is an incredible amount of pork, it is remarkable that this final conference report has been fattened up with an additional $200 million in pork barrel projects. A lot of this pork is concentrated in sections of the bill detailing projects to be funded by the Army Corps of Engineers. While I am certainly supportive of our water infrastructure and civil works programs, I am appalled at the process by which the conferees have directed money in these accounts. A majority of the projects do not appear to be funded based on a competitive or merit-based review, but instead funding is clearly directed toward projects which are not requested in the budget and more closely resemble special interest projects. We sought to curb Federal spending and reduce our tremendous deficit by passing the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. However, because we now enjoy a robust economy and balanced budget, we have detracted from our important goal of spending tax-payer's hard-earned dollars prudently. A clear example of this fiscal irresponsibility is exemplified by the ``emergency spending'' bills we have enacted over the past two years. Why did we have to pass these supplemental appropriations bills? Because those areas of the country which are not the recipients of these special interest earmarks are suffering because there is not a realistic chance to compete for federal funding through established normal procedures and guidelines when budgetary spending is based more on parochial actions. Over the years, I have reported to the American taxpayers the pork- barrel spending that continues through our annual appropriations process. I believe we owe it to the American public to report how we spend their taxpayer dollars. Sadly, the taxpayers will have to shoulder the burden of financing pork barrel projects to the tune of $759 million included in this energy and water spending measure. I will not waste the time of the Senate going over each and every earmark. I have compiled a list of the numerous add-ons, earmarks, and special exemptions in this conference report. Due to its length, the list I compiled of objectionable provisions included in this conference report cannot be printed in the Record. This list will be available on my Senate webpage.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues, Senators Abraham and Mack to introduce legislation today which will help ensure that our children are being taught by the best, brightest and most component teachers. ``A teacher affects eternity; they can never tell where their influence stops.'' I share this sentiment of Henry Adams-- knowledgeable, enthusiastic teachers play a critical role in the development of our children. Personally, I can attest to the lasting mark teachers can have on a child, for my life has greatly benefitted from the guidance, encouragement and support of many teachers. As many of my colleagues know, my years in school were not notable for individual academic achievement, but I was fortunate to have been taught by some of the finest leaders and role models our nation could offer a young person. Their efforts helped prepare me for the experiences and obstacles I faced later in life. It is important for us to continue to work to ensure that all children have access to wonderful, intelligent and inspirational teachers. It is my strong belief that testing our teachers and providing merit pay for those that excel is critical for retaining smart, enthusiastic and talented teachers in our nation's classrooms. This is why I cosponsored this measure last year and have joined my colleagues again this year to reintroduce this legislation. Too many teachers are receiving salaries which are not commensurate with the invaluable service they provide. It is unconscionable that a bad politician is paid more than a good teacher. I will continue fighting for better pay for our nation's teachers, but I will also continue fighting for programs which encourage our states to provide merit-based pay, and periodically test teachers for competence. By all means, we should reward good teachers. They have answered one of the highest callings in our society, and they should be honored for the sacrifices they make on our children's behalf. But we should also weed out problem teachers who have lost the desire to teach or who have failed to improve their teaching skills in this high tech age. The fact is that teachers who refuse to demonstrate their competency, are probably not competent to teach. Every child in every classroom deserves a teacher who is qualified and enthusiastic about teaching. Some people just aren't meant to be teachers, and we should help them find another line of work. There are thousands of dedicated teachers around our nation working with parents, school officials and local communities to guide our children and provide them with the highest quality education necessary for ensuring the youth of our country have both the love in their hearts and the knowledge in their heads to not only dream, but to make their dreams a reality. These are precisely the teachers whom we should be fighting to keep in our schools and merit pay is crucial towards achieving that. America's teachers are helping our youth develop the personal, professional and emotional skills necessary for successfully defining and achieving their goals. The impact of quality teachers on our children and our nation's future is immeasurable and irreplaceable, and we must continue developing and strengthening programs which encourage these teachers to continue teaching our children and building a better future for all of us. I urge my colleagues to support this measure we are introducing today and work with us to ensure the best teachers with the best skills are teaching our children.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues, Senators Abraham and Mack to introduce legislation today which will help ensure that our children are being taught by the best, brightest and most component teachers. ``A teacher affects eternity; they can never tell where their influence stops.'' I share this sentiment of Henry Adams-- knowledgeable, enthusiastic teachers play a critical role in the development of our children. Personally, I can attest to the lasting mark teachers can have on a child, for my life has greatly benefitted from the guidance, encouragement and support of many teachers. As many of my colleagues know, my years in school were not notable for individual academic achievement, but I was fortunate to have been taught by some of the finest leaders and role models our nation could offer a young person. Their efforts helped prepare me for the experiences and obstacles I faced later in life. It is important for us to continue to work to ensure that all children have access to wonderful, intelligent and inspirational teachers. It is my strong belief that testing our teachers and providing merit pay for those that excel is critical for retaining smart, enthusiastic and talented teachers in our nation's classrooms. This is why I cosponsored this measure last year and have joined my colleagues again this year to reintroduce this legislation. Too many teachers are receiving salaries which are not commensurate with the invaluable service they provide. It is unconscionable that a bad politician is paid more than a good teacher. I will continue fighting for better pay for our nation's teachers, but I will also continue fighting for programs which encourage our states to provide merit-based pay, and periodically test teachers for competence. By all means, we should reward good teachers. They have answered one of the highest callings in our society, and they should be honored for the sacrifices they make on our children's behalf. But we should also weed out problem teachers who have lost the desire to teach or who have failed to improve their teaching skills in this high tech age. The fact is that teachers who refuse to demonstrate their competency, are probably not competent to teach. Every child in every classroom deserves a teacher who is qualified and enthusiastic about teaching. Some people just aren't meant to be teachers, and we should help them find another line of work. There are thousands of dedicated teachers around our nation working with parents, school officials and local communities to guide our children and provide them with the highest quality education necessary for ensuring the youth of our country have both the love in their hearts and the knowledge in their heads to not only dream, but to make their dreams a reality. These are precisely the teachers whom we should be fighting to keep in our schools and merit pay is crucial towards achieving that. America's teachers are helping our youth develop the personal, professional and emotional skills necessary for successfully defining and achieving their goals. The impact of quality teachers on our children and our nation's future is immeasurable and irreplaceable, and we must continue developing and strengthening programs which encourage these teachers to continue teaching our children and building a better future for all of us. I urge my colleagues to support this measure we are introducing today and work with us to ensure the best teachers with the best skills are teaching our children.