[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 149 (Thursday, October 28, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H11085-H11121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3064, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2000

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 345 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 345

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 3064) making appropriations for the government of 
     the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in 
     whole or in part against revenues of said District for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read. The conference report 
     shall be debatable for two hours equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost); pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 345 provides for the consideration of 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 3064, a bill to provide for 
fiscal year 2000 District of Columbia appropriations, and for other 
purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule waives all points of order against the 
conference report and its consideration, and provides that the 
conference report shall be considered as read. The rule provides for 2 
hours of general debate divided equally between the chairman

[[Page H11086]]

and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
House rules provide for one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions, as is the right of the minority of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is intended to move the appropriations 
process forward and send the message that we are committed to sending 
all of the 13 appropriations bills to the President. I heard it stated 
on the House floor earlier this week that only three times in the last 
2 decades has the Congress passed all 13 appropriations bills by the 
fiscal deadline. Like past Congresses, we did not meet the set 
deadline, but today we are sending the final appropriations bill to the 
President for his signature.
  Keeping America's fiscal house in order does take a little longer 
than the freewheeling spending days of the past because we must ensure 
that all funding is spent efficiently and where it is needed most. 
Notwithstanding the fiscal constraints we now face after decades of 
fiscal irresponsibility, the bill before us today responsibly funds 
areas important to every American citizen and also protects the 
American people from waste, fraud and abuse in Federal agencies.
  I want to discuss briefly the contents of the conference report that 
this rule makes in order. Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible bill that 
provides funding for important issues across the Nation. It includes 
funding for the District of Columbia, and substantial funding for 
education and health programs in the jurisdiction of the Departments of 
Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services. It also forces Federal 
workers to weed out waste in all of their agencies to find savings that 
will protect the Social Security program.
  The President has stated clearly that they want to spend more money. 
Once again, Members on the other side of the aisle have refused to 
admit what the rest of America strongly believes, that Social Security 
funds should be spent on Social Security benefits and nothing else. I 
urge President Clinton to work with Congress to ensure that Social 
Security is not raided to spend more money on wasteful and inefficient 
Washington spending plans.
  To achieve this, we are including in this bill a plan to direct every 
Federal agency to reduce spending by less than 1 percent, .97 of 1 
percent, by rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. Surely the Federal 
Government can save one penny out of every dollar, and the American 
people know that. By cutting waste in the Federal Government, we can 
stop the raid on Social Security that this government has done for 
decades.
  American citizens every month sit at the kitchen table and find ways 
to pay their bills and save money for their future. This Congress is 
simply asking the men and women who run Federal Government agencies to 
make the same kind of fiscally responsible budgeting with the money 
taxed out of our paychecks. This plan puts the power in the hands of 
each agency because each agency would have the opportunity to identify 
that percent of waste, fraud, and abuse and eliminate it.
  It is up to the agency head to decide where to find the savings, and 
I am sure even the best government program wastes at least 1 cent on 
the dollar. For example, the Government Accounting Office audits have 
found that Federal agencies were unable to account for over $800 
billion in government assets, that one out of every $18 spent in the 
Section 8 program is wasted, and that the government lost over $3.3 
billion on students who never paid back their student loans. Another 
example of waste; approximately 26,000 deceased persons received $8.5 
million in food stamps.
  We all know that the agency directors and executives know where the 
waste is, and I am relatively certain they will be able to weed out at 
least that much in savings with this sensible plan.

                              {time}  1300

  The second component of this conference report includes the District 
of Columbia funding that was included in the first D.C. appropriations 
bill, appropriating a total of $429.1 million in Federal funding 
support for the District and sending $6.77 billion in District funds 
back to the people of Washington.
  We maintain a number of important provisions that are designed to 
turn our Nation's Capital around, including ratification of the tax cut 
plan that was allotted by the city council and the Mayor of the 
District of Columbia to provide more opportunity for District residents 
to save their hard-earned money, reinvest it, to create jobs, and 
stimulate economic growth.
  In addition, part of the city-wide effort to revitalize the District 
also depends upon efforts to reduce the scourge of drug use and related 
crime in the District of Columbia. Therefore, we have provided funding 
for universal drug screening and testing, additional probation and 
parole officers, and drug treatment services.
  I am also very pleased that the bill retains the current law 
prohibition on Federal funds from being spent on any program to 
distribute needles for the purpose of illegal drug injection.
  Finally, the third component of this conference report includes 
funding for the final appropriations bill allocating money for the 
Department of Labor, Education and Human Services. The Labor, 
Education, HHS allotment includes health and education funding, 
including funding increases for the Maternal and Child Health Block 
Grant, the Ryan White AIDS Health Services, and Head Start.
  We have also included more funding than the President requested for 
education in the form of education block grants, safe and drug-free 
schools, State grants, and vocational education State grants.
  We continue to seek to fund education initiatives in ways to infuse 
incentives, flexibility, and accountability into a system that has so 
often felt comfortable with the status quo, and this conference report 
moves us toward our goal of strengthening our schools and improving 
learning for all of our children.
  In the Health and Human Services portion of the conference report, I 
am also personally pleased that the National Institutes of Health has 
received an increase in funding over the President's budget request.
  I believe that medical research represents the single most effective 
weapon in our arsenal against the diseases that affect Americans. The 
advances our scientists and doctors have made over the course of the 
last century could not have been predicted by even the most farsighted 
observers. Our own lives might some day depend on the efforts of 
scientists and doctors currently laboring in our Nation's Federal 
laboratories, and I am pleased that this important account has been 
increased for fiscal year 2000 so that this research can continue and 
expand.
  I urge the President to stop issuing veto threats to our fiscally 
responsible appropriations bills and join us in preserving Social 
Security and maintaining our balanced budget.
  I hope that this conference report serves as a first step toward a 
cooperative budget process that will result in a balanced budget and 
secure a future for America's seniors.
  This rule was favorably reported by the Committee on Rules last 
evening. I urge my colleagues to support the rule today on the floor so 
that we may proceed with a general debate and consideration of this 
important conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule marks the end of a sad chapter in a year-long 
budgetary charade played out by the Republican majority.
  This is the last of the 13 appropriations bills to be considered for 
fiscal year 2000. And what has the Republican majority done with the 
2000 budget? Let us take a moment to examine this closely.
  They have done nothing to strengthen Social Security. They have done 
nothing to strengthen Medicare. And they are following budgetary 
policies that hurt every American family. And to make matters worse, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office, their budget actually 
spent $17 billion of the Social Security surplus in spite of the fact 
that they troop out here every morning claiming they are not touching a 
penny of it.
  Let us not forget for a moment what the Republican majority tried to 
do earlier this year with the surplus. The

[[Page H11087]]

Republicans passed a $780 billion tax cut that was wisely rejected by 
the President and by the American people because it squandered the 
surplus instead of using it to pay down the national debt and to 
strengthen Medicare and Social Security.
  And so we move on to the latest chapter in this sad story of the 
budgetary games being played out by the Republican majority.
  In this chapter, they are proposing a .97 percent across-the-board 
cut for all Federal programs in order to make up for the fact that they 
cannot get their job done. In essence, what they are saying is, stop me 
before I sin again. Stop me before I raid even more from the Social 
Security Trust Fund.
  So what does this .97 percent mean? Let us listen to General Hugh 
Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in Congressional 
testimony earlier this week. ``This across-the-board cut would strip 
away the gains that we have made or what we've just done to start 
readiness moving back in the right direction. In other words, if 
applied to this program, it would be devastating. If it went into the 
personnel accounts, it would be disastrous.''
  According to the Comptrollers Office at the Department of Defense, 
this mindless across-the-board cut would mean a reduction of anywhere 
between 27,800 and 50,000 active-duty personnel. At the low end, this 
would represent a reduction of 9,600 troops for the Army; 7,500 for the 
Navy; 3,400 for the Marines; and 7,300 for the Air Force.
  This is the equivalent of three-fourths of an Army airborne division, 
one aircraft carrier, two attack submarines, two Burke-class 
destroyers, 1\1/2\ Marine Expeditionary Units, and two Air Force 
fighter wings. All this at a time when our armed forces are stretched 
thin across the globe. This, Mr. Speaker, is nonsense.
  Last night during the Committee on Rules hearing, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) tried to tell me that these cuts would come from 
waste, fraud, and abuse and from the classic expensive Pentagon toilet 
seat. He tried to tell me that because the Pentagon budget signed by 
the President was $4.5 billion more than the President requested, the 
nearly $3 billion in cuts mandated by the across-the-board cut in this 
conference report would not really represent a cut in the Defense 
Department.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) said last night that these 
are not cuts, they are merely adjustments. I beg to differ with his 
analysis.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier this week, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff said that these so-called adjustments would be 
devastating to military readiness. Readiness, in my book, does not 
represent waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Let me tell my colleagues what these adjustments in readiness will 
represent. A cut in $720 million in military personnel, which leaves 
that account $600 million below the President's request, and the so-
called adjustment will also represent a $1.1 billion cut in operations 
and maintenance, bringing that account down $1.1 billion below the 
President's request.
  Last night the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) said that because 
of the obstinacy of the members of the Clinton cabinet, it would be 
hard to make any projections about what these adjustments might mean 
until they ``get out of denial.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, it is hard for General Shelton and the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff to be in denial about $2.7 billion worth of cuts in the 
Defense Department when the bill signed by the President and passed by 
the majority in the other side contains projects they did not ask for.
  That includes $375 million as a down payment on a $1.5 million 
helicopter carrier to be built in Mississippi, the State of the Senate 
majority leader, or $320 million for a ship to be built in San Diego, 
or $15 million for a study of the aurora borealis, things that were 
added by the Members of the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, this is mindless budgeting and a clumsy attempt to 
appear to be living up to the Republican mantra of saving Social 
Security. The Republicans are not saving Social Security. They are not 
doing anything about ensuring its solvency, nor are they protecting 
Medicare. They are trying desperately to save their thin majority in 
this House. They are looking out for number one and letting the 
American people down in the process. They are cutting vital defense 
programs, ignoring Social Security, and denying senior Americans 
prescription drug coverage.
  This is a shameful exercise, Mr. Speaker. I urge every Member of this 
House, every Member who cares about the honest budgeting and living up 
to our responsibility as elected representatives, to vote against this 
farce and to work in the next week to come up with real solutions for 
the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The Chair would remind 
Members of something that is too often forgotten. Members should not 
make reference to individual Members of the other body.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that 
my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who spent nearly 2 
decades in the majority, spending 100 percent of the Social Security 
surplus without batting an eye, is now concerned that we are trying to 
save it.
  I further would like to point out that every family in America has 
learned how to cut 1 percent of their family budget. Surely, even the 
Pentagon can figure out how to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
southern California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think it is the height for someone 
that spent time in the majority that consistently voted to take money 
out of Social Security to then come up and rail on Republicans on 
Social Security. The gentleman that just spoke did that very same thing 
time and time again.
  Secondly, I was in the hearing where General Shelton testified to the 
President's budget on defense. He said that the President's budget was 
completely adequate on defense. We added $16 billion to that fact. And 
now the General says that 1 percent would be hurtful, after we added 
$16 billion and he testified that $16 billion would be less.
  General Shelton is a war hero, but I think he has no political spine 
in the fact that he is supporting the President and the Democrats in 
trying to veto every single one of these bills so that they can spend 
more money.
  In that defense bill that he said that the President signed this 
week, everybody knows that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), 
the President, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) did 
everything they could to have Democrats stand up and vote against the 
defense bill so that they could use it as leverage on all of these 
bills.
  I mean, that is wrong, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues ought to be ashamed 
of themselves, absolutely ashamed.
  And then the President signs it and says, well, it is because of the 
1.8. The only reason he signed it is because Democrats stood before the 
President and said they gave their word, 100 percent of the Democrats 
on the committee in the Senate and the House said that they would 
support the defense bill. And then the President had to back out.
  Do my colleagues know what he told one of those Democrats? And I will 
not mention their name because it was a personal conversation. He said, 
Oh, do not tell people that I was going to veto it anyway.
  That is sick, Mr. Speaker, absolutely sick and what the Democrats are 
trying to do.
  Secondly, we add education money. One of the gentlemen from the other 
body from Illinois, in the conference we add over $300 million above 
the President's request for education, and the gentleman from the other 
body said, oh, but you are making a cut, right? We said, no. We are 
increasing education spending from last year and we are adding $350 
million above what the President requested. He said, oh, you are 
cutting. And the gentleman from Illinois kept on. And Senator Stevens, 
or the chairman, I am not supposed to mention his name, sorry, the 
chairman of the committee said, no, that is not true. We are adding 
money from last year and we are adding money above the President's 
request. And the gentleman from Illinois

[[Page H11088]]

said, well, that is not what we originally wanted.
  So we are still increasing, but the same old spin that we are 
cutting.
  Now, I am sick and tired of the Democrats using demagoguery to try 
and veto every one of these bills so that they can spend more money. 
They sit there and support the President. The gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Gephardt) just walked in. They support the President's budget.
  Well, Mr. Gephardt, that story you told about Mars bars, where your 
mother wanted you to save the money, you should have listened to your 
mother. You still have not learned a lesson. You still want to spend 
and spend and spend and to tax to do that. Shame on you, Mr. Gephardt.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will address his remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Shame on you, Mr. Speaker.
  I apologize.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not exactly what the Chair had in 
mind, but the gentleman understands his point.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I understand that.
  But the point is that let us get out of this charade of trying to 
veto all of these bills so that the President has more leverage on all 
of these bills.
  I think it is perfectly fair to say, Mr. President, we are going to 
give you 13 appropriations bills. Take out your red marker where your 
priorities are and identify under the balanced budget where those lines 
are, but do not dip into Social Security and Medicare.
  The 1 percent across-the-board, including Members' pay, which I 
support, is a way to stay under that, but yet Members even reject that. 
I think that that is false, and I think it is wrong. Get a life.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that they 
cannot characterize Members of the other body intentions or remarks 
unless they are factual recitals of the public record in the other body 
on this pending measure.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget is a bad deal for 
America's families, and it is really when you think about it the worst 
of all worlds. It does not extend the life of Social Security by one 
day. It does not provide one penny for a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit. And worst of all, it hurts every family in America in some 
important way.
  Today's Congressional Budget Office letter to Speaker Hastert 
repudiates the Republican false claim about safeguarding the Social 
Security surplus. The CBO clearly and directly says the Republican 
budget has already spent $17 billion of the Social Security surplus on 
the spending bills. This letter does not use Democratic or Republican 
numbers to come up with the $17 billion figure, it uses CBO's own 
nonpartisan numbers. It exposes once and for all the clear fact that 
the Republicans are the raiders of the Social Security surplus they 
claim to have safely stowed in the lockbox.
  And, remember, the use of CBO numbers is something that Republicans 
felt so strongly about in 1995, they shut down the government over 
using CBO numbers consistently throughout the budget. They passed a 
resolution of the House in 1995 saying we would only use CBO numbers. 
Well, under the CBO numbers consistently applied across this budget, 
they say that we are spending $17 billion of Social Security surplus.
  Democrats are fighting for the real needs of families while the only 
real priority of the Republican Congress has been to squander the 
surplus on tax cuts for the wealthy and special interests. Democrats 
want to strengthen and extend the life of Social Security, and we want 
to protect and modernize Medicare. Democrats support the President's 
plan to devote the entire Social Security surplus to debt reduction and 
extend its solvency to the year 2050, and we have a proposal to add a 
prescription drug plan for Medicare. Republicans come up empty on both 
counts. Their budget fails to address the issue of how we can extend 
the life of Social Security to ensure that current and future retirees 
can continue to depend on the foundation of retirement security. And 
they have no answer for seniors who are forced today to choose between 
health care and prescription drugs and what they can afford.
  Some people say this debate is not real, that it is some kind of an 
inside-the-Beltway ritual, that somehow we enjoy gridlock and we do not 
want anything to happen. Well, people who say that are dead wrong. Go 
tell the senior who is going to be waiting for the meals on wheels and 
it does not come and it is not just the meal, it is the human contact 
that comes to that senior citizen to allow them to live in their home. 
This bill cuts thousands of meals on wheels.
  Go tell the child who is going to wind up in an overcrowded classroom 
because this bill does not contain what it should to try to get more 
teachers and to try to get more classrooms. Go tell the parent who is 
worried about dealing with their children using drugs that we had to 
cut the safe and drug-free bill. And ask the cancer patient who 
benefits from NIH research. I have been there. You have heard me tell 
the story of my son and what it was like to have that resident come in 
the room after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer and say, ``We got 
on the computer last night and we found an NIH therapy that might save 
his life. Don't get your hopes up but we're going to try.''
  Let me tell you something. When you need that research, you need it. 
This bill puts the NIH funding off to the last two days of the fiscal 
year, some kind of a cheap stunt in order to make the numbers come out. 
It makes no sense. Vote ``no'' on this budget. Let us sit down as 
adults with the President and the leaders of this Congress, the 
appropriators, let us come up with a budget that makes sense for the 
American people, that saves Social Security and Medicare and does right 
by America's families.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of injecting some sorely 
needed truth into this discussion, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I know we always hear some things that are 
long on emotion but short on facts or short on logic. One would think 
that what we were doing is cutting out or eliminating certain programs 
that the gentleman from Missouri referred to. That is not the case at 
all. What this bill says is for the discretionary spending of the 
Federal Government, let us reduce it 1 percent across the board. Not 
singling out any program for elimination, not singling out any 
department, not Meals on Wheels, not the military, not anyone but just 
saying overall in government, can we tighten our belt by 1 percent so 
that we do not jeopardize the Social Security trust fund any more. 
Because in the past, hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social 
Security trust fund were spent by Congress. And it happened even after 
the Republican majority took over because we were trying to make the 
change and now we are making it. Most of it, of course, in the prior 
years.
  But the time to use Social Security money for all these other things 
has stopped, and all you have to do is say to the rest of government, 
spend 99 cents instead of $1. That is it. And we do not touch Social 
Security benefits, we do not touch veterans benefits, we do not touch 
Medicare benefits. It is only the discretionary programs that are 
touched. Is that asking too much? Is that the end of the world? Of 
course not. Except to the people who claim what they do not want to do 
is spend Social Security, but what is their answer? Do they want to 
spend the same amount but just differently? No. Do they want to spend 
less so that we do not touch Social Security? No. They want to spend 
more. The Democrats want to spend more. That is what this is about. We 
are saying no.
  The CBO scoring documents, the Congressional Budget Office has given 
us in writing what they are not telling. They quote from the CBO and 
talk about the withdrawals from the government treasury, the 
withdrawals, the spending side, but they leave out what

