Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 150 (Tuesday, October 20, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 150 (Tuesday, October 20, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H11592-H11669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 605, I call
up the conference report on 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, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 605, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
Monday, October 19, 1998.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Livingston) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will
control 30 minutes.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. NEUMANN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is in opposition to the bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will inquire of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) if he supports or opposes the conference report.
Mr. OBEY. I support the conference report, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I believe under House rule XXVIII, clause
2, that it is permitted in the House for a Member in opposition to rise
and claim one-third of the time in the event both Members support the
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Neumann) oppose the conference report?
Mr. NEUMANN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman qualifies.
Under the rules of the House, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Livingston) will be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) will be recognized for 20
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston).

General Leave

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and that I may include tabular and extraneous material on H.R.
4328.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, this is the conference report to
accompany the Transportation Appropriations Act, H.R. 4328, for the
consideration of the House. The historians will refer to this bill as
the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
of 1999. Mr. Speaker, the title of the Transportation Appropriations
Act is amended in this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, this bill includes eight regular Fiscal Year 1999
appropriation bills wrapped up in a bundle--Treasury, Transportation,
Foreign Operations, Commerce-Justice, District of Columbia, Labor-HHS-
Education, Interior, and the once vetoed Agriculture bill. Total
discretionary amount included in this bill is roughly $221 billion. It
also includes a $20 billion emergency supplemental appropriation that
funds our troops in Bosnia, addresses the Y2K problem, and fully funds,
indeed exceeds, the administration's request for diplomatic security
around the world as well as addressing security concerns here at the
Capitol. It also makes an $8 billion long overdue commitment to

[[Page H11593]]

address the readiness needs of the United States military along with
Bosnia funding which was not originally requested by the President in
his initial budget request.
This conference report includes emergency agriculture funding to the
tune of nearly $6 billion. It also includes $1.5 billion not requested
by the Clinton administration to address the ravages of Hurricane
Georges, and it provides $700 million for various drug interdiction
related activities.
Mr. Speaker, because this bill has become a vehicle to clean out the
remainder of the legislative schedule, it also contains several items
on which authorizers could come to agreement such as the Chemical
Weapons Convention Implementation Act, an agreed upon list of tax
extenders, a 6-month extension of the airport improvement program, the
H1B extension of temporary visas for certain professional workers, a 3-
year moratorium on Internet taxation, and a framework to address the
difficult but important issue of Internet pornography and the State
Department reorganization bill, although the U.N. reform provisions are
not included.
There are other provisions that were resolved under the framework of
the appropriations process that I would like to highlight at this
point. The bill contains a provision that concluded the year-long
debate over increasing the quota share of the IMF. The final product
bears a remarkable resemblance to the reforms proposed earlier this
year by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and myself.

{time} 1815

These reforms should assure Members that there will be reform of the
IMF procedures prior to its receiving additional funds.
The Mexico City language that has been of such interest to many
Members on this side of the aisle remains in the same authorizing
legislation that contains the UN reforms. This legislation has passed
Congress, and I am told will be sent to the President for his
disposition.
The census along with the rest of the Commerce-Justice section of
this bill have restrictions on the funding after June 15th, 1999.
Hopefully, we will have a final court decision on the future of
statistical sampling on the census. I might add that such sampling has,
for the moment, been ruled to be illegal. I want to point out that when
this issue is resolved, we will have to make arrangements in the spring
to assure these agencies are not shut down because of this restriction.
I do anticipate that census sampling will remain illegal.
There is money in this bill for the Korean Energy Development
Program, popularly known as KEDO, but such funds are contingent on the
President assuring Congress that there is real, and I mean real,
progress in the effort to get the North Koreans to end their missile
programs.
There is language important to many Members that allows certain
Haitian refugees to receive green cards.
The effort to fund 100,000 teachers is begun in this bill.
I want to make two points here. First, for my friends on this side of
the aisle who believe strongly as I do that money and power needs to be
directed to the state and local school districts through block grants,
this bill does exactly that. There is $7.7 billion in educational block
grants earmarked for local governments. This is nearly $500 million
more than last year.
This provision gets lost in the flurry of rhetoric about education,
but it is a fact. We are doing what the American people want done,
turning back money and decision making power into the classrooms and
away from the bureaucrats in the Federal triangle.
I want to note the contributions here of one of our retiring Members.
The entire 100,000 teachers concept began with my friend, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Paxon). He was advocating this program long before
anyone else. I am proud to have been a prime cosponsor of that
initiative. When the gentleman from New York (Mr. Paxon) retires, this
will be one more way for us to remember his very dedicated public
service.
Mr. Speaker, there is much else in this bill, the 40 pounds of
documents that are in front of you. There are undoubtedly things many
Members can embrace; likewise, there may be things that some Members
did not get as requested.
But, personally, I long for the day when we can break free of this
omnibus concept. Its greatest virtue is its greatest vice. It must be
swallowed whole to complete our business. It must be swallowed whole,
so the good goes down with the bad, and that can easily be avoided.
We on the Committee on Appropriations are not happy doing our
business that way. We are prepared to work with anyone willing to
restore the integrity of the process. But I might remind Members that
by adopting this bill, we can show that we can govern, that we have
balanced the budget and achieved the first surplus in 30 years. We have
in this Congress provided the first tax cut in 16 years, and that it is
important to vote for this bill and go home to our districts to explain
why we should come back in the majority in the 106th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.
Mr. Speaker, some have inquired whether the Government of Israel has
agreed to make-up the shortage in its annual commitment to purchase and
ship, on U.S.-flag vessels, American grain.
Many of us have been concerned, specifically my good friend from
California, Congressman Lantos, that the Government of Israel has in
recent years been late in achieving its commitment to purchase and
ship, on U.S.-flag vessels, American grain. In response to our
concerns, the Israeli Ambassador, Zalman Shoval, has forcefully renewed
the Government of Israel's commitment and agreed that the Government of
Israel would make up any shortfall immediately. I am pleased with his
response. I would like to submit for the record a letter from the
Ambassador to Congressman Lantos and me and our response thereto.
In addition, I expect to receive very shortly the Government of
Israel's Fiscal Year 1999 ``Side Letter.'' The Ambassador has assured
me that this letter will include a statement that the Government of
Israel will ensure that private grain purchasers and importers will
charter qualified privately owned U.S.-flag commercial vessels to carry
grain from the U.S. to Israel.

Embassy of Israel,

Washington, DC, October 1, 1998.
Hon. Robert L. Livingston,
Chairman, Appropriations Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Lantos,
Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressmen Livingston and Lantos: The GOI has
previously written to you concerning its commitment to cause
the employment of U.S.-flag dry bulk carriers for the
carriage of approximately 800,000 tons of grain for the
period, October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998. To the
extent that extraordinary circumstances may lead to a
shortfall in fullfilling this commitment in that period, the
shortfall will be made up in the next succeeding fiscal year
without diminution in the full commitment.
Accordingly, this will confirm our commitment to cause to
be shipped, as provided in the Cargo Preference Act, in FY
1999 the approximately 350,000 MT of grain on such carriers,
that constitutes the shortfall from FY 1998, in addition to
the commitment for FY 1999.
Sincerely,
Zalman Shoval,
Ambassador.

[[Page H11594]]

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, October 13, 1998.
Hon. Zalman Shoval,
Ambassador to the United States, Embassy of Israel,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ambassador Shoval: Thank you for your letter dated
October 1, 1998, regarding the Government of Israel's (GOI)
grain purchase and shipment commitments.
We consider the GOI's grain purchase and shipment
commitment embodied in the annual ``Side Letter'' issued by
the GOI to be the utmost importance to the United States. We
hereby acknowledge receipt of the GOI's fiscal year 1999
renewal of its annual commitment to purchase at least 1.6
million metric tons of grain in the United States and to ship
at least half of that quantity, 800,000 metric tons, on
qualified, privately owned, commercial U.S.-flag vessels.
Moreover, we acknowledge receipt of GOI's further
commitment to make up the fiscal year 1998 shortfall of
350,000 metric tons by shipping this amount of grain on
qualified, privately owned, commercial U.S.-flag vessels.
This amount of grain will be in addition to the GOI's 800,000
ton fiscal year 1999 commitment.
Again, thank you for your response. We appreciate your
efforts and assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
Bob Livingston,
Member of Congress.
Tom Lantos,
Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, at this point in this Record, I would like to insert
several tables containing summaries of the appropriations in this
conference report.

[[Page H11595]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.000

[[Page H11596]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.001

[[Page H11597]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.002

[[Page H11598]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.003

[[Page H11599]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.004

[[Page H11600]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.005

[[Page H11601]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.006

[[Page H11602]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.007

[[Page H11603]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.008

[[Page H11604]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.009

[[Page H11605]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.010

[[Page H11606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.011

[[Page H11607]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.012

[[Page H11608]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.013

[[Page H11609]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.014

[[Page H11610]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.015

[[Page H11611]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.016

[[Page H11612]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.017

[[Page H11613]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.018

[[Page H11614]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.019

[[Page H11615]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.020

[[Page H11616]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.021

[[Page H11617]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.022

[[Page H11618]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.023

[[Page H11619]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.024

[[Page H11620]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.025

[[Page H11621]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.026

[[Page H11622]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.027

[[Page H11623]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.028

[[Page H11624]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.029

[[Page H11625]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.030

[[Page H11626]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.031

[[Page H11627]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.032

[[Page H11628]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.033

[[Page H11629]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.034

[[Page H11630]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.035

[[Page H11631]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.036

[[Page H11632]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.037

[[Page H11633]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.038

[[Page H11634]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.039

[[Page H11635]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.040

[[Page H11636]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.041

[[Page H11637]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.042

[[Page H11638]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.043

[[Page H11639]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.044

[[Page H11640]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.045

[[Page H11641]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC98.046

[[Page H11642]]

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time
and for his extraordinary leadership in guiding us to a bill that many
of us can now support on the floor.
As ranking member on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the
Committee on Appropriations, I unfortunately had to oppose my own
subcommittee legislation when it came to the floor. I am pleased to
say, Mr. Speaker, that under the leadership of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), working with our subcommittee chair, the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), although Mr. Callahan is not
fully supportive of some of the increases in the bill that we have, we
are able to have a product on the floor today that I can support.
The conference for the foreign operations bill has a total funding of
$13.5 billion for ongoing programs and happily and at long last $18
billion for the International Monetary Fund. With the International
Monetary Fund, the full $18 billion is included. The bill includes
language taken in large part from the bipartisan bill reported out of
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services calling upon the
administration to seek and obtain important policy changes at the IMF
in areas such as labor rights, environmental protection, changing
investor expectations about official rescues the moral hazard argument,
opening markets and taking social conditions into account in loan
programs.
The inclusion of the IMF funding in the bill ends a yearlong effort
by the House Republican leadership linking this funding to
international family planning. That international family planning
linkage is still there for UN arrears. It took an international
financial crisis to end the linkage between IMF funding and the
prohibitions that our Republican colleagues want to include in this
bill on international family planning. What will it take at the UN?
Will we lose our vote before the Republicans will agree to de-link the
international family planning prohibitions from the UN arrears?
The additional funding in this bill will help a number of vital
programs-- $200 million has been added for the New Independent States
and increased funding for other areas. The bill fully funds UN arrears,
I am pleased to say, for the global environmental facilities.
All in all, I am pleased with the bill, and I will support it.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, four years ago, 73 new Members came to the House of
Representatives. We came here facing Medicare on the verge of
bankruptcy, we came here facing $200 billion a year deficits, and we
said we were going to be different in the House now. We said we are
going to get us to a balanced budget by controlling wasteful government
spending. We rejected the plans of the past that raised taxes to try
and balance the budget, it is the wrong solution. We said we were going
to get government spending under control, and then we passed the
legislation that had budget caps in place that would actually bring
that about.
So what is happening here tonight? Well, four years later we have
gotten to a point where we have a balanced budget. In fact, for the
first time since 1969, for the last 12 months running, this government
spent less money than they had in their checkbook.
The Members of Congress that brought us to this point where we
actually have a balanced budget, and we got there by controlling
spending rather than by raising more taxes from the American people,
that is an accomplishment that they should be proud of. It is something
that this whole Congress and the whole Nation should be proud, that we
got to this point.
But now look what is going on. Two weeks ago, the Republicans brought
a plan to the floor of the House of Representatives to lower taxes, and
the Members on the other side, myself included, we said ``No, we can't
do tax cuts if it is going to use money from the Social Security
surplus.''
Now here it is two weeks later. Where are all those people
complaining two weeks ago that we could not do tax cuts with part of
this surplus? Where are they tonight? Because tonight what is about to
happen is we are about to reach into that Social Security surplus, that
money that is supposed to be set aside to preserve and protect Social
Security for our seniors, and what is about to happen here tonight is
we are going to reach right into that surplus and we are going to spend
$20 billion that belongs to be set aside for our seniors and Social
Security, and that is wrong.
Let me just say something: The idea of using Social Security money
for tax cuts, I oppose that. The idea of using Social Security money
for new government spending, I adamantly oppose that. That is much more
wrong than what was being proposed two weeks ago.
Frankly, both sides are wrong on this thing. Social Security money,
this surplus that we are looking at today, Social Security money should
be used for Social Security, period.
I rise in strong opposition to this bill tonight. It is not fair to
the seniors of this Nation that we take money that is supposed to be
set aside for Social Security and we go and spend it on new government
spending programs. Lest there be anyone in this chamber that misses
what is going on in this bill, the spending caps, yes, they are being
honored. But there is $20 billion under a classification called
``emergency spending'' that is spending outside the budget caps.
So make no mistake about it. If this bill passes, $20 billion of that
surplus that we worked so hard to bring to the American people is going
to disappear this evening as we cast final vote of this House of
Representatives for this term.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, aside from reversing our military's decline,
boasting our missile defense efforts, directing scarce education
dollars to the classroom, this bill gives us a more responsible
international economic policy by reforming the IMF.
When the President first asked Congress to provide money for the
International Monetary Fund, many in this town expected us to give it
away with no-questions-asked and no-strings-attached. But this House
said ``Wait a minute.''
By allowing time for deliberation, we have furthered a debate that I
believe will transform our policies in the world economy. Because of
our decision, the IMF is now a thoroughly chastised institution and
everyone from Henry Kissinger to Tony Blair to Milton Friedman and
George Shultz now agree it must be radically changed. This bill is a
first step.
The IMF reforms in this bill, while much less than I would have
preferred, are significant. For the first time, the IMF will be
required to open its books to the public and expose itself to taxpayer
accountability. For the first time, not only the IMF, but also the
major governments that control it, will publicly endorse prudent
lending reforms to address the moral hazard problem. The IMF must move
away from its lend cheap lending policies that have inflamed moral
hazard, encouraged reckless investment and led to the instability that
plagues much of the world today.
For the record, let me be clear about one point: We expect that the
lending reforms, that is, the interest rate and maturity reforms, will
be broadly applied. This includes situations in which a country is
experiencing a balance of payments problem that is related to larger
structural deficiencies. For example, the IMF assistance of the type
provided to Indonesia, Russia, Thailand and in the future perhaps
Brazil and other countries with liquidity as well as other problems
would be subject to this reform. A narrow application of these reform
provisions would not be justified.
Mr. Speaker, if 1929 taught us anything, it taught us that a wrong-
headed response to a financial setback can turn a crisis into a
calamity. I remain very much concerned that that could happen to the
United States and to the world today.
Through this IMF debate and by these IMF reforms we have put the
administration on notice. Congress intends to help shape our
international economic policies, and to help put the

[[Page H11643]]

world back on a course of continued economic growth.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield two minutes to
the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), a classmate of mine who I have
been proud to serve with in Congress.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my classmate for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that weighs almost 40 pounds that we
received at 4 o'clock this afternoon. Two years ago at the end of the
Congress, I stood up in the Republican Conference and protested the
process, because the Republican leadership was bringing us a bill at
the very end that they did not give us the time to go through.
Republicans criticized Democrats for this same kind of a process, and,
frankly, they were right to criticize. But here we are in the same
institution doing the same thing that the Democrats did.
How can anybody rightfully vote for a bill that you have no chance to
go through and to find out whether there are dangerous provisions for
your district, for your state or for the country? There is no way it is
possible, it is physically impossible, for you and your staff to go
through this bill from 4 o'clock this afternoon, between that time and
the vote at 7 o'clock tonight.
Not only that, I have several other problems with the bill. As the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) said, we are borrowing from the
Social Security trust fund, and it is not for tax cuts. This is just
purely for spending, with a lot of that spending going overseas.
There are some very laudable projects, including transportation,
including military spending, antidrug programs and education programs,
which, by the way, are offset, and I support those programs. But, Mr.
Speaker, when we go into emergency spending, that is against everything
that we came to Congress to stop.
It is time to pay down the national debt. It is time to protect
Social Security by actually putting real assets into the Social
Security trust fund.
Mr. Speaker, I came here to change the way that we did business in
Washington, but, unfortunately, this is business as usual.

{time} 1830

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am most reluctantly going to vote yes for this bill,
because in contrast to the Republican bill which gutted the President's
education budget, this bill is $2.6 billion above the President's
education budget. This bill restores the fuel assistance program. This
bill restores the summer jobs program. It funds to some degree our
international responsibilities, and I think, therefore, that unless we
want to tie up the government for another month, we have no choice but
to vote yes on this bill.
I have already made quite clear in my previous statement on the bill
why I think, or what I see in this bill that I believe is wrong. And I
have also made quite clear what should be in this bill that is not.
Having said that, let me simply say that I do not find it surprising
that a majority party which would say no to campaign reform, a majority
party which would say no to HMO reform, would, in the end, be reduced
to bragging about the fact that they have killed the plan to provide
better schools for many children in this country who go to schools
which, if they were prisons, would be closed by Federal judges because
they are in such a mess. I know that there are many other items that we
would like to see in this bill that are not. We will simply have to
take that debate to the American people.
I make no apology for the effort that those of us on the Democratic
side of the aisle have made to try to restore key funding in this bill
for education, for health, for job training and the like. I think the
differences between the two parties is pretty well summed up by
something I heard Studs Terkel say a while back. He said the following:

Cursed be the Nation where all play to win and too much is
made of the color of the skin, or we do not see each other as
sister and brother, but as being threats to each other.
Blessed be the Nation that keeps its waters clean, where an
end to pollution is not just a dream.
Cursed be the Nation without equal education, where good
schools are something that we ration, or the wealthiest get
the best that is able, and the poor are left with crumbs from
the table.
Blessed be the Nation with health care for all where there
is a helping hand to all who fall, where compassion is in
fashion every year, and people, not profits, is what we hold
dear.

I really believe that that, in the end, sums up the differences in
budget priorities between those of us on this side of the aisle who
have fought for education and health care and environmental cleanup,
and those on the other side of the aisle who have fought on most
occasions for tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthiest 5 percent
of people in this society, for defense expenditures that go more to
reward military contractors than to improve military preparedness, and
we will just have to take these issues into the campaign.
Let me say that I once again think that the process by which this
bill has been produced is an abomination. It represents an absolute,
total institutional failure. We should not be here in this position,
but we are, and we have to make some hard choices, given the only
choices before us. That is why I will reluctantly urge a yes vote on
this proposal.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) has 12 minutes remaining; the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 14 minutes remaining; and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Christensen), another classmate of
mine.
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise because of the process of this
bill more than anything.
As my colleagues heard earlier today, at about 4 o'clock we got this
bill, 40 pounds, 4,000 pages, $500 billion, and nobody, nobody has read
this bill. Maybe a few staff people, maybe a couple of people behind
closed doors have read this bill. But the American people are going to
find out through the news media over the next week what is in this
bill, because we sure do not know what is in this bill, but we have
heard a lot of things that are in this bill, but by golly, we are going
to find out a whole lot more over the next few weeks of what is in this
bill. That is the way this process has been done.
Mr. Speaker, I came here 4 years ago talking about tax cuts, smaller
government, doing the right thing. Well, I am not running for
reelection, I am done, but this is not the way that I came to
Washington, and this is not what I came to do, to vote for a bill that
is $20 billion over, has very little tax cuts in it, is not what we
told the American people we would do. This is an embarrassment. This is
an embarrassment for the American people that this process, the process
has been done this way.
There are a lot of good projects in here, but no Member of Congress
should be able to sleep with themselves tonight knowing that they voted
for a bill they have no idea what is in here. They do not know what is
tucked in here.
As my friend from Mississippi said earlier today, we do not know what
kind of provisions are in here for the Balkans; we do not know what
kind of provisions are in here for issues that are important to social
conservatives, to liberals, to fiscal conservatives. This is a sham. It
is an embarrassment, and we should vote no on this ugly bill.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the great distinguished chairman of
the Subcommittee of Interior and Related Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I would just point out in discussing the Interior section of this
bill that it is very environmentally friendly, but it is also very
fiscally sound. The total spending of the Interior bill is the same as
1998, no increase. That is because we

[[Page H11644]]

developed some good management techniques in working with our public
lands. At the same time, the spending for parks is up $99 billion.
In terms of the forests, we eliminate purchaser credit, we emphasize
forest health, recognizing that as we talk about global warming, one of
the great ways to reduce CO2s is to increase our forestry sources, the
best possible converters of CO2 to oxygen.
We reduced the forest cut to $3.6 billion board feet, while at the
same time we are growing 20 billion board-feet in our national forests.
The bill includes $340 million for clean water programs to work with
the States. Everglades restoration, $140 million to restore the
treasures of the Everglades.
The Appalachian Trail will be finished. The funds in this bill will
allow the Appalachian Trail to be totally in public ownership for the
first time in history. We fund the millennium program. This is new, and
is in recognition of this important landmark time in our Nation's
history. The money will be used to restore the Nation's treasures.
Indian health, we were concerned. We put $141 million extra over the
President's request for Indian health.
The cultural treasures of this Nation, the Smithsonian, the National
Gallery, the Kennedy Center, the Holocaust Museum, all with increased
funding. Energy efficiency and conservation, about $1 billion, in
recognition that as a Nation we are dependent on energy, but also a
recognition that we have to develop ways to burn it more efficiently
and in a cleaner way.
The bill protects our wilderness areas. Lastly I would point out that
over the past 4 years we have decreased spending by $2.2 billion less
than requested by the President.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes).
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies component of the
fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act. First, I want to express
my appreciation for the hard work done on this component of the bill by
the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)
and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey). Both of them deserve credit for their leadership in crafting
this bill.
In its initial form, this funding measure would have threatened the
quality of life and the hopes, dreams and aspirations of the most
vulnerable among us.
The omnibus measure that we will vote on here today restores $871
million in funding for the summer jobs program. As such, 530,000 young
people will benefit from the education training that this program
provides. The restoration of more than $1 billion in funding for the
low-income home energy assistance program means that needy families and
seniors will not be forced to choose between paying utility bills and
putting food on the table, or buying medicine. An estimated 5.5 million
LIHEAP households, two-thirds of which urge less than $8,000 a year,
will benefit from this investment.
The restoration of $250 million in funding for the opportunity areas
for youth programs means that our Nation's hardest-to-reach young
people will have access to the employment training and skill readiness
services that they need to prepare them to participate in our Nation's
robust economy in the global market.
The restoration of funds for the school-to-work program, will further
State and local efforts to create pathways to future careers for more
than 1 million students in over 3,000 high schools. These students will
now have access to the courses recruiting, training, and counseling
that they need to facilitate their entry in the workforce. I am
especially pleased that the bill includes $110 million to address the
HIV-AIDS epidemic in the African-American community.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge the Members to vote ``yes''
on the bill.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), a Democrat from the other side of the aisle
who also is in opposition to this bill.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about all of the money for defense in
this bill. Let me remind my colleagues that less than 2 percent of the
$507 billion that goes into this bill is for defense. That is a pretty
sorry trade-off. Less than 2 percent of all that is spent.
What do we spend more money on? We spend $12.5 billion on foreign
aid. We spend $19.4 billion on international financial institutions.
There is a $94 million program to buy out the Bering Sea pollock fleet,
as if that was of great national importance. There is $100 million for
a new visitor's center right out front, and $103 million for our
protection, not for our citizens' protection, but for additional
protection for Members of Congress.
As bad as what we know about the bill is, it is what we do not know
that troubles me. Mr. Speaker, 4,000 pages of documents that the
average Member of Congress has had less than 3 hours to study. And it
is what we do not know that scares me to death. We know it creates new
commissions, we know it repeals things like the commercial fishing
industry, Vessel Anti-Reflagging Act, but it is the great unknown.
I ask the American citizens, would you go to a lawyer and present him
a contract for his advice and his guidance and when it comes time for
you to sign it he says, but by the way, I did not read it. Would you go
to a tax accountant and turn over all your records to him and he fills
out your forms but as you are signing it and sending it off to the IRS,
he says, but by the way, I never took a look at the information you
gave me.
Mr. Speaker, we have already given away our constitutionally mandated
authority to declare war between nations. More often than not we have
given away our constitutionally mandated authority to regulate commerce
between nations. The last thing that stands between this body being a
body that does something and nothing but a debating society, is our
ability to decide where money is spent, and if my colleagues vote for
that, they have given that away as well.