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would designate the Medal of Honor memorials at the national cemetery at Riverside, California, the White River State Park at Indianapolis, Indiana, and the museum at Patriots Point in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, as National Medal of Honor sites. I am joined in this effort by Senators Crapo, Cochran, and Bingaman. This legislation is a companion bill to H.R. 1663, sponsored by Representative Ken Calvert and cosponsored by 77 Members of the House of Representatives. Mr. President, this is not a frivolous piece of legislation that I am introducing today. The Medal of Honor is this nation's highest honor. The 3,417 Americans who have received the Medal of Honor, from the Civil War through the terrible battle in the dusty streets of Mogadishu, each demonstrated uncommon courage in the service of their country, many at the cost of their lives. In testimony in support of the House bill before the Veterans Subcommittee on Benefits, Paul Bucha, president of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, stated that the Society ``believes that these projects will bring full recognition to recipients and is hopeful that this will complete the system of memorials that recognize Medal of Honor recipients.'' Passage of the bill Senators Crapo, Cochran, Bingaman and I are introducing today will help to ensure this recognition in a timely manner. Designation of the three sites as ``National'' memorials will give them the status they deserve, while bringing them appropriately under the department of Interior. There is no cost associated with this legislation. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will support passage of this legislation, and thank the President for this opportunity to address the Senate on behalf of this worthy legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I introduced an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2000 VA-HUD Appropriations bill that would have provided the Department of Veterans Affairs with a new flow of non-appropriated revenues, thereby benefiting all American veterans who rely on the agency's services. This legislation would improve the VA's ability to collect insurance costs from third-party providers. Currently, the VA collects only about one-third of the money it is owed by private insurers through its Medical Care Cost Recovery (MCCR) program. The Independent Budget prepared by AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars explicitly calls for Congress to give VA the authority to privatize MCCR. My legislation would require the VA to privately contract for these collections for a period of three years, during which the VA would develop an internal process to improve medical cost recovery. Unfortunately, I could not obtain the concurrence of the Chairmen of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee or the Veterans Affairs Committee to attach my amendment to this bill. Nonetheless, I will continue to fight for this proposal, as I believe it is a potential source of considerable revenue for the chronically underfunded VA. Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Specter has told me that this is an important amendment, and that his committee would give full consideration to my free-standing legislation on VA medical cost collection. I look forward to working with him, our veterans service organizations, and other Members of Congress to require the VA to improve its ineffective and delinquent medical cost collection program. Doing so should help us move the VA budget closer to the $20 billion target identified by those who speak for America's veterans as necessary for sustaining our commitment as a nation to care for those who have honorably served her in uniform.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank both Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for their hard work on this important legislation which provides federal funding for the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Independent Agencies. However, once again, I find myself in the unpleasant position of speaking before my colleagues about unacceptable levels of parochial projects in this appropriations bill. Although the total level of pork- barrel spending in this bill is down from last year's total of $607 million, this bill still contains nearly $470 million in wasteful, pork barrel spending. This is an unacceptable amount of low priority, unrequested, wasteful spending. The total value of specific earmarks in the Veterans Affairs section of this bill is about $80 million, $30 million more than last year. Let me review some examples of items included in the bill. An especially troublesome expense, neither budgeted for nor requested by the Administration for the past eight years, is a provision that directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to continue the eight-year- old demonstration project involving the Clarksburg, West Virginia VAMC and the Ruby Memorial Hospital at West Virginia University. Two years ago, the VA-HUD appropriations bill contained a plus-up of $2 million to the Clarksburg VAMC that ended up on the Administration's line-item veto list and that the Administration had concluded was truly wasteful. Like the transportation and military construction bills, the VA appropriations funding bill is a convenient vehicle to add building projects to the President's budget request. For example, the bill adds $10 million in funding for a new National Cemetery in Oklahoma City/ Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Although this is a worthy cause, I wonder how many other national cemetery projects in other States were passed over to ensure that Oklahoma's cemetery received the VA's highest priority. Another project added to the bill was $3.9 million to convert unfinished space into research laboratories at the ambulatory care addition of the Harry S. Truman VAMC in Columbia, Missouri. In the area of critical VA grant funding, again, certain projects in key members' states received priority billing, including $50 million added and made available to replace the boiler plant and construct a dietary facility at the Southeastern Veterans Center/Pennsylvania State Veterans Home in Spring City, Pennsylvania. Both projects were rejected by the Department of Veterans Affairs as wasteful spending of taxpayers dollars. Furthermore, the Department told the Committee that the responsibility for maintenance, repair, and replacement of boiler power plants is the responsibility of the State of Pennsylvania. Grant money totaling $14 million is added and made available for cemeteries in Bloomfield and Jacksonville, Missouri. Again, I am sure that these are two worthwhile cemetery projects, but they push aside higher priority cemetery grants, including one in my State of Arizona. Earmarks aside--there are many good things about this bill. Over the past four years, veterans' health care funding has been virtually flat. This funding level has occurred as our veterans population is aging and in need of greater long-term health care that is often more expensive. Earlier this year, several key veterans organizations (the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars) reported in the ``Independent Budget'' that President Clinton's budget is $3 billion less than is necessary to maintain current health care services to our nation's veterans. Furthermore, the American Legion has also been proactive with veterans nationwide and in discussions with me regarding the severe inadequacies in veterans health care. I was proud when the Senate passed legislation that Senator Wellstone and I sponsored earlier this year to add $3 billion in budget authority for veterans health care and I felt that we had the commitment of the Senate, with a solid vote of 99-0. Last week, I wrote to the Chairmen of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee to ask that they increase critical veterans health care funding that is not contained in the President's budget. Unfortunately, the bill as reported only included $1.1 billion. When the bill was brought to the Senate, I sponsored legislation with Senator Byrd that added $600 million and another critical amendment by Senator Wellstone that added an additional $1.3 billion