[[Page H11089]]

CBO has said about the deposits. It is in writing and CBO has given it 
to us based upon the things and the bill upon which we are about to 
vote, it will not touch Social Security, there will still be a billion 
dollar surplus without even counting Social Security money. They want 
to count the withdrawals of the account, they do not want to count the 
deposits. CBO, when you count the deposits as well as the withdrawals, 
says you keep the budget balanced and you do it without spending Social 
Security money. And it is about time that we do that.
  I am sick to hear these Cabinet officers stand up in front of the 
camera and say, oh, there is no way that we can trim back 1 percent. 
Tell that to the American families that have to do it constantly, 
adjustments a lot bigger than 1 percent, or businesses or anyone else. 
Do not tell me that Federal agencies cannot find the way to save one 
penny on the dollar.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and 
to this bill. As a nurse, I have long advocated for Federal support of 
medical research. Over the past few years, we have substantially 
increased funding at NIH. This investment pays great dividends. Most 
importantly, it helps ease the suffering of millions.
  My daughter Lisa is currently in a fight with cancer. She knows and I 
know the importance of the work of NIH, work that is in process right 
now. The bill before us supposedly provides $17 billion for NIH, an 
increase of 15 percent over last year. But in a slick accounting 
gimmick to make it look like they are balancing the budget, House 
leaders are holding back nearly half of the money until the closing 
days of this year. This will push $2 billion onto next year's books and 
allow them to claim they are saving Social Security.
  I am amazed and appalled at such irresponsibility. It is no wonder 
this is being rushed through without adequate debate. This gimmick will 
actually have the effect of cutting NIH funding. Scientists today will 
have to slow their work while they wait for funding, seriously 
hampering saving research, research my daughter and so many others are 
waiting for, their lives on hold.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this rule and to fully fund the NIH 
starting today.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), my colleague on the Committee on 
Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, as we debate this very big bill we will necessarily be 
focused on big issues, as we have already heard, but I wanted to take a 
moment out to speak more to the human side, to commend the Committee on 
Appropriations for not overlooking an issue of very great importance 
but not of major press focus these days. I am referring to a line item 
that partially funds the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Act found in this 
year's appropriations bill.
  I think my colleagues will remember last year Congress enacted the 
Ricky Ray bill, which provides compassionate assistance from the 
Federal Government for victims of hemophilia associated AIDS. This law 
responds to that awful tragedy that has impacted the lives of thousands 
of Americans and continues to do that. This is the first year that we 
have sought funding for the Ricky Ray program, and I was grateful to 
see the Committee on Appropriations was receptive to beginning the 
funding process by allocating $50 million for fiscal year 2000. I 
certainly understand how difficult the appropriations process has been 
this year, I think we all do, so I am especially pleased that we are 
moving forward on this critically important program. I know the 
hemophilia community wishes we could allocate more money this year, the 
actual total funding would be $750 million, but I am hopeful that as 
the process continues the Committee on Appropriations will continue 
work to see that we set aside more funds.
  I have a letter from the National Hemophilia Foundation expressing 
appreciation, which I would like to insert in the Record at the 
appropriate point. I know many Americans will join me in thanking our 
colleagues the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for 
finding a way to start the funding for this program. I do not believe 
the sky is falling. I think good things are happening. I think this 
proves it. I urge support for the rule and for this bill.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                               National Hemophilia Foundation,

                                    New York, NY, October 5, 1999.
     Hon. C.W. Young,
     Chairman,
     Committee on Appropriations,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young: On behalf of the hemophilia community, 
     I wish to express our deepest gratitude for your strong 
     leadership and commitment to providing initial funding for 
     the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Trust Fund in the FY2000 
     Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill. Nearly 
     5,000 persons with hemophilia have died from the 
     complications of HIV/AIDS since HIV contaminated the blood 
     supply during the 1980s. Approximately 2,700 Individuals with 
     hemophilia continue to live with HIV. For these individuals 
     and for the families in the hemophilia community who lost 
     their loved ones, the funding included in the FY2000 bill 
     begins to fulfill the promise Congress made when it passed 
     the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act last year.
       As you proceed to conference with the Senate, we ask that 
     you continue to explore avenues to provide increased funding 
     for the Ricky Ray Relief Act and ensure its full 
     implementation as rapidly as possible. The time-limited 
     nature of the Trust Fund and the pressing medical, financial, 
     and personal costs borne by our community give urgency to 
     this request.
       Again, we thank you for your outstanding efforts and look 
     forward to working with you to fully fund the Ricky Ray Trust 
     Fund.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Edward Jones,
                                                        President.

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, 
I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. This 
rule provides for the consideration of the third version of the D.C. 
appropriations bill and the Labor-HHS bill which has never been voted 
on in the House, and just for good measure an across-the-board cut of 1 
percent. This bill does not extend Social Security or Medicare solvency 
for even a single day. My friends on the other side know full well that 
the President will veto this bill and we will have to come back. And a 
veto is well deserved.
  Mr. Speaker, if we pass this rule, we are endorsing a most unusual 
procedure. The annual Labor, Health and Human Services bill 
appropriates about one-third of the United States budget. It makes 
vitally important decisions about funding levels for everything from 
cancer research to teacher training. One would think that the Members 
of this House would consider it their responsibility to bring such a 
bill to the floor and to vigorously debate amendments which might make 
it better. But my friends in the majority are going to shirk that 
responsibility and opt instead for a single up-or-down vote on a whole 
grab bag of issues, some lacking even a passing acquaintance with the 
Labor-HHS bill.
  In my district, Rochester, New York, experts at the University of 
Rochester are conducting internationally recognized research in 
biotechnology and medical investigation. But in a bill where out of the 
ordinary is considered routine, this measure will delay any grants from 
January until September 29, 2000. There will be no research grants for 
a year. People who are waiting for cures, praying for cures know that 
this bill will not help them. As a former scientist, I can tell you 
research cannot be conducted that way. A delay of a year could be a 
delay for a lifetime. Research delayed is results denied, results which 
might help save a life or improve the quality of life for our fellow 
Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous admiration for the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter), the subcommittee chairman. He has been a 
champion in so many ways and his intelligence, competence and 
compassion will be irreplaceable when he retires at the end of next 
year. I really believe that in another place and time he would have 
brought a much different bill to the floor. But in this time and place 
the Labor-HHS bill cannot pass on its own. And so the majority relies 
on procedural shenanigans to slip it through.

[[Page H11090]]

                              {time}  1330

  The other side will argue it is really just a cut in office supplies 
and travel budgets and maybe coffee money. Really? Well, how about a 
$184 million cut in veterans medical care, or $2.7 billion cut in 
defense, which would mean eliminating jobs for tens of thousands of men 
and women in uniform? The top military official in the United States 
has warned that this approach could seriously impair our military 
readiness, but the majority here will be arguing office supplies and 
travel budgets.
  I do not blame the American people for finding this hard to believe. 
I find it hard to believe.
  Earlier this year this same majority said it had $892 million for a 
tax cut using up the Social Security money. Now it says it has to cut 
back on Head Start and child nutrition.
  A retroactive cut in bills which have already been signed by the 
President is a new wrinkle for us, and that has happened for several of 
the appropriations bills. It is very much like the contractor who 
builds a house, Mr. Speaker, and then comes back the next morning and 
breaks the windows.
  The rule is objectionable because it condones the highly 
unconventional process under which we consider this underlying bill, 
and the bill is objectionable for reasons too numerous to fully address 
in the time allotted for any of us, but I solemnly urge defeat of both.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to put 
the debate on this final spending bill in context.
  The President brought us what he called a balanced budget proposal. 
It was balanced, but it increased spending dramatically; and it funded 
it, and this is why it was balanced, it funded it by raising taxes $160 
billion on the American people at a time when taxes are higher than 
they have ever been with the exception of 1 year during World War II.
  Mr. Speaker, we put his budget on the floor, and we did not support 
it, and most of my colleagues did not support it on the other side of 
the aisle. Recently the President suggested that we close the gap 
between what we need to fund next year's services and the money 
available by raising taxes $20 billion. Well, we brought that proposal 
to the floor. The Republicans opposed that increase in taxes; and, as I 
recall, everyone of the Democrats did too.
  So, do not just talk. Be part of the action. What we are doing here 
today is finding a way to adjust our expenditures so that we can do the 
things the American people need.
  Any Secretary, any Cabinet member paid the salaries they are being 
paid can cut their expenses 1 percent over the year. The gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), one of our colleagues, was made head of 
the agency in Arizona responsible for children's services halfway 
through the year, and she had to save 4 percent in half a year, and she 
did it without touching a single children's program.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not anyone I represent who does not work in a 
factory or in a work place that over the last 2 years has not had to be 
more efficient and cut overhead in order to put their product out there 
on the market better quality, lower price. It is nothing in the private 
sector to have to find 1 percent.
  Why is this an emergency? Why is it that the gentleman from Missouri 
could get up here and claim that we are going to cut programs like 
Meals On Wheels? As my colleagues know, it is really very distressing 
to see the level of fear they were willing to put out there over 1 
percent. Frankly, if my colleagues cannot cut 1 percent out of their 
own expenditures, if any high-paid executive cannot cut 1 percent out 
without compromising programs, they are not a person who understands 
quality improvement, continuous improvement, or all of the other modern 
management techniques that allow them to reduce administrative costs 
and improve the delivery of services.
  So I am astounded at these horror stories that my colleagues are 
putting out, but let me also say one other thing. I am proud of what we 
are doing because in this Congress we have quietly decided to move our 
own goalposts. A few years ago we balanced the budget with great 
fanfare. That is terrific. This year we found, because the economy was 
doing well, we have the opportunity to balance that budget without 
Social Security funds. First time ever. I mean talk about revolutions.
  Balancing the budget was not nearly as hard as balancing it without 
Social Security funds, and we are going to do it without Social 
Security funds and without new taxes, and our colleagues should be 
helping us cut 1 percent, not scaring the American people.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I hear the nervous voices of my Republican 
colleagues, as they should be nervous, about what they propose today 
before this House and before the American people.
  When I am back home in New Jersey, I spend a lot of my time meeting 
with working families who are just trying to make ends meet, parents 
who have to work long hours and need a place to have after-school 
programs for their kids, senior citizens who are scared that they may 
have to choose between food and the medicine they need to stay healthy. 
I have a group in Middlesex County that I am working with to try to 
serve all of our homebound, bedbound and disabled seniors hot meals. 
Right now a lot of these people live on cold food or one meal a day. 
These are real people suffering in my communities and communities 
across the country.
  So when I look at this budget bill, the question I ask is: What does 
this do for these people? Well, for starters it guts the funding we 
made to them on hot meals, and it provides nothing to provide these 
seniors with a prescription drug benefit, but it does not stop there. 
It denies a million children the chance for a safe after-school 
program, it cuts funding for over 8,000 desperately needed new 
teachers, it cuts immunizations for 330,000 poor children, and it does 
nothing, Mr. Speaker, to extend the life of Social Security, not even 
by 1 day.
  And why does this bill fail in all these respects? Because 
Republicans need the money to pay for their trillion-dollar tax 
giveaway, a proposal the American people rejected during the break.
  It is all a matter of priorities. This bill does not extend the life 
of Social Security even by a single day. It fails to provide one penny 
for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and the only thing it does, 
Mr. Speaker, is hurt some American families in some very real way.
  To Republicans, the top priorities are tax breaks for their special-
interest friends. For we Democrats the top priorities are America's 
seniors and families. Let us vote with them and against this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  At the risk of sounding remedial, I would like to point out to the 
gentleman from New Jersey that there is no tax cut in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. 
Biggert).
  (Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the 
conference report. The report not only includes funding for the 
District of Columbia, it also includes more money for education, Pell 
grants for college students, the NIH, Federal impact aid for local 
communities, the Ryan White AIDS program, and communities services 
block grants the administration requested.
  But I am particularly pleased that the report includes a slightly 
less than 1 percent cut on new spending including a $1,400 cut to 
Members of Congress' own pay. Cutting Members' cost-of-living increase 
tells Federal agencies that they are not alone in holding down costs 
and says, ``If you have to take a cut, Congress will, too.'' The cut in 
salary will also bring Members to a level that is more comparable to 
the Social Security beneficiaries' COLA, further illustrating the 
Republicans' commitment to preserving Social Security.

[[Page H11091]]

  I congratulate the Republican leadership for funding key programs in 
this bill and for keeping its word on protecting Social Security. I 
urge my colleagues to support the rule and the conference report.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  I come to the floor this afternoon in the name of the people of the 
District of Columbia to protest being used by this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to be abused. It is just as bad to be 
used. It is one thing to be treated like a dog. It is another thing to 
be treated like a mule. That is what is happening here.
  The District of Columbia, the tiniest appropriation, is being used as 
a mule to carry across the largest appropriation, the Labor-HHS 
appropriation. This appropriation is the only one that involves a 
breathing, living city. We should have been the first out of this 
place. It is the simplest. It is our money, not my colleagues', 
virtually all of it. It does not belong here. It makes devolution a 
joke, for me to have to come before my colleagues who have virtually 
nothing to do with raising the money in this bill to ask for my own 
money.
  Mr. Speaker, it is hung up here extraneous matters that are none of 
my colleagues' business. It makes the whole idea of devolution as it 
comes out of their mouths a joke because it involves them in tiny 
matters that in their jurisdictions would never go anywhere outside 
their borders.
  It makes a lot of hard work go up in smoke. There is the work of the 
District of Columbia which presented a marvelously balanced budget with 
tax cuts and a surplus. There is the work of the Senate and House 
appropriators, and I appreciate that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) have worked to get a bill that 
might be signed.
  I wondered after the veto of this bill why would there be no 
negotiations. Talk about irregular order. Nobody sat down and tried to 
work out our disagreements. Now I know why, because my colleagues 
needed a bill number. That bill number, the first thing running, 
happened to be the District of Columbia appropriations containing the 
money of the people of the District of Columbia raised in the District 
of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues did not have the nerve and the guts to 
take their HHS bill to full committee and then to this floor so that it 
could be debated openly. They tried something so underhanded that it 
needs to be exposed to the American people.
  What has resulted is a double delay. We had to delay while our 
colleagues negotiated this jerry-built HHS bill. Then we had the delay, 
of course, while we negotiated our differences in the D.C. bill.
  What we have is a potentially signable bill, one not to my liking, 
and I do not know if it would be signed, that is going over with a bill 
my colleagues know will not be signed to further delay the people of 
the District of Columbia getting their own money.
  This rule is unworthy of any serious legislative body. It is an 
unconscionable way to treat the people of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the committee.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, once again we are stressed between a debate 
over spending the Social Security surplus. This bill that is the result 
of this rule will protect the Social Security surplus, but one would 
not know it from the rhetoric. According to the other side we are 
actually dipping into the Social Security surplus by $17 billion. But 
once again we see that the sky is falling and Chicken Little is running 
about the House of Representatives. They say children will be sitting 
in crowded schools because of this, seniors will not eat, parents will 
be helpless to stop their children from doing drugs, medical research 
will be frozen for a year, and 50,000 troops will be laid off or 
reduced in force.
  Well, none of that is true. Let us just look at defense, for an 
example. General Shelton came to the House of Representatives, came to 
the Senate and he said, ``Here's the President's budget. We think it's 
sufficient to provide for our Department of Defense.'' Then we 
increased that amount of money in budget authority by $4.5 billion. Now 
a 1 percent cut would reduce that, but it's still $2 billion over the 
request that was completely sufficient, $2 billion more, and now, Mr. 
Speaker, all of a sudden we are going to be laying off 50,000 troops.
  How can that be? How can it switch when we are still increasing by $2 
billion? Well, I have the letter that says that we are dipping into 
Social Security surplus by $17 billion that has been referred to by the 
opponents of this, and it puts some really bogus groundrules to do 
that. But even if it were true, it says that in order to keep from 
spending the Social Security surplus, one would have to have a 4.8 
percent across-the-board reduction, 4.8 percent. Well, where is their 
offer to cut the budget by 4.8 percent so we can protect Social 
Security?