{time} 1845

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard a few arguments against this bill.
Certainly, I am not going to defend the process, because I hate the
process. As the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, I think it
is terrible that forces within the Congress militated against the final
passage of all of our bills before the end of the fiscal year.
The fact is that we passed 12 of the 13 bills before the end of the
fiscal year in the House of Representatives. I think we exceeded the
record of the other body. We did not get them all enacted separately,
so we are puting these in a remaining package. But, all of those have
passed the House, and they make up components of this bill.
If the gentleman does not know what is in the bill, he could have
looked at the reports from the various committees. He would see 90
percent of this bill in the various committee component parts that
passed this House months ago.
Is social security jeopardized? Of course not. The minority party
neglected worrying about social security from 1967, when Lyndon Johnson
changed the rules and allowed us to take off social security funds in
order to mask the cost of the Vietnam War, and they did not worry about
it for 30 years.
We came along and brought fiscal integrity to the government. We are
balancing the budget for the first time in 30 years. We are going to
take care of social security. There is not an argument there. Are we
way behind where we should be? No. We are ahead of the schedule of 10
of the last 15 years. We are behind in 5 of them in terms of the
appropriations process.
Is there emergency spending in here? Yes, there are really emergency
needs. The Budget Act calls for recognition that if there are real
emergency needs, like helping defend diplomats from getting blown up by
terrorists, that we could attend to those and not have them count
against us by worthless budget finagling that really does not mean
anything. We have needs. We have to provide for them.

[[Page H11645]]

Finally, on the issue of defense that the gentleman raised, let me
simply say that yes, the $8 billion we are putting into defense here,
may be only 2 percent of the package, but we already passed the defense
bill. It is enacted into law. That is $260 billion. This is $8 billion
on top of that. We are doing our part to address the defense needs of
this country.
In terms of, doing our part for education, 30 years ago the Federal
Government never got involved in education. Today we pay about 5
percent of the education bill. The States and localities and
communities pay 95 percent of the tab. We have $32 billion in this bill
for education. We are doing our part. We are doing it well. We might
not have done it pretty, but we are doing our job and the job of the
people of the United States.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to my
good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, a bad bipartisan bill is still a bad bill. I appreciate
the efforts of Republican leaders to get extra money that was vitally
needed for national defense. The defense spending is badly needed, as
well as emergency relief for farmers and hurricane victims, but those
do not justify the rest of this bill. This bill raises Federal spending
several billion dollars higher than even President Clinton requested
several months ago.
We should celebrate balancing the budget, but not with a spending
spree. We should be lowering taxes and paying off the national debt,
not using the surplus as the latest of many excuses to spend more
money.
A great many Members of Congress worked long and hard this year to
hold the line on spending. I am glad that our chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) fought
so hard to control spending, and I know that he did. Unfortunately, at
the end of the process the most liberal Democrats in Congress had the
leverage to get the President to back their demands, their insistence,
for more spending.
The President knows his future hinges on the support of liberals in
Congress, who do not care what he may have done as long as he fights
for their big government programs, because his future depends upon
their support. He made it clear he would veto anything that did not
give the most liberal of the Democrats whatever they wanted in
exchange. This made it difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate for
anything different.
The root problem remains that problem of trust. A year ago the
President agreed to a limit on this year's spending in exchange for
extra spending which he received last year. Earlier this year he
pretended that he opposed tax cuts because he said he wanted to
preserve the entire surplus for social security. Now he wants to spend
almost one-third of that surplus. His word is in doubt. This is
protection money, and that is wrong. It is wrong for anyone to turn a
blind eye toward the President's conduct, so long as he delivers our
tax money to pay for the big government that they want.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think the last speaker's comments did not
add to this debate. They were representative of some of the unfortunate
kind of rhetoric that has put this Congress in a position where it is
at this last minute, at this last gasp, trying to redeem itself. It is
hard to do that because we have done so little up to this point.
I will vote for this bill, like the ranking member of the committee
will vote for this bill. I, like others, have worked hard on much of
this bill. But those speakers who have carried this bill, this 40-pound
bill, to the floor and indicated that this was not the process that
should be followed are absolutely correct.
The Committee on Appropriations was made late in its work because the
budget resolution did not pass. It did not pass, not because there were
any Democrats that opposed it or the President could have vetoed it,
because he could not. He does not involve himself in the budget
process.
It did not pass because the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
in the Senate who is a Republican said that the House Resolution is
dead on arrival. The chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations
said the House Resolution is dead on arrival. We could not work under
this resolution. So the majority party in the House and the majority
party in the Senate could not agree, so we deferred and deferred and
deferred. The labor-health bill, which is one of the most important, I
think, in this bill, was not even brought to this floor except to make
a point, a political point in the last days of this session.
This is an unfortunate process, but we have little alternative at
this point in time but to fund the government. I want to say to my good
friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bill Young), I am pleased that
we put some more money for defense. We need to look at the defense
budget. We are underfunding it. So I will reluctantly vote for this
bill, but this bill is a demonstration of failure.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2\1/2\ minutes
to my good friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, this is not about process, it is about
substance. Sure, there are good things in this bill. This bill has
4,000 pages. There are bound to be good things in this bill. It weighs
over 40 pounds. It is bound to have good things in here. But this bill
represents everything I fought against as a fiscal conservative in this
House, and I fought as a Republican who wanted to change this process
and this place.
Republicans got more money for defense. They did not look at closing
bases, they did not look at ending needless weapons systems, they did
not look at burdensharing. Democrats wanted more money for social
programs. Instead of paying for it, we are taking it out of the
surplus. Both won, so it is a big celebration. It is bipartisan. But
that is what we have done since 1969. That is how we got in the mess we
are in. We are right back into it. What bothers me is it is happening
under my watch and our watch.
There is $21 billion over the budget caps. We can call it emergency
spending. It is over the budget caps. It is front-loaded. Now, are we
going to cut it out next year and the year after? No, we are talking
about $100 billion above the caps over 5 years. There is $3.5 billion
in the year 2000 budget, in this budget that we are voting on. Then
there is the D.C. pension fund, $2.4 billion, of revenue? What about
the unfunded liability? We are putting it on budget, so we are counting
this liability as revenue? We are doing it under our watch?
Then there is $100 million for a Capitol visitor's center. I do not
mind that, I think we need it. But we are putting it in as an emergency
expenditure under the antiterrorism position? Mr. Speaker, this is a
bad bill. It should not be voted out of this House.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
(Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, the other day I did not have but 20 seconds,
and I did not finish what I wanted to say in the 20 seconds.
First of all, I would like to say to every Member of this House that
I have worked with over the years, if I have done anything during that
time in the heat of debate that would offend anybody, I would like to
apologize and ask their forgiveness.
The thing that bothers me about this, and I am not going to talk
about the budget, but I will talk about the political process. Having
been here for 24 years, I have seen in the last few years the political
arguments and the debates have become so vicious. We can turn on the
television, look at the talking heads, and they are all screaming. They
are all preaching hatred.
To me, that is not good for politics, and that is what, in my view,
is keeping people from going to the polls and voting, because they get
fed up with us. They get fed up with all the negative things that they
hear. We do not talk a lot about the issues, neither party. It is
``gotcha.''
In the next few years what worries me, the most important person in
our campaigns is going to be the opposition

[[Page H11646]]

research guy. If Members have ever done anything in the past 20 years
that they are not proud of, they had better not run for office, because
they are going to bring it up.
It is so sad, because we live in a Nation where people are forgiven
and people are courteous, but all they see when they show the campaign
ads on television, they are so vicious. They are not true. Nobody is as
bad as they are painted on television. To me, this is a tragedy for our
process.
I will cherish the 24 years that I served in this body. I have made
some great friendships here and hopefully have been able to do some
good things for the State of North Carolina and the Eighth District. I
hope, for all Members, that some day we can see some way to do the
campaign reform to where we will not have to be so vicious in our
campaigning.
I hope that all of the Members live as long as they want, and never
want as long as they live. God bless you.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
very distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the
Subcommittee on National Security.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, 2 minutes is not anywhere near enough to discuss even
the defense part of this bill, but I will give it a quick try.
First of all, let me say that everyone that has spoken here this
evening so far is correct. It is a good bill, it is a terrible bill;
the process is unacceptable, it just does not work; but it was the only
way to get here where we are tonight to keep the government functioning
for the balance of the fiscal year.
When we are dealing with 435 people in this House, 100 people in the
other House at the end of the hall, and at the White House, that is 536
people that had to come together, and 536 people are never going to
agree on a perfect bill.
It has been suggested that some of the defense money was under the
emergency proclamation. That is true. The largest single part of the
defense bill, however, is $1.9 billion for the deployment of U.S.
troops to Bosnia. Other large portions of the bill go to intelligence.
When we just remember Kenya and Tanzania, where our embassies were
bombed, with much loss of life and much injury, more intelligence
against terrorism, more intelligence against military threats to our
own interests, are important. Yes, there is a substantial amount of
money for intelligence here.
Another large portion of this bill is missile defense. The Chinese
have developed tremendous missile capability, using much of the
technology developed by American industries that was allowed to go
overseas to China.

{time} 1900

The North Koreans not only developed weapons of mass destruction, but
also the missiles with the ability to carry them to wherever, to
Hawaii, to Alaska. The last North Korean missile shot, some of the
debris fell near the Aleutian Islands. The Aleutian Islands are part of
the United States of America. In addition, we increased the President's
request for readiness funding in this bill by 30 percent. We recognized
the need for more investment in readiness and for troop morale.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith), another classmate.
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly stand here
in opposition to this bill because it breaks the balanced budget deal
and spends an additional $20 billion out of Social Security, the trust
fund that says you can trust us to put your long-term security money in
and we will spend that money for your long-term security.
This bill has a lot of pork. And no, I have not read the 4000 pages.
I do not think most Members have. But I know it saps $20 billion out of
Social Security. But worst yet, it charges to my kids and grandkids a
bill that they are either going to pay with a loss of Social Security
or they are going to pay it with higher taxes, because we do not have
the discipline now to say no to pork barrel spending.
Worse yet, I just believe it breaks our promise, the promise the
President made, the promise we made to save Social Security first. We
did not put it first. We did not even put it second in this bill. I am
not sure what place it takes, but it certainly is not first or second.
Just three weeks ago, we faced the issue of whether we would take
money out of Social Security for tax breaks for the American people,
and some Members on this floor were so smart, they said, if we do not
give tax breaks, the liberals and the President will want to spend that
on additional programs, and today we stand with them wanting to spend
it on additional programs.
I have here a part of the budget spreadsheet that we have been using.
It showed we were going to take $37 billion out of Social Security in
the last balanced budget, and this takes it to $57 billion out of
Social Security, leaving nary a few dollars left for the long-term
security of the people in this country.
I guess what I ask Members is this: Please do not vote for this
unless they have read it. Please reconsider whether we rob the Social
Security trust fund. Let us keep our commitment to the American people.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to those Members on the other side of
the aisle, if you do not like the process that produced this bill, I
would simply point out that your party runs this place. It was your
party that set the schedule that provided more days off than we were in
session in the past year so that the Committee on Appropriations could
not finish its work. It is your party that could not pass a budget for
the first time since 1974. It is your party that allowed its own caucus
to be governed by the CATs, the conservative Members of your caucus,
that decided that you wanted to produce partisan bills rather than
bipartisan bills and, as a result of that, wound up with legislation
that could not pass this House and legislation that your Republican
friends in the Senate would not even buy.
If you do not like the length, if you do not like the weight, if you
do not like the height of this bill, I would suggest that you simply
look in the mirror, because your party and the way it ran this House
produced it.
With respect to the supplemental, I would simply note the President,
bad as it is, the President asked for $14 billion in the supplemental.
This bill now contains 20.8 in the supplemental. And all but about half
a billion dollars was added at the insistence of your leadership, not
ours. So, again, if you do not like most of the added emergency
spending that was added in this bill by the Congress above the
President's request, look in the mirror because your party demanded it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
(Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important but
imperfect bill. I rise in particular to make note of some reforms that
are being made in conjunction with $18 billion that is in this bill for
the International Monetary Fund.
Mr. Speaker, the IMF has gone around the world, from Mexico to
Thailand to South Korea to Indonesia to Russia making loans which have
averaged 4.7 percent interest. This interest rate has gone to provide
perverse incentives to investors who make risky investments, and this
has added to the need for even more IMF funding.
This reform package will stop that and is a positive improvement in
international economic policy, as noted today in the lead editorial of
the Washington Times. As an advocate for the comprehensive long-term
reform of the IMF, I believe the new congressional reforms will move
the IMF in the right direction. Much more remains to be

[[Page H11647]]

done, but we must seize the opportunity for improving the IMF
operations, and this bill moves in that direction.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), chairman of the CATs organization.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago in 1987, a Democrat Congress
sent President Reagan a massive omnibus bill. It weighed about 24
pounds, had about 2100 pages. And in his State of the Union address the
next year, President Reagan took that bill, slammed it on the table and
said, Congress should not send another one of these. If you do, I will
not sign it.
Today we have the reverse. A Democrat President is forcing this
Congress to pass a massive omnibus bill on a veto threat that if we
spend anything less, he will veto it and shut down the government.
Ten years ago that omnibus bill cost the taxpayers $604 billion. This
year's omnibus bill costs them $577 billion. Ten years ago the omnibus
bill totaled 2100 pages. This year, it is 4800 pages, more than twice
as long, and weighs 40 pounds.
The bottom line, President Clinton has effectively denied the
American people a tax cut for the middle class, for the families, and
he did so saying that we cannot spend that surplus, we have to spend it
on Social Security next year. But for two weeks, Bill Clinton sent up
one demand after another, give me a billion here, a billion here, a
billion here, all to be spent in Washington.
Now the taxpayers know the truth about Bill Clinton. He is all too
willing to raid that Social Security trust fund to satisfy his demands
for more Washington spending. How low we have sunk in the White House
in 10 years.
Taxpayers need someone like Ronald Reagan with integrity in the White
House and perhaps even more importantly, more conservatives in Congress
who will save Social Security first, who will cut taxes for the
American family, who will cut taxes for workers in this country, who
will get back on track with a balanced budget and cut spending in
Washington, who will spend more on a strong national defense to protect
our shores, and who will help small businesses thrive by cutting
through red tape rather than adding 40 pounds worth of legislation and
all the rules and regulations that go with it.
Speaking for myself tonight, this bill fails on three out of four of
those tests. I will not vote for it. But I do ask the American people,
send us more conservatives, send us more Republicans. Next year we will
not have to go through this process, and you will not have to see your
taxes go up to pay for it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to engage the gentleman from Arizona
in a colloquy.
I would like to take a moment to clarify a provision included in this
bill. There has been confusion as to the scope of subsection (d) of
section 117. It was my understanding when subsection (d) was added in
conference, that it applies to the entire section, to both the new
subsection (f)(1) and (2) of section 1610 of title 28. Is that the
gentleman's understanding as well?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I would say, yes, it was the understanding of
the conferees that the waiver provision in subsection (d) of section
117 applies to the entire section 117.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), Democratic whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, 9 months ago the President of the United
States stood in this Chamber behind me and he set out a vision for a
stronger America, better schools, HMO reform that puts patients first,
a cleaner environment, a commitment to save Social Security. But for 9
long months, this Congress has done nothing, nothing but investigate,
nothing but kill off reform, nothing but answer to the special
interests.
There has been such a blatant direct link between special interest
money and the Republican agenda that we might as well hang a sign on
the front of this Capitol saying, ``Congress for rent.''
That is why they have killed off campaign finance reform. We had a
bipartisan bill, bipartisan support to clean up our campaign finance
system and force the special interests to quit hiding behind their
nasty attack ads. But the Republicans said no.
This Congress had the opportunity to pass bipartisan legislation that
would have forced big tobacco companies to stop peddling their
cigarettes to children. But the tobacco companies said no.
The American people demanded HMO reform to put medical decisions back
in the hands of doctors and nurses and patients, not the insurance
companies, but the insurance companies said no.
And when it came time to raise the minimum wage, the special
interests weighed in again. They dredged up their old arguments and
they opened their wallets wide, and the Republicans said no.
We even had an opportunity to modernize America's schools. But the
Republicans said no.
This Republican Congress, controlled by special interests and afroth
with partisan frenzy, has ignored this country's working men and women
for far too long. School construction, HMO reform, raising the minimum
wage, strengthening Social Security, cleaning up political campaigns,
to all of these the Republicans have had just one answer: no.
But this Republican Congress did have one big initiative, a blatant
attempt to raid the Social Security trust fund. They tried to grab 177
billion from Social Security to squander on election year tax breaks,
$177 billion. It seems like every chance he gets, Speaker Gingrich
sticks his hand in the Social Security cookie jar, looking for an early
snack.
The next Congress is going to have the responsibility to strengthen
Social Security for future generations.

{time} 1915

And the American people have a right to a Congress that is committed
to saving Social Security first.
So, then, what is the defining achievement of this Republican
Congress? They voted to launch an impeachment inquiry that is so
unlimited and so out of control that they will never get around to
building those schools or reforming HMOs or saving Social Security.
If this Republican Congress is reelected, the next 2 years will just
add up to more of the same: Do little, delay, and deluge the American
people with more political muck, and we will never get on with the
issues the country really cares about.
Democrats have fought hard and we have won some victories. We are in
the minority. We do not have the votes, but we were successful in this
bill in getting 100,000 new teachers hired so we can reduce class size,
instill discipline and give more attention to our young people. We were
successful in protecting the environment against environmental riders
by the Republicans, and we were successful in stopping the raid on
Social Security. And, Mr. Speaker, when we come back in January, when
we get a chance to lead this Congress, we will get on with the job that
the American people sent us here to do.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I have been here for 4 years. We have come a long ways over those 4
years. We have gotten to a balanced budget for the first time in 30
years. We have restored Medicare, not by raising taxes, as was done in
the past. We provided the first family and education tax relief in 16
years. We have come a long ways. We got a lot of things done that a lot
of people said could not happen.
I want everyone in this Chamber to know it has been an honor and a
privilege to serve here with my colleagues. But as evidenced by what I
have here in my hands, that was provided for us this afternoon, we
still have a long ways to go in restoring this great Nation that we
have here tonight. We have 4,000 pages here in this bill that has not
been read by a single Member of this Congress. I guarantee not a single
one has read the entire bill.

[[Page H11648]]

I just heard the minority whip up here criticizing the Republicans
for proposing a tax cut that uses Social Security money, and in the
next breath he talks about passing a bill that will use $20 billion out
of the Social Security surplus for new government spending. Somehow it
is all right for Washington to spend that money but it is not all right
for the American people to have it.
Frankly, they are both wrong, if my colleagues really want to know.
They are both wrong. Social Security money should be saved for Social
Security, period. And that is what this is all about tonight. We have a
long ways to go here. We have a long ways to go in this Chamber to get
to a point where we actually start doing what is right for the future
of this great Nation that we live in here.
I have heard a lot of discussion about good programs. I heard my
chairman from the defense subcommittee talk about the need for a
missile defense system. He is absolutely right. We are underspending in
the military. But when we underspend and we need to reprioritize
spending, we should go after government waste and redirect those
dollars to where they are more needed, including things like defense
and a missile defense system. But, for goodness sakes, let us not pile
it full of pork and spend on defense and spend on everything else that
we can think of, and effectively wind up taking $20 billion out of the
Social Security Trust Fund.
I urge my colleagues tonight to stand up and say ``no''. Send this
bill back to the drawing boards and send a message to the American
people that we are actually serious about putting real money into the
Social Security Trust Fund and that we are serious about staying within
the budget caps that we all have agreed to. That is what is best for
the future of this great Nation.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the very distinguished Speaker
of the House, for the last official speech of the 105th Congress and to
finish this bill.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding me this time, and I want to say to both he and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that I suspect most of us share with them a
sense of gratitude that this is done, and we appreciate how many hours
they spent doing it.
I would say for just a minute, if I might, to my friends who were
asking for a ``no'' vote, the perfectionist caucus, ``And then what
would you do under our constitution?'' It is easy to get up and say
vote ``no'', but then what would they do?
The fact is, under our Constitution, 435 Members of the House, each
elected by a constituency based on population, work with 100 Members of
the Senate, two from each State, then we work with the President of the
United States. And surely those of us who have grown up and matured in
this process understand after the last 4 years that we have to work
together on big issues. And if we do not work together on big issues,
nothing gets done.
The fact is there is a liberal Democrat in the White House, and he
legitimately represents the views of the party which nominated him. And
there are things he wants in order to sign a bill, and that is
legitimate and a part of precisely what the Founding Fathers
established: A balance of power. And the fact is conservative
Republicans control the House and Senate, much, I might say, to the
discomfort of my good friend from Michigan, the Democratic whip, who
seemed unhappy at his having to vote ``yes'' tonight. But that is the
nature of reality.
So the question is: Can we craft a bill which is a win for the
American people because it is a win for the President and a win for the
Congress? Because if we cannot find a way to have all three winning, we
do not have a bill worthy of being passed.
Now, my fine friends who are perfectionists, each in their own world
where they are petty dictators could write a perfect bill. And it would
not be 4,000 pages, it would be about 2,200 of their particular
projects and their particular interests and their particular goodies
taking care of their particular States. But that is not the way life
works in a free society. In a free society we have to have give and
take. We have to be able to work.
I think of my good friends who are retiring. The gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Yates), on the Democratic side; the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade), on the Republican side, who served on
this committee for so long. They know and learned the hard way. If we
cannot work together, if we cannot produce a bill that can pass muster,
if we cannot get 218 votes over here, if we cannot close down a
filibuster or get agreement to pass a bill in the Senate, if we cannot
get the President's signature, what are we going to do?
The fact is we can be very proud of this Congress. This Congress
balanced the budget for the first time since 1969, and we will have a
balanced budget again in 1999 with the bill we are passing tonight.
This bill does not stop a balanced budget, contrary to the allegations
of some people.
We save Medicare without raising taxes. We passed the first tax cut
in 16 years. We went from a January 1995 projection of $3.1 billion in
deficit to a projection today of $1.6 billion in surplus, and I am
proud of the team that worked to get that done. The President signed
the bill, the Republican House and Senate leadership authored the bill,
and the fact is it was a team effort for the American people.
So I would say to each and every Member of this House, unless they
have a plan that they think can get 218 votes over here, can pass
through without a filibuster in the Senate and get signed, there is no
responsible vote except ``yes''.