to veterans health care. Unfortunately, the latter failed to pass. Although Senator Byrd's amendment designates additional veterans funding under an emergency designation of the Balanced Budget Act, I agree with Chairman Stevens' statement that we should find the additional $600 million in funding from other than emergency designation. Such funding will prove instrumental to ensuring that quality health care is delivered in a timely manner in our nation's VA medical care facilities and preventing the continued curtailment of essential veterans programs and services. As I travel across the country, I am overwhelmed by the concerns of veterans regarding the poor health care situation in VA facilities. I am happy with the support and leadership that Senator Bond has provided in supporting a $1.7 billion plus-up to President Clinton's veterans budget and commend him on his efforts. But more remains to be done. And I pledge to do everything in my power to correct this injustice in veterans health care funding in the future. This bill also contains the funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which is responsible for many programs vital in meeting the housing needs of our nation and for the revitalization and development of our communities. The programs administered by HUD help our nation's families purchase their homes, assists many low-income families obtain affordable housing, combats discrimination in the housing market, assists in rehabilitating neighborhoods and helps our nation's most vulnerable--the elderly, disabled and disadvantaged have access to safe and affordable housing. While many of the programs funded in this portion of the bill are laudable, I am deeply concerned about the number of earmarks in this section of the bill. I will highlight just a few of the more egregious violations of the budgetary review process. These include: Six pages of earmarks dictating how a large portion of the Community Development Block Grant money must be allocated. This is inappropriate and a direct violation of the appropriate budgetary process. More importantly, it diverts critical funds from many communities which need the funding for local development programs but are excluded from the funds because of these egregious earmarks. For example: $1.7 million is earmarked for the Sheldon Jackson College Auditorium in Sitka, AK for refurbishing. $1 million is set aside for the construction of a fire station project in Logan, UT. $1.2 million of CDBG funds are earmarked for renovating a gateway to historic downtown Madison, MS. $1.75 million for the University of Nevada in Reno, NV for the Structures Laboratory. $1.25 million for the revitalization of the Route 1 corridor. $3.5 million for the University of Alaska Fairbanks Museum. These are a few of the many earmarks in housing which put aside money for specific projects and bypass the open, competitive process of selecting the most urgent and worthy projects, thereby limiting the funds available to communities around the country who are not fortunate enough to reside in a community with a Senator on the Appropriations Committee. In total, $93.2 million of the $4.8 billion for CDBG is earmarked for projects selected for special set-asides. Contained in both the bill and the Senate report is an exemption for Alaska and Mississippi from the requirement to have a public housing resident serving on the board of directors of PHAs for FY 2000. Also contained in the bill is a provision preventing Peggy A. Burgin from being disqualified on the basis of age from residing at Clark's Landing in Groton, VT. While I do not know the specifics of this situation, I do know that providing relief to a specific individual is no more appropriate than providing funding for a specific project or entity. This bill also funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which provides critical resources to help state, local and tribal communities enhance capacity and infrastructure to better address their environmental needs. Protection of the environment is among our highest responsibilities. I strongly support directing more resources to communities that are most in need and facing serious public health and safety threats from environmental problems. Unfortunately, after a close review of this year's Senate bill and report for EPA programs, I find it difficult to believe that we are responding to the most urgent and pressing environmental issues. Instead, I am disturbed by the continuing trend to focus spending on more parochial interests rather than on environmental priorities. In this year's bill and report, I found nearly $207 million in unrequested, locality-specific, and low- priority earmarks. There are many environmental needs in communities back in my home state of Arizona but these communities will be denied funding as long we continue to tolerate egregious earmarking that circumvents a regular merit-review process. For example, earmarks are directed in the amount of $750,000 for painting and coating compliance enhancement project at the Iowa Waste Reduction Center and an extra $200,000 for the University of Missouri-Rolla to work with the Army to validate soysmoke as a replacement for petroleum fog oil in obscurant smoke used in battlefield exercises. While these projects may be important, there is no explanation provided as to why the Administration did not prioritize them as part of its budget or why these projects rank higher than other environmental priorities. The subcommittee also saw fit to provide $400,000 for a Sound Program Office in Long Island, New York. While this project may have merit, I cannot understand why we should spend almost half a million dollars on a project which does not appear to be related to an environmental issue. Furthermore, this bill directs more funding toward universities for research or consortia rather than directing resources to local communities for environmental protection. For independent agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), this bill also includes earmarks of money for locality-specific projects such as $3 million for a hands-on science center in Huntsville, Alabama, and $14 million for infrastructure needs of the Life Sciences building at the University of Missouri-Columbia. For the National Science Foundation (NSF), there is $10 million added for the Plant Genome Research Program. The examples of wasteful spending that I have highlighted are only a few of the examples of earmarks and special projects contained in this measure. There are many more low-priority, wasteful, and unnecessary projects on the extensive list I have compiled. The full list is on my website. In closing, I urge my colleagues to develop a better standard to curb our habit of directing hard-earned taxpayer dollars to locality- specific special interests so that instead, we can serve the national interest.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would designate the Medal of Honor memorials at the national cemetery at Riverside, California, the White River State Park at Indianapolis, Indiana, and the museum at Patriots Point in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, as National Medal of Honor sites. I am joined in this effort by Senators Crapo, Cochran, and Bingaman. This legislation is a companion bill to H.R. 1663, sponsored by Representative Ken Calvert and cosponsored by 77 Members of the House of Representatives. Mr. President, this is not a frivolous piece of legislation that I am introducing today. The Medal of Honor is this nation's highest honor. The 3,417 Americans who have received the Medal of Honor, from the Civil War through the terrible battle in the dusty streets of Mogadishu, each demonstrated uncommon courage in the service of their country, many at the cost of their lives. In testimony in support of the House bill before the Veterans Subcommittee on Benefits, Paul Bucha, president of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, stated that the Society ``believes that these projects will bring full recognition to recipients and is hopeful that this will complete the system of memorials that recognize Medal of Honor recipients.'' Passage of the bill Senators Crapo, Cochran, Bingaman and I are introducing today will help to ensure this recognition in a timely manner. Designation of the three sites as ``National'' memorials will give them the status they deserve, while bringing them appropriately under the department of Interior. There is no cost associated with this legislation. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will support passage of this legislation, and thank the President for this opportunity to address the Senate on behalf of this worthy legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to state for the record that, had I been able to, I would have voted against the Hutchison amendment to the Interior appropriations bill, which proposed to continue a moratorium on revising Interior regulations governing how much oil companies pay for oil drilled on public lands and resources. I regret that previous commitments prevented my availability to be in the Senate for this critical vote. This issue seems fairly straightforward. Oil companies are required to pay royalties for on- and off-shore oil drilling. Fees are based on current law which clearly states that ``the value of production for purposes of computing royalty on production . . . shall never be less than the fair market value of the production.'' Revenues generated from these royalties are returned to the federal treasury. However, for many years, oil companies have been allowed to set their own rates. In the past, I have supported similar amendments which extended a moratorium on rulemaking while affected parties were involved in negotiations to update the regulations. However, this process has been stalled for years, with little possibility of reaching resolution because these legislative riders imposing a moratorium on regulation changes have created a disincentive for oil companies to agree to any fee increases, resulting in taxpayers losing as much as $66 million a year. Who loses from this stalemate? The taxpayers--because royalties returned to the federal treasury benefit states, Indian tribes, federal programs such as the Historic Preservation Fund and the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and national parks. I supported cloture twice to end debate on this amendment because I believe we should vote on the underlying amendment to allow a fair and equitable solution of royalty valuation of oil on federal lands. On the final vote, however, I would have opposed the Hutchison amendment to continue this moratorium because I believe we should halt the process by which oil companies can set their own rules and determine how much they pay the taxpayers for the use of public assets. I do not support a structure which only serves to benefit big oil companies and allows them to continue to be subsidized by the taxpayers. We should seek fairness for each and every industry doing business on public lands using public assets, and we should insist that same treatment be applied to oil companies. Fees that are assessed from drilling oil on public lands are directed back to the federal treasury and these fees should reflect the true value of the benefit oil companies receive. We have a responsibility, both as legislators and as public servants, to ensure responsible management of our public lands and a fair return to taxpayers. That responsibility includes determining a fair fee structure for oil drilling on public lands. Despite passage of this amendment which continues this moratorium for yet another year, I hope that we can reach a reasonable agreement to ensure proper payment by oil companies for utilizing public resources.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to state for the record that, had I been able to, I would have voted against the Hutchison amendment to the Interior appropriations bill, which proposed to continue a moratorium on revising Interior regulations governing how much oil companies pay for oil drilled on public lands and resources. I regret that previous commitments prevented my availability to be in the Senate for this critical vote. This issue seems fairly straightforward. Oil companies are required to pay royalties for on- and off-shore oil drilling. Fees are based on current law which clearly states that ``the value of production for purposes of computing royalty on production. . . shall never be less than the fair market value of the production.'' Revenues generated from these royalties are returned to the federal treasury. However, for many years, oil companies have been allowed to set their own rates. In the past, I have supported similar amendments which extended a moratorium on rulemaking while affected parties were involved in negotiations to update the regulations. However, this process has been stalled for years, with little possibility of reaching resolution because these legislative riders imposing a moratorium on regulation changes have created a disincentive for oil companies to agree to any fee increases, resulting in taxpayers losing as much as $66 million a year. Who loses from this stalemate? The taxpayers--because royalties returned to the federal treasury benefit states, Indian tribes, federal programs such as the Historic Preservation Fund and the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and national parks. I supported cloture twice to end debate on this amendment because I believe we should vote on the underlying amendment to allow a fair and equitable solution of royalty valuation of oil on federal lands. On the final vote, however, I would have opposed the Hutchison amendment to continue this moratorium because I believe we should halt the process by which oil companies can set their own rules and determine how much they pay the taypayers for the use of public assets. I do not support a structure which only serves to benefit big oil companies and allows them to continue to be subsidized by the taxpayers. We should seek fairness for each and every industry doing business on public lands using public assets, and we should insist that same treatment be applied to oil companies. Fees that are assessed from drilling oil on public lands are directed back to the federal treasury and these fees should reflect the true value of the benefit oil companies receive. We have a responsibility, both as legislators and as public servants, to ensure responsible management of our public lands and a fair return to taxpayers. That responsibility includes determining a fair fee structure for oil drilling on public lands. Despite passage of this amendment which continues this moratorium for yet another year, I hope that we can reach a reasonable agreement to ensure proper payment by oil companies for utilizing public resources.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today which will ensure that Internet commerce remains free from burdensome, anti-consumer taxation. Simply, this bill would make permanent the moratorium on sales and use taxes for e-commerce, and would encourage the Administration to urge our world trading partners to do the same. I believed that this was the right approach last year. However, others were concerned about the impact on so-called ``main street business'' if such a prohibition against taxation of e-commerce was implemented. Therefore, I agreed to a temporary moratorium to allow more information to be gathered and those issues to be further considered. I now believe that additional information and further analysis of Internet taxation issues confirms that indeed a complete moratorium is the right approach, and we should act now to protect the engine of our economy from unnecessary regulation and taxation. In addition to the discussion here in the United States, protection of the Internet against international tariffs is also a topic of interest to our trade partners. It is important for us to set the tone for discussion with the international Internet community by establishing the Internet as a world-wide ``tax-free zone.'' Conslusions included in a recent study completed by the respected auditing and consulting firm Ernst & Young supports passage of this legislation. The report found that the total sales and use taxes not collected by state and local governments from Internet e-commerce transactions amounted to only ``one-tenth of one percent of total state and local sales and use tax collections.'' Further, Ernst & Young determined that the small effect of commerce transaction on sales and use tax revenues is due to several factors, including the fact that ``an estimated 80% of current commerce is business-to-business sales that are either not subject to sales and use taxes or are effectively subject to use tax payments by in-state business purchasers,'' ``an estimated 63 percent of e-commerce sales are for intangible services, such as travel and financial services, or exempt products, such as groceries and prescription drugs'' which are not subject to tax in most states. As a result, ``. . . only 13% of total e-commerce retail sale have potential sales and use tax collection issues.'' Thus, the nearly infinitesimal effect on local revenues is not causing a financial crisis for either states or local communities. Mr. President, what is clear is that the issues raised in relation to e-commerce transactions are really broader policy issues related to a fair and equitable tax policy in this country. Debate on this larger issue needs to take place. The