                              {time}  1345

  Now, you say this will not extend Social Security even one day. Well, 
if you do not follow your own rhetoric and arguments, if you do not cut 
another 4.8 percent, you will shorten the life of Social Security. You 
will reduce the amount of time that is available for us to pay our 
seniors the benefits that they have so adeptly earned by working and 
paying into the system. The charges are not true, so why do they make 
the charges? To increase spending.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for the rule and vote for the bill that 
follows.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind myself of the old adage, 
select your words carefully today, for tomorrow you may eat them. I 
rise in strong opposition to this rule for a fundamental reason why all 
of us should be opposing this rule: It brings a $95 billion spending 
bill to the floor without allowing the House to debate it and to decide 
where to cut it. That in itself is unprecedented, bringing a bill to 
the floor as a conference report that has not had committee action, 
that has not had floor action. That should be sufficient reason for 
anyone who cares about the process of this House to oppose this rule.
  Now, I, too, am sick and tired of demagoguery. I heard an excellent 
speech from my friend from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) this morning in which 
he openly and honestly said a lot of things.
  My reason for being here today is my opposition to the leadership of 
this side of the aisle, a leadership that has the gall to stand on this 
floor and to have a message from their party taking full credit for the 
balanced budget and the fact that we almost got by without spending 
Social Security last year, when that same leadership did not vote for 
the budget of 1990 that laid the foundation, the budget of 1993 that 
put the walls up on the economy, and only provided 187 votes for the 
balanced budget agreement in 1997 that has become the mantra of 
political demagoguery on this floor. How do you have the gall to stand 
here and to blame anybody? There is enough credit and blame to go 
around.
  I happen to be one of the 46 Democrats that stood and voted with you 
in 1995 when you said a balanced budget should be required and to use 
scoring by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office based on the 
most current economic and technical assumptions of the Congressional 
Budget Office. I agreed with you then, I agree with you today. That is 
why the Blue Dogs sent a letter to this same CBO asking them to score 
it, and when they responded to our question of CBO assumptions and 
methodology and excluding directed scorekeeping, they tell us we are 
spending $17.1 billion of Social Security, we, the Congress, both 
sides. But how can people blame the minority when the minority can pass 
nothing? That is CBO.
  All I am saying is it is time for a little honesty. You know, that 
tax bill that you begged and pleaded with us to support, according to 
CBO honest scoring, would have spent $120 billion of the same Social 
Security trust fund we here today are debating.

[[Page H11092]]

  Come on, it is time to be honest with our rhetoric. ``Across the 
board spending.'' I heard the gentleman from Oklahoma a moment ago make 
this talking claim. The measure does not specify the accounts.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves at this moment in the middle of a very 
highly structured and organized disinformation campaign by our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and yet some of the 
criticisms that have been leveled I want to admit to.
  The gentleman from Texas and earlier the gentlewoman from New York 
said that it is not right that a bill like the Labor-HHS bill, or any 
other appropriation bill, comes to the floor without the chance of the 
House to shape that legislation on the floor. I agree with that. I 
regret that this bill has not been taken up on the floor. I think it is 
a failure of process, and I accept the criticism that has been leveled 
in that regard.
  I would say to the gentleman from Texas that the bill was shaped in 
the subcommittee and in the full Committee of Appropriations and that 
my colleague from Wisconsin was invited to an informal conference which 
we had to have in the absence of passing the bill on the floor. He 
refused to participate and his voice was not heard. But the criticism 
is a valid one.
  Yet there is so much today that is not valid, so much that is 
disinformation. This bill in total is the same as the President's 
budget. It is equal to the President's budget in education, it is 
higher than the President's budget in health and human services, and it 
is somewhat below the President in labor. But it is equal to the 
President's budget, overall.
  Yes, we differ on how that money ought to be spent, and it is up to 
the Congress, not the President, to shape legislative policy, and we 
are doing that.
  The minority leader followed by the gentlewoman from California said 
in effect we are cutting NIH. Let me remind my colleagues from the 
other side of the aisle that in the last 5 years we have increased NIH 
5.7 percent, 6.9 percent, 7.1 percent, and, last year, 15 percent, and 
in this bill 14 percent. And, very frankly, the President of the United 
States in his budget this year proposed just a 1.4 percent increase for 
NIH. Are we supporting biomedical research? Yes, we are. Is anything 
saying that we are not? The truth is, ``no''; it is a lie.
  I would end by saying this: Nobody for the last 15 years has 
attempted to get control over the budget in a way that protects the 
Social Security reserve, and your side of the aisle has presided over 
hundreds of billions of dollars of raid on that reserve. Thank God we 
are trying to correct that right now.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely correct that I refused to 
participate in the conference on the Labor-HHS bill, because it was not 
a conference. The conference is supposed to come after the House passes 
a bill.
  We were never given an opportunity to debate this bill on the floor 
and help shape it. Then we went into a conference controlled by the 
Republican leadership with a specific instruction about what ought to 
be provided in that bill, and so I simply said to the gentleman, 
``Look, my friend, when the Republicans have determined what they want 
in that bill, I will be happy to sit down with you and give you an 
honest assessment of what else you need to do to get a bill that can be 
supported on a bipartisan basis.'' But I will not participate in a 
sham. And I do not apologize for that. I am proud of it.
  Secondly, with respect to NIH, the gentleman from Illinois is a great 
friend of NIH. There are few better friends in this House than the 
gentleman from Illinois. But the product today, not through his desire, 
but because of this silly, phony debate on Social Security, what is 
happening to NIH is that all but a few hundred million of the $4 
billion that we are providing to NIH for new grants will be frozen for 
an entire year. That will kill people, and that is wrong.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first say to the respected chairman of the 
subcommittee just for a point of reference, in 1995, my first year in 
the House, it was the Republican budget, the fiscal 1996 budget, that 
the President would not adopt that cut the NIH by 5 percent. You all 
have forgotten about that, but you all did propose that, and thank God 
you did.
  Now, the bill before us today perpetuates a fraud on the Federal 
budget process and the American people. The Republicans have produced a 
Federal budget which in reality exceeds the spending caps set in 1997 
by more than $30 billion and, according to our own Congressional Budget 
Office in this letter, spends at least $17 billion against the Social 
Security surplus, even with the across-the-board cuts, advance funding 
and gimmicks such as delaying medical research funding and paying the 
government's bills to private contractors late.
  Today we read that the Speaker of the House and the Republican 
leadership, in their effort to pursue this budgetary fraud for 
political goals, has cut a deal with the chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, promising him that they will make 
him whole later on. He will get his highways, but medical research, 
trying to find cure for cancer and AIDS in Houston, Texas, will get the 
shaft.
  No matter how much my Republican friends say it, no matter how much 
they wish it, the fact remains that, as scored by CBO, their budget 
exceeds the '97 budget spending caps by $30 billion, and spends $17 
billion of the Social Security surplus. This is before the House takes 
up bills to rewrite the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement, before the tax 
credit extensions and the minimum wage tax cuts, which we know will 
cost billions more.
  It is not really whether you cut across the board, it is the fact 
that you have destroyed the budget process.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are, 29 days into the new fiscal year, dealing 
with the largest discretionary budget, other than defense, under most 
unusual circumstances.
  This is the bill that deals with every family in America on education 
and health and working issues and training and job safety and such, and 
we are operating under and asked to vote for a rule which completely 
bypasses regular order.
  This is my ninth budget. In not one of those previous 8 years have we 
dealt with the labor, health and education budget in less than at least 
one whole day of debate, where it was possible to amend this 
legislation along the way, either by the minority or the majority, to 
offer amendments and have them debated and considered along the way.
  Not a single amendment can be offered here, not a single one debated. 
It is totally unamendable under these circumstances. But we are here 
under that set of rulings, and we should reject the rule for that 
reason.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the 
Virgin Islands, Mrs. Christiansen.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to this 
combined DC/Labor-HHS-Education conference report, which in reality is 
a misnomer, because the majority did not even bother to bring a 
freestanding Labor-HHS-Education bill to the floor.
  While they are continuing to invent new budgetary gimmicks to mask 
the fact they have already raided the Social Security surplus, our 
friends in the majority have brought a Labor-HHS bill to the floor 
which cuts many of the President's priority requests to a completely 
unacceptable level. In fact, even if the President's request was 
approved, it would not have been adequate to sustain and meet the 
current capacity building needs of minority

[[Page H11093]]

communities. Of the CDC's minority HIV and Health Disparities request, 
it cuts the administration's request by $39 million, making it less 
than last year's level. This is unconscionable and must not be allowed 
to stand. We cannot afford to take a step back, just as we are finally 
beginning to make a difference.
  My colleagues, we must not allow disparate treatment in health care 
of minorities to continue. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
unfair rule and this mean-spirited bill which cuts much needed funding 
in health care, education and social services to our families and our 
children.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. Speaker, the speakers on the other side, several of them have 
engaged in what I have referred to as triple-speak, not double-speak 
but triple-speak. They said, oh, well, the President only requested X 
for defense, and Congress voted more than the President requested for 
defense. Now they are cutting back across-the-board 1 percent, and the 
figure is still more than the President requested for defense. 
Therefore, defense is just hunky-dory.
  What the gentlemen on the other side really did was to appropriate 
more than the President requested for weapons systems, for pet weapons 
systems for particular Members of Congress, money that was not even 
requested by the President. Now they want to cut below what the 
President requested for operations and maintenance and for personnel.
  This is not double-speak, this is triple-speak. In fact, the Defense 
Department, under their 1 percent cut, will now get less than what the 
President asked for to be able to deploy people around the world, less 
for operations and maintenance, and will in fact have to reduce the 
size of the armed forces.
  They should not be permitted to get away with this kind of charade. 
The American people deserve to be spoken to honestly and directly when 
we are talking about what we are doing with their money.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a charade. We will vote ``no'' against the rule. 
If the rule is passed, we will vote no against the conference report. 
If the conference report should be passed, the President will veto it. 
They do not have the votes to override the veto, they know that, and we 
will then, finally, be in negotiations with all the parties at the 
table, unless the other side stubbornly refuses to negotiate with the 
President.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I gratefully bring an end to this discourse 
by yielding the balance of my time to my friend, the gentleman from 
Southern California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I 
would like to commend this House, because when we move from this rule 
to the debate on the conference report and then vote it out, we will 
have, for the first time in a heck of a long time, passed all 13 
appropriations bills without touching social security, and we will have 
sent them down to the President.
  There has been a great deal of rhetoric that we have heard during 
this debate, but I have to say that we are going to be making history 
when we proceed with this.
  We are trying to make some tough decisions. It is very easy to simply 
advocate a tax increase when we are advocating more spending. What we 
are saying is that we are not going to increase the tax burden on 
working families, we are not going to touch social security, and at the 
same time, we are going to make sure that we do not increase spending.
  It is tough to do that. We are the ones who proposed doing it 
responsibly. That is why so many of my colleagues on this side have 
argued eloquently on behalf of a very responsible 1 percent cut.
  My friend, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas, has justifiably talked 
about the fact that we are going to see problems within the Department 
of Defense. That does not have to happen. It does not have to happen. 
We will, with this 1 percent cut, have, as has been pointed out, $1.8 
billion more than the President's request for national defense, and 
those priorities can clearly be established within the Pentagon and by 
the President.
  We all acknowledge that there has to be waste, fraud, and abuse in 
every level of government. We are going to be doing it right here in 
the United States Congress, as well.
  We know that when it comes to education, $34.7 billion was requested 
by the President. What is it that we had? We had $35.03 for education, 
and with this 1 percent cut we end up with $88 million more than the 
President's request for education. So if we look at what it is we are 
trying to do, we are doing it very, very responsibly. I hope very much 
that my colleagues will join in helping us make history by giving us a 
bipartisan vote on both the rule and on the conference report.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this 
rule. Although the rule waives all points of order against the 
conference report, the rule also denies any amendments to this very 
flawed bill.
  This bill cuts $1.2 billion out of the President's education agenda. 
It guts last year's bipartisan commitment to hire 100,000 teachers to 
reduce class size in the early grades, block grants the program, and 
cuts out the additional $200 million requested by the President to hire 
8,000 teachers next year, in addition to 29,000 teachers hired this 
year.
  This measure funds 3,400 fewer after school centers serving 950,000 
fewer children than requested by the President.
  The appropriations bill also cuts $189 million in Title 1 funds below 
the President's request which help schools hire an additional 5,400 
Title 1 teachers to serve 290,000 disadvantaged children.
  This legislation also cuts $44 million in requested CDC funding to 
immunize over 333,000 children against childhood diseases.
  This bill denies $94 million requested for educational technology 
initiatives, including funds to establish computer learning centers in 
260 low-income communities, to implement technology plans in 220 school 
districts; and impose technology instruction in 4,700 middle schools.
  When our multi-cultural society is our Nation's strength, this bill 
wrongfully denies $169 million for Bilingual Education, HEP/CAMP, and 
Adult Education, denying bilingual education training for 1,800 
teachers; high school equivalency and college assistance for 2,400 
migrant students; and ESL education for 600,000 adult learners when 
one-third of recent immigrants do not have a high school diploma or its 
equivalent.
  And this bill also injures our hardworking students by denying $60 
million of the $240 million requested for GEAR UP, preventing an 
estimated 131,000 low-income middle and high school students from 
receiving the mentoring, counseling, tutoring, outreach, support 
services, and encouragement they need to raise their expectations and 
successfully pursue college; cuts out $50 million for new initiatives 
to educate disadvantaged youth and their families about college 
opportunities.
  This bill cuts $35 million in requested funding to improve pre-
service training for 2,500 new teachers and denies funds to recruit 500 
new teachers under the Teacher Quality Enhancement Program; and rejects 
$18 million for Troops to Teachers aimed at meeting the need for 2.2 
million additional teachers over the next 10 years.
  The Department of Education is a vital entity that provides a great 
many services to our Nation's education, yet, the bill cuts $16 million 
out of the Department's administrative budget--forcing a furlough of 
employees for 10+ days--in a back door attempt to dismantle the 
Education Department piece by piece. As written, the bills denies $125 
million requested by the President to support family care for over 5 
million Americans with long-term care needs, cuts $28 million requested 
by the President to ensure that 1.6 million elderly and disabled 
receive quality nursing care, and cuts funding available for social 
services for the elderly and low-income Americans in FY 2000 by $1.1 
billion or 46% below the mandatory level.
  This bill also strikes a blow to our workforce and eliminates 
assistance for 241,000 unemployed individuals. It also shortchanges 
efforts to improve the safety and health of workers and the safety of 
their benefits, but cutting $69 million out of requested increases for 
workplace safety enforcement, initiatives to promote equal pay, to 
address problems of coal dust in mines, and help other countries 
improve working standards. Worse yet, the measure eliminates $25 
million new initiative to provide health coverage for uninsured 
workers, cuts the Minority AIDS initiative by $15 million below the 
1999 level.
  This legislation also injures the American farmer and drops $508 
million in emergency

[[Page H11094]]

aid to farmers devastated by Hurricane Floyd in North Carolina and 
states on the Eastern seaboard with no guarantee that this needed 
assistance will be provided later.
  The 1.4% cut across the board will decidedly hurt key programs. This 
bill cuts $403 million out of the Department of Education, reducing the 
conference level to $81 million below the President's program request, 
cuts $550 million out of the Department of Health and Human Services, 
and cuts $122 million out of the Department of Labor. An additional 
$109 million would be cut out of Title 1, eliminating reading and math 
assistance for approximately 168,000 disadvantaged children, $108 
million would be cut out of Pell Grants, underfunding the maximum Pell 
award, $54 million would be cut from Head Start, and over 10,000 fewer 
kids would be served, $2 million would be cut from Meals on Wheels, and 
1.5 million fewer meals would be served to 11,000 fewer seniors.
  By combining the Labor HHS bill with the DC Appropriations Conference 
Report, we send the message to America's children, workers, and elderly 
that we do not care about them--that we are willing to cut their 
services because we were too lazy to amend this bill.
  I oppose this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 206, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 547]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--206

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Gilman
     Hinojosa
     Mascara
     Rodriguez
     Rush
     Scarborough
     Waters

                              {time}  1424

  Ms. BERKLEY and Mr. BISHOP changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay''.
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall No. 547 I was unavoidably 
detained and missed the vote. If I had been present I would have voted 
``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 547, I was delayed. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 345, 
I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3064) making 
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other 
activities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of said 
District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). Pursuant to House Resolution 
345, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Wednesday, October 27, 1999, at page H10933.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).