I would say to my conservative friends that they have a bill which
reforms the International Monetary Fund in precisely the way the
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Dick Armey), wanted to
do it. We have a bill which stops needle exchanges by the Federal
Government. We have the strongest antidrug legislation that has ever
been written in this Congress. We have a child online protection act
that stops pornography on the internet. We block national testing so
that there will not be any kind of national education program.
The teachers program the gentleman from Michigan is so proud of has
been rewritten so that all the money goes to local school boards. All
the money is controlled by local school boards. And those school boards
can hire special education teachers and special needs teachers of any
grade level as well as general education teachers. And that, frankly,
is Dollars for the Classroom, a program we passed in this body 2 or 3
weeks ago.
People say we should not pass emergency money. Well, my colleagues
should go and look at the two bombed embassies and tell me they do not
think that is an emergency. Look at the year 2000 problem and tell me
that is not going to be an emergency. And then they can be the Members
to stand up and explain to their constituents that the air traffic
control system does not work or why the Social Security check is not
sent out. That is a genuine emergency. Those Members can go out and
tell the farmers in Texas or in south Georgia that their drought
problem is not an emergency. They can go tell the farmers in Iowa the
problem of the collapse of Indonesian prices and the collapse in the
price of corn and wheat is not an emergency.
Yes, this is the first Congress to increase defense spending in
peacetime since 1985, but, by George, precisely like Ronald Reagan, I
would say to my perfectionist friends, Ronald Reagan said protecting
our young men and women in uniform was more important than the deficit.
And he, in fact, opted specifically for strengthening our defenses.
So I would say to my Republican friends, when we look at $700 million
for national missile defense, when we look at blocking the national ID
system, when we look at local control over education spending, we, in
fact, produced a win-win bill. Yes, our liberal friends get a few
things. And in a free society, where we are sharing power between the
legislative and executive branch, that is precisely the outcome we
should expect to get.
This is a good bill. It deserves a ``yes'' vote by every Member, and
it is, in fact, precisely how the American system operates.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the omnibus appropriations agreement will
pass the Congress

[[Page H11649]]

with ease this week and Members of Congress will exchange accolades
about what a wonderful bill it is.
Baloney!
For the first time since the budget process was established in 1974,
Congress failed to pass a budget resolution--a roadmap for spending
your tax dollars. Without a roadmap, you run amuck. That's exactly what
is happening in Washington this week.
This omnibus appropriation bill rolls eight separate appropriations
bills together and includes special interest provisions designed to buy
votes for final passage. The resulting bill is an abomination.
The big picture is that any semblance of budget discipline has
disintegrated. The last minute horse trading spent $20.8 billion in
funds that were ``surplus'' only by government accounting semantics.
The so-called surplus funds are really attributable to a temporary
surplus in the Social Security trust funds. The trust funds need this
entire surplus--and much more--to fund payments to the Baby Boomers
when they retire. This bill spends an extra $20.8 billion because the
negotiators were more interested in saving face than saving money. The
taxpayers will pay the multi-billion dollar price for this ``one-for-me
and one-for-you'' final agreement.
The fine print isn't any prettier: another $1 billion for a star
wars-like missile defense system that won't work; $6.8 billion in
supplemental defense spending on top of the $271 billion already
appropriated through the regular process; the repeal of the tax-exempt
status of the National Education Association to get even with teachers
who have been supportive of Democratic priorities on education; an
increase in the number of H-1B visas so that high tech companies can
import cheap labor rather than train US workers; a ban on needle
exchange programs in the District of Columbia in spite of all the
studies showing that such programs save lives; a moratorium on federal
regulations designed to allocate organs fairly in contrast to today's
gerrymandered allocation system that needlessly costs lives.
I can count noses and see that this bill will pass. However, I won't
be a party to this charade.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, this budget plan addresses the needs of
working Americans. Today we are taking important steps that will help
insure that we save the budget surplus for Social Security, invest in
sound education initiatives for our children and provide important
relief to our nation's farmers.
We have reached an agreement that goes a long way toward fulfilling
our responsibility to the American people. It is a victory for
Democrats, as many of the priorities that were headed for the chopping
block were saved as a result of our efforts. This budget upholds the
values that are important to Illinois' families and that will help
build a solid foundation to continue economic growth. We have taken
important steps, such as investing in public education, tackling the
farm crisis and building and improving roads and bridges and empowering
our communities--all without squandering the budget surplus.
I am especially pleased that we are doing right by our nation's
children. This bill take important steps to improve the quality of
education in our public schools. By funding more teachers, we can have
smaller classes that allow teachers to give attention to individual
students. I am proud that we are helping communities to hire and keep
qualified teachers in order to reduce class size in grades 1 through 3,
years so crucial to the development of reading and math skills.
Agriculture has long been a cornerstone of our rural communities and
I am proud today that we are providing $5.9 billion to assist farmers
suffering from record-low crop prices and severe weather. The package
also includes an additional $1 billion in tax relief to protect our
farmers as they struggle with unstable foreign markets.
There is much more work to be done. We have many challenges ahead of
us. The Republican Congress blocked Democratic efforts to provide
simple, yet extensive relief to working families. As a result, we will
not provide Americans this year with a livable wage; accountants
instead of doctors will be making health care decisions for too many
Americans; the influence of special interests will continue to go
unchecked in campaigns and too many of our children will be taught in
old and dilapidated schoolrooms. Americans deserve a minimum wage and a
``Patient's Bill of Rights'', comprehensive campaign finance reform,
and modern, up to date schools for our children.
Let's pledge to build upon the progress made today so that we can
bring prosperity to all Americans in the future. Our working families
are counting on it.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the omnibus
appropriations bill, as it provides funs for eight Federal departments
and key education priorities such as class size reduction and Head
Start, as well as the summer jobs program, LIHEAP, IMF, home health
care, and hurricane and farm relief.
However, I have great concerns about the national security aspects of
the bill, and the way it was put together. Specifically, I take issue
with the bill's inclusion of $1 billion in ``emergency'' spending for
ballistic missile defense. This money could have gone to pay back our
debts to the United Nations. The $1 billion could have been used to
finance bonds for construction and repair needs for 1,500 schools, or
to pay the fiscal year 2000 costs of improving retirement benefits to
encourage retention of military personnel.
Congress had the entire year to review the nation's defense needs. It
approved the fiscal year 1999 Defense authorization and appropriations
bills after agreeing to the President's overall funding level and,
generally, to the Pentagon's priorities. In the omnibus bill, Congress
also agreed to the valid requests to fund our Bosnia mission and the
Federal Government's year 2000 computer problem.
The extra $1 billion for ballistic missile defense, however, was a
last-minute stealth insertion into the omnibus appropriations bill, and
not reviewed by the authorizing or appropriations committees. For a
Congress that has balanced the budget for the first time In three
decades, and for a Republican leadership that rails against wasteful
spending, this is wrong.
There is little disagreement that theater missile defenses are
prudent, realistic, and help protect our troops deployed overseas. But
throwing money at these programs won't make them work better or deploy
faster. Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre testified on October 2
that ``This is as close as the Department of Defense can get to the
Manhattan Project. We are moving as fast as possible.'' The Pentagon is
doing its best to make it work. But you just can't legislate physics.
Regrettably, it appears that this $1 billion was promoted by those
who see national missile defense as the answer to all our security
threats, regardless of cost, treaty implications or whether it actually
works. National missile defense is an exceedingly complex endeavor. The
system relies on ``hit-to-kill'' technology--hitting a bullet with a
bullet--whose success rate is only 22 percent in 18 tests. The
technology is unproven. Faith and money in themselves cannot guarantee
success.
Earlier this year, a panel of missile defense experts issued a report
(the ``Welch report'') that reviewed the national missile defense (NMD)
program. It concluded that the effort to rush deployment had caused
test failures, program slippage and increased risk--in short, they
called it a ``rush to failure.'' GAO confirmed that this acceleration
had greatly increased risk in the NMD program.
Our Nation's senior military leaders agree with these assessments.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Hugh Shelton, said
before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 29 that
``putting more money into it [NMD] won't produce a product any
sooner,'' and that ``money will not help solve the engineering and
integration challenges that are being faced by the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization right now.''
The GOP has joined the Service Chiefs in complaining about readiness
shortfalls. But when it came time to fund readiness in the supplemental
bill, the GOP leadership siphoned off $1 billion for missile defense.
They also rejected an Administration request to change military
pensions sought to keep quality people in the service. The $1 billion
for missile defense could have paid for most of the fiscal year 2000
cost for these changes. At the end of the day, it appears that GOP
leadership cared more about Ronald Reagan's ``star wars'' legacy than
about the men and women who put their lives on the line for our
country.
On balance, the omnibus appropriations bill is worthy of support. But
not every provision is wise. As we consider the wide-ranging programs
in this bill, Members should know that this $1 billion add-on for
missile defense was not requested by the administration and not
reviewed by any congressional defense committee. Missile defense is too
important and too technologically challenging to be driven by partisan
politics.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great satisfaction that I rise
today because a resolution that I feel very important has been included
in the omnibus spending legislation that passed the House tonight. This
resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that the international
community must work together to resolve cases where kidnaped children
are taken abroad.
Too many children like Machael Al Omary, who was illegally kidnaped
by her non-custodial father from my district of Jonesboro, or Hatam Al-
Shabrami, who was abducted by his non-custodial father and last seen in
Saudi Arabia, have been illegally kidnaped. With their children in
other countries, their mothers have no right to legal recourse.
Unfortunately, there are thousands of children like Machael and Hatam
who have been illegally taken to another country. If the country is not
a signatory to the Hague Agreement, the parents are left totally
helpless. In many cases, when the country is a signatory, justice

[[Page H11650]]

is often difficult to obtain, and comes at a high price.
Our legal system makes decisions involving the custody of children
based on what is in the best interest of the child. Once such
arrangements are made no one should ever be rewarded for the illegal
abduction of a child from our country by being able to keep the child
and thumb their nose at authority.
This resolution sends a strong message of this country's support for
the rights of our children and I am glad it was included in the
legislation.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the omnibus
appropriations bill now under consideration. In my judgment, this
legislation will address the important national priorities of military
readiness, environmental protection, transportation, education, and
foreign policy--priorities that I believe put our nation on the right
path heading into the 20th century. However, I also have a number of
concerns that are not addressed by these appropriations that I believe
must be considered during the fiscal year 2000 budget and
appropriations cycle.
I strongly support the supplemental funding in the omnibus package
that will be directed to military readiness and overseas operations.
For quite some time I have been concerned about our troop readiness
levels as well as the chronic shortages in spare parts, equipment
overhauls, facility repairs, recruiting, and routine base operations.
In fact, I have had several conversations recently with the base
commanders at Ft. Lewis Army base near my district, and am told that
readiness and training dollars are so scarce that soliders are mowing
lawns and performing other civilian duties instead of training for
combat.
This is absolutely unacceptable. We have already cut defense by
roughly one-third since the peak of the Reagan budget, yet our
operational tempo--including the rate at which our soldiers, sailors
and airmen are being deployed overseas--has not followed that downward
trend. In fact, current OPTEMPO rates are at near-record highs for the
20th century. The additional funding included by the Congress in this
legislation will help mitigate these problems in the near term.
However, additional funding will be required in fiscal year 2000 and
beyond in order to ensure a long-term solution to the serious readiness
problems plaguing all branches of our Armed Forces.
I am equally worried about the inadequacy of funding included for the
modernization of our future fighting equipment. The Joint Chiefs have
stated consistently over the past couple of years that the procumbent
portion of the defense budget needs to be increased to roughly $60
billion annually in order to provide our troops with the weapons and
equipment needed to address the military challenges of the next
century. The procurement budget currently stands at just over $48
billion. The supplemental package does not include much funding for
procurement--the exception being an additional $1 billion for missile
defense. This is far short of what is needed to ensure that our
fighting forces remain the best equipped in the world. I will continue
to work with the administration and with my colleagues to ensure that
additional monies are allocated for this priority.
I also applaud the willingness of Congress to step forward and
provide the necessary funding for the NATO-led stabilization force in
Bosnia and for increasing funding for anti-terrorism activities
including embassy security and reconstruction in response to the tragic
events at United States embassies in Tanzania and Kenya last August.
Finally, as the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, I also am strongly supportive of the additional
funding included in this package for U.S. intelligence activities.
This omnibus appropriations bill also contains important funding for
environmental priorities that are critical to my state and district. To
address the critical need of Washington State in confronting with the
proposed listing of salmon and steelhead species under the federal
Endangered Species Act, the appropriations for the Interior Department
contains $20 million in aid. This federal appropriation adds to monies
already appropriated by the state legislature to go directly to the
Salmon Recovery Office of the Governor. By providing direct grants to
tribes, local governments, and community groups, Washington can begin
the important work of restoration and recovery activities to revive
dwindling fish runs.
The transportation provisions included in this omnibus appropriations
bill will fund many important projects in Washington State, all of
which have widespread support among our state congressional delegation.
I am very pleased with the $54 million in funding for the Puget Sound
region's ambitious mass transit program, called Sound Transit. Most of
this total is for commuter rail, which will begin service between
Tacoma and Seattle at the end of next year. Traffic jams have become
far too commonplace in the Puget Sound region, and this investment will
provide substantial relief from this problem. I also am very pleased
with the continued funding for three important transportation projects
in the district I represent: the Tacoma Dome Station, Bremerton's
Transportation Center and the International Gateway Center in Port
Angeles. These projects are critical to economic development in these
areas which all suffer from a myriad of problems, including high
unemployment and poverty.
I do not think that anyone can discuss this bill without mentioning
the important provisions regarding the education of our children. This
legislation contains $1.2 billion for an important new program proposed
by the President and congressional Democrats to help school districts
hire and train 100,000 new teachers over the next seven years.
Washington will receive almost $20 million. We all have read the
studies that show that kids learn better in small classes. I am very
pleased that Congress is finally taking steps to help local school
districts--especially the poorest in our country--to begin to make this
happen.
Many of my colleagues know how important the Impact Aid Program is to
me and to the many men and women in my district that serve in our
country's armed forces. This program, which provides federal dollars
directly to school districts that serve the children of our uniformed
service personnel, is needed to bring these districts up to the same
funding level per student as non-impacted schools. I am happy that the
agreement provides an additional $56 million for this program. Although
the $864 million does not reach the authorized level of funding, it
does provide the minimum need for each participating school district--
the first time this has been done in many years.
There is one noticeable omission from this bill; there are no funds
included for school construction. I frequently visit the school
districts in my congressional district when we are not in session. Some
of them are very nice. Many, however, are in shameful states of
disrepair, without adequate lights, heat, plumbing, and wiring. At the
same time, enrollments are rapidly increasing. I believe that this bill
should have included funds to help school districts to address these
problems, and I am disappointed that the majority party refused to
accept sensible provisions in this regard during this negotiations.
Next year, I hope to work with my colleagues to ensure that Congress
does not ignore this critical need.
My district and the entire State of Washington are heavily dependent
on trade. In fact, one in every four jobs in my state are dependent on
trade--especially with Pacific Rim countries like Japan, China, South
Korea, and Taiwan. The financial crisis that these Asian nations are
undergoing has already had a serious effect on the economy of my state
through reduced exports, and this trend threatens to continue unless we
work with these countries and relevant international organizations to
lessen its effect.
Because of these concerns, I support the inclusion of credit in this
bill to replenish the International Monetary Fund so that it may
continue its work to help these Asian nations resolve their economic
problems and to continue to buy American goods. I am also glad that
strong language was adopted requiring the IMF to make necessary reforms
with regard to fairness, transparency, and to the conditions that the
IMF places on nations that seek to borrow funds.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the bill includes a small but
important clarification in law that was related to a provision adopted
in the Defense authorization bill earlier this year. Though it was not
the intention of Congress to complicate the export of commercial
aircraft and spare parts, the language of a broad prohibition on the
export of missile-related technology to China contained sufficient
ambiguity that it could have jeopardized the sale of Boeing aircraft to
one of America's largest export markets. With the passage of this
omnibus appropriations act an important clarification will eliminate
this ambiguity and assure that one of the top United States exporters,
employing more than 200,000 United States workers, will be able to
compete on equal footing in the Chinese market with other worldwide
aircraft manufacturers.
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by stating that I recognize that this
bill does not have the answers to all of the problems that currently
face our country. But it is, in my judgment, a good-faith effort to
solve many of them, and because of this, I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with mixed
emotions about this bill--not just because it is the last bill moving
through the House that I will see during my 17-year career here.
Rather, it is because I think the process yielded good results in many
areas, patched over problems that have to be addressed again next year,
and made some poor decisions in other areas.
The biggest achievement of this negotiated settlement is, of course,
the fact that the government will be funded for next year, with one

[[Page H11651]]

large exception that is keyed to a looming Supreme Court decision.
Perhaps the next biggest achievement is the start of the President's
program to put 100,000 new teachers in the classroom. I was an original
cosponsor of this legislation, and argued for it throughout the year.
This legislation constitutes a common sense approach to improving our
public schools and the performance of our children in the early years.
This is a program we must continue to fund until we get the student/
teacher ratio well below 20 to 1, and then we must expand the program
to keep these gains going throughout elementary and middle schools. The
federal government must also enact legislation to help our states and
local governments build new classrooms. I find it hard to believe that
a political party counts as a ``win'' its ability to make sure that no
help goes to relieving overcrowding in public schools. That is a mark
of shame, not a badge of honor. The education of our children is our
future, not simply another spending item.
I am also very pleased with the tax provisions that have been
incorporated into this bill. The most important of these changes,
besides the tax extenders, is the one year relief for middle income
American families from being thrown into the alternative minimum tax
simply because they use the dependent care credit, the adoption credit,
or the child tax credit. I argued strongly through the development of
the 1997 tax bill that these credits should be excluded from the
alternative minimum tax, but the offsetting revenue to do this was
needed by the other side to achieve their objectives in that bill. I
subsequently introduced legislation to remove these items from the AMT,
and I am pleased that this bill removes these credits for 1998. In a
small bill like this, a one year exclusion is the best that can be
done. While I would have preferred to fix this permanently before I
left Congress, it is more important that the principle has been
established that these credits should be excluded, and I am confident
that the committee will find a means of accomplishing this during the
106th Congress.
The other tax items I am very pleased with is the increase in the
private activity bond cap which has not been adjusted since 1986. State
and local governments issue tax-free bonds primarily to fund important
economic development projects and to make it easier for people to buy
homes. In Connecticut, for example, increasing the volume cap will mean
an additional $82 million for first-time home buyers or economic
development projects. The legislation I introduced to increase the cap
had widespread bipartisan support; in fact only one other bill in the
105th Congress had more cosponsors. I cannot think of a better way to
end my congressional career than by enacting this type of legislation,
and I very much appreciate the help I received from the chairman of the
Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Archer, and the ranking minority member,
Mr. Rangel. I have very much enjoyed working with both of them
throughout the years, as well as the other members of the committee and
the staff, who represent the best Washington has to offer.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and hope it will be approved by an
overwhelming margin.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this budget agreement can be summed up in
four words: Bad process, good result.
There is an old saying about how people with weak stomachs should
never watch sausage or laws being made. The process we are following
today gives sausage makers a bad name.
The process by which we arrive at today's budget agreement is
indefensible. This year--for the first time in the 24-year history of
the Budget Act--the House and Senate failed to agree on a budget
resolution. More than half of the thirteen regular appropriation bills
were never completed.
The majority dragged its feet all year on scores of other important
matters. Whether it's providing emergency funding to deal with the year
2000 computer problem and natural disasters, or recapitalizing the IMF,
or extending critical tax provisions like the research and development
tax credit, the country's business shouldn't have to wait until the
11th hour.
The breakdown in the budget process rests squarely on the shoulders
of the majority and its leadership. The result is that we are
considering a $500 billion, 4,000-page, catch-all bill, with no
amendments allowed. This is no way to legislate.
No thanks to the process, on balance, the budget agreement before us
contains many of the priorities I have been fighting for this year. The
agreement contains funding to begin hiring 100,000 new teachers to
reduce class size in schools across America. It expands Head Start and
provides for after school and child literacy programs.
The agreement is true to our commitment to save Social Security
first. it rejects Republican efforts to raid $80 billion of the Social
Security surplus. The agreement provides critically needed funding for
the IMF so it can respond to the financial turmoil abroad that, left
unchecked, threatens to undermine our own economy.
The agreement provides funding to help solve the serious Year 2000
computer problem. It increases funding for the National Institutes of
Health to combat diabetes, cancer and other diseases. It funds the COPS
Program to put more police on our streets. It makes necessary
improvements to Medicare's home health care rules. Finally, this
agreement strips out dozens of special interest, anti-environmental
riders that had been inserted into the appropriation bills.
Unfortunately, other important goals were not achieved. The majority
succeeded in blocking comprehensive campaign finance reform, blocked
action on a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights, and prevented the
President's school construction initiative.
While the process was seriously flawed, and the bill before us does
not address all concerns, I will vote for the budget agreement. I urge
my colleagues to support it as well.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I joined with my
colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Watkins, to introduce the Rural Enterprise
Communities Act. Tucked away in this monster of an omnibus is a small
provision that contains the heart of our bill--the authority for the
Secretary of Agriculture to designate 20 new enterprise communities in
rural areas.
Mr. Watkins and I believed that this legislation was absolutely
necessary to address the problems facing rural America. It is easy to
forget that nearly 800 non-metropolitan counties have high poverty
rates. Much of the nation's substandard housing is located outside of
urban areas, and the distances between places and the lack of public
transportation magnify the economic problems in rural communities.
The rural empowerment zone and enterprise community program is an
example of an economic development program that works. Since 1993,
these communities have created or saved nearly 10,000 jobs, and
provided job training to more than 14,000 people. They have used their
federal funds in partnership with private resources to build or upgrade
health care facilities, schools, computer learning centers, and
housing.
A key factor in enterprise communities' success is their ability to
work closely with local governments, regional planning authorities, and
the private sector to leverage the maximum benefit from their funding.
The money we appropriated for this program accounted for a little less
than 10 percent of the economic development dollars spent in the rural
ECs. The vast majority of the money for the projects I described came
from other competitive federal grants, state and local funds, and the
private sector.
When the EZ/EC program was reauthorized last year, it provided for
only five new rural enterprise communities. More than 200 applicants
are competing for these designations, proving that our communities are
starved for effective economic development programs. This is why we
believed it was so important that these 20 additional designations be
included in the omnibus appropriations bill.
When Mr. Watkins and I introduced our bill, we wanted to make sure
that the Department of Agriculture had the flexibility to consider
factors other than poverty that contribute to rural distress. These
included criteria such as outmigration, underemployment, and sudden and
severe economic distress of the type that might be caused by the
closure of a military base or a factory. We hoped that the Secretary of
Agriculture will take these sorts of things into account when he is
considering which communities qualify for the rural enterprise
community designation.
As I conclude my remarks, I wish to thank all of my cosponsors from
both sides of the aisle for insisting that the Rural Enterprise
Communities Act be included in the omnibus appropriations legislation.
It was your support--and the very vocal efforts of our communities back
home--that convinced the administration that this program was worth
fighting for.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a very
important provision in the omnibus appropriations conference report,
H.R. 4328. This issue is extremely important to my constituents and to
many other Americans concerned with their second amendment rights. This
issue deals with the implementation of the so-called Brady Act relating
to gun purchases. The implementation of the Brady Act is primarily the
responsibility of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is
funded by this bill through the Department of Justice. This
appropriation bill contains a number of relevant provisions which will
continue the original congressional intent with respect to the
implementation of this law.
First, I would like to examine some of the history of the Brady Act.
The expressed purpose of the Brady Act is to provide for background
checks on gun buyers, and it does that in two ways. First, there is an
interim ``waiting period'' provision under which persons buying
handguns must wait five days before taking delivery. During that time,
a report of the sale is to be sent to local law enforcement officials,
who are supposed to conduct a background

[[Page H11652]]

check of the buyer to determine that the buyer is not disqualified from
owning firearms. However, the provision mandating that local officials
perform the background check has been found unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court. That is why the Congress also mandated that as of
November 30, 1998--a full 5 years after the passage of the Brady Act--
the waiting period would sunset and be replaced by a computerized
national instant background check system operated by the FBI. The 103d
Congress believed, as the majority of us in the 105th Congress believe,
that the instant check would be an effective system that would be less
intrusive on the rights of gun owners.
Although I was not a Member of this body at the time, the operation
of the instant check system was believed to be a national
responsibility that would be paid for nationally, rather than by a
retroactive ``gun tax'' levied on individual buyers. In fact, the Brady
Act itself authorized $200 million to be made available to the States
for the upgrading of their criminal history record systems. Over the
past 5 years, nearly that sum has been made available to the states
through the Department of Justice grants from appropriated funds, and
the FBI has additionally spent funds to create the necessary
infrastructure for the instant check system.
However, Mr. Speaker, there has been a series of proposed rulemakings
by the FBI in which it proposed a ``user fee,'' or more accurately
termed, a ``gun tax,'' in the neighborhood of $14 (or more) on each
firearms transaction checked by the instant check system, supposedly to
cover the costs of the system. Due to the outcry from my constituents,
and the constituents of many other Members, I introduced a bill, H.R.
3949, which would prevent the FBI from charging such a fee. Likewise in
the other body, Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire introduced a similar
amendment on the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill which would
prevent the FBI from charging such a fee. The Smith amendment passed
the Senate by a vote of 69 to 31, attesting to the support such an
undertaking has.
As a result of the efforts by Members of the House, Senator Smith,
Senator Craig, and other colleagues in the other body, this omnibus
appropriations bill includes a provision banning the FBI from charging
a gun tax. In addition, the bill includes more than $40 million in
funding for the operation of the instant check system to carry out its
mission.
I now turn to another extremely important, related issue. In 1993,
during the debate on the Brady Act, the Congress expressed concern with
preserving the privacy of gun buyers, and not allowing the instant
check system to turn into a national computerized gun registration
system. The establishment of a gun registration system would obviously
be of great concern to gun owners. Gun registration systems have been
used in many foreign countries, and in United States jurisdictions
including California and New York City, to confiscate firearms from
citizens.
To address those concerns, the Brady Act contained explicit language,
codified as 18 U.S. Code, Sec. 922(t)(2), which provided that once a
firearms transaction is approved, the system shall ``destroy all
records of the system with respect to the call (other than the
identifying [transaction] number and the date the number was assigned)
and all records of the system relating to the person or the transfer.''
This was intended to prevent the FBI or any other agency from using the
system to keep a listing of everyone approved by the system to buy a
firearm.
Another relevant provision is Sec. 103(I) of the Brady Act itself as
a non-codified law, which establishes a ``Prohibition Relating to
Establishment of Registration Systems With Respect to Firearms'' and
provides that ``No department, agency, officer, or employee of the
United States'' may use the instant check system ``to establish any
system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearms
transactions or dispositions'' except regarding persons prohibited from
receiving firearms.

The gun registration issue has been a great concern to this body in
the past. For instance, for a number of years, the appropriations bills
for the Department of the Treasury have contained a prohibition on
expending appropriated funds for centralizing records of acquisitions
and dispositions of firearms by licensed dealers. Language codifying
that position of a prohibition is concluded in H.R. 4328 as well.
The Congress also acted on this issue in the Firearms Owners'
Protection At of 1986, when it forbade agencies from issuing rules or
regulations requiring the centralization of records of firearms
licensees, or requiring the creation of systems of ``registration of
firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions.''
The FBI has proposed regulations on instant check implementation
included in its recently released proposal to keep records of firearms
purchasers' personal identifying information for a period of 18 months,
in its so-called ``Audit Log.'' It is my opinion, and the opinion of
many of my colleagues here today, that a regulatory proposal to
maintain records of approved firearms purchasers' personally
identifying information would violate the letter and spirit of these
provisions we have discussed, both in the Brady Act and the Firearms
Owners' Protection Act.
For the purpose of enforcing those provisions, both H.R. 3949, and
Senator Bob Smith's amendment prohibited the FBI from maintaining
records of approved purchases. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to report
that H.R. 4328 includes a very important provision forbidding the use
of appropriated funds to create any instant check system that does not
`'require and result in the destruction of any identifying information
submitted by or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to
be prohibited from owning a firearm.'' This language is carefully
crafted to ensure the FBI complies with all the provisions of the Brady
Act and the Firearms Owners' Protection Act which prevent this system
from turning into a gun registration scheme to restrict the second
amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairmen Livingston, Rogers, and Stevens
for including this very important language in this appropriation bill.
I look forward to revisiting this issue at a later time through the
oversight process to ensure that the FBI obeys this law.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the
important and needed transportation funding included in the measure, I
stand in firm opposition to certain provisions included in the omnibus
appropriations bill, H.R. 4328. In particular, I am opposed to the
provision that would effectively allow states to veto projects
specifically provided for by TEA-21 and included in this appropriations
bill. When I and my fellow colleagues on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee drafted TEA-21, it was our intent that all
monies devoted to ``high-priority'' projects would have to be spent on
those projects or states would lose the allocations. There were many
discussions and much testimony about this issue. In hearing after
hearing, state governments consistently argued that they should be
allowed to reallocate obligation limits for TEA-21 high-priority
projects to other projects that they deem more important. The full
Transportation Committee felt differently, and that is precisely why we
drafted TEA-21 to mandate specific spending on specific high-priority
projects.
For instance, southern Dallas, which comprises a large part of my
district, is badly in need of road and infrastructure improvements.
However, this area has been largely ignored by the Texas Department of
Transportation in favor of other projects in more affluent areas of the
state. The opinions of city and county elected officials as to the
needs of their constituents have consistently been overridden by the
Republican appointed and partisan Commissioners of the Texas
Transportation Commission. In TEA-21, I was able to secure funding for
this area long awaiting revitalization efforts with the understanding
that, for once, the money would have to go there.
I am not alone in this struggle. Many of my colleagues have been in
similar situations during which their districts were consistently
passed over by their state governments when allocating road and
infrastructure improvement dollars. TEA-21 was designed to change this
diversion of resources and to finally bring improvements to under-
served areas. TEA-21 represented a bipartisan attempt to improve the
nation's transportation infrastructure, in large part by identifying
projects that need to be completed and allocating money to be spent
only on those projects.
While it is my understanding that the provision will be removed from
the bill in the 106th Congress, I am troubled that the provision exists
in the bill at all. It is an irresponsible contradiction of the intent
and spirit of TEA-21 and the compromises reached by the members of the
Transportation Committee. Southern Dallas, and other areas across the
country like it, need and deserve the consideration that TEA-21
provides, not more of the same old treatment. I urge the Republican
leadership to remove this provision so that these areas can finally
receive that consideration.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, for the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, the judiciary, and related agencies, the conference
agreement provides a total of $33.7 billion, which includes: $27.6
billion in discretionary funding, $5.5 billion in crime trust funds,
and $600 million in mandatory funding.
As in the House-passed bill, aside from the ramp up for the 2000
census, the major increases are for the Department of Justice, to press
forward on our number one domestic priority--fighting crime and drugs,
strengthening our borders, and protecting against terrorism.
The conference agreement provides $18.2 billion for Justice, an
increase of $450 million over fiscal year 1998.

