[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 150 (Tuesday, October 20, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H11583-H11591]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4328, 
 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1999

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 605 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 605

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 4328) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is 
recognized for one hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
one-half my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my 
great friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for 
purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, passage of this rule will enable us to complete the 
outstanding work for the 105th Congress and adjourn for the remainder 
of the year. This rule is traditional for conference reports. It waives 
all points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration. Further, it provides for the conference report to be 
considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report to accompany H.R. 4328, the 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill for Fiscal Year 
1999, is serving as the vehicle for an omnibus appropriations package 
for fiscal year 1999. That is the bill that we have before us.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report before the House contains the 
following general appropriation bills for fiscal year 1999: 
Transportation; Agriculture; Labor-HHS and Education; Commerce, 
Justice, State, and the Judiciary; Foreign Operations; District of 
Columbia; Treasury-Postal Service; and the Interior appropriations 
bills.
  Mr. Speaker, all of the spending bills in this general appropriation 
bill are within the discretionary spending caps and are fully paid for. 
This conference report also contains a number of provisions making 
supplemental appropriations.
  A significant portion of the package, and I think it is important for 
Members to note, is an $8.4 billion Department of Defense component 
including funds for missile defense and additional funds for military 
readiness, so badly needed. This funding is critical to protect the 
lives of our soldiers and our military personnel who serve overseas in 
uniform.
  I have warned my colleagues many times that we are returning to the 
very hollow force of the 1970's in our national defense posture. There 
was a time, that I often recall, when we had hostages being held in a 
place called Iran. And when we attempted to rescue those hostages being 
held, we had to cannibalize 14 helicopter gunships just to get 8 that 
would work, and 3 of those failed, and so did the rescue operation. 
That was the condition of our military back in the late seventies.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation's Armed Forces are facing the same kind of 
critical shortages in a number of areas right now.
  In terms of personnel, we have lost military personnel. We have 
commissioned officers and noncommissioned officers who are choosing not 
to stay in the military. Many of them are being furloughed because of 
lack of funds. There are shortages of equipment and spare parts, and 
even ammunition.
  Mr. Speaker, all of these indicators of a declining readiness rate 
are not academic statistics. All of these things contribute to the 
ability of our Armed Forces to respond rapidly and effectively to a 
threat from overseas in the manner in which we responded to Saddam 
Hussein in 1990 and 1991, and today we cannot do that. We do not have 
the military capability to mount that kind of an operation now. Also 
these items which are in short supply lead to a greater propensity for 
training accidents or aircraft crashes, and you see it almost every 
week now in some part of the world.
  Mr. Speaker, the lives of our young men and women who serve in the 
military are constantly at risk from foreign threats. We should not 
compound that risk by leaving them in the field with aging or broken or 
outdated equipment.
  Mr. Speaker, the world is a dangerous place, and there are nations 
and forces who are hostile to the United States and American interests 
all over this globe. The House should lend its support to our men and 
women in uniform around the globe who put their lives on the line for 
the national interests of this country by voting for this package 
today. I intend to vote for it myself, even though I am a fiscal 
conservative and do not share all of the purposes of everything in this 
massive bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States lives under the constant threat of 
attack from ballistic missiles launched from China or North Korea or 
other renegade regimes around this world. It is inconceivable to me 
that we have not developed a system that would stop incoming ballistic 
missiles from landing on American cities. Several regimes have a 
startling missile capability and, when coupled with biological and 
chemical warheads, these regimes and their devices pose an incredible 
threat not only to American servicemen serving overseas, but also a 
direct threat right here to the United States of America.
  We all know that the People's Republic of China, which is a hostile 
nation to this country by their own words, have no less than 13 
intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at American cities right 
today, yet we are not equipped to do anything about that.
  Mr. Speaker, if investing $1 billion for missile defense in this 
package is not an emergency, I do not know what an emergency is. This 
funding is absolutely critical.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement also contains funds to combat 
terrorism, including at our American embassies overseas. For those who 
have traveled there, you know that many of our embassy personnel are in 
grave danger right today, and we saw that happen just in the last 
several months. The Congress must support efforts to counter 
international terror and the cowards who would employ such methods 
around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, this spending agreement also includes important funding 
for intelligence activities which are critical so that we can know in 
advance when terrorists are planning to attack America's 
infrastructure, such as the World Trade Center, bridges, tunnels or 
American embassies overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, this package also contains funding to address the Year 
2000 computer problem, or Y2K, a significant portion of which is 
defense-related. We must ensure that our defense computers are 
technically capable to meet the challenges of the new century.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. Speaker, this omnibus appropriation package contains something 
even more important than all the things I have just mentioned, and that 
is crucial funds for the anti-drug efforts as

[[Page H11584]]