                             General Leave

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 3064, and that 
I and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) may include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.

[[Page H11095]]

  Mr. Speaker, I believe all of the Members understand now that this 
conference report includes, not only the District of Columbia 
appropriations bill, that was rewritten and passed after the President 
vetoed the first one, but it also includes the Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education bill, which is the 13th appropriations bill to 
be sent to the President's desk. The submission of these 13 bills plus 
the two supplementals will end this phase of the appropriations 
process.
  The next phase of the process, then, is to receive the vetoes from 
the President on those bills which the President determines that he 
does not like, and to work with the White House Office of Management 
and Budget and the President himself, if he is available, on whatever 
differences we can to try to get subsequent legislation signed, because 
all of these appropriations bills must become law.
  Much of the debate will be related probably, not to the District of 
Columbia portion of the bill, but the Labor, HHS portion and to the 
offset section.

                              {time}  1430

  One of the issues that we will hear about, I know, because we heard a 
lot about it during consideration of the CR and also the rule on this 
bill, is the across-the-board cut, which is less than 1 percent. I am 
not a great proponent of across-the-board cuts, but we are doing 
everything that we possibly can to make sure that we do not spend any 
of the Social Security money. To do this we made this less than 1 
percent across-the-board cut part of our offset package.
  Now, there has been and there will be a lot of criticism of this 
across-the-board cut, but everyone that I know who lives outside the 
Beltway is convinced that the Government wastes a lot of money, a lot 
of their money. And I know that the folks back in my district would 
laugh at me, and anyone else who would try to convince them that our 
government could not find 1 penny out of every tax dollar from the 
discretionary accounts; that we could not save one penny out of every 
dollar. I think we would be laughed out of town if we tried to convince 
our constituents that this government, that has considerable waste, and 
we try to weed out the waste the best that we can, but it continues to 
pop up, we would be laughed out of town if we tried to convince our 
constituents that this government could not save 1 penny out of every 
dollar that we appropriate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished chairman for 
yielding me this time.
  Before we begin the more partisan portion of this debate, I want to 
join with my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for a 
tribute to a retiring member of our staff, and I want to congratulate 
Bob Knisely, who is sitting directly on my right, on his retirement and 
wish him well.
  Bob has served the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, 
and Education, and related agencies, for 28 years. That is an 
absolutely remarkable achievement, Mr. Speaker. There are only 10 
Members of this House who were here when Bob Knisely began his career 
with the subcommittee. He has served under Chairman Mahon, Chairman 
Whitten, Chairman Natcher, Chairman Obey, Chairman Livingston, and now 
Chairman Young. On the Subcommittee on Labor-HHS and Education, he has 
served under Chairman Flood, Chairman Natcher, Chairman Smith and now 
during my tenure.
  In the world of appropriations, two words encompass the strongest 
values of the committee and, when used, Mr. Speaker, represent the 
highest compliment that one can pay to a staffer at any level. One is 
``technician''. It contains none of the bureaucratic connotations 
usually associated with the word. Bob Knisely is an outstanding 
technician, Mr. Speaker. He assures that the legislative and other 
products of the subcommittee meet his high standards for quality and 
that they will assure the implementation of our policies. His expertise 
in the rules of the committee and the House, as well as the technical 
aspects of putting the bill and report together, is absolutely 
irreplaceable. His knowledge of the programs under our subcommittee's 
jurisdiction is, of course, unparalleled, as is his understanding of 
the history of the subcommittee for more than half of its existence.
  The second word, Mr. Speaker, is ``professional''. There are those 
who continue in the mistaken belief that a professional staff cannot 
exist on the Hill; that we must surround ourselves only with 
individuals who share our political views. This is rubbish, and Bob's 
career demonstrates the true concept of professionalism. He has served 
chairmen and members of our subcommittee of both parties equally, 
providing them with his best advice and technical support.
  Bob, our subcommittee and its chairmen have been better and more 
effective because of your service here. This institution, which we all 
love, is a better place because of your service. And, hopefully, your 
career will serve as a model to continue to strengthen it even after 
you have left. Your shoes will be very, very hard to fill.
  I know that I speak for the entire subcommittee and for this entire 
House in wishing you well in your retirement, and I hope we can call on 
you occasionally for help. Your work of 28 years and your 
professionalism are a credit to our subcommittee, to the Congress, and 
to our country.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, when I first went on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education as a rookie, Bob Knisely was one of 
the persons who taught me both about the programs with which we dealt, 
and about the way the committee worked and how I could be most 
effective in pursuing the goals that I was concerned about.
  To this day, I have no idea whether Bob is a Republican or a 
Democrat. I do know he is a consummate professional. I do know he is a 
first-rate human being. I do know he is a spectacular public servant. 
He is one of those people about whom the public will never hear, but he 
is one of those people, nonetheless, who has helped every day to make 
things better for working people, who are supposed to be the primary 
interest of the Department of Labor.
  He has always given us straight, honest information. He is part of a 
terrific staff that acts as reality checks on all of us practicing 
politicians. We like to fit the facts into our rhetoric, but Bob 
Knisely has been one of those people who has always helped us to fit 
our rhetoric into the facts. We may not have always been comfortable 
with that, but that, in the end, is what a professional staffer is 
supposed to do.
  I am profoundly grateful for the service that you have provided, Bob, 
and I am profoundly grateful to the assistance you have given me, and 
all of us, through the years, and I wish you well in your retirement. 
Thank you again very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran), who wishes to wish Mr. Knisely well, and to discuss the 
District of Columbia appropriations conference report.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the reason why I rise to speak 
with regard to Mr. Knisely is that I worked with Mr. Knisely a quarter 
of a century ago.
  Over the last 25 years, I have become older and fatter and grayer and 
uglier, but Mr. Knisely looks the same. He is just as sharp and keen of 
mind and quick of wit, and he is just as slim and good looking as he 
was then.
  But putting aside all the superficial things, the substantive thing 
is, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, he is a consummate 
professional. I was on the Senate Committee on Appropriations staff 
during some very difficult times. And I know that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) remembers, and by the way, even then the 
personality and intellect of the gentleman from Wisconsin made him a 
larger-than-life presence on the Committee on Appropriations 25 years 
ago, but if it were not for Bob Knisely, a great many of the issues 
that we could not find our way out of never would have been resolved in 
a spirit of bipartisanship.
  He is a very professional staffer and a good person and this country 
owes him a deep debt of gratitude.

[[Page H11096]]

  Now with regard to the D.C. Appropriations Bill, Mr. Speaker, here we 
go again. I am not sure if we can remember how many times we have been 
on the House floor or in conference on just the D.C. appropriations 
bill. This little bill is about $6 billion, $429 million is all of the 
Federal funds involved, but certainly this should be the last time that 
we would have to bring the D.C. appropriations bill to the House floor 
because we have made great progress since the President's veto of the 
first D.C. appropriations conference report.
  Maybe it took a White House no to get all the parties into a room and 
discuss it seriously, earnestly. It certainly worked, if that is what 
it took. The chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), and 
the chairwoman, Senator Hutchison finally kept an open enough mind to 
find out what needed to be done, and so we reached an acceptable 
compromise.
  It took very few changes, as we had been saying all along, to reach 
that acceptable compromise. The compromise includes increasing the cap 
on special education attorney fees, eliminating the restriction on a 
private organization to be able to use private funds to carry out 
needle exchange programs, and allowing the District's Corporation 
Council to review and comment on its voting rights lawsuit without the 
use of Federal funds.
  I have to say if they had accepted these modest changes several 
months ago, showing proper respect and deference to the District's home 
rule, we would not be here today. If it had not been for a lot of 
politicizing and posturing, we could have and should have had this 
appropriations bill signed into law last July.
  For such a small appropriation of Federal funds, we had to have so 
much political rhetoric, $429 million is all the Federal money 
involved, and yet we are holding up $6.8 billion of the District's 
money. Because we changed things with the D.C. Revitalization Act, we 
treat the District as we would other States. We give them grants and 
contracts. We do not oversee them any more, or certainly we should not 
be, yet we are holding the District's budget hostage. They have a tax 
cut in it. They have a balanced budget and fiscal accountability in it.
  They have a terrific Mayor, better management now in so many key 
areas. They are doing everything that we had hoped that they might do; 
more importantly, that their citizens demanded that they do. They have 
a little surplus. They are all in agreement on their own budget, and 
yet we are holding up their $6.8 billion budget using as leverage this 
little $425 million of Federal funds, holding it hostage.
  It has been held hostage to a series of controversial social riders 
and restrictions on how the District can spend its own local property 
tax money and private money that is not even local public money. Those 
restrictions have not and would not be imposed on the constituents of 
any other Member of Congress, yet we impose them on the District of 
Columbia.
  But this compromise, as I say, removes several of the most 
objectionable riders, at least with regard to the needle exchange 
program, which is always a controversial issue. But free needle 
exchange operates as a gateway so that the Whitman-Walker private 
organization could get access to addicts who were in desperate need of 
drug treatment and counseling. By offering free needles, they got them 
into the program so that they could identify them and heal them. The 
District has the worst AIDS epidemic of any other urban areas. They 
desperately need to be able to do whatever it takes to address 
effectively that problem.

                              {time}  1445

  But since we have taken so much time to do our most important job 
passing appropriations bills, this little D.C. bill, important really 
only to the residents of the District of Columbia because it holds 
hostage over $6 billion of their own money, is now held hostage to a 
grander political scheme. The Labor, Health, and Human Services 
Appropriations bill, a bill with $93 billion of Federal money, compared 
to $429 million in the D.C. bill is attached as an amendment along with 
a 1% across the board cut and thus ensures its veto.
  As a free-standing measure, we would support, in fact the entire 
subcommittee, Democrats and Republicans alike, would support this D.C. 
appropriations bill. We have always hailed it from an appropriations 
standpoint. It has always been a good appropriations bill. It is just 
these politicized, idealogical riders that sunk it.
  Now it is going to be crushed by the Labor-HHS bill and by the 1 
percent across-the-board cut. That is not right. It is wrong. It should 
not have happened. And I urge a no vote because it did happen.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the very 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations for the 
District of Columbia.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young) for the opportunity to present this bill today and for 
the leadership that he has provided in the appropriations process, and 
also to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, on 
which I also serve and which has been combined in this bill with the 
D.C. appropriation.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, there were a number of people who, frankly, have 
been proposing, and basically these are people on the other side of the 
aisle, they have been proposing that we get all the appropriations 
bills and put them in one big package. Well, we have not done that. But 
we have a smaller package with two sets of issues, those for the 
District of Columbia and Labor, Health and Human Services. I guess they 
do not like that either, but this is just the best way we believe to 
proceed.
  Now, why is that? Now, Mr. Speaker, we have had the D.C. bill on the 
floor before. We know the Nation's capital has a special relationship 
with the Federal Government. We have in this bill the funding, the 
assistance from the Federal Government to help the District of Columbia 
get some problems squared away, attacking the link between crime and 
drugs, incentives for the adoption of young people that currently are 
stuck for years in foster homes, incentives for the downsizing of the 
government in the District of Columbia. Because the city officials 
recognize it is bloated, it is too large, it needs to come down to 
size.
  We have the environmental cleanup. We have the incentives for college 
attendance. We have the approval of the budget of the District of 
Columbia. And get this, Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia has a 
Democrat mayor and a majority Democrat city council, and a key part of 
their budget is reducing taxes and reducing the size of government, and 
the Republican members of the city council were major contributors to 
this effort.
  I have not heard anybody in the District of Columbia say, there is 
just no way they could handle a 1 percent cut in the size of their 
government. Instead, the Democrats in the District of Columbia and the 
District of Columbia city government are aggressively trying to reduce 
the size of their government and at the same time reduce taxes. And, 
yes, we heard within D.C. some people saying, oh, the tax breaks go to 
people with the wrong economic status.
  But D.C. recognized they needed to have the tax incentives to create 
jobs and to help their economy and they did not fall into this 
demagogic trap of trying to say they are giving it to the wrong group 
of people. No, the Democrats of the District of Columbia did not do 
that. And so, we have the approval of their tax cuts and their budget. 
We did not change anything about their proposed budget and their 
proposed tax cut. We endorse it. But now it is part of this proposal 
for the Federal Government programs.
  We hear people saying, now, when it comes to the Federal Government, 
though, there is no way we could reduce things by just one penny out of 
each dollar, not even one penny. I saw the Cabinet officers on TV the 
other day, Mr. Speaker, and they were saying, oh, there is no way we 
could do a 1 percent cut. They want to make it sound as drastic as 
possible instead of finding the administrative savings that businesses 
have to do when they do cuts, that families have to do when they do 
cuts.
  I remember former Democratic President Jimmy Carter who went on 
national TV to tell people to adjust their

[[Page H11097]]