[[Page H11653]]

The conference agreement retains the House priority on State and
local law enforcement, by providing $4.85 billion including: full
restoration of local law enforcement block grant at $523 million; full
restoration of the juvenile accountability block grant at $250 million;
a significant increase for juvenile crime prevention to $285 million,
$47 million over fiscal year 1998; an $1.4 billion for the COPS
Program, including $180 million for special initiatives.
Other items in the Justice Department include: An increase of $111
million over fiscal year 1998 for the war on drugs; $283 million for
the Violence Against Women Act programs; $2.46 billion for the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, under two new accounts,
including a $40 million interior enforcement initiative, similar to
what was included in the House bill; and $145 million in new funding
for counterterrorism measures, including $125 million for equipment
grants and training for state and local first responders.
For the Department of Commerce, the bill includes $5 billion,
including $1,031 billion for the decennial census, $75 million over the
House-passed level, to assure preparations for an actual enumeration.
For the Department of State, and related agencies, the conference
agreement includes $5.5 billion, including $475 million for U.N.
arrearages, subject to authorization.
For related agencies, the conference agreement includes $300 million
for the Legal Services Corporation, and $76 million for SBA disaster
loans, with additional funds for disasters provided elsewhere in the
bill.
While the conference agreement includes full year appropriations for
all agencies, it also includes a provision cutting off funding on June
15. This, in my view, is a very problematic provision. It was inserted
as part of the current resolution of the census debate, and holds all
agencies, not just the decennial census, hostage to future debate on
the conduct of the 2000 census.
This, in my view, is a serious mistake. All of the programs in this
bill, such as the Supreme Court, the rest of the Federal courts, the
Department of Justice, the FBI, the INS, the DEA, the State Department
embassies abroad, and loans to small businesses, could be shut down
over a political dispute between the Congress and the administration
over how to conduct the census. I cannot believe the administration
insisted on this provision, and I cannot believe that the
administration wants to hold open the possibility of shutting down
these vital functions of government as leverage for its position on the
census, that has been rejected by two district courts.
I believe this provision is not defensible, and the blame lays
squarely on the shoulders of the White House.
The conference agreement also includes a provision that makes all
Government attorneys subject to the ethics rules of State attorneys,
effective 180 days after enactment of this bill.
The 180 day delay of the effective date is intended to allow the
Department of Justice sufficient time to express any concerns it may
have to the Congress about the application of the legislation. The
Department of Justice has expressed a desire for the Congress to ask
the Department to submit legislative language authorizing the
Department to develop and enforce a code of ethics to cover the conduct
of its own attorneys. Of course, the Department is free to submit such
legislation to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for their
consideration.
In other parts of this omnibus bill, the conference agreement
includes a number of provisions that relate to the programs covered by
the Commerce, Justice, State, and judiciary appropriations bill. These
include: $1.4 billion in emergency funding for the State Department and
the FBI to respond to the recent terrorist embassy bombings in Africa,
including major upgrades of security at U.S. missions around the world.
$101 million in emergency funding for SBA disaster loans and
administrative expenses in response to increased requirements due to
Hurricane Georges and other natural disasters.
$20.2 million for additional emergency funding for anti-drug programs
of the DEA and INS; $30 million and authorization language for a
pollock fishing buy out program; $5 million in emergency funding for
the New England multi-species ground fishery; $2 million and
authorization language for a Trade Deficit Review Commission; portions
of the State Department reauthorization legislation, dealing with the
merger of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the United States
Information Agency with the State Department, and providing
authorizations and other changes in legislative authority with respect
to these three agencies; the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation
Act, as passed by the Senate; the Internet Tax Freedom Act, the Child
On-line Protection Act; the American Competitiveness and Workforce
Improvement Act, relating to temporary foreign professional workers;
reauthorization of the Police Corps; and several authorizations
relating to anti-drug programs.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, tonight Congress considers a
spending bill that is troubling. It is the largest appropriation bill
that I have ever voted on and I hope it will be the last time I am
asked to vote on this amount of spending. At over $500 billion, it is
nearly one-third the entire federal budget. This amount of money is
beyond our grasp and the details of this legislation beyond our
comprehension under today's time frame.
There are many provisions in this bill that I support, particularly
those for agriculture, home health care and education. This bill
includes tax reductions for farmers, ranchers, and small business
owners. In addition, this bill is critical to the operation of many
government functions such as Social Security and our national defense.
However, I am certain that there are numerous provisions in this bill
which I do not support. Even worse, there are also items in this bill
that I cannot be aware of until after I am expected to make a decision
and cast my vote. For these and other reasons, I am very critical of
the process which brings this appropriations measure to the floor
tonight.
I know I am not alone when I say I would appreciate the opportunity
to vote on each of the individual provisions contained in this bill.
Each provision should be debated on its own merit. Free and open debate
is a principle upon which this country was founded and one that we as
Members of Congress must work to protect.
That is not to say that I am naive enough to believe that every
policy which I support will pass and those I oppose fail. In a
democracy we are often forced to make difficult decisions.
While compromise is part of a democracy, we must not compromise the
legislative process. We must work to maintain integrity in the process
and restore the faith in the way we govern. We can, and must, do a
better job in fulfilling our responsibilities as elected officials.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in decidedly unenthusiastic support
for the conference report on H.R. 4328. This is nominally the
Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999, but in reality
it is a monstrous omnibus bill that encompasses eight unfinished
appropriations bills, arguably more emergency spending than can be
justified under the Budget Act, and numerous extraneous items, also the
result of Committees failing to finish their work on time. This--
thing--is more than 4,000 pages long, nearly two feet tall, and nearly
40 pounds.
Much of the conference agreement is the routine business of Congress
that should have been done through the normal process and in a timely
manner. Some of it represents bullets dodged--bad provisions from
earlier versions of appropriations bills that have been removed or
improved in the final negotiations. Some of it is Democratic victories
on important programs, such as funding for the President's 100,000
teachers initiative, but the package also represents lost
opportunities, including the President's school renovation and
construction initiative. I will reluctantly vote for it, but I reserve
the unfinished business of America for next year.
From the 100,000 teachers initiative, I am happy that New York will
receive nearly $105 million over 6 years, and that the Bronx, of which
I represent the southern part, will receive $14.6 million. This is a
wise investment in the future of our children, but the lack of any
funding for school renovations and construction leaves us wondering
where these new teachers will meet their students! Next year, Mr.
Speaker, we must address the school facilities issue.
I also intend in the next Congress to propose a program to hire
100,000 new paraprofessionals. Adding teacher aides to classrooms also
permits more individualized attention and more discipline, but at lower
cost than adding teachers, and beginning as a paraprofessional is a
first step on a professional track for less-educated but equally
dedicated adults. The two initiatives together will go a long way to
prepare our children for self-sufficient, productive adulthood, and for
healthier, happier lives.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I failed to mention three emergency
items in the jurisdiction of the Legislative Branch Appropriations
Subcommittee, of which I am the ranking Democrat:
The conference agreement includes $100 million for a Capitol Visitor
Center, which will not only enhance the security of the Capitol Complex
in the wake of the tragic shootings of Capitol Police Officers Chestnut
and Gibson and the terrorist threats arising from events abroad, but
also improve the experience of visitors to the Capitol by presenting
exhibits to help them understand Congress and the Capitol and even by
improving their access to restrooms and food service.
The conference agreement includes nearly $107 million for various
other physical security enhancements to the Capitol Complex, including
Library of Congress buildings and grounds. We do not want to wall the
People's Branch

[[Page H11654]]

off from the public, but there are measures we can take to keep the
campus open while enhancing the security of all who work or visit here.
Finally, the conference agreement provides a total of $16.9 million
to the House, the Senate, and, through the General Accounting Office,
to the rest of the legislative branch, for Year 2000 conversion of
information technology systems.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that, while I will vote for this omnibus bill,
it is without enthusiasm. I cannot urge my colleagues to vote one way
or the other. But I will say that a great deal of the people's business
remains undone. This Congress, under Republican leadership, has
failed--has refused--to address abuses in our health care system, to
reduce teen smoking, to reform the campaign finance system, and much
more. We will be back next year to press ahead on the issues that the
American people care about most.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, section 06(a) requires the
Secretary to allocate ten percent of the total allowable catch (TAC) of
pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area as a target species
to the western Alaska community development quota (CDQ) program,
beginning on January 1, 1999. And, prior to allocating the remaining
ninety percent of the TAC of pollock to catcher vessels and catcher/
processors pursuant to paragraphs (1)-(3) of section 06(b), section
06(b) requires the Secretary to allocate to the CDQ program the amount
of additional pollock that will be incidentally taken by vessels that
harvest the directed fishing allowance of non-pollock groundfish
species that has been allocated to the CDQ program.
During the 1998 fishing year, the Secretary has regulated the CDQ
programs for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands pollock and for Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands non-pollock groundfish species as two separate
regulatory programs. To ensure that vessels that participate in the CDQ
pollock fishery are afforded an opportunity to harvest the entire ten
percent of the TAC of pollock that subsection (a) allocates to the CDQ
program, section 06(a) and (b) collectively direct the Secretary to
continue, for the purpose of catch accounting only, to regulate the CDQ
fisheries for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands pollock and for Bering
Sea and Aleutian Islands non-pollock groundfish species as separate
regulatory programs.
Separate accounting for the by-catch of non-pollock groundfish
species in the directed CDQ pollock fishery and for the catch of non-
pollock groundfish species in the directed CDQ non-pollock groundfish
fishery will prevent the by-catch of non-pollock groundfish species in
the directed CDQ pollock fishery from being deducted from the 7.5
percent of the TAC of non-pollock groundfish species that the Secretary
has allocated to the CDQ program. This will allow vessels participating
in the directed CDQ pollock fishery to collectively harvest as by-catch
a small amount of non-pollock groundfish species in addition to the 7.5
percent of the TAC for such species that the Secretary has allocated to
the CDQ program. However, the total harvest of non-pollock groundfish
species--both as by-catch and in the directed fisheries for such
species--shall not exceed the allowable biological catch for each
species. And it continues to be the intent of Congress that the
Secretary regulate the CDQ programs for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
pollock and for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands non-pollock groundfish
species in a manner that continues to ensure that no species is
subjected to overfishing.
Because they take effect on January 1, 1999, the Secretary must
implement subsections (a) and (b) of section 06 by promulgating
emergency regulations. However, as soon thereafter as practicable, the
Secretary shall implement section 06(a) and (b) by promulgating
regulations that have been recommended by the North Pacific Council to
implement those subsections and other appropriate conservation and
management measures.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 1999 omnibus
appropriations bill.
I do not cast this vote lightly. There are some good priorities in
this bill--things that I have fought for these past 2 years including
funding for improving education and job training, expanding rural
health care, protecting the environment, and putting police on the
streets. It also funds the International Monetary Fund which I believe
is necessary to maintain global economic stability. Indeed, I support
the programs which provide relief to America's farmers, summer jobs for
teenagers, and higher health insurance deductions for the self-
employed.
Furthermore, I am fully aware that it is not unusual for several
appropriations bills to be rolled together and passed in this fashion.
But this year's bill goes way beyond what may be the usual ``rush to
the finish'' and sets a very bad precedent for future fiscal
responsibility.
First, this is the first year since 1974 that Congress has not passed
a budget resolution--the blueprint for annual spending. We had no
official guidelines for spending this year and, consequently, we now do
not know precisely how the spending caps were determined. There is no
excuse for this irresponsible method of spending America's hard-earned
tax dollars.
Second, many parts of this bill were never considered by any
committee or by either chamber of Congress. In fact, some provisions
actually reverse language that has already been passed. The largest
appropriations bill in this omnibus package is the Labor/HHS and
Education bill. It is worth $83.3 billion and it was never considered
on the floor of the House of Representatives. Members, such as myself,
who are not members of the Appropriations Committee, never had the
opportunity to vote on any individual provisions of that bill, we must
simply vote yea or nay on the entire bill.
Third, this bill contains $20 billion in so-called ``emergency''
spending. This money is very deceptive. It is money being spent
completely outside of the budget caps established in last year's
Balanced Budget Act. This spending is not paid for--and most of it is
not crucial emergency spending. It includes spending for military
readiness, ballistic missile defense, a U.S. Capitol Visitor Center,
Y2K computer fixes, and efforts to prevent drug production and
trafficking. These funds may be worthy, but they should be debated,
determined to be priorities, and incorporated into the general spending
bills.
Fourth, no one really knows what pork projects are contained in this
bill. They are hidden deep within the 4,000 page document and there is
no comprehensive list for all to see.
Finally, members were given just three hours to review this
monstrosity of a spending bill. This bill is insulting to those of us
who are deeply concerned about the future of this country and the
astounding $5.5 trillion national debt that we are passing on to our
children. By passing this bill, we are avoiding the tough decisions we
need to make if we are to ever see a budget surplus and shore up Social
Security--and if we are ever to lower the national debt.
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying Christmas has come early this
year. There's something for everyone's stocking in this bill--but,
unfortunately, our children will pay the price.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, investigations and impeachment
proceedings have dominated news of the 105th Congress. The
disappointing reality is that, by scheduling less legislative business
than any Congress in a generation, the Republican leadership has
provided little else for the press to cover. People on both sides of
the aisle will admit as much with little or no prompting.
This year we have not even passed a budget resolution, the first time
in 24 years that Congress has failed to provide this framework. When
division and confusion arose in the Republican caucus, they chose to
abdicate their responsibility rather than work with the Democrats to
put together a budget compromise.
Over what issues did the Republicans allow the budget process to be
held hostage? Conservative extremists brought fiscal planning to a halt
for days to fight over such policies as whether federal health
insurance recipients should be guaranteed contraception coverage.
Somewhat ironic for people who claim to be against abortion.
Because of all the delays and infighting, I am now being asked to
vote on one spending bill that encompasses a third of the entire
federal budget. While we are still in the process of learning what is
in the bill, what is known is alarming. This bill provide $7 billion in
excess of last year's budget agreement and adds an additional $21
billion in so called emergency spending, stretching the definition of
``emergency'' to the breaking point. It also increases military
spending by nearly $9 billion--too much, and for the wrong items. The
Republicans chose to provide questionable funds for the ``star wars''
program, while ignoring the need for adequate compensation and
retirement for military personnel.
I must reluctantly vote against this omnibus bill. I say
``reluctantly'' because there are a few very positive provisions in the
bill. Democrats have managed to win additional funds for new teachers
and a number of environmental programs and these gains should not be
minimized. However, I cannot condone the process by which this
legislation was created or its misplaced priorities.
I have searched for any rationale to justify this fundamental
breakdown of Congress. There was, however, no national emergency, there
was no physical crisis, and there was no attempt at bipartisan
cooperation. Instead, inaction, special interest pressure, and members'
desires to go home have allowed us to accept this unusual process.
Hopefully, something positive will come from this episode. Perhaps
the American public will pay more attention to how their tax dollars
are managed. Perhaps these issues will become

[[Page H11655]]

an object of attention during the election process. Perhaps these
developments will even inspire future fiscal cooperation, similar to
the cooperation which has successfully fended off environmental attacks
and continues to attempt to restore some degree of civility to
congressional operations.
Every Member of Congress should be motivated to prevent a repeat of
this failed budget process in the 106th Congress, regardless of which
party is in charge. I am inspired to begin this conversation now, while
the memories are still fresh. This bill be one of my highest priorities
of the new year.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to express
my extreme disappointment with the failure of this Congress to promote
education for all American children. Providing quality education to our
children is one of the most important responsibilities we have. As the
only Member of Congress serving on the National Commission on Teaching
and America's Future, I must speak about the lost opportunities for
funding education in this Congress. The National Commission is
comprised of governors, university presidents, state superintendents,
superintendents of schools, principals, and educators from across the
country. We have worked for years to evaluate the needs of students and
have made recommendations that will improve the quality of education
for all students. Our top recommendation is to improve the quality of
our teachers by reducing class size and improving teacher training. I
introduced legislation to implement these recommendations. In fact,
there have been several good proposals to improve the quality of
education, but unfortunately, the majority of this Congress has not
seen the need to provide the infrastructure of education for our
children.
That's just not fair to the public school children of America.
Instead of working together to support the Democratic plan to reduce
class size and modernize public schools, the majority of this Congress
talks about school vouchers. The truth is that vouchers weaken public
education. What will increase the quality of public education in this
country is to pass the plan that the President proposed last January--
let's reduce class size by adding 100,000 new, qualified teachers.
Let's pass the plan to modernize our public schools so our children are
in a safe and healthy environment to learn--not decrepit old buildings
that are leaking and crumbling around them. Instead of supporting this
proposal, the majority of this Congress tried to turn federal education
aid into block grants with no accountability to ensure that funds will
go where they are most needed, especially to poor and undeserved
students.
Ninety percent of the nation's families send their children to public
schools. The right to a quality public education for all children is
part of the very foundation of our democracy. Whatever public resources
we have available should be used to improve our public schools--not to
fund private schools.
By directing more resources to public schools--instead of gimmick
savings accounts--we can help parents, teachers, and administrators
meet the important education challenges facing the vast majority of our
children. As an educator and administrator in the Los Angeles Unified
School District for many years, I can personally attest to the critical
need to put more dollars into our public schools--not less. High
technology and computers in every classroom do not leave any children
behind.
That is one of the reasons I support full funding for the E-Rate
program which will help provide needy public school students with
better access to telecommunications technology, including the Internet
and other educational media.
Congress should be working to reduce class size in the early grades
and reduce class overcrowding. The average class size in the early
grades ranges from 32 to 36 students--this is much too large for
effective teaching and learning. Research demonstrates that reducing
class size in the early grades will: (1) raise the level of student
achievement in reading and math; (2) improve classroom discipline; and
(3) better ensure that children are receiving the personal attention
they deserve. That's why I support the President's initiative. This
will help reduce class size in the early grades to 18 students across
the country.
Congress should also be working to improve the quality of teachers
teaching our children. We must have the best-trained teachers if we
expect our children to be the best they can be. That is why I
introduced teacher excellence legislation to change the way teachers
are trained and to improve the quality of teaching in America's
classrooms. We must provide every student in America with access to
competent, qualified and dedicated teachers. We must provide a
comprehensive approach to teacher training that provides professional
development for veteran teachers. We must also provide mentoring for
beginning teachers by veteran teachers who've spent years in the
classroom and can share a wealth of experience with those just entering
the profession. I believe that we must restore the stature and
importance of the profession of teaching in our communities. There
really is no higher professional calling than teaching and preparing
our children for this new millennium.
These are just a few of the ways Congress can make a real and
positive difference in the education of America's children. Education
savings accounts and school vouchers will not do a thing to improve the
quality of education for America's children except take precious
dollars away from where it's needed the most--America's public schools.
It's not too late--I urge my colleagues to put the dollars where they
are needed most--for educating America's children.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, in a bill this huge, there are obviously
a number of good provisions and a number of provisions that are not so
good. Each of us is called to weigh the good and the bad and to render
our best judgment on the whole.
While this bill does continue funding for a number of important
government programs, I am particularly interested in the assistance to
farmers and ranchers hit hard by the worst year for agriculture in my
lifetime. My district has been devastated by the most severe drought in
103 years. Those who did produce a crop found that they were offered
extremely low prices while their costs of production only continue to
rise. It is essential that we try to do something to offset the effects
of drought and a world market which is neither free nor fair. The
disaster assistance, market loss assistance, and tax provisions will be
a significant help to producers in my district.
I am also very concerned about the state of our defenses, and the
many years of real cuts in spending on our military. There are some
additional resources for defense in this bill, and those are badly
needed. The additional push for missile defense and the extra resources
to compensate for readiness shortfalls are essential. LIkewise, it is
better to appropriate additional funds for the Bosnia operation than it
would be to further reduce our readiness and modernization to pay for
it.
But, as badly as these additional funds for our military and
intelligence efforts are needed, no one should think that this bill
solves all of our problems. We have a serious mismatch between policy
and resources which must be resolved. We also have to make tough
decisions to ensure that the country gets the maximum benefits of each
dollar spent on defense. Those decisions cannot be put off much longer.
There are a number of other provisions in the bill which I favor, yet
I am also very disappointed that there is no broad tax relief contained
in this bill. Families are having a tough time making ends meet all
around the country. We had an opportunity to let them keep more of the
money they earn, but we have not taken advantage of it.
I am also disappointed that we have not done more to address the
severe problems many of my constituents are experiencing with home
health care. This administration has mishandled this issue at every
turn, and innocent people are suffering because of their ineptitude. We
should have done more to remedy the situation.
There are a number of other provisions which I would vote against if
I had the opportunity to vote on each of them. Unfortunately, none of
us has that opportunity. We must vote on the entire, forty pound, four
thousand page document. So, I will reluctantly vote for this bill.
At the same time, I have to express deep regret at this process which
yields a gigantic bill, containing much of the year's work, for a
single up or down vote. While Members know the major provisions in this
bill, none of us has had the opportunity to become familiar with all of
the provisions. That is wrong. It is absolutely essential that we
overhaul the budget and appropriations process to prevent a repeat of
this kind of legislation.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I must reluctantly oppose the omnibus
appropriations bill. I do so with disappointment rather than anger,
because a lot of hard work went into this giant legislation. But what
was necessary to get agreement with the President on this bill
undermines our hard-won commitment to fiscal responsibility and could
threaten the balanced budget.
The omnibus bill increases spending to a level that is not
sustainable in future years unless we abandon the 1997 Balanced Budget
Agreement. There may be arguments for amending the Balanced Budget Act.
We have reached a balanced budget much faster than anticipated and
perhaps we should revisit the agreement. But not in this manner. This
is a backdoor way to avoid the spending limits the President and
Congress agreed to only one year ago.
Mr. Speaker, we must face facts. This bill is spending the surplus.
It is spending the Social Security surplus. This bill will reduce the
1999 surplus by at least $20 billion. The President has been less than
candid with the American people. He has said that he wants to save the