well as legislative language to encourage drug interdiction efforts. A 
vote for this package is a vote to rededicate ourselves to the fight to 
stop all aspects of the illegal drug trade, supply, use and demand. And 
I would also note on that subject, Mr. Speaker, that the conference 
report before us maintains language which passed the House prohibiting 
Federal or District of Columbia funds for free needles for drug 
addicts, a program which has not worked in any part of the country, 
and, Mr. Speaker, it is so terribly, terribly important to set an 
example for our young people that there is nothing hip, that there is 
nothing cool, about heroin use or any kind of drug use. Illegal drug 
use can only lead to a life of failure and misery and even death. 
Rather than promote desolation and despair, Mr. Speaker, we should 
promote hope and opportunity for this young generation coming on board 
now.
  And, Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement also contains important 
funding to assist our Nation's farmers who have faced numerous natural 
disasters this year. The conference report includes language relating 
to something terribly important to myself and the gentleman from 
Louisiana, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations sitting next 
to me here, and that is called milk marketing orders, which will 
prohibit the Department of Agriculture from changing the rules until we 
have gone through both a legislative process and an appropriation 
process cycle for next year. That would give the incoming Congress time 
to hold hearings and to deal with this life threatening issue as far as 
the dairy farmers of this Nation are concerned. The Federal Dairy 
Program is so very important to the livelihood of my particular 
district and certainly many of the others throughout this country.
  And, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we adjourn this Congress in 
order that Members have a chance to discuss with their constituents the 
fact that we have produced the first balanced budget in 30 years. We 
are now cutting rather than increasing spending. We have produced a 
historic budget surplus for the American people, and, Mr. Speaker, 
Ronald Reagan's vision has been achieved by our actions. The growth of 
the federal spending has been slowed to 3 percent a year. I never 
thought 5 or 6 or 10 years ago that we would be able to accomplish 
that, but we have, and we should commend both the Committee on 
Appropriations and the Committee on the Budget and the other committees 
of this Congress for having bit the bullet and dealing with this very 
critical issue.
  We have reformed welfare and made a dramatic difference in the lives 
of so many Americans encouraging the personal responsibility and 
dignity that are a part of decent jobs. In New York State alone more 
than 500,000 people have been taken off the welfare rolls. Those people 
are now taxpaying citizens, they are good citizens that are 
contributing to society.
  And, Mr. Speaker, we took on the dreaded IRS and brought about long 
overdue reform to that agency.
  Now the conference agreement is not perfect; we all know that. It is 
a compromise among the House and the Senate and the President of the 
United States. All Members did not get all the provisions we were 
seeking, nor did we knock out all the provisions that we wanted to 
knock out. Nor did the President get all of his legislative agenda in 
this package. But the spirit of compromise, which is what Ronald Reagan 
spent a great deal of his time trying to teach me, is that you cannot 
always have it your own way. One of the most difficult lessons that I 
have learned in Washington is the fact that we have to compromise. And 
that is why I urge every Member to come over here regardless of their 
philosophy, whether they are liberal, conservative or somewhere in-
between.
  This is a bill we ought to vote for the American people. I urge my 
colleagues to support it, support the rule and then vote for the 
omnibus package when it comes before the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), my 
dear friend, my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for 
yielding me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, at long last we are preparing to vote on this omnibus 
appropriation bill. This is the bill that contains the eight unfinished 
appropriations bills and hundreds of extra provisions all the way from 
duck hunting to stomach viruses, all lumped together in a document that 
weighs over 40 pounds, stands 16 inches high and has to be brought over 
here in a box that resembles a Budweiser case. I mean this is a first. 
I hope that all the people who are listening in will really pay 
attention to this. This is the largest bill that I can recall lumping 
all these appropriation bills together in an end of the season rush to 
get out of here.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know the reason the Congress is passing this one 
enormous bill instead of the individual bills is because the 
Republicans just could not get their act together, they could not 
finish their work in time for the new fiscal year. But it turns out 
that the good news for the Democrats is this bill contains a lot more 
Democratic provisions than we could have gotten under the regular 
legislative procedure if that legislative procedure had taken place in 
its orderly fashion. By sticking together and insisting on our 
priorities we won very many major victories for the American families 
of America.
  Democrats won 100,000 new teachers for our classrooms, which means, 
Mr. Speaker, classrooms all over the country will average 18 students 
fewer per classroom. Children will get more individual attention. It 
will be easier to discipline and to teach these children. Mr. Speaker, 
thanks to Democrats, my home State, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
will get $22 million more to reduce our class sizes.
  Democrats fought off Republican attempts to raid the Social Security 
surplus to pay for tax cuts. Democrats won a 14-percent increase in 
health research in diabetes, cancer, genetic medicine and to develop an 
AIDS vaccine.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats won the funding for 17,000 new community 
police officers, and we also won the removal of Republican provisions 
letting polluters get off the hook scot-free and the addition of 
investments in cleaner environment.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans combined saved the LIHEAP 
program, which provides energy assistance for the 5.5 million elderly 
and working people during very cold winters and very hot summers.
  But, Mr. Speaker, there is still a lot to do. Our schools are still 
falling apart. One out of every three American schools needs extensive 
repair or replacement, and about the same number were built before 
World War II.
  Mr. Speaker, American children should be taught in classrooms and not 
trailers, and they should not have to eat lunch at 10 o'clock in the 
morning because the cafeteria just does not have enough tables to feed 
them all at the same time. But my Republican colleagues refused even to 
meet on the school construction bill.
  Americans enrolled in managed care plans still do not have the 
protection against the abuses. We need to pass a Patient Bill of 
Rights. But my Republican colleagues refuse to take it up.
  My Republican colleagues buried efforts to reform our campaign 
system, reduce teen smoking and raise the minimum wage.
  Still, Mr. Speaker, despite our small numbers the Democrats have done 
pretty well. We stopped the Republican attempt to destroy Medicaid back 
in 1995. We stopped the Republican attempt to use the Social Security 
surplus for tax cuts, we stopped their efforts to let polluters off the 
hook, and we kept them from dismantling public education.
  So I congratulate my Democrat colleagues for really insisting 
education be made a priority, and I urge my colleagues to support the 
rule and support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I begin to recognize our next speaker, I have to call 
attention to the fact that I will be leaving this body at the end of 
this year and after 20 years. More important is the gentleman sitting 
next to me. He is not a Member of Congress, but he is probably more 
important than any Member of Congress because he is the Chief Counsel 
of the Committee on Rules. Bill Crosby has been with this body for

[[Page H11585]]