thermostats, wear sweaters if necessary, turn out some of the lights, 
but let us reduce some costs. But today we are hearing people on the 
other side of the aisle say, because this has a 1 percent reduction, 
not in Social Security benefits, not in veterans' benefits, not in 
Medicare, only in so-called discretionary spending, we cannot handle 
it. Even though spending will actually be up for so many of those 
agencies from what it was before, they do not want to take a hard look 
at the size of government. They do not want to tell these Cabinet 
officers maybe they should lead by example.
  The pay of Members of Congress is being adjusted one percent less 
under this bill than otherwise. I do not see the President or Cabinet 
officers trying to lead by example. This is important.
  First we have to agree on how much we have to spend. The sad thing, 
Mr. Speaker, is that my friends on the other side of the aisle when 
they say, oh, we want to balance the budget and we want to do it 
without spending Social Security money, but instead of saying that 
means we might have to make more adjustments, they do not want to make 
any at all. They want to spend more. They want to get more into Social 
Security, as happened for decades around here. And it should not have 
happened, and it is time to fix it. This bill fixes it.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young). I want 
to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter). I want to 
commend the people that have worked so hard, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Kasich), who will speak in a moment, working on overall 
things.
  I do not think the American people believe that Cabinet officers will 
not find the way to make their adjustments, as they have the right to 
do, program transfers, adjustments, reprogramming of funds. They have 
those tools at their disposal to make sure there are no difficulties 
caused by simply saying they have got to save one penny out of each 
dollar.
  I urge adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the 
conference agreement on H.R. 3064, the District of Columbia, and the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000. The conferees met yesterday 
morning and resolved the remaining matters in disagreement between the 
House and Senate bills and filed the conference report, House Report 
106-419, last evening.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement includes the FY 2000 DC 
Appropriations Act; technical changes to the FY 2000 VA-HUD 
Appropriations Act; the FY 2000 Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education Appropriations Act; and an offset package that protects 
social security.
  Regarding the Labor-HHS Appropriations Act, the chairman of that 
subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Porter, 
will be yielded time to explain that part of the conference report. The 
offset package was developed by the Budget Committee and the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kasich, is here to explain the 
offsets.
  Mr. Speaker, regarding the DC Appropriations Act, the conference 
agreement reflects the vetoed bill, H.R. 2587, with a few adjustments. 
The needles language has been adjusted to retain the prohibition on 
using Federal or local funds, but without the restriction on privately-
funded programs. There is also a new provision, section 173 that allows 
the D.C. Corporation Counsel to review and comment on briefs in private 
lawsuits and to consult with officials of the District government 
regarding such lawsuits. All of the other social riders--marijuana, 
abortion, domestic partners--are the same as they were in the House-
passed version of H.R. 3064.
  In summary, Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement endorses the budget 
and tax cuts approved by the District's Democrat mayor and majority 
Democrat city council, whose Republican members were important 
contributors to this effort. The conference agreement helps the 
District in its efforts to reorganize, cut costs, reduce overhead, and 
improve services. This conference agreement retains the initiatives 
that were in the initial House bill, such as Federal funding for the 
largest-ever effort to crack down on the link between drugs and crime, 
so the DC's streets and neighborhoods will be far safer. The conference 
agreement includes incentives to move children from foster care to 
adoption in a safe, loving, and permanent home, and $2.5 million in 
Federal funds to complete a community pediatric health initiative for 
high risk children in medically underserved areas of the District. We 
also retained the $17 million in Federal funds for tuition assistance 
so that D.C. high school graduates will have the same opportunities 
that exist for students in the 50 States who attend State-supported 
institutions of higher education. In addition, language in the initial 
House bill strengthening the popular charter school movement in the 
District has been retained. The conference agreement also includes 
Federal funding to clean up pollution in the Anacostia River and to 
complete all design and other requirements for the construction of 
expanded lane capacity for the 14th Street Bridge across the Potomac 
River.
  This conference agreement, as did the first one (House Report 106-
299), totals $429 million in Federal funds which is $24 million below 
the house bill, $18 million above the Senate bill, and $255 million 
below last year's bill. The reduction of $255 million below last year's 
bill is due to several non-recurring items funded last year. The total 
conference amount of $429 million is $24 million below our 302(b) 
allocations in budget authority and outlays. In District funds, the 
conference agreement provides $6.8 billion of which $5.4 billion for 
operating expenses is $7 million below the House level, $29 million 
above the Senate bill, and $284 million above last year; however, 
included in this $284 million increase is a ``rainy day'' reserve fund 
of $150 million.
  The conferees have included language under Defender Services that 
will allow the use of $1.2 million to pay attorneys for their services 
to indigents in FY 1999. Because the D.C. Courts underestimated the 
amount required for this program, language has been included in the 
conference report allowing FY 2000 funds for court operations and 
defender services to be used to pay for FY 1999 and FY 2999 attorney 
services for indigents in the event the regular appropriation is 
insufficient. This language will allow the appointments and payments to 
continue without disruption.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to make clear that language in the 
conference report permitting the courts to use FY 2000 funds to pay 
excess FY 1999 obligations does not in any way waive any possible 
applications of the Anti-Deficiency Act to the courts on the grounds 
that the obligation to make payments to these attorneys exceeded the 
obligational authority available for making those payments. The courts 
are not absolved of their responsibility and accountability under the 
Anti-Deficiency Act.
  Title II of the conference agreement commends the District for 
reducing taxes and ratifies the city's action in that regard. One of 
the initiatives taken by local officials in agreeing to a consensus 
budget for fiscal year 2000 is to reduce income and property taxes by 
$300 million over the next 5 years, including $59 million in fiscal 
2000. I want to acknowledge that Republican members of the District's 
city council, although outnumbered, contributed significantly to the 
tax reduction enacted by the District government. In fact, one of the 
two council members who spearheaded the tax cut was a Republican 
member.
  I will include a table showing the amounts recommended in the 
conference agreement compared with last year's enacted amount, the 
budget request, and the House and Senate recommendations.
  In closing, I want to thank all of our Members for their hard work 
and their contributions to this bill, especially the Chairman of the 
Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Bill Young. He has 
displayed an amazing degree of patience, good judgment, and resolve in 
getting us to this point.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the adoption of this 
conference report.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H11098]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC99.001



[[Page H11099]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC99.002



[[Page H11100]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to transportation 
cuts in this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
latest Republican majority appropriations scheme.
  For weeks they tried to craft a Labor/HHS/Education spending bill 
that would be acceptable to the American people, and for weeks they 
failed.
  Everyone on Capitol Hill spends a lot of time talking about 
priorities. And to be honest, we all have the same goal--which is to 
convince the American people that we are really fighting for their 
priorities.
  But the old adage ``actions speak louder than words'' has never been 
truer.
  While the majority Republicans like to say improving education is one 
of their top priorities, how are we supposed to react when they use the 
money that was designated for education funding to offset the spending 
for their real priorities.
  For weeks Democrats have been asking the Republicans to show us their 
budget plan, and for weeks the Republicans have refused. Today, we 
finally see why.
  Under this bill, every education program will be cut by almost 1 
percent. This may not sound like a big deal, and the Republicans will 
tell us all day that such a small percentage will not have a negative 
impact. Well what this bill will do is: Blocks nearly 300,000 students 
from receiving needed math and reading tutoring services under Title I; 
cuts $200 million from the class-size reduction initiative; and cuts 
after school care and programs for nearly 1,000,000 children.
  The Republicans claim this 1 percent cut will only impact government 
waste--is that what they think of our Nation's children?
  For weeks the Republican leadership has been delaying bringing this 
bill to the floor.
  Today, we learned why.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, 3 minutes does not give me an opportunity, obviously, to 
discuss this bill or the fiscal shenanigans that are going on in this 
bill. But I do want to focus on one facet of this bill, the National 
Institutes of Health.
  We have all heard the phrase ``women and children first.'' That, 
essentially, means that we want to give to women and children priority. 
This phase has been women, children, and the sick and workers last. 
This bill has been held hostage to the last. Why? Because the President 
places a priority on women, children, workers, and the sick.
  My distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter), cares a lot about NIH. I want to tell the 
chairman, and I am sure he knows this, I am surprised that he would 
support this bill. Because under this bill, Mr. Speaker, they are 
proposing to spend this fiscal year that we are in now 1.5 billion less 
than President Clinton suggested. Hear me, $1.5 billion less.
  I will tell my colleagues that people are concerned about this 
because it will delay such a large part. NIH budget will be a massive 
managerial challenge but much more importantly will force the delay of 
research grants and delay of clinical trials.
  My friends, the chairman of our committee so critically involved in 
bone marrow transplants knows how timely action is. We are delaying 
clinical trials for cancer patients. We are delaying clinical trials 
for victims of heart disease. We are delaying clinical trials for 
victims of AIDS. We are delaying clinical trials for children with 
serious, life-threatening diseases. We are delaying them until 
September 29 and 30. That is 11 months away.
  Who of my colleagues would stand and say to a critically ill child, 
wait 11 months while we underfund by $1.5 billion what the President 
asked for NIH funding? We pretend that we are giving NIH $17.9 billion. 
But we are saying, hey, guess what. Forty-two percent of it they cannot 
spend. Women, children, sick and workers last.
  Why have we done this? To save Social Security? The majority leader 
of their party says that Social Security ought to be done away with. 
Let us reject this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am now happy to yield 6 minutes 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get off my stride. But let 
me say that the Republicans, recognizing that the National Institutes 
of Health really are one of the crown jewels of the Federal Government, 
have had historic increases in NIH, something that has never been seen 
before, a 15 percent increase last year, a 14 percent increase this 
year.
  But on to the other subject at hand. And that is, as I have been 
passing by this floor and past the television sets, listening to the 
debate, I have begun to observe that it is seemingly impossible for 
this House not to denigrate just about anything we do. It is remarkable 
to me as I stop and I watch this debate.
  For the first time since man walked on the Moon, we have balanced the 
budget, when we include all the spending that the Federal Government 
makes versus all the revenue that has come in. Since the first time we 
have walked on the Moon, we are in balance. And now, to my own 
surprise, we are actually going to balance the operating part of the 
Federal budget without stealing from Social Security.
  And do my colleagues know what? As Members of this House, we feel 
compelled to wipe that off the slate, to ignore an accomplishment that 
a couple years ago was beyond our imagination, when we have got budgets 
from downtown that puts spending in the red as far as the eye could 
see, and now we find ourselves not only balancing the unified budget, 
but we no longer have to take from Social Security.
  Should we not, just for a second, shake one another's hands across 
the aisle and maybe even send some kudos down Pennsylvania Avenue that, 
for the first time, we have demonstrated something people thought was 
impossible in this town and it has resulted in a stronger economy, a 
major contributing factor?
  Now, some of the critics of our approach today say that we are 
spending into Social Security; and then out of the other side of their 
mouths they say we are not spending enough.
  Well, which is it? We cannot be spending too little and at the same 
time be spending too much. Pick an argument, choose one of them, and 
stay with it. They are going to give politics a bad name.
  Now, this Republican majority has started a firewall. Is it the 
greatest firewall? I do not know if it is the best one, but it is a 
pretty good one.
  What we are saying is we are not going to reach into that Social 
Security surplus and we are going to use the Office of Management and 
Budget as the traffic cop to add up the numbers, not as the economic 
estimates, but the traffic cop.
  The President shut down the Government over the issue of OMB being 
the traffic cop. And we have decided to go along. We have decided to 
say that the President's Office of Management and Budget, as provided 
under the law and provided for by the United States courts, will be the 
referee and the arbiter of whether we are into Social Security.
  And now we as Republicans, joined by I hope some of my colleagues on 
the Democratic side, have used the extraordinary tactic of an across-
the-board cut to make sure that that traffic cop does not give us a 
ticket for a violation.
  In my tenure in the House of Representatives, in 17 years, we have 
never, as on a voluntary measure by elected Members of Congress, cut 
across the board in order to achieve this objective.

                              {time}  1500

  Will we stay out of Social Security? I am not sure. It is likely we 
will stay out of Social Security. But we are fighting on the margins, 
are we not, on this issue, because we have never achieved this much in 
any of our tenure.
  Now, why do we want to stay out of Social Security? Because we do not 
want to commit the money to any other program. We want to use it to

[[Page H11101]]

pay down some debt, which is good for this economy, and we want to 
preserve those dollars as a leverage to transform Social Security, not 
just for the seniors but for us and our children, so we can regenerate 
this system and we do not want to blow this opportunity and reduce our 
leverage. The Committee on the Budget 5 years ago and working with my 
friends in the Committee on Appropriations who from time to time we get 
into fights in the hallway with, we sat down 5 years ago and we plotted 
a road map. We have made some real progress. Have we made all the 
progress on that road map that I would like? You have just got to ask 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and he will tell you, ``Of 
course not. The gentleman from Ohio is never happy with any of the 
level of spending we have. He is always complaining it is too much.'' 
But we are moving forward on this road map.
  Today rather than spending our time debating about the crumbs, 
debating about the margins and about obscuring a message to the 
American people who have become cynical because of the failed promises 
of politicians, let us for once keep our eye on the ball, hold our 
heads high, congratulate one another of different philosophies and 
different parties and different branches of government. And while we 
can continue to fight on the margin and while we can continue to 
advance on this road map, let us just celebrate how far we have come 
and how far we have come in contributing to the benefit of our great 
country. I hope we will support this bill and today will be a day of 
celebration, not just a day of argument.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, despite the fiction we have just heard, we have a letter 
from the head of the Congressional Budget Office which spells out that 
the Republican budget so far has eaten into $17 billion of the Social 
Security surplus. So much for the fiction we just heard.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the public has every right to be cynical 
about a Republican House leadership whose majority leader said several 
weeks ago that Social Security was a bad retirement and a rotten trick 
on the American people. This is from the party who today claims that in 
fact they want to save and preserve Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this irresponsible budget, one that 
does nothing to extend the life of Social Security, does nothing to add 
a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, but does a lot of harm and 
hurt to real families in this country. I oppose this bill because it is 
chock full of accounting tricks. But the cruelest trick of all is the 
delay in funding to the National Institutes of Health. This bill would 
delay $7.5 billion in funding for the National Institutes of Health, 
amounting to 42 percent of their budget, 60 percent of its research 
grants.
  Let me just say, what is the National Institutes of Health for those 
who may not know? What is it but our Nation's leading biomedical 
research effort, to investigate cures and treatments for every disease, 
for cancer, for diabetes, for arthritis. The list is endless. Why the 
delay? In order to keep up this budget charade, their absurd claim that 
they are not spending Social Security, even though the Congressional 
Budget Office says that they have already dipped into the Social 
Security surplus to the tune of $17 billion. So to keep up the budget 
charade, this bill says that no funding could go to the National 
Institutes of Health, to their researchers, the people who work on 
these cures and treatments until the last final days of the fiscal year 
of next year.
  What does this mean for medical research? It means delay. It would 
mean delay in research, delay in hiring, delay in salaries for a year. 
It is outrageous.
  Mr. Speaker, as a cancer survivor, I am offended with a bill that 
plays games with biomedical research. We make strides every day in 
cancer research. That is why this is so cruel. Cancer knows no fiscal 
year. A family struggling with this life-and-death disease cannot wait 
a year. They need hope now. As a survivor, I know something about the 
power of hope. I know what it is like to pray for a cure. I know what 
it is like to put your life in the hands of doctors and of researchers. 
I would not be alive today if it were not for the advances in medical 
research. Advances in cancer research saved my life and every day in 
laboratories around this country men and women are making those life-
saving discoveries that will change the lives of people that they have 
never met, families huddled in a hospital room, praying for a loved one 
to have the chance at life. Research cures cancer. Research gives hope. 
Delays in medical research funding plays games with people's lives.
  We were sent here to do well by the people that put their trust in 
us, not to do harm. This bill does harm. Oppose it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of 
Columbia, a valued member of my subcommittee as well, for allowing us 
to attach our bill to his bill and bring it through the process.
  Let me say that earlier in the debate on the CR and in the debate on 
the rule, the charge was correctly made that this bill was not heard 
fully on the floor of the House of Representatives, was not shaped by 
the Members of the House as it should have been, and that we did not 
carry out our constitutional responsibility, particularly in view of 
the fact that spending bills must originate in the House. While the 
bill was shaped as it should have been in the subcommittee and in the 
full committee, I accept that criticism, it is fair and right, and I 
regret that the normal process was not able to be followed.
  But let me say that beyond that criticism, much of the rest of what I 
have heard is not fair criticism, it is simply political talk.
  Members that vote on this conference report are going to be voting to 
protect the Social Security trust fund. To achieve this end has not 
been easy given the competing spending demands and the small size of 
the non-trust fund surplus. And this conference report does rely on 
advance appropriations, delayed obligations and additional offsets 
provided in the leadership package, primarily a .97 percent across-the-
board reduction.
  But let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first time that we have 
attempted to do this and that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle for 17 years did nothing to protect the Social Security trust 
fund and raided it to the tune of $850 billion in IOUs . . . They never 
even tried. We are trying to save the trust fund, and all they give us 
is political criticism. We should get credit for trying to do something 
that the minority never even attempted when they controlled the House.
  This bill, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education portion 
of it, is funded at a slightly higher level than the President 
suggested in his budget. There are cuts in it, yes, because we do not 
agree on policy matters with the President. There are also increases 
where the President did not provide adequate funding for programs that 
we think are higher priorities. Education is level-funded; HHS, we 
spend more; Labor, we spend slightly less. Overall, the funding is 
slightly more than the President's. We plus-up the Job Corps more than 
the President. We think it is a higher priority. We plus-up 
consolidated health centers higher than the President. We think it is a 
very important priority. Despite all the rhetoric, we plus-up NIH by 
the second largest increase in its entire history, 14 percent, and last 
year it was 15 percent. And yes, all of that money will eventually be 
paid out, even under our plan. It will be paid out for the research for 
which it is appropriated. We put more money in for Ryan White AIDS than 
the President.
  We are $320 million above the President total in education funding. 
Impact Aid is higher than the President. The maximum Pell grant is set 
at $3,300, which is higher than the President's request. TRIO, higher 
than the President. Special education, $679 million for disabled 
children, higher than the President.
  Now, do we make some cuts? Do we fail to fund some programs that the

[[Page H11102]]