[[Page H11656]]

surplus to save Social Security. What he really means is that he will
save whatever is left of the surplus for Social Security after he gets
all the additional spending he wants for other programs. He will not
use the surplus for tax cuts, perhaps that is the right policy. But he
should own up to the fact that he is spending the surplus on other
Government programs. The amount available to strengthen Social Security
will be reduced by at least $20 billion in this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I know that negotiations between a Republican Congress
and a Democratic President are never easy. There is no way this could
be a perfect bill. I think Chairman Livingston and his subcommittee
chairs have tried to get their work done. We also have to face the fact
that there are real emergencies that require funding--the drought and
income losses facing many American farmers and the damage from
hurricanes and floods that affected areas of the Nation this year.
However, the President has tried to take advantage of these legitimate
emergencies and requested billions more in additional funding for
programs that are important, but are not emergencies and should not be
funded outside the budget agreement.
Putting a bill together to fund the eight remaining appropriations
bills is a tremendous task, but frankly not many tough decisions were
made in this omnibus bill. Instead, what was decided was to spend more
money on everything. The President is the checkout clerk and we are
buying our way out of town. The President clearly had the upper hand.
He knew that it was the end of the session and Congress must adjourn,
so he demanded funding for his priorities that he could not pay for
within the budget agreement Congress was up against the wall, and the
solution was to spend more money on the President's priorities and also
spend more money on congressional priorities. That is no way to govern.
We are setting a bad precedent and setting the stage for more increases
in spending next year and the year after.
Mr. Speaker, I don't deny that much of what is in this bill is
worthwhile. There is increased spending for medical research; for
education; for anti-drug efforts and to improve readiness in our armed
forces. If these things are needed, the President and Congress should
tell the American people they are needed now and that we are going to
use part of the surplus to pay for them. We should reopen the budget
agreement and set new spending caps. But that is not what we are doing.
We are designating $20 billion of this new spending as emergency
spending to get around the budget caps. Thank goodness the surplus is
projected to be at least $80 billion in 1999, because we are spending
$20 billion of it right here.
The President has not told the American people the full story on what
he wants to do with the surplus, but Congress is also to blame by
delaying these eight bills until the end of the session and giving the
President the opportunity to set up the most expensive exit toll in
recent memory.
A better alternative to this omnibus bill would be to pass a
continuing resolution for fiscal year 1999 that fund these programs at
the 1998 levels. We could pass emergency appropriations for the most
pressing needs of the farmers, other natural disasters and possible
Bosnia operations at less than half the cost of the $20 billion in this
bill. If more spending is needed for other priorities such as the year
2000 problem or Bosnia operation, there should be a legitimate effort
to offset that spending with other reductions in lower priority
programs. I helped put together a list of possible offsets. They were
not perfect, but they did offer some options.
we should come back next year and craft a new budget agreement that
saves Social Security, and then recognizes whatever is left of the
revised surplus and uses that for a balanced plan of debt reduction,
spending on other priorities like education, and affordable, fair tax
reductions.
In addition, we should make emergency spending part of the budget and
set aside funds each year for emergencies. A budget reserve account or
rainy day fund is a better way to fund emergencies we know will occur
each year.
This legislation is necessary to fund our government, but let's not
pretend that it is a great victory. It is a bad compromise that relies
totally on the surplus to hide an increase in spending that violates
the budget agreement. It may be necessary to avoid a stalemate that
causes a government shutdown, but it is no great policy victory. We
have taken the first step down the slippery slope back toward
irresponsible spending. I hope we learn a less from this flawed
process, return to sound budget practices and protect the balanced
budget.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4328, the
omnibus appropriations conference report. This will be our last chance
to provide the temporary crop and market loss assistance that our
farmers need so desperately at this time. It is also an opportunity to
make much needed changes to tax policy that will help producers remain
competitive in the long term.
As I am sure you know, farm country is suffering this year. The
conference agreement contains the provisions H.R. 4618, the Agriculture
Disaster and Market Loss Assistance Act of 1998, which is critically
needed at this time.
The upper Midwest is suffering as a result of devastating multi-year
disease problems in their wheat crop. On top of that, their farmers and
ranchers have been severely injured by flood and blizzard in recent
seasons.
A dramatic drop in commodity prices for wheat, corn, livestock and
other commodities have created tremendous economic pressure in farm
country.
The price drops are a result of circumstances beyond farmers and
ranchers control. These circumstances include economic dislocation such
as the economic crisis in Asia and Russia and our own nation's
unilateral trade sanctions.
Farmers also suffer from a failure of the government to pursue trade
opportunities aggressively. The President refused to support passage of
fast-track negotiating authority, a failure that will severely limit
our ability to address trade problems and expand markets throughout the
world.
President Clinton allowed the fiscal year end without utilizing $150
million in Export Enhancement Program funds necessary to protect our
markets from unfair foreign competition. This is another lost
opportunity to sell U.S. commodities.
And the President has done virtually nothing to resolve the ongoing
trade disputes on wheat, cattle and barley with Canada that are of
tremendous importance to our hard-pressed farmers and ranchers.
We also have wide areas of weather-related disaster this year. We
watched all summer as drought conditions and excessive heat in Texas,
Oklahoma, and throughout the South, destroyed crops and burned up
pasture.
Adding insult to injury, a succession of hurricanes and tropical
storms swept through Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida,
North Carolina, and Georgia adding to the crisis for our farmers and
ranchers.
Today, we have the opportunity to enact a fair and responsive package
to help relieve the complex problems in farm country.
This package was developed with the full cooperation and support of
leadership in the House and Senate. Authorizers and appropriators on
both sides of the hill worked together to craft a sound response that
we can all take pride in.
The bill provides a total of $2.575 billion for disaster assistance
and $3.057 for market loss assistance associated with trade
disruptions. This bill will help farmers through this unprecedented
combination of adverse market pressure and weather disaster.
Rather than seizing on the opportunity to create new programs needing
endless funding, all the assistance in this bill is capped and limited
to fiscal year 1998.
We have been fair to producers. This package gives the secretary
broad flexibility to respond to all manner of crop disasters, ongoing
disease problems, and livestock feed losses.
This approach is necessary for a number of reasons. First, since the
growing season is not complete, there is an inability to fully define
the extent and nature of the disaster at this time. Also, as a result
of the intensity of the weather-related and economic distress, this
will expedite the delivery of assistance to producers.
Giving the Secretary maximum flexibility will cut through red tape
and allow assistance in a manner most beneficial to individual
producers.
Finally, the bill takes steps to help improve the long term safety
net for farmers and ranchers through improvements in our tax policy.
The bill expands deduction of health care insurance premiums for self-
employed individuals. This provision, which increases the deduction by
one-third immediately, will help producers lower costs and thus remain
competitive.
The package makes income averaging a permanent part of the tax code
gives farmers and ranchers another tool to smooth out income spikes
that are a part of every farm family's lives.
We have included 5-year net operating loss carryback. This tool works
in reverse to income averaging: farm operators may carryback a net loss
in its operations to prior years--up to five years back--when the
operation paid federal income taxes. Taxpayers may receive a tax refund
using the net operating loss carryback.
We need to press ahead with this conference report as quickly as
possible so that we can deliver much-needed assistance to farmers and
ranchers in dire need this year.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, on October 10, the House passed the Veterans
Programs Enhancement Act of 1998, H.R. 4110. Included as part of title
I of that legislation was a comprehensive resolution of a number of
issues

[[Page H11657]]

concerning Persian Gulf veterans and the government's response to their
health concerns. These provisions were derived from House-passed
legislation (H.R. 3980) and a bill recently passed by the Senate (S.
2358). For the benefit of my colleagues, I am including a detailed
comparison of S. 2358 and the compromise we reached that was included
in H.R. 4110 as amended a week ago Saturday.
The other body has not taken up this compromise because of a dispute
between one of the cosponsors of S. 2358 and the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Instead
of recognizing that the legislative process requires a willingness to
compromise, this particular Senator has insisted that the Committees on
Veterans' Affairs accept the text of S. 2358 without change. Failing to
obtain assent to his demand, this Senator has held up Senate
consideration of H.R. 4110. Further, he has persuaded the authors of
the bill before the House tonight, H.R. 4328, to include the language
of S. 2358 in it.
In an effort to avoid the inevitable passage of legislation which
supersedes the language contained in this omnibus package, H.R. 4328
includes a provision which purports to ``repeal'' inconsistent
provisions of law, including the provisions of H.R. 4110, a bill still
pending before the Senate. It is a creative but ultimately futile
action. It is a well-settled principle of statutory construction that a
later-enacted law supersedes and repeals by implication any
inconsistent provisions contained in existing law, even if those
provisions were enacted only days earlier. Recognizing the dilemma
which he has created by holding up action on H.R. 4110, the author of
this provision attempts to absolve the executive branch from its
responsibility to carry out all laws enacted by the Congress by
declaring that a contrary act ``shall be treated as if never enacted,
and shall have no force or effect.'' The clear intent is to avoid the
effect of a later enactment. However, Congress is powerless to prohibit
itself or a future Congress from changing its position on a particular
issue and proposing a different authority or result. Even if one were
to conclude that Congress presently has two positions on this issue,
the later pronouncement is logically and legally the position which
must be given effect, at least until Congress sees fit to clarify the
matter further by subsequent action. Thus, the provision contained in
this bill, H.R. 4328, is the one which will ``have no force or effect''
if Congress speaks in a contrary fashion on the same subject, and the
President signs the statement into law on a later date.
Mr. Speaker, a casual reader might conclude that the provisions
contained in the bill before the House this evening are so similar to
the provisions contained in H.R. 4110 that the two bills should be read
together and harmonized. However, a more careful reading should lead to
the opposite conclusion. Fundamentally, the provision in H.R. 4328
takes a different view than the compromise in H.R. 4110 about the need
for dispositive action on an issue of grave concern to the American
people and current and past members of the Armed Forces of the United
States.
The view taken by the authors of the provision contained in H.R.
4328, the bill we are now considering, is that Congress should have no
role in deciding the future compensation policy for veterans. Instead,
the provision seems to reflect the author's view that, despite the
absence of any scientific evidence that illnesses experienced by
Persian Gulf veterans are linked to exposure known to have occurred in
the gulf--other than a small number of conditions such as
leishmaniasis--we should leave it to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to evaluate the evidence and arrive at conclusions that are essentially
unreviewable. My colleagues will note the political irony of this
position.
The compromise agreed to by the authors of the amendments to H.R.
4110 as it passed the Hose on October 10 takes a completely different
view that cannot be reconciled with the language in H.R. 4328. We
believe that the Congress has historically had, and should continue to
have, the preeminent role in deciding which diseases or illnesses
should qualify for veterans' disability compensation. Thus, the
language in H.R. 4110 does not vest the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
with authority to create new presumptions that illnesses are service-
connected and thus compensable. Instead, it calls on the Secretary to
review the available scientific evidence and the conclusions of the
National Academy of Sciences and then to recommend to Congress what
action if any should be taken by the Congress to authorize benefits.
The laws authorizing disability benefits for veterans contain dozens of
examples of actions by Congress in which it ``presumed'' that certain
conditions must have been incurred while in military service, so that
the United States has a responsibility to compensate for those
illnesses. That has always been the role of Congress. The language of
H.R. 4110 preserves that role, and cannot be reconciled with the
language before the House today. By the fortune of good timing, the
Congress' role will be preserved if the President signs H.R. 4110 after
he signs this legislation. I urge him to do just that.

A COMPARISON OF S. 2358 AND THE HOUSE-SENATE COMPROMISE CONTAINED IN
H.R. 4110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House-Senate Compromise
S. 2358 Contained in H.R. 4110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Requires National Academy of 1. Similar, but expanded to
Sciences (NAS) to review scientific include review of evidence
evidence of association between between service in the Persian
exposures in Persian Gulf and Gulf and veterans' illnesses.
veterans' illnesses.
2. Extends authority for health care of 2. Same provision.
Persian Gulf veterans through 2001.
3. No comparable provision............. 3. Authorizes VA health care
for veterans of future
conflicts.
4. Requires VA and DOD to plan the 4. Asks NAS to advise whether
creation of a computerized information it is feasible to monitor the
data base to monitor health and effectiveness of VA treatment
service utilization by PGW veterans. of PGW veterans and if it is
feasible, require VA to do so.
5. Requires VA and DOD to report 5. Similar provision.
whether scientific studies recommended
by NAS will be carried out.
6. Requires VA to inform veterans 6. Same provision.
whether their exposure in the PGW
created health risks and the services
and benefits available to respond to
those concerns.
7. Extends and improves VA program to 7. Similar provision.
evaluate the health status of spouses
and children of PGW veterans.
8. Asks NAS whether an independent 8. Similar provision.
entity should be established to
evaluate and monitor government
response to post-deployment health
concerns of members of the Armed
Forces.
9. Following the submission of one of 9. Not included. Instead,
the reports by NAS described in item Secretary to make
1, authorizes the Secretary of VA to recommendations to Congress
award compensation for illnesses found based on NAS report, and
by NAS to be associated with PGW Congress to then decide
exposures. whether compensation should be
authorized.
10. No comparable provision............ 10. Establishes Public Advisory
Committee to provide advice on
government-funded research
into PGW veteran health
concerns.
11. No comparable provision............ 11. Requires NAS to develop a
curriculum for training
physicians and other health
care professionals in
treatment of illnesses of PGW
veterans.
12. Asks NAS to review whether there 12. Same provision.
are proven methods of treatment for
illnesses which affect PGW veterans..
13. Requires outreach to PGW vets on 13. Similar provision.
health-related information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--OMB informally estimates that S. 2358 costs $500 million over
five years and $6 billion over ten years in new entitlement spending.
CBO's estimate is more modest ($40 million over five years and $540
million over ten years). The compromise embodied in H.R. 4110 has no
new entitlement spending.

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the efforts of my
Republican colleagues in insisting that we devote more resources toward
our nation's defense. I am pleased that the omnibus appropriations
measure includes critically needed funds for our service men and women.
A Republican Congress is offering much needed relief for our men and
women in uniform who protect and serve our nation in the Armed
Services. The omnibus appropriations bill has more than $9 billion
worth of emergency spending for crucial defense and intelligence needs.
Included in the $9 billion of the omnibus appropriations Bill is $1
billion for the development of a missile defense system. These funds
will help answer the emerging threat posed to the United States by the
development and deployment of missiles around the world.
Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently
stated to Congress that ``Without relief, we will see a continuation of
our downward trend in readiness next year and an extensions of the
problems that had become apparent in the second half of this fiscal
year.''
Mr. Speaker, we must address the deterioration of our military
readiness. The provisions our Republican leadership insisted on in
budget negotiations are an important first step.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide additional
background information on Congress' intent and understanding regarding
section IX of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
provisions which may be cited as the ``Women's Health and Cancer Rights
Act of 1998.''
Title IX of this legislation contains the ``Women's Health and Cancer
Rights Act of 1998.'' This legislation, which requires coverage for
reconstructive surgery following mastectomies, creates two new Sections
in the Public Health Service Act--section 2706 which applies the
requirement to health insurance issuers providing insurance coverage in
connection with group health plans; and section 2752 which applies the
same requirement to health insurance coverage offered by a

[[Page H11658]]

health insurance issuer in the individual market.
Section 2706 requires a health insurance insurer providing health
insurance coverage in connection with a group health plan, that
provides medical and surgical benefits with respect to a mastectomy to
include in their scope of coverage: (1) all stages of reconstruction of
the breast on which the mastectomy has been performed; (2) surgery and
reconstruction of the breast to produce a symmetrical appearance; and
(3) prostheses and physical complication of mastectomy, including
lymphedemas, in a manner determined under the terms of the plan or
health insurance coverage in consultation with the attending physician
and patient.
Section 2752 requires a health insurance insurer in the individual
market that provides medical and surgical benefits with respect to a
mastectomy to include in their scope of coverage: (1) all stages of
reconstruction of the breast on which the mastectomy has been
performed; (2) surgery and reconstruction of the breast to produce a
symmetrical appearance; and (3) prostheses and physical complications
of mastectomy, including lymphedemas, in a manner determined under the
terms of the plan or health insurance coverage in consultation with the
attending physician and patient.
Additionally, since the act is effective with respect to plan years
beginning on or after the date of enactment, it is expected that the
Departments administering the act shall follow procedures under which
no enforcement action will be taken with respect to a violation of a
requirement imposed by the act on a plan or health insurance issuer
before the date of issuance of final regulations, if the plan or health
insurance insurers has sought to comply with the act in good faith.
It is also the congressional intent that the agencies involved in
issuing regulations will follow the same procedures under HIPPA as
found in section 104 of the act.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce my strong support
for the Home Health provisions contained in H.R. 4328, the Medicare
Home Health Care and Veteran Health Care Improvement Act.
First, I would like to extend thanks to Chairmen Thomas, Bliley,
Archer, and Bilirakis and their staffs for their hard work and
countless hours spent crafting this legislation.
Second, I would like to say how pleased I am to see that the 15
percent home health reduction scheduled for October 1, 1999, has been
moved back a year.
When I wrote my bill, H.r. 4404, the HERO Act, I also made sure to
address this problem. I know that without the delay of this draconian
provision, the entire industry would likely go bankrupt. This delay now
can give HCFA the necessary time to install an efficient prospective
payment system.
Also, I would like to commend Chairman Thomas on his willingness to
stick to his guns on this issue and help the low cost states while at
the same time not harming high cost states like mine. His per
beneficiary formula does a commendable job in balancing the vast
differences in the cost structures of different regions.
At the same time H.R. 4328 gives all regions a slight boost in the
per visit formula. This is especially important to those who represent
rural areas like myself.
Finally, I would like to thank members from both sides of the aisle
who have worked tirelessly on this subject, especially Congressmen
Rahall, Aderholt, Coburn, Pappas, Sanders, Stabenow, and Weygand. If
not for their hard work and perseverance, we would not even have this
bill before us today.
I do feel that our work is not yet finished for home health. There
are many areas still in need of improvement, but this bill clearly
takes us in the right direction.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to speak on behalf of this bill, which sets the funding for
almost half of the federal government programs and institutions for the
next fiscal year.
For myself and my Democratic colleagues, this is a bittersweet day.
While I applaud the efforts my colleagues here in the House and in the
Senate put forth to get this deal done, the bill leaves a lot to be
desired. Many programs that my constituents have grown to rely on have
been unmercifully cut, and others, unceremoniously dumped. At the same
time, many important Democratic initiatives, like the Patients Bill of
Rights and campaign finance reform, were put off for another year.
Having said that, I applaud the efforts of the President and the
Democratic Caucus to put 100,000 new teachers in our classrooms.
Although this bill only presents a first step towards that goal, as it
only provides for two new teachers for each school district--it is a
much-needed first step that must be followed up with funding by
Congress over the next couple of years so we can realize the benefits
of this initiative.
Teachers are a much-needed resource, one that we ought to rely upon
to help us grow productive new citizens. We cannot expect to grow as a
society without good teachers to prepare our next generation for their
difficult road ahead. I hope that these funds can be used to recruit
new teachers that are skilled in the areas of math, science, and
engineering--where we need the most help. Furthermore, I hope that the
new teachers that we are able to bring aboard are ready to help prepare
our children for the information age, and teach them the basic computer
skills that all of our children need to progress in the future.
I am also happy to that the final budget contains $871 million in
funding for the Summer Jobs Program. That program provides valuable
employment services for over half a million disadvantaged youth, 41,000
of whom live in the State of Texas, and 5,000 of whom are from my home
town of Houston. In fact, this program provides over 20% of all the
jobs that African-American youth aged 16 or 17 hold nationwide. It also
provides a slightly lower percentage (13%) of all the jobs held by
Hispanic children in that same age group. However, I want to emphasize
that Summer Jobs is a program that serves all of our youth, and I am
happy to see that it is funded appropriately.
As the founder and Chair of the Congressional Childrens Caucus, I am
also happy to report that this bill contains funding for other
important programs aimed at helping our youth. Representative Porter
and I worked together to find an additional $5 million in funding to
raise the amount for the Children's Mental Health Services Program from
$73-$78 million. Goals 2000, which does tremendous work in my district,
is set to receive $491 million under this bill, up $245 million from
the amount originally set by the House Appropriations Committee. Head
Start, another successful program, has received $160 million more under
the final version of this bill, in relation to the version authored by
the majority. Two other important programs, GEAR-UP and American Reads,
which were nullified by the original version of the Labor-HHS bill,
have been vindicated to the tune of a combined $1.46 billion. I am also
happy to see the enactment of $524 million Hispanic Education Action
Plan, which aims to decrease the high-school dropout rate amongst the
Hispanic population, which is far too high. I am glad to see these
amounts, because I know that this investment in our future, will pay
high dividends.
I would also like to comment on the fact that we were not able to get
the much-needed funds that would have been used for school
modernization projects. Across the country, too many schools are
beginning to show their age. They have leaky roofs and creaky floors.
Other schools have grown too quickly, and now must conduct class in
rooms that are not really classrooms--they are ``portables,'' or even
worse, multi-purpose rooms partitioned into pseudo-classrooms. In my
district, there are schools that carry rotating lunch schedules simply
because they do not have the space to let all of the children eat at
lunchtime. I hope that next year, we can help remedy this directly, and
return our national school system to the pinnacle of excellence that it
has enjoyed in the past.
I am thankful that we here in the House and the administration could
come to terms on the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Under this
budget, we will be able to help stabilize the global economy that we
are truly a part of. Just yesterday, we passed a House resolution that
expressed our concerns about what our neighbors and trading partners
have been doing to help them stay afloat during these turbulent times.
That resolution was necessitated, not because of their plight, but
because of the effects here at home. If we need another reminder, we
only need to look at the stock market in the last few months, where we
have seen a virtual roller-coaster ride develop in response to
pronouncements made by our partners abroad. I hope that these funds
will help start the healing that needs to happen to get ourselves and
our allies back on the right track.
I would also like to note that this final budget fully funds
President Clinton's Child Labor Initiative. This initiative includes a
tenfold increase, from $3 million to $30 million, in our commitment to
the International Program for the Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC) and
includes a provision that works to make sure that our migrant youth are
not taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers. I gladly endorse both
of these plans, because the attempt to make sure that all children have
the opportunity to be children, and are not forced to grow up before
their time.

I am grateful that we were able to put together a $6 billion
emergency spending package of farmers. In my home State of Texas, we
have suffered a long and arduous drought that threatens the livelihoods
of many farmers that have sown their fields for generations. This bill
may not make them whole again, only the good graces of God and a wet
winter can do that, but I think it will help them ride out this
terrible weather.

[[Page H11659]]

Another program that has helped Texans ride out the horrible weather
is the Low-Income Housing and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which
is funded at $1.1 billion under this bill. That program truly proved
its worth this summer in Harris County, Texas, when it provided $2.9
million for the purchase of air conditioners and fans for families
desperately needing relief from the unrelenting heat. That summer heat
claimed the lives of several people in the State of Texas this year,
and who knows how many more it would have claimed without LIHEAP.
Needless to say, I am very grateful that LIHEAP will be here for
another year as a result of this bill.
Also of note, as a result of the bargain struck by the
administration, we will continue to make progress towards an improved
census until June of next year. Under the budget, the Bureau of the
Census is allowed to continue their important work through June 15 of
next year. I am relieved to know that during that time, the Bureau will
be able to work using the same modern methods that are used throughout
academic and private sectors--and I look forward to fighting for the
use of sampling next session, when we engage in the debate over the use
of modern science again. I look even more forward to a time when I can
go home to my district and tell each of my constituents that we, here
in Congress, pay as much attention to them as we do any other person,
no matter where they live or no matter how much they make.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, the conference report on H.R. 4328, the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
includes a number of revenue and Medicare provisions contained in other
legislation considered by the Committee on Ways and Means and recently
passed by the House.
Specifically, it includes items from H.R. 4738, a bill to extend
certain expiring provisions and provide tax relief for farmers and
small businesses, as well as H.R. 4567, the Medicare Home Health Care
Interim Payment System Refinement Act.
The tax plan included in the bill does three principal things. it
extends a series of tax relief provisions to help businesses create
jobs, it helps people coming off welfare as well as other hard-to-place
workers to get jobs, and it includes three emergency provisions to help
farmers and ranchers who have been hit by tough times so those farmers
and ranchers can keep their jobs.
This plan gives farmers and other small business owners a 100 percent
deduction for their health insurance costs in 2003--4 years earlier
than under current law--and increases the deduction to 60 percent in
1999 through 2001, and to 70 percent in 2002.
I'm particularly pleased about three provisions dealing directly with
the farm emergency. One provision lets farmers benefit from permanent
income averaging. Another extends the net operating loss carryback
period for farmer losses, providing immediate help this year when it is
needed the most. The third item protects farmers from having to pay tax
on farm program payments until the year in which those payments are
actually received.
Due to the importance of this non-controversial package, the time
sensitive nature of these proposals, and the unlikely prospect for
separate action in the other body, I did not object to its inclusion in
the omnibus bill. However, I want to make clear that this is a unique
situation. I do not intend to permit consideration of tax proposals in
this way in the future. While the outcome was necessary for the
Congress to conclude its business, the process was clearly lacking. If
nothing else, this experience has confirmed my longstanding belief that
the proper method of dealing with tax and appropriations matters is in
separate legislation originating from the respective committees of
jurisdiction, following regular order. I'm confident that all involved
with this legislation intend to return to that in the future.
With respect to Medicare, the Omnibus bill contains the provisions of
H.R. 4567, the Medicare Home Health Care Interim Payment System
Refinement Act of 1998, along with a revenue offset.
This legislation is necessary to deal with the situation created by
the administration's failure to implement the Medicare home health care
prospective payment system on time. As a result, the Health Care
Financing Administration is operating under an interim payment system
for longer than was intended. The current system is simply
unsatisfactory and causing real hardship for our nation's seniors and
in the home health industry. Due to the time sensitive nature of the
home health problem, I did not object to its inclusion in the omnibus
bill.
Let me compliment Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Bill
thomas for his tireless efforts to reach a solution to a most difficult
situation that is both fair and equitable. I also thank our colleagues
on the Commerce and Senate Finance Committees for bringing about this
solution. The home health legislation enjoys bipartisan support in the
Congress, and has been agreed to by the administration, and should
become law.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4328,
the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. While there are a
number of laudable items in this product, I am very concerned that we
are cutting $20.8 billion or nearly one-third of our budget surplus to
pay for it. The budget surplus should be dedicated to preserving the
Social Security trust fund, not padding the Pentagon with $9 billion in
extraneous spending that it did not request. A throughtful budget
process would have allowed us to fund these programs within our
spending caps.
Despite the egregious process and irresponsible budgeting that went
into this bill, there are a number of important programs funded in it.
My district will receive much needed transportation dollars to fund the
continued improvements of the Mousetrap and Broadway Viaduct as well as
money to build an annex to the Denver federal courthouse. It will
receive money for important medical research at both the Colorado
Health Sciences Center and National Jewish Medical Research Center. I
am also encouraged to see the Congress making an important downpayment
to hire 100,000 new teachers in our nation's secondary and elementary
schools. I am, however, disappointed that the bill failed to include
what I believe is an even more important effort in education--
modernizing our schools. I am pleased that the looming Y2K crisis is
finally being addressed by the Congress in this bill and after
initially being cut by the Republicans, that the Low Income Housing
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) was fully funded.
But it is no surprise that in a 4,000 page, forty pound bill that
there are some good items. Yet I cannot defend violating our budget
agreements of last year and raiding the surplus to pay for last minute
political handouts or pork programs. We made a commitment to our
seniors to dedicate the budget surplus to preserve the Social Security
trust fund. This bill breaks that commitment.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, H. Res.
605, for consideration of the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal
year 1999. About a year ago, Congress passed a new law to balance the
Federal budget for the first time in 30 years. Combined with earlier
deficit reduction efforts and a strong economy, the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997 yielded the first budget surplus in 30 years. Unfortunately,
that progress may well be stopped cold by the passage of a highway bill
and now the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999 and, in
particular, the emergency supplemental appropriations portion of the
bill. Both are similar in that they are loaded with pork-barrel
spending projects and rushed to passage by the House leadership bereft
of other accomplishments and eager to adjourn for the year.
I want to note that even though our economy is fundamentally sound
and there is a $70 billion budget surplus, we are still running a $5.5
trillion debt that forces us to pay nearly $250 billion per year in
interest. We should be using most, if not all, of the surplus to pay
down that debt. It is shameful that in a year in which Congress has
failed to address many critical issues, including, until now, the world
financial crisis, financial modernization here at home, and protection
for patients in managed care plans, the only significant legislation
that will pass represents a return to the fiscally irresponsible
practices that for so long undermined our economy and public confidence
in government.
I support the general appropriations portions of this bill.
Increasing spending on the National Institutes of Health, education,
Head Start, college loans and grants, as well as the long-overdue
recapitalization of the IMF, are commendable and indeed critical to our
economic health and are offset within the limits of the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997. But, the abuse of the emergency spending process and the
amount of pork barrel spending are deplorable. No hard choices were
made in this budget. The only thing we did was say no to an outrageous
tax cut, which would have mortgaged our economic future.
I support the concept and use of emergency spending outside the
spending caps, but only for true emergencies. There can be little
question in this instance that the emergency supplemental
appropriations process was abused and loaded with billions of dollars
of spending which do not meet the true test of an ``emergency.'' Yes,
there are legitimate emergencies, including agriculture relief and
defense readiness. Embassy safety is an emergency. Natural disasters
are emergencies.
But pure pork barrel spending is not an emergency. Our troops in
Bosnia must be funded, but after 3 years, it is getting on a little
long for annual operations in Bosnia to be considered an emergency. New
cargo planes or a carrier helicopter the Pentagon did not ask for is
not an emergency. One billion more for the strategic defense initiative
(SDI), already funded in fiscal year 1999 Defense bill, is not an
emergency. Categorizing any spending as `emergency' spending permits
the Congress to escape from making hard choices: do