27 years. He came here directly out of the United States Navy, and he 
has served under former members of the Committee on Rules, 
Representative H. Allen Smith of Glendale, CA, Representative Dave 
Martin of Nebraska, and of course our old good friend Jim Quillen, who 
was a Member of this body for 30 some years from Tennessee. We are 
certainly going to miss Bill. He was my valuable right arm for 10 years 
on the Committee on Rules, and we wish him well.
  Mr. Speaker, having said that, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Claremont, California (Mr. Dreier), the vice 
chairman and the man I will be turning the gavel over to as chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Glens Falls 
(Mr. Solomon) for yielding me this time, and while we have all engaged 
in what is clearly a long good-bye, I would like to, as this is the 
last issue that we are going to be considering in the 105th Congress, 
join in saying once again how sorely we will miss the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Solomon) when he will not be a Member of the 106th 
Congress and to also join in saying to our good friend, Bill Crosby, 
``Thank you very much for nearly three decades of great service to this 
institution.'' I am particularly honored that he was first hired here 
by H. Allen Smith, as Mr. Solomon has just said, who was the ranking 
Republican on the Committee on Rules at that time and a fellow 
Californian, and we were saddened with his passing just within the past 
several months. But Bill will be sorely missed, and we certainly wish 
him well in his future endeavors.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago the American people gave a Republican 
Congress and a Democratic President a mandate to do a number of things 
to balance the federal budget, provide tax relief for working families, 
create incentives for private sector jobs and job creation, preserve 
the Medicare program and to promote quality educational opportunities 
for all children. The 105th Congress accomplished each of these 
important goals by sticking to fundamental principles while making 
compromises that reflected the political realities of a divided Federal 
Government.
  The Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations conference report which 
we are addressing here today does look at many of those very important 
national needs. In particular, I would like to applaud the negotiators 
for the $7 billion included to overcome the rapid diminishment and the 
readiness of our military forces. It also provides new funding to 
protect American cities from a limited nuclear missile strike, to fight 
terrorism, avoid the Year 2000 computer problems in government and to 
help victims of national disasters.
  While this final budget package is worthy of support, make no 
mistake. We all have acknowledged that it does have real shortcomings. 
The President, his supporters in Congress have proven extraordinarily 
resilient in treating every federal spending program as a sacred cow, 
and unfortunately opposing tax cuts at every turn, using the very 
specious argument that this poses a threat to the solvency of the 
Social Security system.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that more should be done to provide tax 
relief to working families and to ferret out wasteful federal spending 
and out-of-date government programs. I look forward to the next 
Congress including more Members who are committed to those policies 
that represent these values of hard-working Americans.
  With that I thank my friend for having yielded this time to me, and I 
urge support of both the rule and the conference report.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 7 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, who has labored so diligently on this 
massive, massive piece of legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is here because of a massive 
institutional failure on the part of the Congress.
  Now, it is true that there are some major victories for the President 
and for my party in this package. In my judgment, those major victories 
are here because we had a large portion of the Republican Caucus, known 
as the CATs, who early on this year indicated that they did not like 
the way the Congress handled appropriations bills the year before when 
we had a relatively bipartisan approach, and they decided they wanted a 
much more partisan approach; they wanted the bills to be written only 
on the Republican side of the aisle. They did not want the minority 
party included; they did not want to hear what our views were; they 
wanted to bring their agenda to the floor, so they did.
  They cut $1 billion out of the President's education program. They 
eliminated the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program. They eliminated 
the Summer Jobs Program. They laced the appropriation bills through 
with antienvironmental riders. They proposed all kinds of measures 
which they thought they could impose on what they perceived to be a 
weakened President, and then something happened. What happened is that 
the moderate Republicans decided they could not support that package, 
and the Senate Republicans also decided that some of these bills were 
so extreme that they would not vote for them. And so we wound up in a 
colossal end-of-the-year, after-the-deadline negotiation on more than 
half of the budget.
  Now, as a result of that process, a lot of the decisions that were 
made were made by four people. They were made by the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), the chairman of the committee, my good 
friend; by me; by Senator Stevens, who represents the majority party in 
the Senate, and by Senator Byrd, who represents the minority party in 
the Senate. We made hundreds of decisions on the specific appropriation 
items. But then a laundry list of other items were kicked upstairs and 
there judgments were made by only one person in this House so far as I 
know, that being the Speaker, and they were made on the other end of 
the avenue by representatives of the President.
  We are in this mess because this Congress did not do its job. We are 
in this mess because the Congress passed only a tiny number of the 13 
appropriation bills that we were required to pass by the end of the 
year. And now we have this god awful mess on the floor, which while it 
contains a number of, I think, needed victories for us on education and 
on other items, still represents an incredibly outrageous way to do the 
country's business.
  So we have as a result of this process some 70 extraneous provisions 
laced through this bill. We do have a bill which is now $2.6 billion 
above where the House was on education, and for that the President 
deserves credit and so do the minority party negotiators. We did 
restore fuel assistance, we did restore summer jobs, we did protect the 
National Labor Relations Board, we did keep the full IMF funding, and 
we did get a number of other victories. We did get $1.6 billion 
additional funds to help our farmers. We did get language which extends 
contraceptive coverage under Federal health benefits for women. We 
stopped the punitive action that the majority party wanted to take 
against the Federal Elections Commission. But in the process, an awful 
lot of garbage stuck to this bill.
  The most outrageous action taken of all was action that was insisted 
upon by the Committee on Ways and Means. There was a provision in this 
bill which would have allowed the brother of the Unabomber to get the 
full reward that was promised for solving that crime without being 
taxed. He wanted to give the full amount of that reward to the victims 
of the Unabomber, but because of jurisdictional dumb Hill 
considerations, the Committee on Ways and Means decided they would not 
allow that money to be provided to the victims of that crime tax-free.
  I have never seen a more disgraceful action on the part of anyone in 
this Congress than that action in denying those funds to the victims of 
the Unabomber, and yet that is one of the pieces of garbage that we had 
to swallow in this bill in order to get the bill that would be 
supported by the majority.
  We have a number of other items on tax legislation that were added to 
this. We have $4 billion added to the defense budget without a dime of 
that $4 billion going into readiness. It goes into a lot of the 
Speaker's pet projects, into a lot of third-tier, third-rate 
intelligence

[[Page H11586]]