President has suggested? Yes. But, ladies and gentlemen of the House, 
it is our responsibility as the legislative branch to fashion a bill 
that we think is proper for this country and the President's only role 
in the legislative process is to veto it if he disagrees. It is our 
prerogative to write the priorities, not his, and that is exactly what 
we do.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report. It assures that the 
Social Security trust fund remains secure. It is the first time it has 
been attempted ever. The other side never attempted it once. Give us 
some credit, ladies and gentlemen. We are doing our best to do the work 
for the American people to protect Social Security, to fund vital 
programs that work for people, that get positive result in their lives. 
I think this is a bill every Member of this Chamber ought to support.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, this is a very unfortunate day, because this 
bill that comes before this body today has been traditionally a bill 
that brings us together. It says that the strength of our country is 
measured not only in our military might but in the health, education 
and well-being of the American people. Mr. Natcher always called it the 
people's bill.
  So it is unfortunate that this bill today has become a mockery. It 
has become a mockery because it is being used by the Republican 
majority to say that a vote for this bill today is a vote to protect 
Social Security. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the 
Republicans are spending tens of billions of dollars of Social Security 
funds in this whole budget process while misrepresenting that to the 
American people.
  In this bill, we fund the National Institutes of Health. This funding 
gives hope to the American people. It is a place where we say the NIH 
has the biblical power to cure. And while everyone's hopes were raised 
while there was talk of the increased funding in the bill for the NIH, 
those hopes were quickly dashed when the budget gimmickry of the 
Republican Party was demonstrated, that $7 billion, 40 percent of the 
NIH budget, would be delayed, the spending would be delayed until the 
end of the fiscal year, the last day or two of the fiscal year. That 
means 40 percent of the funding, 60 percent of the grants.
  Every one of us knows people who have written to us about health 
problems in their families, be it breast cancer, prostate cancer. I 
have in my own community a woman Meg who has suffered from a disease, a 
little known one, called EDS. She and thousands of her friends suffer 
from this disease and the only hope they have is the National 
Institutes of Health. This is a disorder of the connective system that 
can lead to premature death, crippling and disfigurement, mostly to 
women. So they were very hopeful when this bill urged the National 
Institutes of Health to look into this issue. Biomedical research is 
the best hope for people with diseases, especially some of these 
diseases that no one has ever heard of. Our former Speaker Mr. Tip 
O'Neill, Speaker O'Neill, said all politics is local. But in this bill, 
all politics is personal. It is as personal as the woman with breast 
cancer, or the man with prostate cancer, my friend Meg with EDS, or 
people with AIDS who look to us for hope. And what do they get? Budget 
gimmickry. It is a very, very sad testimony.
  Another area in education, this bill cuts 1 million students from 
after-school programs. In one place after another from the cradle to 
the rocking chair, this bill is a disservice to the American people. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla), another member of the Subcommittee on Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education.
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  The rhetoric I hear from our friends on the other side of the 
political aisle today reminds me of Chicken Little, and if we look at 
their faces, they are telling us over and over again that the sky is 
falling and we are facing tremendous disaster if we vote for this bill, 
and I think that the American people are smarter than that by now, to 
listen to the same message over and over and over again.
  Mr. Speaker, I think I heard one of my colleagues say this morning 
that this bill hurts every family in America. I think that their 
arguments have to start changing to include a little more substance and 
reality about what we are doing here today. The truth of the matter is, 
and these are real numbers, that this bill is the People's bill, and we 
do so much in spite of the budget restraints we now live under that 
were not only voted upon by this Congress, but signed into law by the 
President.
  Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that the President signed the law that 
we, after we gave him the bill that says we have limits now on what we 
can spend, because it is no different than any family, than any 
business out there that has to face fiscal constraints year after year 
for the benefit of the greater good of the organization, the family or 
the corporation; and we are having to make some tough decisions, but 
nonetheless have kept as the highest priority funding for health care, 
like the Community and Migrant Health Care Centers that the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Porter) pointed out earlier for the Trio education 
program that we have increased funding for that that has held so many 
people in low-income neighborhoods like myself, frankly, when I was a 
teenager, a program that helped give me that lift to go to college and 
to graduate from college, and other programs like health professions, 
nurses and dental hygienists and assistants out there looking for that 
first break to provide a service for the community.
  We give more money to these programs, more money than the President 
has asked for in the first place.
  Mr. Speaker, if we visit with people out in the heartland who are 
running these medical programs, for example, they are all recognizing 
the truth in what we are trying to accomplish. I just met about an hour 
ago with representatives from the March of Dimes from my hometown in 
San Antonio, and I told them what we tried to do with programs that 
provide for folic acid for mothers, expectant mothers, so that we can 
cut back on birth defects in our country and in our State; and they 
understand what we are trying to do, and they know that we are trying 
to help families out there in the heartland.
  And I am just hoping that as people watch this debate, they will 
listen to the sincerity of what we are trying to portray here today of 
our efforts to try to help America in every neighborhood out there 
whether it involves an education program or a health care program, 
because I think that if we watch the faces of those who will step up 
right after me that we will see the face of Chicken Little, and we all 
remember the story on how misinformed Chicken Little was.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that in our colleagues' hearts they know that 
this misinformation that is being put out there over and over again is 
no longer selling with the American people.
  Stand with us, stand with the President to understand that we have 
got to cut spending yet provide for these important services for the 
American people.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  This debate opened with the distinguished chairman of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), indicating that we 
would not hear much about the District of Columbia during this debate 
on the District of Columbia bill. That is what is wrong with this bill. 
But I am not going to let my colleagues forget what they are doing to 
the people of the District of Columbia. It is hard to regard what we 
have before us as a bill at all.
  The District of Columbia, of course, had a bill number before us, but 
that is what we have been degraded to because we are serving other 
purposes, we are serving other masters. The Labor-HHS

[[Page H11103]]

appropriation has been slopped together, bypassed committee, bypassing 
debate on this floor, thrown over the transom on to the backs of the 
people of the District of Columbia. Makes the D.C. appropriation, our 
smallest, a beast of burden for the largest appropriation.
  What kind of way is this to treat a city pulling itself up by its 
bootstraps in the full throes of recovery with a new mayor, a reformed 
City Council meeting the expectations of its own residents, meeting the 
expectations of the Congress?
  Early meetings with the Mayor, a promise to try to get out our 
appropriation first out? We are the last out, Mr. Speaker. At early 
hearings, our subcommittee chair worked with us on problems that we 
ironed out throughout; and yet, Mr. Speaker, the ultimate response was 
more riders on the D.C. appropriation than in 25 years of home rule.
  Today, we see further delay on our bill even after Senate and House 
appropriations have worked mightily to try to deal with our 
differences.
  This is a minimally signable bill. I can only accept it if I have to.
  The worst part of this process today is that it is all for naught, 
that a veto is assured. It is cynical; it is irregular. If at least the 
bill would be signed, something might be said for it. Instead the 
District of Columbia is caught in the middle. We are being stepped on, 
then walked over.
  This body often gets up on the other side of the aisle to rant about 
its constitutional claim to work in the best interests of the Nation's 
Capital. By this process today, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have 
forfeited any claim by throwing the people of the Nation's Capital to 
the winds.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
measure.
  If my colleagues vote for this bill, they are voting to cut the 
Department of Defense budget by 2.6 billion.
  Now, a lot has been said that it is 1 percent. That is 2.6 billion. 
That is the equivalent of three destroyers or two amphibious assault 
ships. Mr. Speaker, that is enough money to get the 12,000 soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and Marines that we know are on food stamps off of 
food stamps and buy 175 Black Hawk helicopters, replacing 30 year old 
Hueys that they are flying around in today.
  Almost all of the cuts come at the expense of the Department of 
Defense, and we are not talking about something that would have been. 
It is the law right now. Our colleagues are cutting the budget that 
went into effect this week when the President signed it.
  So if my colleagues admit that we have to save some money, then let 
us set priorities, but do not cut from the one thing that the Nation 
has to do. The States can do almost everything else, but we have to 
defend the Nation.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, let me give my colleagues some facts.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut said that we were cutting NIH 
because we delayed 40 percent. My colleagues support the President's 
budget which only increased NIH 2 percent, so even if we delay 40 
percent, remaining 60 percent, we fund more than they do under the 
budget now; and then the remaining 40 percent will also be spent, which 
is 12 percent more than the President, that his entire plan supports.
  So what I would say to my colleagues: listen to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  I am also a cancer survivor, and I am glad the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) was a cancer survivor, and one of our 
priorities is to double medical research. The gentleman knows that, and 
we fight for it, and I believe in it.
  It is also our priority to keep our word not to touch Social Security 
and Medicare, and I will do everything I can to make sure that that 
happens.
  But we increased health care medical research by 15 percent last 
time, 14 percent this time; and we are going to continue to do that 
because I feel that is one of the gifts that we can give to this great 
country.
  As far as defense, General Shelton is one of my heroes. I mean he 
could break me in half with his training and his experience in combat. 
But I am disappointed in General Shelton. He testified before our 
committee on defense and said that the President's budget was adequate 
for defense. That was before we added $16 billion to defense. And then 
he comes out and says, well, this 1 percent will hurt defense. I do not 
like reducing defense myself, but at the expense of Social Security and 
Medicare and our other priorities to save and stay under the balanced 
budget?
  The gentlewoman said from D.C. said this is all for naught. I think 
it is important for us to lay down a marker and say: What do we really 
stand for? For health care? For education?
  The other day, yesterday in the conference, one of the members from 
the other body said, Oh, you're cutting education.
  Chairman said, No. We are adding $350 million above what the 
President asked, and we're adding more than we spent next year.
  And the gentleman says, Oh, you're cutting education because that's 
not what we originally wanted to put in there.
  That argument is wrong. Join with us and say we are adding money to 
education and health care.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Will the gentleman from 
Illinois remove the ribbon-badge from his lapel?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I apologize for being out of dress code, Mr. 
Speaker.
  (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
conference report.
  Members on the other side of the aisle falsely claim that this 
conference report saves Social Security while increasing spending over 
the President's request for education and certain health care programs. 
When did Members from the other side of the aisle start to care about 
Social Security? Just 3 months ago Members from the other side of the 
aisle were peddling an almost $800 billion tax cut that did not help 
save Social Security, and today the Congressional Budget Office stated 
the Congress has already spent $17 billion of the Social Security 
surplus.
  This report, like many of the spending bills before it, does not 
extend the life of Social Security by even 1 day. It fails to include a 
prescription drug benefit for Medicare, and it hurts every American 
family in some way. The Labor-HHS and Education bill should help 
families in this country get through today and prepare for tomorrow. 
Unfortunately, this bill is loaded with reckless gimmicks and 
outrageous offsets. Here are just a few examples of some of them.
  This report contains $10 billion in advanced appropriations creating 
a $19 billion hole for next year requiring a further raid of the Social 
Security surplus.
  This report contains $11 billion in delayed obligations for the 
Departments of Health and Human Services. These delayed obligations 
will force the National Institutes for Health to not spend 60 percent 
of the NIH research grant budget until the last 2 days of Fiscal Year 
2000. And the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, this delayed 
obligation represents 60 percent of the total amount that the CBC 
awards for grants and cooperative agreements. This delay will interrupt 
programs that address infectious diseases, immunizations including 
children's vaccines, HIV/AIDS surveillance, and prevention activities 
and chronic diseases.
  In the Health Resources and Services Administration this delayed 
obligation represents 25 percent of its budget, which will interrupt 
the provision of vital health services for 3 million underserved men, 
women, and children.
  One of the most egregious offsets in this bill is the .97 percent 
government-wide across-the-board reduction.

                              {time}  1530

  This reduction is not about cutting waste, fraud and abuse, as the 
distinguished Budget chairman came a few

[[Page H11104]]

 moments ago and talked about, in Federal agencies, as Members on the 
other side of the aisle continue to claim. In fact, there is very 
little discretion for agency heads to make decisions about these cuts. 
In the Meals on Wheels program, for example, this reduction will result 
in 1.1 million fewer meals and 8,400 fewer seniors being served. In the 
Head Start Program, this reduction will deny Head Start services to 
approximately 7,000 needy children. In Youth Training programs, this 
reduction will deny job training, summer employment and education 
opportunities to almost 6,000 disadvantaged youth.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, 
and Education, I hoped my colleagues and I would have been able to come 
up with a real bill that would have provided real differences for 
American families.
  I am disappointed in the product we have before us and the process 
that has gotten us to this point, and I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this ill-conceived conference report.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do now is to yield 
several minutes successively so that Members of the North Carolina 
delegation can discuss their flood problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield first 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
this conference report. There are many grounds for objecting to the 
accounting gimmicks and the delayed payments in this bill, but the main 
objection hits very close to home: This bill has eliminated $508 
million in emergency assistance for agricultural damage caused by 
Hurricane Floyd in North Carolina and other states. This assistance was 
approved unanimously by the Committee on Appropriations as a down 
payment on the crop and livestock losses that our farmers have 
suffered. It was accepted by our committee leadership very graciously. 
It is supported by the administration. Now it has been dropped.
  The bill contains lots of emergency spending for other purposes. Why, 
then, was the $508 million in flood relief stripped from the bill, 
while another $2 billion was added in emergency funding, including $400 
million in refugee assistance?
  Assistance for refugees is admirable. I support it. But we have 
refugees from this storm, thousands of families who have lost their 
homes and possessions and may lose their farms. We have to help them 
get on their feet again.
  This bill is deceptive in its accounting and uncaring in its 
elimination of assistance to hurricane and flood victims. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to this conference report. Despite 
laudable funding levels for many programs in the Labor/HHS/Education 
bill, it is fundamentally flawed in ways that require me to vote 
against it.
  This bill pushes $14 billion for ongoing programs into FY 2001, and 
delays $11 billion in obligations until the end of FY 2000 for the 
National Institutes of Health, the Head Start program, and other 
priorities. But cancer doesn't wait; diabetes and Parkinson's Disease 
don't wait. This is not just an accounting gimmick, although it 
certainly is that; it also will delay critical research on which 
thousands of desperately sick people are depending.
  The proposed 1 percent across-the-board cut in all discretionary 
accounts will also have real consequences for real people. According to 
the Office of Management and Budget, these cuts will deny childhood 
immunizations for up to 2,900 children, deny food and nutrition 
services to 71,000 women, infants, and children, and prevent 4,800 
children and their families form receiving Head Start services. It is 
an irresponsible approach to reducing spending, since it does not 
distinguish between programs which might merit reductions and those 
which do not.
  The most egregious flaw for me is a personal one, since it primarily 
affects my home state. My colleagues know that North Carolina 
experienced its worst natural disaster in recorded history when 
Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, and Irene pounded the eastern part of our 
state between late August and mid-October. Thousands of North 
Carolinians are still suffering from the aftermath of the floodwaters, 
which are only now receding below flood stage in many areas. Entire 
towns have been destroyed in some cases. Over 15,000 homes were damaged 
to the point of being unlivable, and the infrastructure in many areas 
was severely damaged.
  Eastern North Carolina is rural, and depends on a farm economy for 
sustenance. And unlike homeowners or small business owners, who are 
eligible for at least some direct assistance through FEMA or low-
interest loans through the Small Business Administration, there is no 
authorized direct assistance program for losses suffered by farmers. 
The North Carolina delegation never had an opportunity to plead our 
case for emergency agriculture assistance through the Agriculture 
Appropriations conference, which would normally have been the proper 
place for such assistance. And while some of the $1.2 billion in 
agricultural assistance contained in that bill will benefit farmers in 
North Carolina and other affected states, substantial unmet needs still 
remain for our farmers.
  As a consequence, I offered an amendment to the Labor/HHS 
appropriations bill during Appropriations Committee consideration in 
late September to provide $508 million in emergency assistance for 
agricultural damages caused by Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd. Since 
damage estimates at that time were incomplete but clearly substantial, 
I argued that this funding should be provided as a down payment on the 
needs that farmers in North Carolina and other affected states would be 
shown to have. Chairmen Young and Porter graciously accepted the 
amendment, and it was approved unanimously by the committee on a voice 
vote. Likewise, the administration signaled its support for this 
funding.
  It seems highly unlikely that there will be a separate emergency 
supplemental bill this year to address the needs of states affected by 
the hurricanes and associated flooding. Our best and likely our only 
opportunity to provide timely assistance to the victims of this natural 
disaster is through pending FY 2000 appropriations bills--and Title X 
of the Labor-HHS bill, which contained this $508 million, was the 
obvious place to get the job done. The sensible thing would have been 
to use an updated estimate of emergency needs from North Carolina and 
the other states to refine the existing emergency provisions in the 
bill for agriculture and other areas of emergency need.
  The omission is made all the more conspicuous and indefensible by the 
other emergency spending the bill contains. Why was the $508 million in 
flood relief stripped from the bill while $2 billion in other emergency 
designations remains, including $1.1 billion for the standard Low 
Income Home Energy Assistance Program and $427 million for assistance 
to refugees? Both of these are important programs, but hardly 
appropriate for emergency funding. Assistance for refugees from other 
countries is admirable, and I support it--but we have refugees in North 
Carolina, too--thousands of families who have lost their homes and 
their possessions. We must help them get on their feet again. How can 
they interpret the elimination of this emergency assistance as anything 
but a sign that Congress holds their suffering in contempt and does not 
care about their real and immediate need?
  This bill is dishonest in its accounting and uncaring in its 
elimination of assistance to Hurricane victims. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no.''
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  (Mr. WATT of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
bill and in support of my colleagues from North Carolina and their 
statements about the devastation and lack of attention that this bill 
pays to North Carolina's flood situation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I associate my remarks with the previous speaker, my 
friend from North Carolina, and I join him in saying there are some 
good things, but this bill is a sham. It is a disgrace to our children 
and families in North Carolina who have lost everything in the flood of 
Hurricane Floyd. The Republican leadership found $2 billion for 
emergency relief in this bill, but cut out the $508 million for our 
folks who badly need it.
  Mr. Speaker, there is an emergency in our State today. I have looked 
into the faces of the farmers and the families. I was with a family 
this weekend who had three children who lost everything they own, 
everything. I have met with farmers who have lost their crops, the 
widow who lost her husband, and 15,000 families who lost their homes.
  The Republican leadership should be ashamed of themselves for playing 
politics with the lives of these people. In