[[Page H11660]]

we want to invest in health care or provide tax relief? Do we want more
teachers in our classrooms or more money for roads? The Congress will
never have to make those choices, which is to say, we will never have
to govern.
While the underlying annual appropriations bills are generally good
and contain offsets to meet the spending caps, the process by which we
are considering this bill may well set a dangerous precedent for using
emergency spending as a vehicle to circumvent the budget caps. We may
soon regret this. Thus I must oppose this rule. A better way would be
to vote separately on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill
containing the emergency spending.
I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have learned
a lesson. When you govern, you can't forfeit the business of government
to the right wing. The Democrats governed from 1974 to 1994 without
once failing to pass a budget resolution and allowing the budget
process to be hijacked by a committee other than the Budget and
Appropriations Committee. Maybe the majority does not care if
government fails. But the American people don't want government to fail
and that is why, in the future, we should act more responsibly during
the budget process.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this ``must-pass''
legislation. This bill provides critically needed funding for health
care, education, medical research, law enforcement, transportation, and
other top priorities.
As is inevitable with any bill that is several thousand pages long,
this legislation is not perfect. I regret that the Republican
congressional leadership so mishandled the budget and appropriations
process this year that such a massive bill was necessary. I would
merely note that this is the first year since the Budget Act was passed
in 1974 that Congress has failed to pass a budget resolution. I think
that that is a very sad commentary indeed on the leadership--or lack
thereof--in the House and Senate this year.
This is not the first year, of course, in which an omnibus bill has
been passed. It has often been the case that the most contentious
spending issues cannot be resolved until the end of a session, and that
the only way that a resolution can be achieved is through a massive
bill in which parties compromise and trade off concessions in one
account for gains in another. That is, after all, one of the defining
characteristics of a democratic form of government. In such cases,
legislators must look at the bill in its totality and determine
whether, on the whole, it merits their support.
In this case, I have decided that the many positive aspects of the
bill outweigh its negatives. I will support it when the House votes on
it today, and then, next year, I will work to change any provisions
with which I do not agree. That, too, is a hallmark of the democratic
form of government.
I am pleased by many of the provisions contained in the bill.
A number of important funding increases are included for federal
education programs. The bill includes $1.2 billion to begin carrying
out the President's plan of hiring 100,000 more teachers across the
country. By hiring these teachers, we can reduce class sizes in first
through third grades, where studies have shown that class size has a
dramatic impact on learning. The bill also includes the $313 million
increase in Head Start that the President requested. School-to-Work
programs are increased by $25 million, and the Summer Youth Employment
program, which introduces many young people to the world of work, is
funded at $871 million--last year's level--despite Republican efforts
to eliminate it. Finally, the bill increases the size of the maximum
annual Pell Grant, which helps to make higher education more affordable
for all Americans.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which
provides much-needed help to low-income households in paying their
utility bills, will receive $1.1 billion, the same level as last year--
despite Republican efforts to eliminate this important program.
Also in this bill, the National Institutes of Health, which fund
life-saving medical research, by nearly $2 billion in 1998.
The bill includes $1.4 billion for community policing and $283
million for implementation of the Violence Against Women Act, as well
as an increase of $111 million for anti-drug programs.
This legislation also reauthorizes the three Trade Adjustment
Assistance programs through June 30, 1999. I have been a consistent and
long-standing supporter of these important programs.
In addition, the bill will accelerate the schedule for making health
insurance premiums for self-employed individuals 100 percent
deductible. Under this bill, 60 percent of such expenses will be
deductible for 1999 through 2001, 70 percent will be deductible in
2002, and 100 percent will be deductible in 2003 and thereafter. Under
current law, these expenses would not have been deductible until the
year 2007.
I am, however, concerned that certain provisions were included in
this legislation.
This Congress has failed the 55,000 critically ill patients waiting
for organ transplants. Because of a legislative rider attached to this
bill in violation of House rules, many of those people will have to
wait longer for transplants. They will not have the security of knowing
that UNOS, the independent contractor we pay to run the transplant
system, is being held to any performance standards. Reliable estimates
indicate that during the year of delay caused by this rider, over 200
people who could have been saved will die waiting for transplants.
In the current system, patients wait an average of 2 years in some
parts of the country and 2 months in others. Wealthy patients, who can
afford to travel to multiple centers to get on their waiting lists, are
more likely to get transplants than poor patients. In addition,
minority patients, who often require a larger donor pool to get a
match, are seriously disadvantaged by a locally-based system.
Transplant patients deserve better. They deserve a system in which
every patient has a fair chance to receive a life-saving organ
transplant.
After years of study in which input was solicited from patients,
medical experts, and the transplant community, the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) issued regulations requiring UNOS to equalize
waiting times by region and meet other basic performance standards.
Their decision was supported by the largest transplant patient
association. It was also endorsed by many respected, impartial
observers, including the editorial boards of the New York Times, the
Washington Post, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and most other major
newspapers.
Instead of working with patient groups and HHS to design a better
system, UNOS launched what HHS Secretary Donna Shalala called ``a
misleading lobbying campaign,'' which they financed using the money
sick patients pay to be on the organ transplant waiting list. I regret
that their campaign was successful. This omnibus appropriations bill
includes a legislative rider blocking HHS from implementing the new
regulations--in blatant disregard of the public good and blocking a
regulation which would have saved hundreds of lives. I strongly oppose
this decision, and I will work to correct this mistake early next year.
I also have concerns about another health care issue. While Congress
has included changes in the interim payment system (IPS) for home
health care in this bill, it has failed to solve the serious problems
with the IPS. This April, I joined several of my colleagues in
introducing a bipartisan bill which would have corrected this formula.
The bill, which has over 100 cosponsors, would have raised payments by
an average of $1,000 per patient for home health agencies in my
district--preserving access and quality of care for the Medicare
recipients who depend on the program's home health care services. The
relief provided to efficient home care agencies in this appropriations
bill amounts to significantly less than that. Negotiators also failed
to make the relief retroactive, something I supported in our bill and
again in the Ways and Means Committee.
Democrats wanted to do more for home health care and the seniors who
depend on it. During the final negotiations on this bill, the
administration and Congressional Democrats proposed offsets for a more
comprehensive relief package for home care. Their proposal was rejected
by Republican leaders.
While I am disappointed that we were not able to do more, this
package does provide some relief for efficient home health care
agencies. Even more important, it delays an upcoming 15-percent across-
the-board cut, a cut many home care agencies in Pennsylvania told me
they could not survive. I believe that the package included in this
bill is less than we could have done and less than we should do. But I
will support it because I believe it is the best that can be enacted at
this time. I plan to continue working to fix the IPS in the 106th
Congress.
In conclusion, let me just reiterate that no one will be completely
satisfied with this bill. But, on the whole, I believe that this is the
best compromise that can be achieved at this time, and I intend to
support when the House votes on it in a few minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
conference agreement. Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it
has some very important provisions. I applaud the $1.2 billion
downpayment for hiring 100,000 new teachers. This bill begins the task
of reducing class size in the early grades to a national average of 18.
This provision will help ensure that students receive more individual
attention, build a solid foundation in the basics, and help maintain an
orderly learning environment in the classroom. This initiative is
especially important because the children of the baby boom generation
are creating a demographic echo in the classroom. We need new teachers
to relieve the crowding and provide the attention each student needs.

[[Page H11661]]

I regret that the President's school modernization proposal is not in
the bill. This initiative could have leveraged $22 billion in bonds to
build and renovate schools, which is sorely needed all over this
country.
However, there are many other important education programs funded in
this bill, including child literacy, after-school programs, college
mentoring for middle school children, funds for education technology
and teacher recruitment, Head Start, and charter schools.
Many of the most onerous provisions that had been in the individual
appropriations bills have been deleted, including the many, but not
all, of the anti-environmental protection riders in the Interior bill.
But the bill provides critical funding for clean water, protecting
endangered species, and fighting global warming.
The omnibus bill includes major increases in health and science
research, with a 7-percent increase for the National Science
Foundation, and a 14-percent increase in funding for the National
Institute of Health to support greater research on diabetes, cancer,
and the development of an AIDS vaccine. The bill's increased funding
for the Centers for Disease Control will help us fight infectious
disease, and improve prevention of leading killers like heart disease
and diabetes.
Other important provisions include: a 10-fold increase in this
country's commitment to fight abusive child labor by increasing the
U.S. contribution to the International Programme for the Elimination of
Child Labor; funding for 17,000 additional Community Oriented Police
Services (COPS) police officers; and $79 million to expand food safety.
Finally, I am very pleased that funding was provided for the
International Monetary Fund. This funding is essential to avoid letting
the Asian financial crisis create a major recession here in the United
States.
The bill has some flaws, but I think we got a good agreement, and I
urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise, albeit reluctantly, to support H.R.
4328, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999.
I use the term reluctantly advisedly, since this bill contains many
flaws. I will leave to others, at another time and in another place to
judge the strategy that has brought us to this legislative and
budgetary circumstance. For myself, I will only say that the bill
raises profound concerns.
This bill contains within it the Labor-HHS bill--a bill that was
considered by neither house of Congress. Surely, this failure is
repugnant to the values of representative government imbedded in our
Constitution, and should never be allowed to happen again;
The bill is expensive--very expensive, and make no mistake, its out-
year impact on the budget will be profound;
This bill contains numerous authorizations, including major tax
legislation and significant changes to social and other programs. Some
of these provisions are fully conferenced, some passed only one house
and some have never seen the light of day in either house. Again, a
massive breach of our legislative responsibilities;
While we have increased funding for education, inevitably we also
have increased the Federal role, a very troubling turn of events;
Staff is important, and we could not operate without them. However,
in the end there are only 435 of us who run this place and in these
large bills, the extraordinary volume of material and the highly
compressed time schedules means staff plays far too great a role. There
may be a few people who understand fully what is in this massive bill,
but I doubt that among them are many Representatives elected by the
people.
Most importantly, this huge spending and legislative package is the
result of tolerance of a failed budgetary process. Not only was there
no budget resolution adopted by the Congress this year, we were once
again delayed by months by the budget process in starting
appropriations mark-ups. The Budget Committee should either be
abolished or, at least, should be made to do their work on time.
Appropriators, next year, should proceed to mark-up on April 16 whether
we have a budget resolution or not. Perhaps the threat of our
proceeding will move the budgeteers to work more diligently.
Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I still support the bill. First
because defeating it would not make it better and second, as in many
human endeavors, this bill contains many good provisions.
We have provided over a $2 billion increase for biomedical research--
the first stop toward doubling NIH in 5 years. This level will
accelerate the truly breathtaking advances in treatments and cures for
diseases that plague humankind. Let me pause here to stress something
about which I feel most strongly: Funding NIH is not an act that
benefits one segment of society--not an economic group, not a racial
group, not a group of institutions. Disease, it is said, knows no
racial, no economic, no geographic boundaries. Successful treatments
and cures of diseases that have been the scourge of humanity for
centuries benefits us all.
The bill increases funding for other important programs such as Job
Corps, Community Health Centers, CDC, drug treatment, youth violence
prevention, impact aid, special education, and higher education.
Reforms that are important to many members are in the conference
report. These include: Expanded Hyde language; a ban on Federal funding
for needle exchange programs; the ergonomics study included in the
House reported bill; an additional 1 year moratorium on regulations
relating to organ procurements; a requirement that title X clinics
report cases of rape or incest; and a ban on the administration's
voluntary national test, including pilot testing.
As I indicated at the outset, this is a flawed document. However,
given the circumstances in which we found ourselves as negotiators, it
is the best we could do. I support it and urge my colleagues to do
likewise.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in bittersweet support of this
colossal final budget package. This omnibus appropriations measure
funds a total of $486.7 billion for fiscal year 1999. This represents
the largest single legislative measure in recent history, compiling
almost 8,000 pages of text and incorporating eight regular
appropriations bills. over the past 2 weeks of budget negotiations that
resulted from Democrats' insistence and pressure, this bill is a
success in achieving some victories for the American people. These
victories include the down payment in 1999 for a 100,000 teacher
initiative that will reduce class size; increased funding for such
programs as Head Start and After-School Learning Programs; increased
investment for the EPA to achieve a cleaner environment; much needed
emergency assistance to farmers; funds for the International Monetary
Fund (IMF); and $475 million in U.S. debt payments to the United
Nations, unfortunately with strings attached. This bill has provisions
which move people from welfare to work and empowers communities,
advances a strong health and technology research agenda and improves
the public health of Minnesota and America. Despite these
accomplishments, much work remains. In this bill, the GOP majority has
demonstrated an overall record of failure and missed opportunities.
This process has not accorded debate or public awareness of our
decisions and the impact of this action.
I am pleased to see that this omnibus bill alleviates some of the
problems within the original Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill.
The Republican majority had proposed eliminating important programs
which would have shortchanged the most needy and most vulnerable of our
Nation's citizens. This version assists millions of America's families
with the reallocation of funding for LIHEAP, provides money for crucial
education programs and reinstates funding for the summer youth jobs
program.
Our public schools face enormous challenges in the next several
years, including record high numbers of students, increasing
proportions of students with disabilities, billions of dollars in unmet
infrastructure needs and the challenge of making education technology
available to all students. While there is still much work to be done,
this omnibus bill provides funding for critical programs in this fiscal
year which will allow school districts to address these challenges.
Most importantly, the measure provides funds to reduce average class
size and the first wave of 100,000 new teachers, a major step in our
work to increase student achievement and improve classroom discipline
in grades first, second, and third. These years are critical when basic
skills such as reading are attained which we take with us for the rest
of our lives.
I also support this measure's funding for the Low-Income Housing
Energy Assistance program, or LIHEAP. In the wake of tornadoes, floods,
hurricanes, and other natural disasters, the Republican leadership had
seized upon an opportunity to create a battle between underserved
populations. The original Labor-HHS-Education bill justified taking
money out of LIHEAP to pay for an increase in our Nation's medical
research program. While I understand the importance of advancements in
medical research, robbing Peter to pay Paul would not have alleviated
the long-term health, nutrition, and safety problems caused by placing
low-income individuals in between a rock and a hard place, forcing them
to decide whether to heat, eat, or go without health care. Fortunately,
this Omnibus Appropriations bill reflects a more responsible
congressional commitment toward the struggles of low-income individuals
tempered by a strong democratic administration backed up by the
Democrats in Congress. It is my hope that we can strengthen this
commitment in the 106th Congress by funding LIHEAP in a manner that
reflects the changing economy and adjustments for inflation. I urge my
colleagues to continue to express their commitment to a more preventive
approach to meeting the needs of underserved populations. While this
measure provides smaller

[[Page H11662]]

classroom size numbers, it does not provide the decent classrooms that
are the focal point of learning. Our commitment should match the needs
and our rhetoric about the importance of education.
This agreement allocates an additional $15 million for the Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund, bringing it closer to the
President's request, but only to $95 million. This increase will help
the Fund serve more CDFI's and banks in communities around the country.
Other positive funds for housing and community development includes $10
million in additional funds for HOPWA (Housing for Persons with AIDS)
and $45 million additional funds for new empowerment zones and
enterprise communities.
Furthermore, this conference agreement will provide for a 6-month
extension of Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code for family farmers. As
this Chapter expired at the end of September, its extension is crucial
for our farmers who are struggling in a difficult world economy.
I am also very supportive of the inclusion to provide close to the
President's request of $18 billion in funding authority that will
finally recognize our obligations and responsibilities to replenish the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). This credit is vital to serve and
replenish the IMF funding base which has been severely depleted the
financial crises in Mexico, Asia, Russia, and now spreading to South
American countries. I and other members of the House Banking Committee
fought for several reforms which were incorporated into the bill which
include: the disclosure of IMF decision documents, encouraging the
involvement of the private sector creditors in troubled countries and
improving the input the IMF receives from the international community.
Clearly, in the future this Congress and others will be examining the
global financial architecture and its safety nets such as the IMF and
the World Bank. The immediate concern, however, was to replenish the
coffers of the IMF so that we can address the serious global economic
turmoil right now. This funding will ultimately benefit American
workers, businesses and farmers by protecting and bolstering our global
economic strength.

Moreover, I am pleased that the GOP dropped its restrictive language
aimed at foreign organizations who receive family planning assistance
from using their own funds to seek to change laws in their own
respective country. This important funding for preventive family
planning leads to a decrease in unintended pregnancies, a decrease in
maternal deaths, and a decrease in abortion.
While this GOP-led Congress has consistently attacked our Earth's
natural resources, this agreement does invest in the end help move
toward a cleaner environment. H.R. 4328 includes important new
investments to protect national parks and forests, restore endangered
species, and develop clean energy technologies. Specifically, this
measure provides for $1.7 billion for the President's Clean Water Act
Plan, $325 million to preserve precious public lands, a 23-percent
increase to protect threatened endangered species and funds more than
$1 billion, a 25-percent increase, to fight global warming. However,
much environmental work still remains for the future because the
Republican majority's indifference to reauthorizing and freeing the
Superfund cleanup programs. The President called for a 40-percent
increase to accelerate Superfund cleanups. While I strongly supported
this initiative, the GOP simply refused these funds, threatening to
delay cleanup at up to 171 sites in Minnesota and across the country.
This is simply wrong. We must correct this as we move into the future.
In addition to the eight appropriations bills incorporated into this
omnibus package, H.R. 4328 also provides an additional $20.8 billion in
supplemental funds. It is no surprise that the largest category of
supplemental funds is for the Pentagon. While I support additional
funds for Bosnia peace operations and military readiness, the GOP's
insistence on increasing defense spending by $6.8 billion are on top of
the $271 billion already appropriated earlier this year which was
filled with projects of questionable value. This seems to be important
due to the fact of the district and State in which they were built.
Importantly for Minnesota, this agreement includes my legislation
that designates a U.S. Post Office in my district of downtown St. Paul
the ``Eugene J. McCarthy Post Office Building.'' This bill passed the
House in February of this year. I am proud that this historic
Minnesotan will receive the honor and respect he has earned for his
years of service to Minnesota and our Nation. In addition, an important
provision was included for intermodal transportation improvements for
the Minnesota Science Museum located in St. Paul. This will facilitate
the utilization of resources that Congress has previously authorized.
Overall, this massive Appropriations agreement is a victory for the
American people. This is pragmatically based upon the make up of this
Congress. I would like this bill without the add-on changes. However,
getting this bill passed held up Congress at a price. We have often
ducked the serious long-term problems and expended on questionable
policy. I have many concerns regarding the policy path to this success.
This GOP-led majority has spent the first 9 months of 1998
investigating rather than legislating. For the first time in almost 30
years, we have no budget. The Republican leadership has turned its back
on the American people in not addressing school construction
initiatives, providing a real Health Patients Bill of Rights to deal
with the HMO's, failing to make reforms to our campaign finance system,
and ignoring our child by killing tobacco reform and settlement
measures to reduce teen smoking. Thankfully, we were able to resist the
damage to the Social Security Insurance program. This bill is not
governing. This is the failure to govern. I think this points out the
failure of the GOP-led House and Senate Congress. No longer have we
passed separate policy and spending bills. Rather, all is crammed into
one massive omnibus bill. Separate policy and spending measures passed
neither the House nor the Senate. These spending measures were not even
debated on the floor to Congress.
This Congress for the past 4 years has been bogged down with 50
investigations, 35 of which are still going on. Instead of investing in
our people, the Republican majority has chosen to investigate their
political opponents. It is the new cottage industry. The results of the
Republican leadership's conduct is why we are where we are today. This
is wrong and the people's agenda has suffered. It is my hope that the
106th Congress can get back to addressing the real business of the
American people.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, when I watched the 104th
Congress--the partisanship and the petty games--I was sickened.
I was frustrated by the willingness of a Congress to shut down the
entire Federal Government for political gain; and I was frustrated by
the proliferation of environmental riders that were attached to
spending bills; and I was frustrated by the attacks of that Congress on
public education.
Mr. Speaker, we started this Congress on a different note. I am proud
of the bipartisan balanced budget that we passed last year, and I had
hoped that we could do that again this year.
However, I am deeply disappointed by the process that has been
provided for the consideration of this bill. We will vote shortly on a
bill to fund over half of the Federal Government. It combines 8 funding
bills into 1, and is over 4,000 pages long.
And it is a bill that few people, if anyone, has read entirely. In
fact, most Members have been granted only a brief glimpse at the text
and have gained most of their information second hand.
And we're at this point because this Congress failed to draft a
budget document and to pass the customary 13 appropriations bills.
But while the process has been fundamentally flawed, I will support
the passage of this bill today.
To my constituents, it is critical that we maintain the operations of
the Federal Government; * * * that we keep channeling the money to our
schools, to our farmers, to health care research, and to building
transportation systems.
And there are some positive aspects to this bill:
It finally provides the funding for 100 thousand new public school
teachers that we've been fighting for throughout the last two years; it
expands after-school programs, Head Start, Summer Jobs, and it funds a
substantial increase in the maximum Pell grant award; and it provides
the funds to put an additional 17,000 police officers on the streets.
Despite shortcomings in this bill and the flawed process of the past
few weeks, I think it's critical that we vote today to make this
funding available.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the bizarre process forced upon us by the
House's failure to complete its work on time has produced an adequate
legislative product in the form of the omnibus appropriations bill. If
but a fraction of the time, energy and resources devoted to political
investigations went instead toward passing legislation, the 105th
Congress might have compiled a substantial record of achievement.
Many of the ill-advised provisions that appeared in earlier versions
of this legislation have wisely been dropped. The omnibus
appropriations bill is not as bad as it could have been, and even has
some provisions to recommend it.
The legislation provides temporary relief to home health agencies
that were hurt as a result of cuts required by the balanced budget
agreement. The underlying health policy is not perfect, but that is to
be expected in a complex issue, and the gimmicks used to pay for the
policy leave much to be desired because what is given to home health
care now will be taken away later in reductions. Nevertheless, home
health plays an important role in caring