discussion includes not just Internet sales or even catalog sales, but all of the ramifications of taxing sales of goods across state and international boundaries. We must look at the costs to small businesses of administering different tax policies for each location in which it conducts business. We need to look at the effects of taxation on consumers. And, we need to consider how taxes affect the United States' position as the world leader in technology application. I look forward to the report in April from the panel commissioned last year by Congress to explore these issues. Recent media accounts suggest that they may not reach agreement on a plan to propose to Congress. I think it is important to move forward on ensuring that the default position absent a consensus proposal is not to lift the moratorium, but to place the burden of proof on those advocating taxation of e-commerce. This places the burden on those who support taxation to provide both the rationale and a workable methodology. I will be skeptical of both, but invite them to make their case and allow the debate. This bill ensure, however, that we don't provide an incentive for inaction. This bill confirms that the right answer is to not tax unless there is a good reason to, and unless there is a fair mechanism for doing so. I look forward to debate on what is a fair tax system in the United States, at both the national and state levels. However, while we continue that debate, we must also ensure that we do not perpetuate the problems currently ingrained in our tax system by applying them to the Internet. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to offer some comments in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Since Operation Desert Storm in 1991, I have been extremely concerned with the drastic decline in funding for our Armed Services. We have all watched as the military lost more and more of its highly trained warriors, as the equipment aged year after year with few spare parts and no replacements, and as the infrastructure at our military bases fell into disrepair. Today, I am cautiously optimistic that we have finally, if belatedly, recognized serious readiness shortfalls and are taking steps to correct them. That this bill represents a 4.4 percent increase over the current fiscal year's level is a step in the right direction. I am most heartened by the package of personnel benefits that are incorporated in this bill. Several identified shortcomings in pay and retirement benefits have been addressed. Pay table reform brings the focus of the pay raises to the middle leadership in both the officer and enlisted ranks. Repealing REDUX brings equity across the military for retirement benefits. Securing higher annual pay raises takes the first step to closing the pay gap between military personnel and their civilian counterparts. Implementing a Thrift Savings Plan for military personnel will help retain our dedicated soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. Two critical areas of our military that begin to be addressed in this bill are the shortage of spare parts and the lack of replacement equipment. In every branch of the service, examples abound of equipment being utilized far in excess of its intended service life. In many cases the equipment is older than the operator and costs more and more each year to maintain. This bill funds spare parts programs to allow our equipment to be fully combat ready, and funds many follow-on systems that will directly benefit the war fighter. This trend must continue in the years to come. Maintaining a viable military is a commitment, not a once-a-decade afterthought. While I applaud the effort to bolster some of the areas of our military that have been under funded for the last 10 years, I am disheartened that, yet again, Congress has failed to take two of the most meaningful steps to free more dollars for our defense budget. The first of these is the continued and reprehensible practice of spending billions of dollars on programs that the armed services did not ask for and, in many cases, do not need. Allocating funding from an already tight budget for programs added primarily for parochial reasons continues to undermine honest efforts to adequately provide for the national defense. I applaud the Committee chairman's effort to minimize the number of member adds not reflected on service Unfunded Priority Lists. Committee staff should be commended for their great efforts in carefully drafting legislation and checking amendments with the Service's Unfunded Priority Lists and the Future Years Defense Plan--ensuring that, in most cases, the Services' priorities were funded. There is no question, however, that enormous sums continue to be earmarked as much for political as for operational reasons. In fact, my concern about the continued viability of the Unfunded Priority Lists has grown in the face of questionable inclusions on those lists, such as executive and tactical airlift aircraft that clearly expand on existing inventory surpluses, and programs from the Future Years Defense Plans that are moved ahead more to accommodate powerful members of Congress than to address pressing funding shortfalls. That there is more than $3 billion in questionable spending added by members for parochial reasons illustrates that the scale of the problem remains unacceptably high. I also continue to find incomprehensible Congress's unwillingness to permit the military to divest itself of excess infrastructure. Literally billions of dollars can be saved over the course of a FYDP if the services are authorized to close unneeded installations and facilities. And let there be no mistake: Congressional opposition to another round of base closures is not predicated upon specious arguments about the supposed lack of cost savings and operational requirements that defy simple economics and common sense; this opposition grows solely out of the desire on the part of members of this body to avoid the politically painful process of defending hometown installations. As one who saw a major installation in my state closed during the 1991 BRAC round, I can sympathize with that reluctance to undertake an unpleasant task. As one who also saw the rejuvenation of a community previously dependent upon that military installation after it was turned over to local authorities, and as one more than a little concerned about our inability to fully address vital readiness and modernization problems, I must respectfully disagree with those who oppose another round of base closures. The elimination of excess infrastructure is vital to allow the Department of Defense to focus resources on necessary support facilities rather than base structure from the Cold War era. Savings from previous BRAC rounds have been validated in the billions of dollars by every conceivable research foundation. There is just no excuse for continuing to require taxpayers to pay for infrastructure we do not need. I am also distressed that the bill does not address a personnel issue I find an embarrassment and a tragedy. With over 12,000 military families on food stamps, and the potential of more than double that number eligible for the program, I cannot reconcile the lack of attention to this issue in this bill. I have been open to all suggestions for solutions to this problem. I have hoped for and worked toward a bipartisan response that would satisfy the Administration, Congress, and the Department of Defense. Although the Senate approved my legislation, I was greatly disappointed when this measure was rejected by conferees from the House of Representatives despite the strong support of Admiral Jay Johnson, the Chief of Naval Operations, and General Jim Jones, the Marine Corps Commandant. I find it an outrage that enlisted families line up for free food and furniture while we pour hundreds of millions of dollars into C-130J, automatic grenade launcher, anti-ship decoy, hyperspectral research, and free electron laser programs. The insertion into the budget of hundreds of millions of dollars for an amphibious assault ship that the Navy does not want and that the Secretary of Defense specified diverts dollars from higher priority programs is difficult to reconcile with our professed concern for the welfare of military families. What we have here is a situation in which certain members of the House are apparently unconcerned about having tens of thousands of military families eligible for food stamps. Yet, they raise no opposition to funding a gymnasium at the Naval Post-Graduate School or a $15 million Reserve Center in Oregon that were not in the department's budget request. In fact, a vast majority of unrequested items costing many millions of dollars were added to the bill by the same body that opposed the food stamp