[[Page H11105]]

North Carolina, normally the cold winds of winter come from the West. 
Today they are coming from the North, from Washington. I urge you to do 
better by our people.
  This bill is a sham to our seniors, a sham to our children and a sham 
to thousands of families in North Carolina who have lost everything in 
the floods from Hurricane Floyd. The Republican leaders found $2 
billion in emergency spending for this bill, but cut $508 million in 
emergency funds the committee had approved unanimously for Hurricane 
Floyd relief. Folks, we have an emergency in my state. I've seen the 
suffering and despair first hand. The farmer who has lost his crops, 
the widow who has lost her husband, and the fifteen thousand families 
that lost their homes and every possession they ever owned, can't wait 
any longer for the help they need to survive.
  The Republican Leadership should be ashamed of themselves for playing 
politics with the lives of these people. Playing pay raise politics on 
this bill is an act of cowardice not worthy of the U.S. Congress. 
Winter is coming. In Northern Carolina, the cold air usually comes in 
from the West. But today, the cold air is coming from the North, a 
chill pouring in from Washington brought about by the cold-hearted 
politics being played with the lives of the people of my state. I urge 
every member, including my Republican colleagues from North Carolina, 
to cast a vote of conscience against this bill and not to vote for 
another spending bill until we take care of our own. We must help the 
people of eastern North Carolina get back on their feet, and we must 
help them now.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).
  (Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about this one penny for every 
dollar. There was an amendment to this bill that would have given $508 
million to help farmers who have lost everything. These are hours of 
desperation, not a time of celebration. This is a time of shame, shame 
on those who claim this helps American families.
  Let us talk about substance and reality, when in fact it takes $423 
million of our money to give to foreign refugees, and you will not give 
one penny to our farmers who have lost their homes, their equipment? 
They do not have a future.
  This is the People's House. We are elected to serve our people first, 
and may God help us honor that commitment to the American people with 
every penny of every dollar.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, normally the Labor bill we call the 
people's bill, a compassionate bill, a bill that cares about people's 
health, their welfare.
  Well, you had an opportunity to do that, to really do that. $508 
million would make a difference of humanity for farmers in my district. 
I tell you, more than 68,000 Americans who live in eastern North 
Carolina are affected. You are saying no to them when you refuse to 
take this opportunity. I say that this conference bill had a unique 
opportunity to live up to its humanity. This is inhumane. It is 
inhumane to assume that you would turn your back on farmers and those 
who are destitute at this time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, 
HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I have to rise regarding this issue. The 
three or four Members from North Carolina who just spoke sent me 
letters as chairman of my subcommittee thanking me, thanking me for 
providing for $2.5 billion in disaster assistance to FEMA for North 
Carolina, while my part of the country, the Northeast, was terribly 
underfunded for disaster relief because of drought, and they have the 
temerity to stand here and accuse us of disrespecting the needs of the 
lives and well-being of the people of North Carolina.
  That is an outrage. It is an outrage for them on the one hand to 
demand that we help them, and I met with them, the entire delegation 
with their Governor, heard their pleas, heard their concerns, 
identified and empathized with them, and provided $2.5 billion in our 
bill on that request alone. For them to stand here and make these 
allegations against my party, I think it is just wrong, and I had to 
stand and state the truth.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like for the 
gentleman to tell us how much agricultural aid was in that VA-HUD bill? 
He is talking about FEMA aid. We are very grateful for that. Of course, 
we are grateful for that.
  But in the bill before us, we are talking about emergency aid to 
farmers who have no other way of getting direct payments for crop and 
livestock losses.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about $2.5 billion in American 
taxpayer money going to Eastern North Carolina to help people solve 
their problems. That is our response.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my 
question is, how much of that would be available for direct aid to 
farmers for crop loss?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, it is direct aid to people.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what the gentleman is talking about is apples 
and oranges. I think the gentleman from North Carolina is correct. He 
is talking about aid that farmers need that they are not getting.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, my colleague the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kasich) was on the floor a minute ago, and he said that we should 
really be celebrating our success. I agree. We have come a long way 
from 1992 when the deficit, even with a large surplus in Social 
Security, was $290 billion and headed up.
  We passed three budgets to reverse that course, a budget summit in 
1990, the Clinton Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act in '93, and the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and my side put the votes on the board to 
pass those bills and we are proud of the accomplishment.
  But one of the disciplines we implemented when we passed those bills 
was to put a ceiling, a cap, on discretionary spending, the stuff that 
runs the government. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) said we 
should not be denigrating this accomplishment, but how can you help but 
denigrate what this budget before us represents? Because what it does 
is make a mockery of the discretionary spending ceiling.
  The discretionary spending ceiling for this year, according to CBO, 
is $580 billion in July, $579.8. We are $30 billion over that 
particular limit, $30 billion over that limit. We have exceeded the 
discretionary spending limits to that extent.
  You can do that if is a genuine emergency, but the Census, an 
emergency? $4.4 billion? Spare parts, POL for the Army, an emergency? 
Give me a break. We are trashing the rules, the disciplines, that have 
gotten us to where we are in doing this.
  The result was given to us this morning by CBO as soon as they saw 
what this bill, the Labor-HHS bill, appropriated. They scored the 
entire 13 bills that make up the discretionary spending budget, and 
here it is: The cap for this year is $580 billion. If we can attain 
that cap, CBO told us in July that we would have a surplus of $14 
billion, without including Social Security. That gives us a target of 
$594 billion. As long as we keep the spending within that level, we do 
not have to dip into Social Security.
  But what is the total according to CBO of outlays, total spending 
under all 13 appropriation bills passed by this House, controlled by 
the Republicans? $611 billion. The arithmetic is simple. We are $17 
billion into Social Security.
  Now, if you look at the letter CBO sent me this morning, and we have 
copies over here we will gladly share with you, that is Table 1. Look 
at Table 2.

[[Page H11106]]

 Dr. Crippen goes on to say in Table 2 you do not have a 1 percent 
problem. If you want to cut across the board to put this budget back in 
balance and out of Social Security, you have got a 4.8 percent across-
the-board problem. And if, because that would be disastrous for defense 
and veterans, you want to leave out veterans and defense, you have got 
a 10.8 percent problem.
  So all of this talk about 1 percent across the board is just a 
minimum cut is poppycock. As soon as we recognize that, read CBO's 
letter, they are our neutral, nonpartisan budget shop. They have served 
us well. They have scored outlays over the last 6 years from 1993 to 
1998 with an error factor of 0.4 percent. As soon as we take their 
advice and get this back in proper condition, then we can get out of 
this sham budgeting and into real budgeting and finally close this 
process. But it is not a 1 percent problem, it is a much bigger 
problem.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to get into 
this give and take on the political argument, but I listened to this 
rhetoric about the farm emergencies, and let me tell you what the truth 
is, and here is the paperwork, the documentation that proves it.
  Last year this Congress added as an emergency amount of money for the 
farm emergencies $6 billion, $5.916 billion, to be exact. Then, when 
the next supplemental request came from the administration, we added to 
that request for the Hurricane Mitch supplemental $700 million. Most of 
it was not requested, we added it. Then in the regular fiscal year 2000 
agriculture bill, which we passed and the President has signed, we 
added $8.7 billion to deal with farm emergencies. The President did not 
request any of this $8.7 billion. We still do not have a request from 
the President for agricultural losses this hurricane season.
  Now, for someone over there to stand and say this Congress has 
neglected the farmer and the emergencies in the agriculture community 
is just not right. It is not accurate. It is not truthful. It is purely 
political rhetoric. The facts are here, and you are welcome to look at 
them.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Kentucky (Mrs. Northup), a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, it gives me a real thrill to be here today 
and to be part of this debate.
  When I ran for Congress in 1995, what I told my constituents was that 
there was a new day in this country, a day of talking about restraint, 
a day of talking about balancing the budget, a day of talking about 
Social Security and saving Social Security, and that it was going to 
require a lot of courage, it was going to require us to look at things 
differently, but that I felt that I could be part of that debate and 
part of that solution.
  Since I arrived in 1996, the first thing we tackled was balancing the 
budget. It was a thrill to me when we passed the balanced budget 
amendments and set ourselves on a course that we were going to restrain 
spending and balance the budget.
  But even then, we did not imagine that we would be able to, as 
quickly as now, also restrain ourselves from spending Social Security 
surpluses. Let us give the economy credit, certainly that has been part 
of it, but we could have gone right on and spent. In fact, what we have 
heard today is one speaker after the other from the minority side 
talking about spend more, spend more, spend more, spend it faster, 
spend it faster, spend it faster.
  If we had stepped up every single budget bill we have had before us, 
every single appropriations bill we have had this year, and spent what 
they asked us to, we would have gotten way back into the past type of 
thinking. But because of the restraint of the leadership, the 
discipline of the subcommittee chairs and the chairmen, we have held to 
the idea that we have to restrain ourselves, and for the sake of social 
security.
  I am tired of hearing people say social security is safe, that we 
have put a note in there saying it is an IOU and we are going to owe 
it, because our children in 2010 are going to have to start paying that 
back.
  We do not have things that we can sell, assets that we can sell to 
cash it in. It is not in stocks. It is not in things that we can cash 
in. It would be like me spending my six kids' college funds on new 
clothes and saying, I am going to put an IOU in there. That is great. 
When they start to college, what do I have to sell to give them their 
money back? We are not going to sell our airports, we are not going to 
still our schools, we are not going to sell our locks and dams.
  We have no assets to sell, no assets to sell. The only assets we have 
are my six children, who are going to go to work and have to start 
paying for this spending that we did not restrain ourselves from in the 
past.
  So out of great love and admiration for my 77-year-old parents, who 
are not going to make anymore money than they have in the bank, we are 
securing Social Security. For those grandchildren and my six children 
who are going to carry the burden forever, we are restraining our 
spending so they might have it in their day.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for yielding time to me.
  Because 950,000 children will have no place to go after school when 
this bill passes, Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation, and 
ask us to get back to work for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this appropriations bill.
  The majority has made a mockery of the appropriations process by 
attaching the Labor HHS appropriations bill to the DC appropriations 
bill. Because the bill has been presented in this manner, we cannot 
amend this bill that is flawed in almost every way. This political 
maneuvering simply breeds more partisanship, and it only sharply 
divides the House when we should be working together for the American 
people.
  On a program level comparison, the House Labor HHS appropriations 
bill is almost $4 billion or 4% below the President's Budget request. 
It is about $5 billion or 6% below the funding level contained in the 
bill currently under consideration in the Republican-controlled U.S. 
Senate. Excluding the National Institutes of Health, which received a 
$1.3 billion increase in the bill, the remaining programs in the bill 
are in the aggregate cut close to $1 billion below current year levels. 
There are 45 major programs cut below 1999 or eliminated entirely in 
the bill that total almost $2 billion in cuts.
  This situation is untenable, and the bill in its current form is a 
sham. It is our responsibility to draft an appropriations bill that 
works.
  This bill denies 42,000 children a ``Head Start'' in life. Research 
has shown consistently that Head Start helps low-income children get 
ready and stay ready for school, improves parenting, and helps parents 
get on the road to economic and social self sufficiency. There are over 
2 million low-income children under the age of 5 who are eligible for 
Head Start, but the program currently provides services to only 835,000 
children, 40% of those who are eligible. The President's request of 
$5.3 billion would provide a Head Start experience to an additional 
42,000 children (including 7,000 children ages 0 to 3) and their 
families as part of the Administration's commitment to enrolling 1 
million children in Head Start by 2002.
  The Appropriations recommendation, however, is a full $507 million 
below the President's request. This cut would have drastic implications 
in my home State of Texas. The recommendation would result in a $43 
million cut for Head Start funding in Texas. This substantial reduction 
in funding would have severe consequences on the Texas children and 
would diminish the positive impact that Head Start has had in my State.
  The bill repeals last year's bipartisan agreement to dedicate funding 
solely for Class Size Reduction, jeopardizing the President's goal of 
helping schools to hire 100,000 new teachers. The Committee bill 
eliminates a total of $2.2 billion in funding requested for Class Size 
Reduction, Goals 2000 and the Eisenhower Teacher Training Program. In 
the State of Texas, this cut would result in a $26 million cut to the 
Eisenhower Teacher Training Program, a $37 million cut to the Goals 
2000 Program, and an almost $114 million cut to the Class Size 
Reduction Program. Texas cannot sustain such a loss in Federal funding, 
and I greatly fear for the continued success of these programs.

[[Page H11107]]

  Not only does the bill cut the President's combined request for the 
Class Size Reduction, Goals 2000 (state grants) and Eisenhower Teacher 
Training programs by $396 million, it also cuts the funding level 
proposed by the House Committee on Education and Workforce for the 
teacher training/class size block grant program by $200 million or 10%. 
The Teacher Empowerment Act is a new teacher training/class size block 
grant program that has passed the House, but not the Senate, and has 
not been enacted into law. Should the Teacher Empowerment Act fail to 
become law, assistance to schools would be cut not by $200 million, but 
by $2.0 billion below the 1999 level for the programs combined into the 
block grant.
  This bill also cuts back on funding for GEAR UP. In 1994, only 49 
percent of low-income students attended a postsecondary institution 
within two years of high school. Of these students, only 19 percent 
attended a 4-year college, in contrast with 70 percent of high-income 
students. The GEAR UP program is designed to help these students. By 
starting disadvantaged middle school students on an academic path, it 
raises their educational expectations through early college preparation 
and awareness activities, and gives them the skills and encouragement 
they need to successfully pursue a college education. In my hometown of 
Houston, Texas, The University of Houston has forged an alliance with 
HISD through GEAR UP, and this university has done much to ensure that 
low-income students have the opportunity to attend a four-year college.