activities, (one good one), and yet none of the funds go directly to 
military readiness. It is really a lousy way to prioritize national 
needs.
  So I am going to ask Members to do the only thing we can under these 
circumstances, because the country does need a budget. I will ask them 
to vote for the bill when we finally get to it, because thanks to the 
incredible mismanagement that we have seen in this Congress all year 
long, we have no other choice. But that does not mean I am proud of the 
product.
  I think this product, at least the process by which we got here, is a 
national disgrace, and I think the House ought to be ashamed of itself 
for all of the decisions that led to this ridiculous process. I want to 
make clear in my criticism that I make no criticism of the majority 
party on the Committee on Appropriations. They did everything possible 
to work under these ridiculous circumstances to bring a decent bill to 
the House. But I have to tell my colleagues, wait until you see the 
stories that the press will write for weeks and weeks on some of the 
provisions that are in this bill, and more importantly, some of them 
that are not, and we will get a clear idea of just how low this 
Congress has sunk.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The other night my wife was up in our home in the Adirondack 
Mountains, she was watching C-SPAN, and my next speaker was on the 
floor. He was telling it like it is, and as soon as he finished she 
called me and she says, my goodness, he sounds just like you. I do not 
know whether she was being critical or heaping praise.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Metairie, 
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). He is truly one of the commendable Members 
in this body. In the last 4 years, he is one of the reasons that we 
have a balanced budget here and we have gotten our fiscal House in 
order.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from York (Mr. 
Solomon), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, 
the very distinguished, outgoing chairman of the Committee on Rules. He 
is my friend. He is a gentleman with whom I have enjoyed working with 
throughout the time that I have had the opportunity and the honor and 
privilege to serve the American people in the United States Congress. I 
do not think that there have been any better served than those served 
by the gentleman from New York who is leaving. This is his last 
presentation of a rule not only before the 105th Congress, but before 
the Congress as a whole. I just want to take this opportunity to wish 
him and his lovely wife, Freda, many, many years of happy retirement, 
although I know he is not planning on retiring, he is simply leaving 
Congress. We will be able to see him in other roles, and we wish him 
lots of success and happiness. Likewise, I would like to wish lots of 
success and happiness to his sidekick, Bill Crosby, who has done a 
remarkable job for the Congress over the last 27 years as a public 
servant, plus his time in the Navy. So we wish him well and thank him 
for his dedicated service over the years.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not going to stand here and defend the process, 
because I think it has been ugly, but I will say that we are ahead of 
the game when we look at the last 15 years. We are actually completing 
our business ahead of the schedule of all but 5 of those last 15 years. 
In 10 other instances we have gone later in the calendar year, longer 
in the legislative season than we are today. So even though we have a 
40-pound pack of paper sitting there before us comprised of some 8 
bills and 4 emergency sections, the fact is we are completing our 
business. If the good Members of this House have the wisdom and good 
judgment to vote as a majority for this package, we will go home, 
complete the campaign season, and have a victorious time on behalf of 
the majority, I hope, in November.

                              {time}  1700

  That being said, let me say that we have comprised a great deal in 
this package. We not only include eight regular appropriations bills, 
but we address the Y2K emergency problem that threatens Government 
computers and virtually all computers of this country in every walk of 
life as we change into the next millennium.
  We address the needs for increasing the safety for our diplomats and 
their staff in embassies and consulates all around the globe to provide 
some protection against terrorism.
  We include money for agricultural emergencies reaped by natural and 
other disasters around this country, and we provide much needed funding 
that replenishes the readiness accounts and the needs for our Defense 
Department to provide defense against incoming missiles to this country 
through a viable missile defense system and various other priorities 
that are so extraordinarily important to the armed forces and the men 
and women that serve in them.
  I might say that we do all of that, eight appropriations bills, 
including the agriculture appropriations bill, which was passed by the 
Congress and vetoed by the President and redrawn in this package, 
within the caps provided us by the Committee on the Budget.
  There may be some criticism about how we get there, but the fact is 
the Congressional Budget Office, notwithstanding current press reports, 
the Congressional Budget Office has proclaimed that we are under the 
caps allotted to us which agrees with the budget process as agreed to 
in last year's budget agreement. So nobody can say that this package is 
out of kilter in terms of overall spending.
  Finally, I would say that it is a fair rule which allows us to debate 
this issue. We have an hour not only on the rule, but an hour to debate 
the entire package. While there will not be any amendments allowed, we 
are satisfied that the rule is appropriate and should be adopted. We 
are hopeful that the Members of the body will come and vote as a 
majority for the entire package, because they should not concentrate on 
the process. They should concentrate on the substance.
  The fact is that the House of Representatives using the normal 
appropriations process passed all but one of our bills before the end 
of the fiscal year. The Labor-HHS-Education bill was not passed in the 
House or the Senate, but it was conferenced informally between our 
Members of both bodies. We worked our way through the process.
  Mr. Speaker, all I would say is that whether Members like this 
process or not, the fact is that we have had a chance to finish all of 
the individual bill packages in their entirety, bundle them together in 
that very large bundle, and submit them to the membership so they can 
vote on it.
  Once they vote on it, it will be virtually the last vote they cast 
for this Congress, and we will go home knowing that we have achieved 
the first balanced budget in 30 years.
  Last year we passed the first tax cut in 16 years. We have virtually 
frozen the cost of government across the board, stopped the growth of 
government in all of the departments, agencies, and programs. We have 
saved about $125 billion under what the President projected we would 
have spent some 4 years ago at this time. So we can take confidence in 
the fact that we have restored fiscal integrity to the United States 
Treasury for the first time in a generation. I think that is no small 
accomplishment. I urge the Members to vote for this, and go home with 
great pride.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I just flew over 3,000 miles from the 
central coast of California to support this important bill. This budget 
bill is a victory for the American people. It is a victory over 
mindless partisanship, and it is a terrific victory for education.
  Providing our local school districts with additional qualified 
teachers is an important step in the right direction. Next year we must 
come back and help our local communities to build new classrooms and to 
modernize their schools.
  This budget is a victory in the fight against disease. As a nurse, I 
am thrilled that Congress is giving vigorous support to critical 
research on Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and ALS. Next year we 
must come back, take on the HMOs, and pass a strong patient's bill of 
rights.
  This is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to pass it.

[[Page H11587]]