[[Page H11663]]

for the elderly and disabled who depend on Medicare for their health
care, and these changes will not adversely affect the access and
quality of care that beneficiaries receive.
The Congress may still need to address home health prior to the
implementation of a prospective payment system that will provide proper
incentives for agencies, but for the moment, we have averted a
potential crisis for beneficiaries.
I am also pleased that we were able to help women with breast cancer
by including a provision from a bill introduced by my colleague, Ms.
Eshoo, that requires insurance companies who cover breast cancer to
provide coverage for reconstructive surgery.
Another valuable provision makes available additional funding for the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Act's (``SAMHSA'') block
grant program. My home state of Michigan was slated for a cut of nearly
twenty percent in these funds because of a formula change. Under the
bill, Michigan will receive a five percent increase.
In the area of trade policy, this legislation contains important
monitoring and enforcement requirements designed to ensure that Korea
and other recipients of International Monetary Fund (IMF) assistance
fully implement their commitments to cease government interference in
the private economy. Among other things, these requirements are
designed to ensure that the government of Korea does not extend
government loans or subsidies to individual corporations, particularly
in the auto, steel, semiconductor, and paper industries. In addition,
this legislation requires Korea to fulfill all of its IMF commitments
``according to an explicit timetable for completion.'' These
requirements are similar to legislation I introduced, H.R. 3573, with
Congressman Murtha and Congressman Regula.
Despite its claims, Korea has not fully implemented its commitments
to the IMF. Our government must exercise strict and aggressive
monitoring of how every penny of the IMF assistance is used and what
Korea is doing to implement its IMF commitments and to fulfill its
trade obligations to the world community. The American taxpayer should
not be forced to finance the operation of non-viable, bankrupt Korean
auto, steel, and other firms that dump cheap imports in our market and
undermine otherwise competitive products made by American workers and
American firms.
We need much more than vague Administration statement about being
``encouraged'' by the progress of Korea's economic reform. Korea has
institutions and policies that enable the government to intervene in
commercial lending and corporate governance. American workers and
American firms have a right to know what Korea is doing to restructure
those institutions and to change those policies, so that government
intervention in the private economy is minimized, and Korean markets
are open to U.S. and other foreign competitors.
Despite these worthwhile provisions, this legislation is not without
flaws.
The omnibus appropriations bill includes language conferring a
substantial and unwarranted financial advantage to the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA). The language forgives the prepayment penalty TVA would
otherwise be obligated to pay to refinance a taxpayer-funded loan from
the Federal Financing Bank. This continues the longstanding tradition
of allowing TVA to have the best of both worlds.
We have heard much lately from TVA about its effort to ``reinvent''
itself as a more market-oriented, business like entity. It even has
petitioned Congress to allow it to sell federally-subsidized
electricity on the open market. But TVA has several advantages which
the nonfederal entities it wants to compete against do not enjoy. The
most disturbing of these is forgiveness of the prepayment penalty,
totaling a billion dollars otherwise due the taxpayer. According to
news reports, TVA plans to use these ``savings'' to help pay down its
massive $27 billion debt. This would indeed enable it to better
``compete'' against other utilities, who are relegated to commercial
financing and whose stranded costs will not be shed so painlessly.
This unjustified windfall is an insult to the taxpayer, a misuse of
federal funds, and a further obstacle to creating anything remotely
resembling a level playing field in the electricity industry. It
reminds Congress to cast a dubious eye on future claims that all TVA
wants is a fair shot at joining a restructured electricity market on an
equal footing with other competitors.
It is also, and finally, worth noting what this legislation and this
Congress failed to do.
This Congress did not enact the Patients Bill of Rights to protect
consumers in managed care plans from the abuses and excesses of certain
bad actors in the health insurance industry. The House instead passed a
fatuous bill that would make matters worse for Americans by undermining
current law.
This Congress did not improve access to health care for the near
elderly. The House was denied the opportunity to vote on the ``Medicare
Buy-In'' proposal which would have provided access to health insurance
for Americans age 55 to 64 who, because of termination or reduction of
retiree benefits, cannot get private insurance.
This Congress did not help the disabled make a transition back to
work by allowing them easier access to health insurance.
This Congress failed to reauthorize the National Institutes of
Health, legislation badly needed to set our research priorities.
This Congress failed to enact comprehensive imported food safety
legislation.
This Congress failed to enact tobacco legislation to assure full Food
and Drug Administration authority to implement teen smoking cessation
and prevention programs. Nor did this Congress provide FDA with the
resources it needs to perform its existing, and essential, functions.
These and other tasks will await the 106th Congress in January, and
do not reflect credit on the 105th Congress.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that, due to President Clinton's
strong leadership, this bill includes one of the most critical
Democratic initiatives, a plan to hire 100,000 new teachers. This
measure, which I introduced in the House in May, will help reduce class
sizes in the early grades to 18. It is shameful that the Republican
majority spent the whole Congress stonewalling critical education
initiatives such as this, despite overwhelming public support.
Their refusal to tackle critical educational priorities is the shame
of the Congress. The Republican policy toward education is based on the
contemptuous premise that education is not the province of the Federal
Government. This deathbed conversion on class size reduction
demonstrates that the Republicans will do as little as possible on
education, and take action only when forced. Today, Republicans
continue their staunch opposition to replace dilapidated and
overcrowded school houses with new buildings. Where do they think these
100,000 new teachers are going to teach? The broom closets and hallways
have already been converted to classrooms in many schools.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans have failed our school children, failed
their parents, failed our public school teachers, and failed their
responsibility to give leadership in the area of great national
concern. They spent almost the entire Congress undermining the Federal
role in education. Their scheme to enact school vouchers would have
diverted hundreds of millions of Federal dollars earmarked for public
school reform to private and parochial schools. Mr. Speaker, the
Republican majority tried to repeal affirmative action programs for
disadvantaged youth and tried to destroy bilingual education. They
tried to block grant key education programs, with the goal of
eliminating Federal funding.
But Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Republicans most sinister, most cynical
perversion was the attempt to kill the Head Start Program by loading it
down with non-germane killer amendments like Head Start vouchers.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats promised we would fight for new teachers and
we won. Next year we will lead this Congress and take action to enact
legislation to modernize our decrepit, rundown public schools. Unlike
many in the Republican party, we will not shortchange America's school
children by turning our backs on the public education.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. It's not
perfect, but most of it is good and it deserves our support.
This bill helps our farmers who in the past year have had to cope
with natural disasters, drought and falling markets around the globe.
The $6 billion in tax relief and disaster aid in this bill is the least
we can do for them and represents a victory for rural America.
One of the best parts of this legislation is the $8 billion it
allocates for our national defense. None of us wants to return to the
``Hollow Force'' era of the 1970's when our military was beginning to
crumble, and the extra money in the bill before us today will help turn
things around. I think that's a victory for the security of all
Americans.
There has been a lot of talk about the education provisions in this
bill, and the extra spending for teachers. Let's be frank. The $1
billion earmarked in this legislation will only pay for about 30,000
new teachers. But, most importantly, the legislation maintains local
control of education. It doesn't mandate national testing, and local
school boards get to decide what sort of teachers to hire with this new
money--special education teachers, elementary instructors, or whoever
will help the children most. That's a victory for the American taxpayer
of which we should be proud.
Congress also protected our Constitution on the census issue. The
bill funds the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau through next
June, giving the Supreme Court a chance to rule on the question of
sampling. The Clinton administration has been pushing this untested,
unreliable method of counting our citizens, and the bill we are going
to pass today puts the brakes on this end-run around

[[Page H11664]]

the Constitution until the Supreme Court has had a chance to weigh in.
I believe that's a victory for all Americans and our constitutional
legacy.
For those concerned about economic conditions around the world, the
bill appropriates almost $18 billion in funds for the International
Monetary Fund to help stabilize the world economy. Even better, the
legislation mandates that the IMF adopt meaningful reforms that will
help open the doors to that agency and further unleash the powerful
force of the free market. I believe that represents a victory for
American businesses and consumers.
Notably, the legislation strengthens law enforcement's hand in the
war on drugs. Funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration was
increased, Federal sentences for certain hard drugs were toughened, and
the legislation will reinvigorate the National Drug Czar's office and
established anti-drug programs like the Drug-Free Communities Act, and
the Drug-Free Schools Program. That's a victory for American children
who are threatened by drug dealers and thugs.
As I said at the beginning, Mr. speaker, this bill isn't perfect. No
one--Republicans, Democrats, or the President--got everything they
wanted. But, in the end, in the spirit of compromise, I believe our
leaders crafted a package that we should support. After 4 years of
Republican control of Congress, we understand that we can not pass
everything we want because of the President' veto power. Likewise, the
President can not get everything he wants because his party is in the
minority in Congress. This leads us to where we are today: voting on a
bill that is the byproduct of negotiation and legislative give-and-
take, a bill that represents not a complete win for any one party as
much as it represents a win for the American people.
I urge support for this legislation.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the omnibus
appropriations bill H.R. 4328. Amongst the many important elements in
this legislation, including tremendous civil rights victories for
Haitian refugees, black farmers, and gulf war veterans, there are two
in particular that I want to highlight. The nationwide poison control
centers network and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit Program, have
proven their effectiveness and necessity.
Poison control centers provide a unique and valuable resource. They
are an integral part of a nationwide public health system to decrease
accidental deaths. Four million calls, last year alone, were fielded by
the centers, ranging from minor to life threatening. Imagine the
potential loss of life if each one of those individuals had been forced
to rely solely on accessing the 911 system instead. I remain hopeful
that the President's budget for FY 2000 will recognize the shortfall in
federal funding for the centers. In the interim, we have the
opportunity to immediately support poison control centers by passing
this Appropriations bill with the $222 million dollar increase in
public health initiatives. I am aware that CDC has a number of public
health initiatives it would like to fund with these dollars. I implore
them to devote significant resources from the increase to the poison
control centers network. I believe that there is nothing more important
than decreasing accidental deaths due to poisonings.
Another issue I would like to highlight also deals with the needs of
America's families who are trying to get a fresh start. As the second
generation of welfare recipients affected by ``welfare reform'' come
off the welfare roles it is important that there be employment
opportunities. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit program encourages the
private sector to partner with the public sector to aid in the welfare
to work movement. In just twenty-one months, nearly 450,000 people have
been hired through the program, earning a tax credit for their
employees. In less than two years almost a half million tax dependents
have become tax contributors. This, my colleagues, is a much-welcomed
outcome of the program. The tax credit encourages private sector
employees to hire welfare recipients and it works.
Unfortunately, the tax credit expired on June 30, of this year. The
omnibus bill extends the program for twelve months, and it is now up to
Congress to pass this vital legislation. Failure to renew the WOTC
program would have a devastating impact on welfare recipients needing
to find work. This action would occur just as many welfare recipients
are being forced off the welfare rolls as a result of the welfare-
reform bill. The WOTC program is a way for at least some of those
forced off of public assistance to become employed.
Mr. Speaker, the poison control centers network and the Work
Opportunity Tax Credit Program are needed for the well being of
America's families. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
join me in passing this legislation.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, there are two provisions in the omnibus
appropriations bill which I believe need further clarification. The
first issue dealt with an amendment in the House bill to the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, that would have
given school officials expanded authorities to remove children with
disabilities from school. I opposed the inclusion of that amendment,
because it would have removed critical civil rights protections for
children with disabilities.
A little more than a year ago, after years of negotiation, Congress
enacted the 1997 amendments to IDEA. These amendments made a number of
important changes to the law, including provisions governing the
discipline of children with disabilities. The '97 amendments give
schools new tools for addressing the behavior of children with
disabilities, including more flexible authorities for removing children
with disabilities engaged in misconduct involving weapons, drugs, or
behavior substantially likely to result in injury. More information is
needed on the implementation of these amendments before any additional
changes to the law are considered by the Congress.
I therefore support the recommendation of the conferees for a GAO
study on the discipline of children with disabilities in lieu of making
any changes to the authorizing legislation itself. The conference
agreement charges GAO with obtaining information on how the '97
amendments have affected the ability of schools to maintain safe school
environments conducive to learning. In order to enable the Congress to
differentiate between the need for amendments as opposed to better
implementation of the law, it is critical that GAO look at the extent
to which school personnel understand the provisions in the IDEA and
make use of the options available under the law. In the past, there has
been considerable confusion and misunderstanding regarding the options
available to school districts in disciplining children with
disabilities. In order to determine whether further amendments are
needed, GAO should determine whether schools are using the authorities
currently available for removing children. These include: removing a
child for up to 10 school days per incident; placing the child in an
interim alternative educational setting; extending a child's placement
in an interim alternative educational setting; suspending and expelling
a child for behavior that is not a manifestation of the child's
disability; seeking removal of the child through injunctive relief; and
proposing a change in the child's placement.
In addition, the law now explicitly requires schools to consider the
need for behavioral strategies for children with behavior problems. I
continue to believe that the incidence of misconduct by children with
disabilities is closely related to how well these children are served,
including whether they have appropriate individualized education plans,
with behavioral interventions where necessary. Again, to enable the
Congress to interpret information on the effect of the IDEA on dealing
with misconduct, this GAO report should provide information on the
extent to which the schools are appropriately addressing the needs of
students engaged in this misconduct. I would be opposed to giving
school officials expanded authority for removing children who engage in
misconduct, if such misconduct could be ameliorated by giving these
children the services to which they are entitled. We need information
on the effect of appropriate implementation of the IDEA on the ability
of schools to provide for safe and orderly environments, and that is
what the GAO study should evaluate.
Finally, I want to emphasize that the provisions in the IDEA for
removing children are only needed in those cases in which parents and
school officials disagree about a proposed disciplinary action.
Therefore, it is important that the GAO study also provides us
information on the extent to which parents are requesting due process
hearings on discipline-related matters and the outcomes of those
hearings.
The second issue dealt with a provision in title VII of this bill,
the section authorizing the creation of the Reading Excellence Act.
Specifically, I am concerned that this new program may contain a
provision placing an unfair burden on local school districts. The
Reading Excellence Act requires school districts which are eligible to
receive the programs' tutorial assistance grants to notify all eligible
tutorial assistance providers and parents about this program, despite
the fact that they may not receive program funding.
I hope that the implementation of this provision is accomplished with
a modicum of paperwork and that States work to ensure that as little
burden as possible falls on the school district. It should be our
collective goal to ensure that unnecessary paperwork and burdens on our
local schools are reduced so that resources can be focused on students.
Clearly, this new provision must be remedied before the program begins
and I will work with the chairman and other colleagues when Congress
returns to find a workable solution for all concerned parties.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, tonight the House of Representatives is
going to pass a $500 billion omnibus spending bill which has been
agreed to by the President and congressional leaders. This mammoth bill
contains

[[Page H11665]]

overdue funding for eight of thirteen annual appropriations bills and
an additional $20 billion in emergency supplemental spending.
As with any bill of this magnitude, there are many worthwhile
initiatives, programs and changes in policy which considered
individually would stand on their own merit. On the other side of the
ledge, however, there are programs and initiatives that would certainly
fail if they were not considered collectively.
Unfortunately, Members of Congress will not have the opportunity to
vote on any of the various initiatives contained in this 3,800 page
document. I am very troubled that we have arrived at this point as a
result of procrastination.
The great hazard of this was realized last week while negotiations
between the administration and congressional leaders circumvented the
parliamentary and committee process. The process alone was appalling.
The result is even worse. Because of that, I will oppose this bill for
several reasons.
Chief among my concerns is treatment of the first surplus this nation
has realized since man walked on the moon. This bill squanders nearly
one-third of that surplus while breaking faith with the American
people.
For nine months we in the Congress--both Democrats and Republicans
alike--have insisted that any budget surpluses should be invested in
shoring up the Social Security trust fund, a tax cut or some
combination of the two. It's unconscionable that as we close the 105th
Congress both sides have largely abandoned those principles.
We didn't keep our word to the American people. We violated their
trust. It's as simple as that.
We're raiding $20 billion from the Social Security trust fund for
spending which for the most part doesn't constitute genuine
emergencies. Instead of sticking to solid fiscal policy, we are using
gimmickry to get around spending caps because we couldn't figure out a
way to fund projects and programs without appropriate offsets.
We are voting to bail out the International Monetary Fund. It's no
secret that the IMF doesn't work. Yet here we are ready to spend $18
billion with no guarantee that we will fix the problems that has landed
the IMF where it is in the first place. If we are sincere about fixing
the IMF we must put corrective actions into place first. Hollow
promises mean nothing once the check is cashed, Mr. Speaker.
In my district in California's Central Valley we are telling
agricultural workers that they don't deserve H1B visa waivers while
just across the foothills in the Silicon Valley high tech workers do?
That's a terrible double standard.
While I applaud providing funding to hire 100,000 new teachers in
America, this bill doesn't have enough money to build the class rooms
for these new teachers. It just doesn't make sense and neither does
this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill doesn't deserve to pass this House. Yet
because we are pushed up against a wall we're willing to sell out the
American people. I urge my colleagues to defeat this omnibus spending
bill.
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, while I applaud what this budget bill does
for education and the environment. I am appalled at what the
appropriators have done to destroy the organ transplant allocation
policy.
This is a matter of life and death, and as one who believes in the
sanctity of life I cannot believe that the appropriators would
knowingly kill an effort that would save people's lives.
What I am talking about is that deep within this bill is a
legislative rider that will sentence people to a death that could be
avoided.
I am talking about the rider that would stop the Department of Health
and Human Services from implementing their regulation to make our organ
allocation system more fair so more people can live.
The current organ allocation system is patently unfair because it
gives higher priority to geography over the health of the patient. To
illustrate this, let me point out the attached article from the New
Orleans Times-Picayune about Jordan Rosebar, a little girl from
Washington, DC. A little girl who died needlessly waiting for a liver
and an intestine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC).
Jordan was only on the UPMC list because UPMC is one of the only
centers in the country capable of doing the procedure she needed. What
is especially sad about her story is that even though she was by far
the sickest patient in the Eastern half of the United States, instead
of going to her, the organs she needed went to a healthier patient on a
list in Atlanta.
When that set of organs became available in New Orleans, they should
have been offered to the person in the greatest need. They could have
easily been sent to Pittsburgh. But, instead of saving Jordan, they
went to a healthier patient in Atlanta because our antiquated system
favors geography over medical need.
This is wrong. Both children could be alive today if we weren't so
rigidly tied to the geographical boundaries established long ago and
used some common sense. We can and should do better.
Regrettably, there has been more misinformation than good information
about what this regulation actually says. Let me explain how we got to
this distressing situation and why this rider is such a travesty.
In 1984 Congress gave responsibility for the organ allocation system
to the Department of Health and Human Services. Originally developed
when there were only sixteen transplant centers, the story of Jordan
Rosebar demonstrates how unfair this system has become and how badly
these organ allocation policies need to be updated.
The liver is one of the most difficult organs to transplant.
Pioneered at the University of Pittsburgh, upwards of 90% of all the
liver transplant surgeons today were either trained at Pittsburgh or by
doctors who trained there. Yet facilities like Pittsburgh, Mt. Sinai,
Cedars-Sinai, and Stanford and other highly regarded transplant centers
which take on the most difficult and riskiest transplant patients, are
struggling with the longest waiting times in the country.
The real travesty is that, as with Jordan, many of the patients
waiting for organs at the larger centers go there, not because of their
reputations, but because it is their last resort. There is strong
evidence to suggest that many smaller transplant centers avoid the
riskier transplants and the sicker patients because they are more
difficult and would adversely impact their reputations should they not
be successful. The fact is that many patients, like Jordan, only end up
at centers like the University of Pittsburgh after having been turned
down by their local center.
Currently there are patients from at least 31 states awaiting organs
at the University of Pittsburgh, all of whom are dependent on an organ
becoming available in Western Pennsylvania or West Virginia. Is it any
wonder that our waiting lists are longer than almost anywhere else in
the country. Obviously, this is not an issue that impacts people in one
particular geographical region, but it affects everyone who is waiting
for an organ no matter with state or congressional district they come
from.
The fact is that the current system discriminates against people who
live near the highly regarded centers with the longer waiting lists.
It's not their fault that their local center is one of the few that
will take the harder and sicker patients when other centers avoid the
harder patients in favor of patients who may be still able to work, go
to school, or even play golf.
This isn't right. Whether you live or die should not depend on where
you live. Organs do not and should not belong to any geographical or
political entity. But, under the current system, depending on where the
organ was harvested, it could be given to someone with years to live--
while someone, like Jordan, in the next across the wrong border dies
waiting for a transplant.
No, this debate is not about pitting big transplant centers against
small ones, or about pitting one region against another. It is about
making sure that the gift of life goes to the person who needs it the
most rather than someone who happens to have the good fortune to live
in the right city, or be on the right list. This is about helping at
least 300 people each year to continue to live.
All HHS wants to do is: (1) require UNOS to develop policies that
would standardize its criteria for listing patients and for determining
their medical status, and (2) ensure that medical urgency, not
geography, is the main determinant for allocating organs. Sadly, the
organization that is under contract with HHS to run the national organ
procurement transplant network, the United Network for Organ Sharing
(UNOS), is the biggest opponent of any change and is spending upwards
of $1 million of patient fees to lobby against HHS making the system
more fair.
Mr. Speaker, now is the time for us to set our parochial interests
aside and let HHS implement the changes we know we can save lives. The
longer we delay the more lives are at risk. In this day of modern air
travel and communications there is no good reason for an organ to stop
at the border. There is no good reason why if I pass away while
attending the Superbowl in New Orleans that my liver should go to a
golfer in Louisiana when I may have a loved one who is in desperate
need of a transplant at home.
People are dying because they happen to live in the wrong zip code
and because states do not want to share their organs. Nowhere else in
society would we allow a monopoly like this to continue. We must put an
end to this craziness. There is no room in this country for politics to
affect who lives and who dies. The patients who need the organs the
most should get them. Period.

[From the Times-Picayune, Oct. 11, 1998]

La. Favors Geographic System

(By Bill Walsh)

As Jordan Elizabeth Rosebar lay in a hospital bed in
Pittsburgh, her insides collapsing, the organs that could
save her life were

[[Page H11666]]

ready and waiting in a New Orleans area hospital.
It was a stroke of luck that the liver and small intestine
the 18-month-old girl needed were available at all, given
that the donor had to be a biological match and, like her, a
small child. Incredibly, two other child donors would be
found in other parts of the country that day in early June,
offering hope far beyond what Jordan's family and doctors had
dared imagine.
But Jordan never got the organs she so desperately needed.
She died waiting for the transplant when chemicals, machines
and prayers could no longer sustain her.
Louisiana doctors sent the organs to Atlanta under the
current rules that give regional preference to who get
organs. Later, a flicker of hope from doctors in Alabama
faded when the set of the organs they had were given to
someone else. In a final, frantic race to a nearby
Pennsylvania hospital, a transplant team returned to the
operating room too late.
The final day of Jordan's life demonstrates the
complexities of a national organ disbursement procedure that
is guided first by geography and second by the critical needs
of the patient. It unmasks the cruel difficulties inherent in
trying to apply objective standards to decisions about who
lives and who dies. It also reveals a distrust among
transplant surgeons in different parts of the country who
have found themselves pitted against one another as they vie
for a limited supply of organs.
There is no escaping the fact that the shortage of donated
organs has forced medical officials to make painful life-and-
death decisions within a somewhat awkward system. The
emotional debate over how that system should operate recently
came to a head as the Clinton administration prepared to
issue rules this month that many believe will lead to a
nationwide policy that provides organs to the ``sickest
first'' and minimizes geographic considerations.
* * * The state wants to keep locally donated organs close
to home, arguing that because its residents donate more
generously than those in other states, they also deserve to
reap the benefits. A lawsuit filed by the state to block the
rules will be heard Wednesday in Baton Rouge by a federal
court judge. The court has ordered the new rules put on hold
pending the outcome of the hearing.
Also at stake in the battle is money. Large regional
transplant centers such as the one on Pittsburgh have seen
their business plummet in recent years as smaller hospitals
have gotten into the transplant game. The larger centers are
pushing the new national guidelines, while the smaller
centers are fighting to retain the business they've gotten
under the current rules.
With millions of dollars in profits at stake, the issue is
about more than life and death, and the case of Jordan
Rosebar reveals the complex medical, ethical and political
contours of the coming debate.
A losing battle.
From the start of her young life, it was apparent that
Jordan could not live with the organs she started life with.
She was born in Maryland three months premature and was ``so
small she could fit in the palm of my hand,'' said her
father, Marcus Rosebar.
She also was born without a usable intestine, and doctors
had little choice but to remove most of it. She spent the
first six months of her life in Children's Hospital in
Washington, D.C., sustained with nutrients and medication
pumped through her body. Unfortunately, the same treatment
that kept her alive wreaked havoc on her liver. Over time, it
began to deteriorate.
``We knew right at the beginning,'' Rosebar said. ``The
doctors told us that eventually she would need a transplant
to live a normal life.''
Rosebar knows better than most that ``normal'' is often
relative when it comes to organ transplants. As a kidney
transplant patient himself, the 72-year-old Washington native
receives dialysis treatments twice a week. He knew that his
daughter, the only child he has had with his high school
sweetheart, Devona Watkins, would forever be in need of
intense medical attention.
But for now, they were eager just to have her home, away
from the sterile hospital environment. In May 1997, they got
their wish. Jordan was sent home fitted with a special
portable unit to pump fluids through her body 20 hours a day.
She was fed with a tube fixed to her nose. It was cumbersome
for the infant, but she didn't seem to mind.
``She was happy. That's all she ever knew,'' Rosebar said
recently from the living room of his northwest Washington
home, where the end tables are crowded with framed portraits
of his daughter.
``She could sure brighten up your world,'' he said.
A sad situation.
* * * Doctors at Children's Hospital suggested the couple
seek treatment for their daughter at the University of
Pittsburgh Medical Center, one of the few transplant centers
that performed the liver-small intestine operation.
In January, Jordan was entered on a national computer
database as a patient at the University of Pittsburgh.
That meant that whenever a suitable organ became available
in the six-state region around Pennsylvania, Jordan could get
it unless there were sicker children on the list ahead of
her. That's the cornerstone of the organ disbursement system:
Organs are first offered within the region in which they are
donated and then nationally if there are no takers.
For months, nothing happened.
Then on May 31, Jordan's parents got a call that organs
were available. Jordan and her mother flew to Pittsburgh and
Jordan's father took a bus to stand vigil with his family.
The operation went well, but there was a problem with the
organs. They had been damaged and weren't working correctly.
Jordan was in a perilous condition.
Out of desperation, her surgeon, Dr. Kareem Abu-Elmagd,
called a former colleague at the University of Miami. The
Pittsburgh hospital had recently helped surgeons in Miami
find a set of organs for a 13-year-old boy and Abu-Elmagd
asked if they would return the favor: Would they list Jordan
as a transplant candidate at their hospital?
The tactic, known as ``double listing,'' increases a
patient's chances of getting an organ. Double-listing is
frowned upon by some in the transplant community as
underhanded, but it's not forbidden. The United Network for
Organ Sharing, the organization that administers national
organ policy, reports that more than 3,000 patients are
listed at two hospitals. Some are listed at three.
``It's kind of a courtesy,'' Abu-Elmagd said. ``We did it
for them the day before.''
Abu-Elmagd requested that Jordan be listed at Miami as
``Status 1,'' the most dire condition, reserved for patients
who will die within seven days without a transplant. The
designation puts them near the head of the line for new
organs.
Once again, Jordan seemed blessed with good fortune. Within
hours, doctors in Miami got word that a liver and small
intestine were available at West Jefferson Medical Center in
Marrero.
Under Louisiana law, organs donated in-state must first be
offered to local residents. In this case, no one in Louisiana
needed them, so a search went out for the neediest children
in the six-state southeastern region stretching from
Louisiana to Florida. The University of Miami transplant
center was at the top of the list.
What happened next is in dispute. While it is clear that
the Louisiana Organ Procurement Agency refused to release the
organs to Pittsburgh doctors, the reasons for the refusal
differ.
Doctors in Pittsburgh say they were turned down because of
the rivalry between the two states over organ transplantation
policy. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, one of
the largest transplant hospitals in the country, has led the
charge for a ``sickest first'' national standard.
``Just because it was Pittsburgh, all of a sudden there was
a problem,'' said Abu-Elmagd.
Louisiana officials disagree. They say that Jordan was not
listed as a patient in Miami at the time the organs became
available in Louisiana, meaning they would have to violate
their policies in order to send the organs to Pittsburgh.
In fact, the most serious patient in Miami was a youngster
listed as a ``Status 2,'' serious, but not at the most
critical level. Under the national guidelines, that patient
was entitled to first crack at the organs. But as if to
underscore the capriciousness of the process of deciding who
gets what, Miami didn't have enough available surgeons to
perform the operation, so they passed.
The liver specialist in Miami who took the call from
Louisiana said she had entered Jordan's name on the computer
database that same day, June 3. Perhaps the Louisiana list
wasn't current, she said. Would they ``rerun the list,'' she
asked, by downloading the most current version to the state's
computer? That way, Jordan's case would show up.
``It just had to do with timing,'' said Lesli Kravetz, the
Miami official.
But according to Louisiana officials, the issue wasn't
timing, it was fairness. That's because Louisiana's policy is
to download the list each time organs become available. That
way, state officials say, the organs are matched to the
person most needy at the instant the organs became available.
Any other system, they contend, promotes favoritism and
allows for manipulation of the system, for example, by
allowing patients not on the list to be placed on it once
they learn organs are available. For example, it isn't even
clear that at the time Jordan's doctors were desperately
seeking organs for her, she was the only Status 1 patient in
the country. Other regions may have had Status 1 patients,
but they would not have been alerted to Louisiana's organs
unless they had double-listed their patients in Louisiana's
region, as Jordan's doctors had done.
After 90 minutes, Louisiana officials called Miami and said
no, they would not violate their policy by rerunning the
list.
``There were no Status 1 patients (when we ran the list),''
said Louise Jacobbi, the director of the Louisiana Organ
Procurement Agency. ``They wanted us to break policy and put
the kid on (the list). That's gaming the system.''
Jacobbi said the patient database, which ranks patients
according to the seriousness of their condition, is the only
objective guidepost organ centers have in making life-or-
death decisions.
``What I was doing was playing by the rules they agreed to
play by,'' Jacobbi said.
Bob Spieldenner, a spokesman for the United Network for
Organ Sharing, said there are no rules about rerunning
patient lists. He said each state organ procurement
organization, or OPO, sets its own standard.