provision. Sadly, politics, not military necessity, remains the rule, not the exception. Although my legislative proposal would have been funded for the Department of Defense at approximately $6 million annually, the Congressional Budget Office found that it actually would have represented a savings to taxpayers, since it would save more in the Agriculture Department by removing service members from the food stamp rolls. I am at a loss to understand or explain how such a straightforward measure could be so easily rejected by the House of Representatives, particularly in a year when Congress voted to increase its own pay and also included a 15% annual pay raise for generals and admirals. I will continue to press forward to resolve this tragic problem, and I believe that most Americans will support my effort. I will not stand by and watch as our military is permitted to erode to the breaking point by the President's lack of foresight and the Congress' lack of compassion. These military men and women--our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines--are the very same Americans that the President and Congress have sent into harm's way in recent years in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, and currently East Timor. Our service members deserve better. They deserve our continuing respect, our unwavering support, and a living wage. On another matter, I am very pleased that the bill contains provisions for the renewal of the withdrawal of the Goldwater Range. The Goldwater Range is one of the most important military training ranges in the country, supporting activities of all services. It currently comprises approximately 2.7 million acres of desert land in southwest Arizona, with climate and weather conditions that allow flight and other training over 360 days a year. This range is vital to the continued military readiness of our Armed Forces. It is also located in the heart of the Sonoran desert and contains one of the most undisturbed desert ecosystems in North America. The Sonoran desert ecosystem on the Goldwater Range is one of the few places in the nation that contains virtually all of the plant and animal species that were present before the continent was discovered by Europeans. The dozen mountain ranges and arid bajadas of the range are home to the desert bighorn sheep, the critically endangered Sonoran pronghorn antelope, and dozens of plant species found almost nowhere else in the U.S. The challenge is to provide for necessary national defense training while protecting this natural treasure. In 1986, the Congress passed the Military Lands Withdrawal Act which formally authorized the Barry M. Goldwater Range. Included within the range was more than 860,000 acres of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and more than 1.8 million acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The withdrawals established under the 1986 Act were for 15 years and were due to expire unless extended in 2001. While the approach to the withdrawal of the Goldwater Range in this bill is different from what we did in 1986, the provisions will ensure the continued availability of this range for vital military training, while protecting and preserving the unique cultural and natural resources of this part of Arizona. The withdrawal provisions included in the conference report are based on the Administration's proposal. Because of the environmental protections included in the Administration's proposal and additional provisions added in the conference agreement, I am comfortable with the plan to transfer management of the natural and cultural resources within the range to the Air Force and the Navy, a decision which is fully supported by both the Interior Department and the President's Council on Environmental Quality. In practical effect, the Air Force and Marine Corps have been performing the management functions at the Goldwater Range for many years, and doing a superb job of it, according to most observers, while the efforts of the Bureau of Land Management and Interior Department have been widely criticized. In fact, the Department of Defense already dedicates significant resources to land and resource management of the Range. The decision to formally transfer management recognizes the superior fiscal and manpower resources available to the military Services, who also have the most compelling interest in maintaining future training access to the range, which can only be accomplished by effectively addressing environmental concerns regarding its use. The Cabeza Prieta will no longer be included in the military lands withdrawal, and it will continue to be protected and managed by the Interior Department and the Fish and Wildlife Service as one of our Nation's crown jewels of wilderness areas. President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Cabeza Prieta refuge in 1939 in recognition of the tremendous natural resources of the area. Congress--with my strong support--designated about 803,000 acres of the 860,000-acre Refuge as wilderness in the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990, making it the largest and one of the most pristine wilderness areas managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the lower 48 states. I am very proud to have been a part of the effort to protect this unique wilderness area. The management of Cabeza Prieta should set the highest standard for the protection of wilderness and wildlife values. This bill ensures that military aviation training can continue over the refuge pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding in place between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Air Force but ensures that the wildlife and wilderness conservation purposes of the refuge remain unaltered. The bill does not seek to add new purposes to the Refuge's management mandate. Under the 1990 wilderness act, the Air Force was allowed to maintain a small number of ground instruments on the refuge within the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness. Man-made structures are not generally allowed within wilderness areas. The bill before us allows the Air Force to upgrade, replace, or relocate the structures but only if doing so will have a similar or less impact on the wilderness and the environment than the existing structures. The legislation also requires the Defense and Interior Departments to jointly develop a comprehensive integrated natural and cultural resources management plan for the Range, and to conduct a full environmental review, with public comment, every five years, including submission of a report to Congress. The Secretary of the Interior is given unilateral authority to take back the responsibility to manage the Range lands if the Secretary determines that the military is failing to adequately protect them. If at any time this authority is exercised, or if any of the five-year reports indicate degradation of the natural and cultural resources on the range, the Congress could and should take prompt action to redress those problems. I would certainly support such action. The conference agreement also directs the Department of the Interior to work with all affected parties, including state, local, and tribal governments, to determine how best to manage and protect the natural and cultural resources of the four parcels of land, totaling 112,179 acres, that will no longer be withdrawn from public use for military utilization. The study will examine whether such lands can be better managed by the Federal Government or through conveyance of such lands to another appropriate entity. The prompt completion of this study will give the Department of the Interior an opportunity to plan for the most appropriate management strategies for these lands, which, because of the withdrawal, have not been subject to mining, livestock grazing, or heavy recreation use for a half-century. These lands include the spectacular, 83,554-acre Sand Tank Mountains area. I expect that the Department of the Interior will explore a number of management options for management of the Sand Tank Mountains (and the other parcels) including transfer to Native American peoples, as well as the potential to protect the important natural values of the area through the designation of qualifying lands as wilderness, or through the limiting of livestock grazing and mining. This area is home to the highly endangered Sonoran pronghorn antelope and I expect that the study will include provisions for this and other threatened and endangered species. The study is to be completed within one year from the date of enactment of this bill. Finally, the bill establishes an Intergovernmental Executive Committee of federal, state, and tribal representatives for the purpose of exchanging information, views, and advice