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio.)
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the do-nothing Congress is limping to a 
pathetic end, one final $500 billion bill. Just to my left there is a 
copy bound with twine 2 feet tall. It weighs 40 pounds. Who among the 
rank and file Members of the House can say they have read and 
understood the entire package? Half the Members here could not even 
lift it, let alone read it.
  The chairman of the Committee on Rules said it was about readiness. 
For once we are in vague agreement. This bill is about readiness, 
campaign readiness. It is stuffed to the gills with election-year 
goodies. The gentleman meant military readiness, but from the quarter 
of a million dollars that the Pentagon is going to be forced to spend 
to study the effect of stay-awake gum on the troops, to the C-130J 
airplanes that they are going to be forced to buy that will be built in 
the Speaker's district, and they will have to retire other good planes 
10 years early to accommodate them, it is much more of an assault on 
the orderly readiness of our troops than it is a help.
  Of the $7.5 billion stuffed into the Pentagon budget in this bill, 
perhaps $1.1 billion, 14 percent, can be said to truly be going to the 
readiness needs of our men and women in uniform. Is $1 billion more for 
the Star Wars fantasy that has wasted $50 billion, so far with no 
successful experiments, is that the readiness that our troops need? I 
think not.
  Is $2 billion more for intelligence agencies what they need? Just 3 
years ago the National Security Agency lost $4 billion in its budget. 
That is right, it misplaced $4 billion, because it was trying to hide 
it from our enemies, and they had a bunch of different bank accounts 
around. They forgot they had the money until a new auditor came in and 
found it, and they need another $2 billion? I do not think so.
  The gentleman spoke about fiscal responsibility. This bill is 
financed with $20 billion out of the future social security trust fund, 
the so-called surplus in emergency spending. That is not fiscal 
responsibility.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell the gentleman that we received this bill up 
in the Committee on Rules at 9:30 last night. I was there. It was ready 
for any Democrat to come upstairs and see it. I will tell the 
gentleman, if he would have come up at 9:30 last night, he would have 
found that the State of Oregon is the real beneficiary, and so is the 
gentleman's district. He ought to be here praising this bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will probably not have this opportunity again to 
congratulate my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for 
the work he has done as the chairman of the Committee on Rules in 
representing his party's way. He and I, although we have disagreed 
probably on 90 percent of the matters that came before us, we never 
disagreed about our friendship. I hold him to be a very dear friend of 
mine.
  Also, Mr. Crosby has been a great, great person, never butting into 
things, but always there as a font of information any time we needed 
some information, even though he represented the majority and we were 
in the minority. So I wish him well on his new endeavors.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders).
  (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican 
leadership's process which has brought us to the vote we cast today, a 
vote which merges eight separate appropriations bills into one huge 
4,000-page omnibus bill which will spend some $500 billion with one 
vote.
  Within this huge bill there are some excellent and important 
provisions which are good for my State of Vermont and which are good 
for this country, but there are some awful provisions and wasteful 
provisions which are going to cost taxpayers billions and billions of 
dollars. It is a travesty and an insult to the democratic process that 
Members have not been able to vote separately on these provisions to 
maintain what is good, to get out what is bad, and to end up with the 
best legislation that would serve the interests of the American people.
  I would hope that regardless of our political point of view or the 
party we may be in, that we will work together to make sure that a 
process like this does not take place again.
  Within the positive aspects of this bill, there is some real help for 
dairy farmers in the State of Vermont and throughout this country in 
terms of the extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact. There are some 
very important provisions for our Gulf War veterans, who have never 
gotten the kind of treatment that they need, and this bill will provide 
them with some real help now and in the future.
  There is some good help for those home health care agencies in 
Vermont and throughout this country who have suffered severe cuts as a 
result of the balanced budget agreement last year. There is good 
legislation extending the Cancer Registry Act, helping those people who 
are victims or hurting from cancer. There are some good provisions, but 
the process has not been good.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman of the Committee on Rules for 
bringing this rule to the floor today. I believe it is long overdue for 
us to do our jobs to make sure that the government remains open and the 
American people are taken care of. Let me thank the appropriators for 
long and hard work.
  Needless to say, I would have preferred a deliberate study of each 
individual appropriations bill, but frankly, I want to say to the 
American people, we want their business done. I am grateful that those 
who are on waiting lists across this Nation, waiting on Section 8 
housing, these are the working poor, will now have over a 2-year period 
and 100,000 extra vouchers for people to live throughout the country 
and continue working.
  I am very pleased that AmeriCorps, that has helped educate any number 
of our young people, has now been funded. They go into communities and 
help senior citizens and help preschool children and help rebuild 
communities, and yet then have funding to go to college.
  Frankly, I am delighted that we recognize that the Census is one of 
the most important tasks that we have, and therefore, we will extend 
the time for sampling, as well as the other form that is now being 
utilized by the Census agency so we can get the most accurate count.
  I am very pleased, as rains pour in Texas, that we have 12 million 
for the Simms Bayou in my district and other districts to make sure 
that we provide for those taxpayers who send money to this government.
  But most of all, I am proud for the incremental increase in helping 
children suffering from mental disabilities, moving up $5 million, so 
we can go into communities and draw in their families and the children, 
and begin to rebuild lives of children who are suffering from mental 
illnesses.
  I am not pleased, however, in helping seniors who are homebound and 
those home health care agencies. Yes, the IPS will be delayed now from 
1999 to 2000, but I wanted to give retroactive help. Though we are 
boosting the payments, Mr. Speaker, I think we can do more. My 
commitment is we will do more to help those seniors and those home 
health care agencies.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on 
Rules for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I intend to vote for it, 
but I think that never, in all my life, in a long legislative career, 
have I ever done anything so much on faith as signing this conference 
report.
  For the people who are wondering, this is a conference report on the 
transportation bill. I think that is

[[Page H11588]]

probably less than 10 percent of the bill, but the conferees who have 
signed it are those of us on that particular bill. So I put my 
signature on that conference report, and 90 percent of it is something 
that I am taking on faith. I know there are some good things in it, but 
I am really not taking responsibility for everything that is in it. It 
is sort of what one would call an institutional obligation, to move the 
process on.
  Mr. Speaker, within the transportation bill I commend my friend, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I think we have produced a good 
bill within the restraints of the budget deal and with the fundamental 
transportation problems in this country.