[[Page H11667]]

``It's up to them,'' he said, ``Some OPOs will do it, some
won't. New Orleans is pretty rigid in what they do.''
Dr. Gazi Zibari, the medical director of the Louisiana
organ agency, said he had other concerns about releasing the
organs to Pittsburgh. He said he doesn't always trust his
fellow transplant surgeons when they say their patients are
Status 1.
Zibari said that doctors will sometimes exaggerate the
seriousness of the condition to get an organ faster. By the
time it's checked, he said, a patient may already have gotten
the transplant.
``It is well recognized that there is no system in place to
monitor whether these patients are Status 1,'' Zibari said.
``There is mistrust in the transplant community, which is
very sad.''
Pittsburgh doctors angry.
The decision by the Louisiana organ agency angered the
doctors in Pittsburgh who saw Jordan's life slipping away. In
an afternoon phone call with Zibari, Abu-Elmagd lost his
patience.
``I said she will die in 24 hours,'' Abu-Elmagd recalled
telling him. ``I said if you think we are stealing the
organs, that is not the case.''
When Miami declined the organs because they didn't have
enough surgeons available to complete the transplant needed
there, the organs went to the next patient on the list, at
Emory University Hospital in Atlanta. Zibari suggested
Pittsburgh call the Atlanta hospital and see if they would
give them up.
The child in Atlanta who got the liver was listed as a
Status 3 patient, but Jacobbi said doctors told her the
youngster was getting worse.
``They said their child was extremely sick as well. Those
kids can change in a matter of hours or minutes,'' she said.
Abu-Elmagd chose not to call Atlanta. By then, another
liver and small intestine set became available, this one in
Alabama. However, this time, the organs were already
committed to another child. The Miami hospital was only being
notified if it was needed as a backup. Ultimately, it wasn't.
The other child got the organs and Jordan's doctors started
over.
Chuck Patrick, doctor of the Alabama Organ Center, declined
to discuss the case, so it's unclear if the child who got the
transplant was in better condition than Jordan.
``I'm not going to get my organization in the middle of
this war over where organs go,'' Patrick said.
The up-and-down ride wasn't over yet. Within hours,
Pittsburgh got a call that suitable organs were available at
a hospital in western Pennsylvania.
Abu-Elmagd hopped in a van and led a team to harvest the
organs. Meanwhile, Jordan was getting worse. Her heart seized
up and her blood pressure dropped. She was taken back to the
emergency room, and doctors kept her alive with fluids and
medication.
For a brief time, Jordan seemed to improve, but then she
suffered multiple cardiac arrests. Her body was never that
strong to begin with and all the stress was simply too much
for her to take.
Jordan died early in the morning of June 4. Abu-Elmagd was
about an hour away from the Pittsburgh hospital with the
organs on ice when he got the word.
``It came down to a matter of hours,'' he said. ``If I
could have gotten the organs a couple of hours earlier, she
could have survived.''
Rosebar said he didn't know all this was happening while he
and Jordan's mother waited in the Pittsburgh hospital for
word on their daughter's condition.
To him, state and regional boundaries are meaningless when
it comes to deciding who should have first claim to a life-
saving organ.
``I would have gone to Russia if I had to, to save her
life,'' he said. ``I would have done anything.''
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, H.R. 4328,
includes under the Labor/HHS portion of the legislation a title IX
which may be cited as the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998.
In general this act amends both ERISA and the Public Health Services
Act (within the scope of coverage of such Acts as established in HIPAA)
to require group health plans and health insurance issuers that cover
medical and surgical benefits for mastectomy to also include in their
scope of coverage: (1) all stages of reconstruction of the breast on
which the mastectomy has been performed, (2) surgery and reconstruction
of the other breast to produce a symmetrical appearance; and (3)
prostheses and physical complications of mastectomy, including
lymphedemas, in a manner determined under the terms of the plan or
heatlh insurance coverage in consultation with the attending physician
and the patient.
The described coverage may be subject to annual deductibles and
coinsurance as deemed appropriate and consistent with those established
for other benefits under the plan or health insurance coverage under
which an individual is enrolled.
Because the act is generally effective with respect to plan years
beginning on or after the date of enactment, it is expected that the
departments administering the act will follow procedures under which no
enforcement action wil be taken with respect to a violation of a
requirement imposed by the act on a plan or health insurance issuer
before the date of issuance of final regulations, if the plan or issuer
has sought to comply with the act in good faith.
The provision under new ERISA section 713(e)(2) which states that
``Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect or modify the
provisions of section 514 with respect to group health plans'' is
redundant and has the same effect as the identical provisions under
current law, that is ERISA section 731(a)(2) and PHS sections
2723(a)(2) and 2762(b)(1).
It is also expected that the agencies involved in issuing regulations
under the act will follow the same procedures applicable under HIPAA as
found in section 104 of that act.
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, In the 1998 Omnibus Appropriations bill
I am pleased to acknowledge inclusion of the Internet Tax Moratorium
Act. In the act Congress makes clear that a limited moratorium,
accompanied by a careful review of all Internet and electronic commerce
tax issues, will give Congress the opportunity to evaluate proper state
and local government interstate taxation, Federal taxation and trade
treatment of the Internet and electronic commerce. In so acting we will
clarify that this Congress has not ratified or authorized any federal
taxes on Internet Domain name registrations. We are aware that U.S.
Federal Court in the Thomas et al. versus National Science Foundation
et al case has declared that Sec. 8003-Ratification of Internet Fees--
of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of FY 98 ratified what
has been previously found to be a unconstitutional tax on Internet
domain name registrations. Section 8003 was never intended to ratify a
tax on the Internet and, indeed, addresses only a fee for the
Intellectual Infrastructure Fund. To the extent that fee constitutes an
unconstitutional tax, it was not ratified by Section 8003. I am pleased
that this Congress has voted to approve the Internet Tax Moratorium Act
and to affirm that this Congress has never ratified an unconstitutional
tax on the Internet.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the issues surrounding implementation of the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA), now
nearly four years after enactment, have been especially vexing to law
enforcement, the telecommunications industry, privacy groups, and to
us, in Congress. Following passage of H.R. 3303, the DOJ authorization
bill, in June, pressure was brought to bear on the Federal
Communications Commission to extend the October 25, 1998 compliance
date, mandated by CALEA, to at least June 30, 2000. Although, I am
pleased that this date was extended, I am disappointed that the
``grandfather date'' for equipment cost reimbursements (January 1,
1995) will not be amended into law this year. H.R. 3303, as passed by
the House, would have changed the ``grandfather date'' to October 1,
2000.
I am encouraged, though, that the conferees on the omnibus
appropriations bill have included report language expressing the
sincere view that the DOJ, industry and Congress should develop joint
recommendations to accelerate the implementation of CALEA as soon as
possible at the least cost to taxpayers and consumers and to ensure
that law enforcement receives the capabilities it needs to protect our
society. I would further suggest that the statutory January 1, 1995
``grandfather date'' should be altered to be consistent with the
revised compliance date as decided by the FCC in September of this
year.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my House and Senate
colleagues on the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees in the 106th
Congress in order to make this vision a reality.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of apprising the
House and the public concerning the legislative history of Division G
of H.R. 4328, the Omnibus Appropriations Act now under consideration.
Division G consists--with but minor changes--of Divisions A and B of
the Conference Report on H.R. 1757 of the 105th Congress, House Report
105-432, as it passed the House on March 26, 1998 and the Senate on
April 28, 1998.
Accordingly, as chairman of the Committee on International Relations,
with jurisdiction over H.R. 1757, I can state that for the purposes of
legislative history, the legislative history of Division G is the
legislative history of H.R. 1757.
I am submitting, for the purposes of aiding in the interpretation of
Division G, a table indicating the correspondence between provisions of
Divisions A and B of the Conference Report on H.R. 1757 and the
counterpart provisions of Division G of the bill under consideration.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division G H.R. 1757 Conference Report
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1001.............................. Sec. 1. Short title.
1002.............................. Sec. 2. Organization of Act into
divisions; table of contents.

SUBDIVISION A--CONSOLIDATION OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AGENCIES

TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

1101.............................. Sec. 101. Short title.
1102.............................. Sec. 102. Purposes.
1103.............................. Sec. 103. Definitions.

[[Page H11668]]

1104.............................. Sec. 104. Report on budgetary cost
savings resulting from
reorganization.

TITLE II--UNITED STATES ARMS CONTROL
AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY

CHAPTER 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS

1201.............................. Sec. 201. Effective date.

CHAPTER 2--ABOLITION AND TRANSFER OF
FUNCTIONS

1211.............................. Sec. 211. Abolition of United States
Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency.
1212.............................. Sec. 212. Transfer of functions to
Secretary of State.
1213.............................. Sec. 213. Under Secretary for Arms
Control and International Security.

CHAPTER 3--CONFORMING AMENDMENTS

1221.............................. Sec. 221. References.
1222.............................. Sec. 222. Repeals.
1223.............................. Sec. 223. Amendments to the Arms
Control and Disarmament Act.
1224.............................. Sec. 224. Compensation of officers.
1225.............................. Sec. 225. Additional conforming
amendments.

TITLE III--UNITED STATES INFORMATION
AGENCY

CHAPTER 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS

1301.............................. Sec. 301. Effective date.

CHAPTER 2--ABOLITION AND TRANSFER OF
FUNCTIONS

1311.............................. Sec. 311. Abolition of United States
Information Agency.
1312.............................. Sec. 312. Transfer of functions.
1313.............................. Sec. 313. Under Secretary of State
for Public Diplomacy.
1314.............................. Sec. 314. Abolition of Office of
Inspector General of United States
Information Agency and transfer of
functions.

CHAPTER 3--INTERNATIONAL
BROADCASTING

1321.............................. Sec. 321. Congressional findings and
declaration of purpose.
1322.............................. Sec. 322. Continued existence of
Broadcasting Board of Governors.
1323.............................. Sec. 323. Conforming amendments to
the United States International
Broadcasting Act of 1994.
1324.............................. Sec. 324. Amendments to the Radio
Broadcasting to Cuba Act.
1325.............................. Sec. 325. Amendments to the
Television Broadcasting to Cuba
Act.
1326.............................. Sec. 326. Transfer of broadcasting
related funds, property, and
personnel.
1327.............................. Sec. 327. Savings provisions.
1328.............................. Sec. 328. Report on the
privatization of RFE/RL,
Incorporated.

CHAPTER 4--CONFORMING AMENDMENTS

1331.............................. Sec. 331. References.
1332.............................. Sec. 332. Amendments to title 5,
United States Code.
1333.............................. Sec. 333. Application of certain
laws.
1334.............................. Sec. 334. Abolition of United States
Advisory Commission on Public
Diplomacy.
1335.............................. Sec. 335. Conforming amendments.
1336.............................. Sec. 336. Repeals.

TITLE IV--UNITED STATES
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
COOPERATION AGENCY

CHAPTER 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS

1401.............................. Sec. 401. Effective date.

CHAPTER 2--ABOLITION AND TRANSFER OF
FUNCTIONS

1411.............................. Sec. 411. Abolition of United States
International Development
Cooperation Agency.
1412.............................. Sec. 412. Transfer of functions and
authorities.
1413.............................. Sec. 413. Status of AID.

CHAPTER 3--CONFORMING AMENDMENTS

1421.............................. Sec. 421. References.
1422.............................. Sec. 422. Conforming amendments.

TITLE V--AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS

1501.............................. Sec. 501. Effective date.

CHAPTER 2--REORGANIZATION AND
TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS

1511.............................. Sec. 511. Reorganization of Agency
for International Development.

CHAPTER 3--AUTHORITIES OF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE

1521.............................. Sec. 521. Definition of United
States assistance.
1522.............................. Sec. 522. Administrator of AID
reporting to the Secretary of
State.
1523.............................. Sec. 523. Assistance programs
coordination and oversight.

TITLE VI--TRANSITION

CHAPTER 1--REORGANIZATION PLAN

1601.............................. Sec. 601. Reorganization plan and
report.

CHAPTER 2--REORGANIZATION AUTHORITY

1611.............................. Sec. 611. Reorganization authority.
1612.............................. Sec. 612. Transfer and allocation of
appropriations.
1613.............................. Sec. 613. Transfer, appointment, and
assignment of personnel.
1614.............................. Sec. 614. Incidental transfers.
1615.............................. Sec. 615. Savings provisions.
1616.............................. Sec. 616. Authority of Secretary of
State to facilitate transition.
1617.............................. Sec. 617. Final report.

DIVISION B--FOREIGN RELATIONS
AUTHORIZATION

TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

2001.............................. Sec. 1001. Short title.
2002.............................. Sec. 1002. Definition of appropriate
congressional committees.

TITLE XI--AUTHORIZATION OF
APPROPRIATIONS FOR DEPARTMENT OF
STATE

2101.............................. Sec. 1101. Administration of foreign
affairs.
2102.............................. Sec. 1102. International
commissions.
2103.............................. Sec. 1103. Grants to The Asia
Foundation.
2104.............................. Sec. 1104. Voluntary contributions
to international organizations.
2105.............................. Sec. 1105. Voluntary contributions
to peacekeeping operations.
2106.............................. Sec. 1106. Limitation on United
States voluntary contributions to
United Nations Development Program.
2107.............................. Sec. 1107. United Nations Population
Fund.

TITLE XII--DEPARTMENT OF STATE
AUTHORITIES AND ACTIVITIES

CHAPTER 1--AUTHORITIES AND
ACTIVITIES

2201.............................. Sec. 1201. Reimbursement of
Department of State for assistance
to overseas educational facilities.
2202.............................. Sec. 1202. Revision of Department of
State rewards program.
2203.............................. Sec. 1203. Retention of additional
defense trade controls registration
fees.
2204.............................. Sec. 1204. Fees for commercial
services.
2205.............................. Sec. 1205. Pilot program for foreign
affairs reimbursement.
2206.............................. Sec. 1206. Fee for use of diplomatic
reception rooms.
2207.............................. Sec. 1207. Budget presentation
documents.
2208.............................. Sec. 1208. Office of the Inspector
General.
2209.............................. Sec. 1209. Capital Investment Fund.
2210.............................. Sec. 1210. Contracting for local
guards services overseas.
2211.............................. Sec. 1211. Authority of the Foreign
Claims Settlement Commission.
2212.............................. Sec. 1212. Expenses relating to
certain international claims and
proceedings.
2213.............................. Sec. 1213. Grants to remedy
international abductions of
children.
2214.............................. Sec. 1214. Counterdrug and anticrime
activities of the Department of
State.
2215.............................. Sec. 1215. Annual report on overseas
surplus properties.
2216.............................. Sec. 1216. Human rights reports.
2217.............................. Sec. 1217. Reports and policy
concerning diplomatic immunity.
2218.............................. Sec. 1218. Reaffirming United States
international telecommunications
policy.
2219.............................. Sec. 1219. Reduction of reporting.

CHAPTER 2--CONSULAR AUTHORITIES OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

2221.............................. Sec. 1221. Use of certain passport
processing fees for enhanced
passport services.
2222.............................. Sec. 1223. Consular officers.
2223.............................. Sec. 1224. Repeal of outdated
consular receipt requirements.
2224.............................. Sec. 1225. Elimination of duplicate
Federal Register publication for
travel advisories.
2225.............................. Sec. 1226. Denial of visas to
confiscators of American property.
2226.............................. Sec. 1227. Inadmissibility of any
alien supporting an international
child abductor.

CHAPTER 3--REFUGEES AND MIGRATION

SUBCHAPTER A--AUTHORIZATION OF
APPROPRIATIONS

2231.............................. Sec. 1231. Migration and refugee
assistance.

SUBCHAPTER B--AUTHORITIES

2241.............................. Sec. 1241. United States policy
regarding the involuntary return of
refugees.
2242.............................. Sec. 1242. United States policy with
respect to the involuntary return
of persons in danger of subjection
to torture.
2243.............................. Sec. 1243. Reprogramming of
migration and refugee assistance
funds.
2244.............................. Sec. 1244. Eligibility for refugee
status.
2245.............................. Sec. 1245. Reports to Congress
concerning Cuban emigration
policies.

TITLE XIII--ORGANIZATION OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; DEPARTMENT OF
STATE PERSONNEL; THE FOREIGN
SERVICE

CHAPTER 1--ORGANIZATION OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

2301.............................. Sec. 1301. Coordinator for
Counterterrorism.
2302.............................. Sec. 1302. Elimination of Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State for
Burdensharing.
2303.............................. Sec. 1303. Personnel management.
2304.............................. Sec. 1304. Diplomatic security.
2305.............................. Sec. 1305. Number of senior official
positions authorized for the
Department of State.
2306.............................. Sec. 1306. Nomination of Under
Secretaries and Assistant
Secretaries of State.

CHAPTER 2--PERSONNEL OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; THE FOREIGN
SERVICE

2311.............................. Sec. 1311. Foreign Service reform.
2312.............................. Sec. 1312. Retirement benefits for
involuntary separation.
2313.............................. Sec. 1313. Authority of Secretary to
separate convicted felons from the
Foreign Service.
2314.............................. Sec. 1314. Career counseling.
2315.............................. Sec. 1315. Limitations on management
assignments.
2316.............................. Sec. 1316. Availability pay for
certain criminal investigators
within the Diplomatic Security
Service.
2317.............................. Sec. 1317. Nonovertime differential
pay.
2318.............................. Sec. 1318. Report concerning
minorities and the Foreign Service.

TITLE XIV--UNITED STATES
INFORMATIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, AND
CULTURAL PROGRAMS

CHAPTER 1--AUTHORIZATION OF
APPROPRIATIONS

2401.............................. Sec. 1401. International information
activities and educational and
cultural exchange programs.

CHAPTER 2--AUTHORITIES AND
ACTIVITIES

2411.............................. Sec. 1411. Retention of interest.
2412.............................. Sec. 1412. Use of selected program
fees.
2413.............................. Sec. 1413. Muskie Fellowship
Program.
2414.............................. Sec. 1414. Working Group on United
States Government-Sponsored
International Exchanges and
Training.
2415.............................. Sec. 1415. Educational and cultural
exchanges and scholarships for
Tibetans and Burmese.
2416.............................. Sec. 1417. Surrogate broadcasting
study.
2417.............................. Sec. 1418. Radio broadcasting to
Iran in the Farsi language.
2418.............................. Sec. 1419. Authority to administer
summer travel and work programs.
2419.............................. Sec. 1420. Permanent administrative
authorities regarding
appropriations.
2420.............................. Sec. 1421. Voice of America
broadcasts.

TITLE XV--INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS OTHER THAN UNITED
NATIONS

2501.............................. Sec. 1501. International conferences
and contingencies.
2502.............................. Sec. 1502. Restriction relating to
United States accession to any new
international criminal tribunal.
2503.............................. Sec. 1503. United States membership
in the Bureau of the
Interparliamentary Union.
2504.............................. Sec. 1504. Service in international
organizations.
2505.............................. Sec. 1505. Reports regarding foreign
travel.

TITLE XVI--UNITED STATES ARMS
CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY

2601.............................. Sec. 1601. Authorization of
appropriations.
2602.............................. Sec. 1602. Statutory construction.

TITLE XVII--EUROPEAN SECURITY ACT OF
1998

2701.............................. Sec. 1701. Short title.
2702.............................. Sec. 1702. Statement of policy.
2703.............................. Sec. 1703. Authorities relating to
NATO enlargement.
2704.............................. Sec. 1704. Sense of Congress with
respect to the Treaty on
Conventional Armed Forces in
Europe.
2705.............................. Sec. 1705. Restrictions and
requirements relating to ballistic
missile defense.

TITLE XVIII--OTHER FOREIGN POLICY
PROVISIONS

2801.............................. Sec. 1801. Reports on claims by
United States firms against the
Government of Saudi Arabia.
2802.............................. Sec. 1802. Reports on determinations
under title IV of the Libertad Act.
2803.............................. Sec. 1803. Report on compliance with
the Hague Convention on
International Child Abduction.
2804.............................. Sec. 1804. Sense of Congress
relating to recognition of
Ecumenical Patriarchate by the
Government of Turkey
2805.............................. Sec. 1805. Report on relations with
Vietnam.
2806.............................. Sec. 1806. Reports and policy
concerning human rights violations
in Laos.
2807.............................. Sec. 1807. Report on an alliance
against narcotics trafficking in
the Western Hemisphere.
2808.............................. Sec. 1808. Congressional statement
regarding the accession of Taiwan
to the World Trade Organization.
2809.............................. Sec. 1809. Programs or projects of
the International Atomic Energy
Agency in Cuba.
2810.............................. Sec. 1810. Limitation on assistance
to countries aiding Cuba nuclear
development.
2811.............................. Sec. 1811. International Fund for
Ireland.
2812.............................. Sec. 1813. Support for democratic
opposition in Iraq.
2813.............................. Sec. 1814. Development of democracy
in the Republic of Serbia
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 333,
nays 95, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 538]

YEAS--333

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Carson
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English

[[Page H11669]]

Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--95

Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Burr
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Condit
Costello
Crane
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Doggett
Duncan
Ehlers
Ensign
Filner
Frelinghuysen
Goode
Graham
Hefley
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaHood
Largent
Lee
Luther
Manzullo
McDermott
McIntosh
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Neumann
Pappas
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Portman
Riggs
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Skaggs
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thurman
Upton
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Wolf
Yates

NOT VOTING--7

Fazio
Hansen
Meehan
Mollohan
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Stark

{time} 1945

Mr. BRADY of Texas changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________