relating to the management of the natural and cultural resources of the range. I fully expect that this body will conduct its meetings in public, and will provide ample opportunity for the public to participate in meetings and to review and comment on any proposals for the administration of the area that may be discussed by the committee. I am very disappointed that the conferees did not include language for a comprehensive study of alternative management plans for the Goldwater Range. A proposal was made earlier this year to designate the range as a park or preserve, managed by the National Park Service, while permitting continued military training. In addition, several environmental groups registered concerns about the Administration's proposal for DOD management of the range and expressed concern that the military would be an ineffective manager of the natural resources at issue. In response, I worked with the concerned individuals and groups to develop language directing the Department of the Interior to make recommendations on management of the range, including possible designation as a park, a preserve, a wilderness area, a nature conservation area, or other similar protected status. Simply studying alternative management schemes would not interfere with military training activities for which the range is essential. Rather, a comprehensive study would provide information to guide the Administration and the Congress in taking appropriate action to ensure that the cultural and natural resources on the range are preserved and protected. It is incomprehensible that anyone could object to a study, but, unfortunately, significant opposition was raised by outside conferees on the House side. I will continue to pursue other avenues in this matter, because I am uncomfortable with the idea of locking in the Administration's proposal without ensuring that we could revisit that decision if the experts determined after studying alternative suggestions that some other form of management would be more appropriate. In July, I wrote to the Secretaries of Interior and Defense, requesting that they independently undertake an assessment of alternative management plans for the Goldwater Range. They have the authority to do so, and I have urged them to begin a study immediately. In addition, I proposed an amendment to the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations bill to require such a study, and I am working to ensure such a study is included in legislation pending before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to authorize new park areas. Once an alternative management study is completed, I will ensure that any recommendations for improved management of the Goldwater Range are considered and acted on, as necessary, by the Congress. Despite shortfalls in the conference report before us today, I urge my colleagues to support its passage. On the whole, it is a step in the right direction toward resuscitating an armed force suffering from the diverging pattern of expanding commitments and contracting resources. It includes tangible incentives for the men and women who defend our nation day and night, 365 days a year, at home and overseas. It paves the way for better equipment and higher equipment availability rates. It is imperfect, as, I suppose, a bill of this magnitude is destined to be, but our armed forces deserve the good that is included in it, even if they must also suffer the bad. Mr. President, the full list of unquested adds will be available on my website.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today which will ensure that Internet commerce remains free from burdensome, anti-consumer taxation. Simply, this bill would make permanent the moratorium on sales and use taxes for e-commerce, and would encourage the Administration to urge our world trading partners to do the same. I believed that this was the right approach last year. However, others were concerned about the impact on so-called ``main street business'' if such a prohibition against taxation of e-commerce was implemented. Therefore, I agreed to a temporary moratorium to allow more information to be gathered and those issues to be further considered. I now believe that additional information and further analysis of Internet taxation issues confirms that indeed a complete moratorium is the right approach, and we should act now to protect the engine of our economy from unnecessary regulation and taxation. In addition to the discussion here in the United States, protection of the Internet against international tariffs is also a topic of interest to our trade partners. It is important for us to set the tone for discussion with the international Internet community by establishing the Internet as a world-wide ``tax-free zone.'' Conslusions included in a recent study completed by the respected auditing and consulting firm Ernst & Young supports passage of this legislation. The report found that the total sales and use taxes not collected by state and local governments from Internet e-commerce transactions amounted to only ``one-tenth of one percent of total state and local sales and use tax collections.'' Further, Ernst & Young determined that the small effect of commerce transaction on sales and use tax revenues is due to several factors, including the fact that ``an estimated 80% of current commerce is business-to-business sales that are either not subject to sales and use taxes or are effectively subject to use tax payments by in-state business purchasers,'' ``an estimated 63 percent of e-commerce sales are for intangible services, such as travel and financial services, or exempt products, such as groceries and prescription drugs'' which are not subject to tax in most states. As a result, ``. . . only 13% of total e-commerce retail sale have potential sales and use tax collection issues.'' Thus, the nearly infinitesimal effect on local revenues is not causing a financial crisis for either states or local communities. Mr. President, what is clear is that the issues raised in relation to e-commerce transactions are really broader policy issues related to a fair and equitable tax policy in this country. Debate on this larger issue needs to take place. The discussion includes not just Internet sales or even catalog sales, but all of the ramifications of taxing sales of goods across state and international boundaries. We must look at the costs to small businesses of administering different tax policies for each location in which it conducts business. We need to look at the effects of taxation on consumers. And, we need to consider how taxes affect the United States' position as the world leader in technology application. I look forward to the report in April from the panel commissioned last year by Congress to explore these issues. Recent media accounts suggest that they may not reach agreement on a plan to propose to Congress. I think it is important to move forward on ensuring that the default position absent a consensus proposal is not to lift the moratorium, but to place the burden of proof on those advocating taxation of e-commerce. This places the burden on those who support taxation to provide both the rationale and a workable methodology. I will be skeptical of both, but invite them to make their case and allow the debate. This bill ensure, however, that we don't provide an incentive for inaction. This bill confirms that the right answer is to not tax unless there is a good reason to, and unless there is a fair mechanism for doing so. I look forward to debate on what is a fair tax system in the United States, at both the national and state levels. However, while we continue that debate, we must also ensure that we do not perpetuate the problems currently ingrained in our tax system by applying them to the Internet. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the conferees of this bill for their work on this legislation which provides federal funding for many vital programs. However, I regret that this appropriations bill continues the unwise practice of including unacceptable levels of parochial projects. This year's Senate bill contained a little over $293.6 million in earmarked pork-barrel spending. This year's conference report is a drastic improvement in that it only contains $91.2 million in wasteful, pork-barrel spending. Although $91.2 million of waste is better than $293.6 million of waste, waste is still waste. As my colleagues know, I have consistently fought Congressional earmarks that direct money to particular projects or recipients. I believe that such decisions are far better made through nationwide competitive, merit-based guidelines and procedures. We must stop this destructive and irresponsible practice of earmarking special-interest pork-barrel projects in appropriations bills primarily for parochial reasons. Where does all this pork go? This bill contains millions of dollars for court house construction and repairs. There is $1,600,000 earmarked for repairs and alterations to the Kansas City Federal Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri, and $1,250,000 for repairs and alterations to the Federal Courthouse in New York, New York. Although these courthouses may need repair and modernization, are these particular projects more important than the other courthouses competing for funding? The process by which these two earmarks were added makes it impossible to evaluate the relative merit of these programs against other priorities. In addition to earmarks for courthouses, this bill contains the usual earmarks of money for locality-specific projects such as $212,000 for renovations to the Louisville International Airport in Kentucky, and $250,000 to the Fort Buford Historic Site in North Dakota for research and cataloging of records of this Fort. Then there are the many sections of the report which have language strongly urging various Departments of the Federal Government to recognize or participate in a joint-venture with a particular project in a state. While these objectionable provisions have no direct monetary effect on the bill, this not-so-subtle ``urging'' will have some financial benefit for someone or some enterprise in a Member's home state. For example, there is report language urging the continuation and expansion of the collaboration between the University of North Dakota and the Customs Service for rotorcraft training. There is also report language urging GSA to strongly consider the U.S. Olympic Committee's need for additional space and to give priority to the USOC's request to gain title or acquire the property located at 1520 Willamette Avenue in Colorado Springs, Colorado. This bill also selects sites across the country for which the report language ``urges'' the Agency not to reduce its staff. For example, there is report language providing that no reorganization of the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division will result in a reduction of criminal investigators in Wisconsin and South Dakota from the 1996 level. Why are these facilities protected at a time when each agency is required to abide by the Government Program Reduction Act which mandates that they operate more efficiently with less bureaucracy? Even if these positions are critical, they should be prioritized in the normal administrative process. Mr. President, although we have not yet done so, we are very close to breaking the spending caps. I hope my colleagues understand that merely because we can fund these programs of questionable merit within the spending caps, that does not entitle us to spend the taxpayers' hard- earned dollars irresponsibly. The examples of wasteful spending that I have highlighted are only a few of the examples of earmarks and special projects contained in this measure. There are many more low-priority, wasteful, and unnecessary projects on the extensive list I have compiled. I ask that the list be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks. In closing, I urge my colleagues to develop a better standard to curb our habit of directing hard-earned taxpayer dollars to locality- specific special interests. The list follows: Objectionable Provisions Contained in the Conference Report on H.R. 2490, The Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, The Executive Office of the President, and Certain Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill bill language Department of the Treasury $9,200,000 for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for construction of two firearms ranges at the Artesia Center in New Mexico. $725,000 is earmarked for an agricultural economics program in North and/or South Dakota to conduct a research program on United States/Canadian bilateral trade of agricultural commodities and products. $150,000 for official reception and representation expenses associated with hosting the Inter-American Center of Tax Administration (CIAT) 2000 Conference. Independent Agencies An earmark of $35,000,000 in Montgomery County, Maryland, for FDA Consolidation. $8,263,000 is earmarked for new construction of a border station in Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan. $753,000 for new construction of a border station in Roosville, Montana. An $11,480,000 earmark for new construction of a border station in Sweetgrass, Montana. $277,000 for new construction of a border station in Fort Hancock, Texas. $11,206,000 for new construction of a border station in Oroville, Washington. An earmark of $475,000 for the Plains States De-population symposium. General Provisions Language indicating that no funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may be expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the assistance the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1993, popularly known as the ``Buy American Act.'' Language indicating that entities receiving assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase only American- made equipment and products. report language Report language directing the Director of Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) to provide up to $300,000 to a graduate level criminal justice program in a Northern Plains State which can provide causal research on the link between youth and criminal activity in rural locations. Report language that the ``Acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses'' account covers the current Master Plan construction, expanding the chilled water system, a counter terrorism facility, and completion of a new dormitory at the FLETC facility in Artesia, New Mexico. An earmark of $212,000 for renovations to the Louisville International Airport in Louisville, Kentucky. Report language directing Customs to report on the merits of designating both the Hector International Airport in Fargo, North Dakota, and The Manchester Airport in Manchester, New Hampshire, as International Ports of Entry. Report language instructing Customs to maintain current staffing levels in Arizona in fiscal year 2000 and to report on what resources are necessary to reduce wait times along the Southwest border to twenty minutes. Report language urging the continuation and expansion of the collaboration between the University of North Dakota and the Customs Service for rotorcraft training. Report language providing that no reorganization of the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division will result in a reduction of criminal investigators in Wisconsin and South Dakota from the 1996 level. Report language directing that the Postal Service report, on an annual basis, on the placement of ethanol flexible fuel vehicles that it has announced that it will purchase and deploy over the next two years. Report language instructing the Postal Service to issue a report after studying and evaluating the need for a post office in Hammondville, Alabama. Report language encouraging the Director to consider convening a national conference on rural drug crime to include regional conferences in rural areas, such as those in South Carolina, Vermont, and Missouri, in order to assess the needs of rural law enforcement and the impact of drug related crimes. An earmark of $1,600,000 for the repairs and alterations of the Kansas City Federal Courthouse at 811 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri. $1,250,000 for repairs and alterations to the Federal Courthouse at 40 Center Street, New York, New York. An earmark of $150,000 for the acquisition, lease, construction and equipping of the flexiplace telecommuting center in Winchester, Virginia. $200,000 for the acquisition, lease, construction and equipping of the flexiplace telecommuting center in Woodbridge, Virginia. $500,000 is earmarked for a GSA study and conceptual design of a combined federal, state, and local law enforcement facility in St. Petersburg, Florida. $275,000 to study the feasibility of developing a Virtual Archive Storage Terminal. Report language urging GSA to strongly consider the U.S. Olympic Committee's [USOC] need for additional space and to give priority to the USOC's request to gain title or acquire the property located at 1520 Willamette Avenue in Colorado Springs, Colorado. A $900,000 earmark for design and the preparation of an environmental impact statement for a National Archives facility in Anchorage, Alaska. An $8,000,000 earmark for the repair, alteration, and improvements of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, California. $250,000 to the Fort Buford Historic Site in North Dakota for research and cataloging of records at this Fort--a Lewis and Clark ``Corps of Discovery'' site.