                              {time}  1715

  I also have to say, Mr. Speaker, I guess this is it, this big pile of 
paper representing all of these bills that have been combined in a 
process such as I have never seen, really with very minimal involvement 
of many of the Members who were involved in writing the specific bills. 
We have this huge bill now before us. Clearly, it is hard to ask 
somebody to vote for it. That I cannot do.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I think we have no other choice at this time but 
simply to vote ``yes'' and move this bill forward.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 8 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Solomon) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of outstanding 
Members from Morris, Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding time to me.
  First, I want to salute the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Rules and thank him for his leadership. I realize tonight is his 
last official vote in the House of Representatives, and I want to thank 
him for his friendship and wish him well.
  I rise in support of this rule, and I rise in support of the bill. As 
I look back over the last 2 years, I look back at a Congress that has 
accomplished a lot of things. I remember when we were sworn in 2 years 
ago, there were a lot of the naysayers that said this Congress could 
not accomplish what we wanted to do. They said we could not balance the 
budget. They said we could not provide tax relief for middle-class 
families. They said we could not reform the welfare system. They said 
we could not restructure and retain the IRS. Well, we did.
  As I look back over the last 2 years, we did all those things we were 
told we could not do. We balanced the budget for the first time in 28 
years. We cut taxes for the middle class for the first time in 16 
years. We reformed welfare for the first time in a generation. We tamed 
the tax collector for the first time ever.
  Tonight we are in the final hours of this session of Congress. Now 
there is this omnibus bill before us. It is a bipartisan compromise. 
There are things in it some of us do not like. There are things in it 
some of us do like. But it is a good bill, in general, and it helps 
fight against drugs, puts more money into the classroom, helps family 
farmers with disaster relief, helps small businesses by quicker phase-
in of the 100 percent deduction for self-employed for health insurance, 
provides flood relief to the Chicago south suburbs.
  Mr. Speaker, there is something very important that is missing. I 
have often stood in the well of this House and I have often asked a 
very simple question: Is it right, is it fair that under our tax code a 
married working couple with two incomes pays more in taxes than an 
identical couple, identical income living together outside of marriage? 
It is wrong that our tax code punishes marriage with higher taxes.
  Earlier this fall, the House of Representatives passed a tax cut 
providing marriage tax relief for 28 million married working couples; 
$243 a year they would have received. Unfortunately, they have been 
left at the altar.
  Mr. Speaker, let us make elimination of the marriage tax penalty a 
number one priority of next year's tax provisions.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in objection to the rule.
  As many speakers have said before me, this is a horrible process. It 
was just a year ago that this House, in a bipartisan vote, passed the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Now, as we head into a time of surplus, 
which we do not know how much it is going to be, we have already 
started to spend that surplus without planning for the future. Earlier 
this year we passed a highway bill that was at least $20 billion over 
the Balanced Budget Act. This bill, while there is some emergency 
spending in it, which I think would qualify as emergency spending and I 
agree with the concept, I am afraid may well set a precedent going 
forward where everything we cannot get under the spending caps we are 
just going to call an emergency and do.
  I know parts of Texas have agricultural emergencies and we need to 
fund that. I know there is a readiness problem. But I have some 
concerns about funding more for this Star Wars project.
  The bill has some good things in it, the increase in NIH, which I 
support, and there are offsets for that. It has some things that are 
very important to my State. But overall the bill sets a very bad 
precedent. It shows the failure of this Congress.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I just do not understand the protest here. The gentleman has not been 
around here very long. Back in 1983, we had 7 appropriation bills 
rolled into the continuing resolution. That was under Democrat 
leadership. In 1985, we had 8 rolled into one bill. In 1986, we had 7. 
And guess what happened in 1987 and 1988? All 13 were rolled into one 
continuing resolution. Let us stop kidding ourselves and come over here 
and vote for the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands, (Ms. Christian-Green).
  (Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings and some 
disappointment that today I nevertheless support H.R. 4328, although I 
do have some reservations about the rule.
  While many hail it as an example of what can be accomplished when 
both political parties put their personal agendas aside to reach 
compromise, and rightly so, the final outcome of this bill is a 
bittersweet victory for the people of the Virgin Islands. While no bill 
is perfect and there are winners and losers in every compromise, the 
failure to even extend the rum rebate at its current level will deal a 
hard blow to the treasury of the Virgin Islands.
  This being said, I still join my colleagues in applauding President 
Clinton and the Democratic leadership in this Congress for fighting and 
winning vital new investments for the children of America. I want to 
thank also President Clinton, his staff and the Democratic leadership 
and my colleagues, many of them, who helped in securing an increase in 
children's health care funding for the children of the territories, and 
Senator Carol Moseley-Braun for introducing a companion bill to mine 
which will breathe new life into a fledgling watch industry.
  Before I close, let me just say I also ask for support to continue to 
work on those taxes for the territories.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings and a great deal of 
disappointment that I rise today to nevertheless support H.R. 4328. 
While many hail it as an example of what can be accomplished when both 
political parties put their personal agendas aside to reach compromise, 
and rightly so, the final outcome of this bill is a bittersweet victory 
for the people of the Virgin Islands.
  While no bill is perfect, and there are winners and losers in every 
compromise, the failure to even extend the rum revenue rebate at its 
current level has dealt a hard blow to the treasury of the Virgin 
Islands.
  While we did achieve some of our goals, this very important measure 
met with such unexpected, inexplicable and adamant opposition, that 
important capital projects, and programs needed to spur our lagging 
economy will now go undone.
  The hard working people of my district who have served this country 
in large numbers as

[[Page H11589]]

far back as the revolutionary war, and who have made their 
contributions to this country in other ways are deeply disappointed, 
but it is an issue that we will continue to pursue because it is a very 
necessary part of our economy's revitalization.
  That being said, I must still join my colleagues in applauding 
President Clinton and the Democratic Leadership in Congress, for 
fighting for and winning vital new investments for the children of 
America.
  The President's proposal to hire 100,000 new teachers will help to 
reduce class sizes in the early grades thereby enhancing individual 
attention and increase student learning. And by so doing, we will also 
be preventing more kids from getting in trouble.
  The President and Congressional Democrats also secured very important 
investments in child literacy, college mentoring, after-school programs 
and summer jobs in this bill.
  And finally green cards will be made available to Haitian refugees. 
Like the majority, while Democrats made strides, we did not get 
everything.
  In addition to being saddened by what we see as a major but only 
temporary setback on V.I. produced rum, we feel similarly about the 
loss this year of the school construction initiative, of the ``Patients 
Bill of Rights'' bill as well as an increase in the minimum wage for 
working families, and last but not least, the killing of the 
comprehensive anti-Tobacco legislation which would have saved millions 
of young Americans from early and avoidable deaths.
  In closing I want to thank President Clinton and his staff, the 
Democratic Leadership, and my colleagues, Appropriations Committee 
Ranking Democrat Dave Obey, my friend from Maryland, Steny Hoyer, 
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, Congressman Louis Stokes, my Chairwoman 
Maxine Waters, Senator Graham of Florida and all those too numerous to 
mention who helped in securing an increase in Children's Health 
Insurance funding for the children of the territories.
  This additional funding will mean that the Children of our 
territories will have the same opportunities for better Health Care as 
their family and friends on the mainland.
  I also want to especially thank Senator Carol Mosely-Braun for 
introducing a companion bill to mine which would breathe new life in a 
fledging industry in my district by instantly creating approximately 
400 new jobs on St. Croix. For this effort as well, I must thank Ways 
and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer and Ranking Democrat Charlie 
Rangel. Also Trade Subcommittee Chair, Phil Crane and Ranking Democrat 
Bob Matsui for their help in getting this bill passed today.
  And I also ask for your support as we continue to work for the return 
of funds to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands as the law provides.
  And last but not least, Finance Committee Chair Bill Roth and Ranking 
Democrat Patrick Moynihan for their support of the proposal also.
  My colleagues, while not have all we might have wanted, this bill 
deserves our support. I urge all to put aside narrow partisan interest 
and vote in favor of this good bill for America.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many of my 
colleagues would sign a $100,000 mortgage without reading it. I wonder 
how many of them would take out a $10,000 business loan without reading 
the terms. I wonder how many of my colleagues would profess to tell 
their constituents that they know what is in these 4000 pages.
  I can tell them there is a $100 million visitors center for here, the 
Capitol. There is another $104 million for our protection. But I cannot 
also tell them there is a buyout program for the Pollack industry that 
I do not know why we need to buy those vessels. That costs us about $50 
million.
  This spends 500 billion of the taxpayers' money, not our money. And 
no one in this room can tell us everything that is in it. We have been 
here all year. I think we can wait a few more days to see to it that 
Members have the opportunity to study this. If we are not given the 
opportunity to study this, then I think the only businesslike and 
responsible thing for the Members to do is to vote against it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I was in my office at 9:30 last night, 
right up there, when this bill was delivered. No Democrat came up to 
pick it up until after 9:30 this morning. I would say to the previous 
speaker, where was he for 12 hours when the bill was up there ready to 
be read?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the reason that nobody came and picked it 
up is because they could not find a hand truck big enough to handle the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our Democratic leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan stood in this Chamber nearly 
a decade ago and attacked the Congress for sending him a massive last-
minute appropriation bill. Well, here we go again.
  This bill is 4,000 pages long and weighs over 40 pounds. And at that 
time Ronald Reagan said, Congress should not send another one of these 
and, if you do, he said, I will not sign it.
  Well, here they go again. This bill is a symbol of the wasted time 
and misguided priorities of a Republican Congress whose leadership 
consumed our agenda with investigations instead of legislation. Thanks 
to the Republican leadership, we have worked the fewest days and passed 
the fewest bills in decades. We did not even pass a budget resolution 
in this House of Representatives, the first time since the Budget Act 
passed 24 years ago.
  For the last year Republicans in Congress have tried to focus the 
debate on anything except what is really significant to our future. 
They have had far more enthusiasm for subpoenas than for schools, and 
they would rather talk about the FBI than the IMF.
  We were able to convince a reluctant and unwilling Republican 
majority to include funding for 100,000 new teachers in this bill, 
teachers that will help reduce class size and improve the quality of 
our children's education. While Democrats may not be satisfied with 
what was not included in this bill today, we will come back and fight 
again and again for a Patients' Bill of Rights, anti-teen smoking 
initiatives and an increase in the minimum wage. And a Democratic 
majority will hopefully enact the reforms to guarantee the future of 
Social Security and save the surplus for Social Security, which the 
Republican majority tried to spend before it could be saved, to save 
that program.
  Ronald Reagan was right. It was a bad way to do business in 1988, and 
it is a bad way to do business in 1998.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for a change. It is time for a Congress that 
works full time to help meet the challenges of our future instead of 
skipping town with unfilled promises and unmet priorities, and one that 
fulfills its constitutional role to produce a budget in a manner 
befitting of us all.
  If we want to change the agenda, it should be very clear. We have to 
change the leadership of this Congress. I believe the American people 
will do that, and I hope for the sake of the people they do.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do not want the minority leader to take this wrong, but he has been 
standing up here emulating my great hero, Ronald Reagan. Let me just 
say to the gentleman, I know Ronald Reagan. He is a friend of mine. And 
the minority leader is a great guy and a great friend of mine but he 
isn't quite the same as Ronald Reagan.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) was just 
complaining about being opposed to the bill. I am looking at the 
conferees here. Every Democrat conferee signed this bill: Sabo, Torres, 
Olver, Pastor, Cramer. And the President of the United States is for 
the bill. I do not understand the protest here.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Porter Goss), a very valuable member of the 
Committee on Rules. He is also the chairman of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule, the last rule of 
the year. The last rule of this Congress. This is a fair rule, it is an 
appropriate rule and, under the circumstances, it is about the only 
rule we could come up with, and I think we all know it.
  This is a debate about the rule, but we are getting into process. 
Many people have talked about budget process tonight. I want everyone, 
all the Members, to understand that we have developed a bill, a 
bipartisan bill, with some very innovative new ideas for budget

[[Page H11590]]

process reform. I say this not because we are all proud of the process 
that we have just seen and we are experiencing tonight, but that we 
think we can do better. More important than that, there is an 
opportunity for Members to take that bill and read it, and I would 
suggest that Members do that because there are some good ideas and we 
should discuss them in the next Congress.
  I would also like to point out the obvious. There is much in this 
bill. There is much I like, there is much that others like, and there 
is much that some of us are not so sure about at this point. That is 
the way it is because we have, right now, a situation of shared power 
in this country. That is what the voters have dealt us. We also have a 
separation of powers. That is what the Constitution has given us. And 
we have certainly something here that is a product where we should not 
be worried about winners or losers on a partisan basis, we should be 
worried about whether America wins.
  I suggest America is going to win in a number of ways with this piece 
of legislation. Certainly in education, as we have heard. Certainly in 
intelligence, as we have not heard. We are reinvesting in the future, 
so some of the tragedies that were witnessed around the globe this year 
hopefully will not catch us by surprise or happen again. Certainly in 
defense. Certainly in the war on drugs. Certainly in a number of other 
areas that will be of interest to all Americans in their quality of 
life and in their pocketbook.
  So I think this is a good piece of work, even though I would admit 
the process has been a little unusual.
  The final thing I want to do is to pay my public respects to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on 
Rules. I have followed the gentleman, who has been a great mentor and a 
great leader. He lead while we were in the minority, as a ranking 
member, when we were badly outnumbered. He has led in the majority, as 
the majority leader and chairman of the Committee on Rules, when we are 
also badly outnumbered on many occasions. I want to thank him, share my 
respects, and to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) as 
well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 2 minutes remaining. The minority 
leader yielded back 2 minutes to the gentleman. The gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Solomon) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time just 
to briefly say that there is nothing unusual about considering a group 
of appropriation bills in an omnibus bill. The Democrats controlled 
this body for 40 years. All during the 1980s they lumped in 7 bills, 3 
bills, 8 bills, 7 bills; and then, in 1987 and 1988, they lumped in all 
13 of the appropriation bills. So there is nothing unusual about doing 
this. We have to compromise, we have to govern.
  Upstairs earlier I posed the question, why would a fiscal 
conservative like myself support this kind of measure when it does have 
a lot of excess spending that I do not agree with? And I pointed out 
there are three reasons:
  Number one is that the growth of Federal spending has been slowed to 
3 percent. That is something that we fiscal conservatives have been 
fighting for for years, and we finally have succeeded in this bill that 
is before us today.
  The second reason is that the bill raises the overall spending for 
our military preparedness, something that is so terribly, terribly 
needed today. That is the reason I am going to vote for the bill.
  And, finally, it increases both the level of spending and gives 
legislative clout to programs to deal with the most important issue 
facing this Nation today, and that is the illegal drug war that is 
taking away a whole new generation of Americans. We have to do 
something about it. This bill does it.
  That is why we should all come over here and vote for the rule, and 
then we should vote for the omnibus bill.
  I salute the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Bob Livingston), for an outstanding job 
on bringing this to the floor today, and I urge support for the bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address some 
concerns on the Rule in H.R. 4328, the Omnibus Appropriations for the 
FY 99 Conference Report.
  Although many of us are satisfied with the bill, we are very unhappy 
with the process that got us here. This bill contains over half of the 
appropriations necessary to keep this country going next year, 
including the funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Commerce, Justice, State, Agriculture, and Interior. It 
represents the most vital programs for our elderly, our disabled, our 
impoverished, and most importantly, our children. We simply cannot 
afford to play partisan politics with these people's lives, and hope 
that next year we will have a Democratic Congress so that we do not 
have to play these games.
  Throughout this 105th Congress women's concerns have been repeatedly 
ignored. The Republican leadership has with one exception voted to 
reduce women's choices for adequate health care and has attempted to 
disempower us. It should be no surprise that once again women Federal 
prisoners are once again denied the right to choose an abortion. Women 
who discover they are pregnant after incarceration, have no option but 
to have a child which they will not have custody to, during their 
prison term.
  The option to choose abortion, is one that is not available to them, 
and this is wrong and unfair.
  In addition, here in the District of Columbia, the use of local and 
Federal funding for needle exchange programs in the District have been 
banned. Needle exchange programs which reduce the spread of HIV and 
hepatitis, can help to save lives, to cut this funding will exacerbate 
an already desperate situation for many D.C. residents. Not 
surprisingly, here in D.C. the use of Federal and D.C. funds used to 
provide women with access to abortion services are also denied, except 
in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, or in cases of 
rape or incest.
  It should also be no surprise that gays and lesbians were denied 
important freedoms under the D.C. appropriations bill. In light of the 
hateful and violent crime against Matthew Shepard during this pat 
month, it should be clear to all of us, that our gay and lesbian 
constituents deserve the same equal rights as all of us.
  I am also dismayed that a crucial provision of the foreign 
appropriations bill reduces funds for international family planning 
assistance. The elimination of funding by the United States for the 
U.N. Population Fund will deprive several hundred thousand women of 
effective contraception and put many of these women at risk for life 
threatening illnesses and injuries during an unwanted to unplanned 
pregnancy. More than 1,000 women will die as a result of these cuts. 
This simply is not acceptable.

  Under the Labor HHS bill, this Congress has voted not to cover 
Federal funding for needle exchange programs, prohibit the use of 
Federal funds for embryo research, and expand the Hyde language to 
cover Medicare funding, meaning that women dependent on Medicare will 
not be able to access abortions. All of these decisions are harmful to 
women and to our less powerful members of society. Those who cannot 
fend for themselves should find protection through our Government. Yet, 
to refuse poor women on Medicare the choice to an abortion, and to vote 
not to provide our sick citizens with access to clean needles is 
shameful.
  The Treasury Postal appropriations bill provision continues a 
prohibition on the use of funds for abortion in connection with any 
health plan under the Federal employees health benefit program, except 
where the life of the mother is threatened or where the woman is a 
victim of rape or incest. Under Supreme Court decisions, women have 
been allowed the choice for abortion and reproductive freedom, yet the 
leadership in this Congress has done everything within its power to 
erode these import rights.
  Furthermore, this bill has come to the floor without adequate time 
for review. The bill itself, along with the conference report total 
well over 1,000 pages,
  The way that this bill comes to the floor; however, should not 
surprise any of us. This is the same majority that passed a ``martial 
law'' resolution last week, which allows them to bring a bill to the 
floor without notice, without preparation, and without adequate time 
for deliberation. This is the same majority that brought the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill to the floor for debate on just one issue, family 
planning, to appease their supporters on the far-right. This is the 
same majority that did not include Democratic representatives in their 
Conference Committee meetings. Having seen how the majority has handled 
this appropriations process, should we be surprised by the manner this 
bill has come to the floor? No. Are we outraged? Yes!

[[Page H11591]]

  I urge all of you to vote against this rule, to reaffirm our 
commitment to the Democratic process.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair will reduce to 
5 minutes the time for any electronic vote on H. Res. 604 after this 
vote.
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 333, 
nays 88, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 536]

                               YEAS--333

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--88

     Allen
     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lee
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Becerra
     Fazio
     Hansen
     Kennedy (RI)
     Meehan
     Mollohan
     Oberstar
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Weygand

                              {time}  1753

  Messrs. WEXLER, VENTO and OLVER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. STUMP, HINOJOSA and PORTMAN changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________