  The bill eliminates the GEAR UP program which was funded at $120 
million in FY 1999, and for which the President requested $240 million 
for FY 2000. The bill would deny 572,000 low-income middle and high 
school students sustained, comprehensive support services including: 
counseling, tutoring, mentoring, parental involvement, after-school and 
summer activities, access to rigorous core courses needed for college, 
information about financial aid, and campus visits.
  This appropriations bill also drastically underfunds America's 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Yet, one of our pressing 
national priorities is to increase the number of underrepresented 
minority and disadvantaged students who enter and successfully complete 
higher education. In 1995-1996 black, non-Hispanic students earned less 
than 8 pecent of the Bachelor's degrees conferred. To increase the 
success rate of African-American and other minority students, HBCUs 
need additional support to provide stronger academic programs and more 
comprehensive services to the growing number of African-American and 
other minority students. In Houston, Texas Southern University has been 
an exemplary institution and has provide innumerable opportunities for 
minority students. This bill effectively would undermine the work of 
this school.
  In addition, the lack of diversity at the graduate level is becoming 
an important national concern. In 1995-1996 black, non-Hispanic 
students received only 6.4 percent of the Master's and 3.7 percent of 
the Doctor's degree conferred. As we work to increase the number of 
minority students who pursue graduate education, we have to provide 
sufficient support to ensure that HBGIs (graduate institutions) are 
prepared to serve these students adequately.
  This bill provides level funding for both of these programs, which is 
a cut of $14.8 million below the request for Strengthening HBCUs and 
HBGIs. The Department would therefore be unable to increase support for 
the 98 HBCUs and the 18 HBGIs beyond the FY 1999 level, not even for 
inflation. The result would be a decrease in minority participation at 
these schools--especially at the graduate school level.
  With a booming economy offering job opportunities to people who have 
never before been in the labor force and with welfare rolls shrinking 
and with employers scouring the labor market for qualified workers, 
this bill is cutting job training funds by $700 million dollars below 
last year. In Texas, this would result in an almost $8 million cut in 
adult training and a $8.5 million cut in youth training. According to a 
survey of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 86% of cities suffer shortages 
of technology workers, 73% suffer shortages of health workers, and 72% 
lack enough construction workers to fill available jobs. Yet, this bill 
would do nothing to provide solutions to these grave problems.
  The bill provides an appropriation of $4,572 million for Training and 
Employment Services for FY 2000. This is a reduction of $928 million, 
or 17% below the request, and a reduction of $709 million, or 13%, 
below 1999. Overall, the House mark reduces program participants nearly 
432,300, or 20%, below the request, and about 175,000, or 9%, below 
1999.
  This bill also undermines the bipartisan Workforce Investment Act 
enacted last year that is intended to provide access to information and 
services that all Americans need to find and keep a job to meet the 
workforce challenges of the global economy.
  The House bill cuts the dislocated worker program by $140 million 
below 1999, and $335 million below the request. In Texas, the State 
would need to cut its funding by almost $18 million. The House mark 
means that 176,600 fewer dislocated workers will be served compared to 
the President--and 46,500 fewer than in FY 1999, reversing increases 
the Congress has provided over the past three years. This means that 
from the universe of 3.3 million dislocated workers per year, even 
fewer will not benefit from services that could shorten the time that 
they are unemployed and hundreds of employers will also be hindered in 
their capacity to find the skilled workers they need. The bill rejects 
the President's goal of providing reemployment services and training to 
dislocated worker who needs and wants them by 2004.
  The bill provides a program level of $38.4 billion for the Department 
of Health and Human Services, which is $686 million (-2%) below the 
President's 2000 request.
  In particular, the bill slashes $212 million from the 
Administration's request for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration. This will drastically affect the Center for 
Mental Health Services which supports state prevention, treatment and 
rehabilitation efforts. These cuts will potentially deny 20,000 
individuals access to essential stabilizing medication. The Committee 
also cuts $3 million from the President's request for PATH, a program 
which aids homeless individuals with mental illness. Every night, 
approximately 200,000 Americans with major mental illness have nowhere 
to sleep. By denying the President's request, the Committee is denying 
the opportunity to reach out to an additional 7,800 homeless 
individuals and provide them with essential mental health services.
  Furthermore, our children suffer from mental illnesses. The tragedy 
in Littleton, Colorado is a somber example of this fact. It is 
estimated that eleven million American children and adolescents have a 
diagnosable mental, emotional or behavioral disorder. One in 20 
American children will have a severe disorder by the age of 18.
  Five to nine percent of our children and youths ages 9 to 17 have a 
serious emotional disturbance of a magnitude that limits their capacity 
to function appropriately at home, at school, or in their communities.
  Yet, as this bill stands, we cannot help America's children. The 
Appropriations Committee simply fails to acknowledge that our children 
are suffering.
  The Committee bill is $19 million below the FY 1999 funding level for 
the Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention. This cut severely 
threatens the program to provide integrated substance abuse and HIV/
AIDS prevention services to African American and Hispanic/Latino youth 
as well as women and their children. According to the Surgeon General, 
nearly one half of all new HIV infections are caused either directly 
(through sharing of injection equipment) or indirectly (sexual 
transmission from an individual infected through injection equipment, 
birth, etc.) through substance abuse. Racial and ethnic minorities are 
disproportionately effected by substance abuse related HIV infection. 
Sine 1981, roughly 61% of all AIDS cases among women have been 
attributed to injection drug use, or sex with partners who inject 
drugs. Further, among the highest health care expenditures associated 
with substance abuse are those associated with HIV/AIDS.
  Yet, this bill eliminates $50 million in emergency funds for HIV/AIDs 
in Minority Communities. Representing an estimated 12% of the total 
U.S. population, African Americans make up almost 37% of all AIDS cases 
reported in this country. In 1998, Hispanic represented 13% of the U.S. 
population (including residents of Puerto Rico), but accounted for 20% 
of the total number of new U.S. AIDS cases reported that year (9,650 of 
48,269 cases). The AIDS incidence rate among Hispanics in 1998 was 28.1 
per 100,000 population, almost 4 times the rate for whites (8.2 per 
100,000) but lower than the rate for African Americans (66.4 per 
100,000).
  And it isn't just children, young adults seeking job training or 
average workers who are ignored by this bill. It is our senior citizens 
as well. This bill cuts funds requested for the meals on wheels program 
targeted at the growing number of elderly shut-ins that currently are 
not getting that assistance. It eliminates a new initiative aimed at 
protecting our disabled elderly from abuse in nursing homes. It 
eliminates the family caregiver support program that would help seniors 
remain in their own homes and out of nursing homes as long as possible.
  The bill includes $6.48 billion for the administrative expenses of 
the Social Security Administration, which is $225 million below the 
level requested by the President. Funding SSA at this level will result 
in a deterioration in public services. SSA would be forced to impose 
immediate and complete hiring freeze, leaving 3,000 positions vacant by 
the end of the year. This would result in disability applicants waiting 
almost 5 months, almost twice as long the current processing time, for 
a decision on their initial claims, and longer waiting

[[Page H11108]]

times for the millions of individuals who visit district offices. Mr. 
Speaker, send this bill back to committee so that American families can 
get a fair deal for their tax dollars, not an insult.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill, with the 
greatest respect for the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) and 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). They both 
care deeply about the health, education, and opportunities available to 
Americans.
  I especially want to mention my high regard for the gentleman from 
Illinois (Chairman Porter), who has said he will retire at the end of 
this Congress. The gentleman from Illinois has served his constituents, 
this committee, and the people of this great country with such honor, 
commitment, and decency, I am proud to call the gentleman my friend.
  I have hoped and will continue to hope that we can come together and 
work on a budget that truly addresses the needs of Americans. 
Unfortunately, in too many instances, I do not believe this budget does 
so. We are spending billions in this budget and, unfortunately, in my 
judgment, many times we are spending it in the wrong places.
  In some cases, we delay so long it is almost like not spending the 
money at all. The delayed obligation to the NIH and CDC troubles me, 
particularly.
  I have a personal reason for caring about this part of the budget. I 
lost my mother to breast cancer, and not a day goes by when I do not 
think about her and of the years we missed together. I often wonder how 
many women like my mother might still be alive today if our country had 
invested more in cancer research and treatment a generation ago.
  I am determined that my daughters and granddaughters will not suffer 
with cancer as my mom did, and as so many Americans do today. I believe 
that while government cannot cure cancer, it can put the resources in 
the hands of those who will. Therefore, I have made funding of 
biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health and the Public 
Health Mission of the CDC my top priority on the subcommittee on Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  I am proud that medical research, particularly with regard to women, 
has finally become a national priority. Again, I am proud to serve on 
this subcommittee. This is a bill that is meant to give Americans a 
hand in the hard work of raising families and caring for loved ones.
  We are charged with protecting America's health, education, and 
employment, and because of that, I must say that it is irresponsible, 
in my judgment, to bring a bill to the floor with $10 billion in money 
borrowed from next year, in effect, taking care of this year's 
political problems at the expense of next year's needs.
  It is irresponsible to say that we support education and health care, 
but delay $11 billion in obligations to Head Start, the NIH, and other 
agencies until September 29, 2000, and it strains whatever trust 
Americans still have in us to load this budget with trickery and 
accounting gimmicks and call it a success.
  Mr. Speaker, frankly, when we read the bill, it is easy to see why 
Americans are cynical about Congress. The budget does nothing to secure 
the strength of social security, it does not reform Medicare, it hurts 
millions of hard-working Americans. Assisting those families should be 
where we start our budget work, not where we scramble to end it.
  I believe we can do better, we should do better. Let us vote no, and 
then let us work together and give this budget the worthy and sincere 
effort that the American people deserve.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am excited, I am pleased, I am happy, and in fact, Mr. 
Speaker, I am elated. Can Members imagine what we are doing today? Stop 
and think about what we are able to do today. This is the most 
wonderful opportunity for public service any of us could ever have 
hoped to have had in any time of service here.
  Today we stop the raid on social security. We started the year saying 
we could do that. We started the year saying we should do that. We have 
those who said it could not be done. They did not think we would be 
capable of doing it. I have to tell the Members, Mr. Speaker, we have 
worked hard. Some of our Members have worked themselves into near 
exhaustion. We have worked hard, and yes, we have had some good 
fortune, some good news along the way.
  We have brought ourselves today to that day that they said we just 
could not get to. Today we are proving that we can fund the government 
without raiding social security and without raising taxes.
  The President knows this. The President saw it a week ago. The 
President said, they can do it. I can see they can do it. Because they 
can do it, we must do it. I want to join them in doing it. He has done 
so. He has his folks up here working. Let us complete the job. It is 
within our reach. Let us do it.
  Today CBO has certified, and now, I would ask Members to please read 
the whole CBO letter and get to the bottom line. The bottom line of the 
CBO letter, not the one he sent the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) but the one he sent to the appropriators and to the leadership 
of this Congress, CBO has certified that we have done it. Right now we 
have done the job of passing the budget without spending social 
security. It is certified, indeed, to a $1 billion on-budget surplus.
  The President knows we can do it and has said, let us get the job 
done as quickly as possible. We know we can do it. CBO has certified we 
have done it. Now, what do we hear today from our friends across the 
aisle? They are no longer saying it could not be done, they are no 
longer saying it cannot be done. Now they are saying it should not be 
done. Why should it not be done? Because if we stop the raid, if we 
fund the government without spending social security, they can no 
longer do what it is they have been doing, funding the government with 
social security.
  Today we have funded the government without social security. Let us 
vote yes. Let us be proud, let us be happy, and let us be thankful that 
we have been able to have this opportunity for service to our parents 
and our children.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, to return us from the land of fiction to the 
land of reality, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker is precisely why I 
rise again today. It is not a letter to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), it is a letter to me from the Congressional 
Budget Office which we requested on behalf of the Blue Dogs that 
clearly states when we use CBO scoring as they wish, not as the House 
leadership instructs them to ask the question, we are spending $17.1 
billion of social security trust fund.
  That is a fact. That is in my letter. That is a simple thing that we 
have asked, just to be honest in what you ask and stop this political 
gobbledegook that we are going through as to who is spending social 
security trust funds.
  I say that my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), a 
moment ago expressed a spirit of conciliation which I appreciate in 
acknowledging the process today. In the same spirit, I acknowledge that 
some of the rhetoric coming from my side of the aisle is not exactly 
right, either. I will acknowledge that, and I hope I am not part of it.
  But the reason why I oppose this across-the-board cut today is 
because by CBO's estimates, we will be spending social security trust 
funds after we have made an across-the-board cut of $3.452 billion in 
outlays. I do not wish to go into operations and maintenance of the 
Defense Department, of which we have heard witness after witness, 
statement after statement, on both sides of the aisle of people who are 
concerned about defense, saying that we cannot afford a one dollar cut 
out of $100, or a 1 percent cut.
  Everyone that knows something about this knows that it is not that 
simple. But yet today, for somebody's reasons, so somebody can continue 
to

[[Page H11109]]

buy advertisements on television attacking some of my Democratic 
colleagues saying we in the minority are spending social security trust 
funds, the CBO, when asked honest questions, and I have no quarrel with 
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), I commend him for the job 
that he is doing, and the statements that have been made by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), a moment ago, all of this.
  But if we really wanted to deal with social security, why did not the 
leadership, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), why did he not insist 
that the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) come from the Committee 
on Ways and Means and bring a social security bill to the floor of the 
House this year, instead of spending the first 8 months talking about a 
tax cut of $1 trillion that would have spent, by CBO's honest 
accounting, $120 billion of the same social security trust funds that 
we are here today to preserve and protect?
  Please let us get honest. There has been a spirit of conciliation. 
The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) a moment ago acknowledged 
that even after this, we may still not serve it. I ask those Members to 
listen to their chairman and be careful of their rhetoric, particularly 
when they go out and make political statements, because they are going 
to have to live by these words next year.
  Remember, the budget of 2001 begins about February. All of this 
rhetoric about back-end loading and all of the things, and the little 
cute games we are getting in order to make sure we say today we are not 
spending social security, will actually be factual in about 3 months. I 
ask Members to be careful what they say.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard people try to present a partial look, only 
a partial look at what CBO has said.
  A request was sent to them saying, if you do not count the 
adjustments, is there money coming out of social security? They said, 
if you do not count it. But if you count the adjustments, then it is in 
surplus. That is like asking your banker, Mr. Speaker, to send you a 
bank statement that tells you about your withdrawals but leaves out 
reference to the deposits. Of course it would show a negative.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Dickey).

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish that my constituents were here today. 
When we went home during the break and said we wanted to have tax 
reductions, we had wanted taxes to come back here, and they said we 
want to pay off the debt, and my response was time and time and time 
again we cannot do that up in Washington, because we are going to 
spend, and we are going to spend, and we are going to spend, and we are 
going to spend.
  They said, no, no, we hear it from the liberals and we hear it from 
the conservatives that we are going to pay this debt down. Now, we are 
watching today. I just wish they could be here. We are watching today 
the people who are the most skilled at learning and talking about 
spending.
  I have heard every excuse there is. We are trying to isolate this and 
that, and we are trying to bring compassion in, and we are trying to 
say there is no compassion on the other side. Remember this, compassion 
is saving the money so that we can spend it later. It is not 
compassionate to go spend money and spend money and spend money so we 
can get recognition, so we can get reelected and leaving the poor 
people out there to live off of borrowed funds and particularly 
borrowed funds from Social Security.
  So we need to be honest. We must be honest. We are not being honest 
now. We took this bill and said that we were not covering the farm aid. 
The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) said what he said, and then 
the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) got up and said $2.5 
billion specifically is going to North Carolina directly.
  Now, this is how it still is. This is why you all are so good, you 
liberals are so good at doing what you have done for years. You are 
protecting your territory, and you are doing it quite well, but it is 
not right.
  We have to be responsible. We need to take our compassion and convert 
it to discipline and to stopping this spending. We are doing it here. 
We should be joining together to protect the people of America.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), former chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget.
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the ranking member, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, before my planned comments, a couple statements of fact. 
Nothing this Congress will do will add one dime to the Social Security 
Trust Fund. Nothing that this Congress is doing will change how dime 
one of the Social Security Trust Fund is invested. Regardless of which 
assumptions one uses, whether they be CBO, Congressional Budget Office, 
or those at the Office of Management and Budget, in either case, based 
on current projections, this Congress will be borrowing money from the 
Social Security Trust Fund based on today's assumptions.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I was going to make just one little observation 
about how one program works. I am for highway funding. I am for transit 
funding. I serve on the committee that funds those programs. But I 
think they should be treated like other programs.
  In this bill, those programs receive the 1 percent cut like other 
programs for the year 2000. But then lo and behold, this same bill 
gives all the money back as additional funding in the year 2001, saying 
that all those funds for those programs, which I like, some I have 
local interest in, is higher priority than anything else in the 
transportation area, such as operations for the FAA.
  If there is any area within our bill that all of us were apprehensive 
about, it was FAA operations. We had already reduced the President's 
request. That will be cut by 59 million additional dollars, will not 
automatically be restored next year.
  Programs, whether they be in education, research, housing, farmers, 
veterans, none of those are automatically restored next year. But 
because one powerful individual threatens to vote no, those funds get 
preference. What a way to operate.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller), another member of the Subcommittee on Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today is a day we should feel 
good, feel positive, feel happy, because there are some great 
accomplishments that we should be proud that have been announced this 
week and that we are going to pass on the floor here today.
  We are hearing all this sky is falling rhetoric from the other side 
and this fear and scare tactics, oh, my gosh, what is happening next.
  Well, first of all, the Treasury Department announced this week that 
we had $124 billion surplus in this past fiscal year that just ended a 
few weeks ago, $124 billion surplus. Now, $1 billion was taken out of 
Social Security, so we have not quite met our goal. But the fact is we 
had a huge accomplishment. That is real numbers. That is not OMB 
numbers. That is not CBO numbers. That is real dollars.
  In the past 2 years, according to the Treasury Department, actual 
debt reduction is $138 billion. Real reduction. We have finally 
accomplished that.
  Now, a lot of our colleagues on the other side think it was the tax 
increases in 1990 and 1993. In 1995, when President Clinton submitted 
his budget, he projected $200 billion deficits as far as the eye could 
see. We said, no, that is not good enough. We want to have at least a 
balanced budget by 2002. Thank God we made it sooner than that. So we 
should be glad that we have accomplished this already with real 
dollars.
  The other great accomplishment is going to happen later this 
afternoon, and that is passing this bill and for the continuation of 
the fact we are really going to have a real surplus again.
  Now, we have the Labor-HHS bill before us now. As a member of that 
committee, I wish we had a full day to debate it and discuss it. The 
one disappointment that I have about the bill

[[Page H11110]]

is that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) is going to be 
serving his last term as chairman of that subcommittee, because he has 
been a great chairman. I think both sides of the aisle would agree.
  But let us look at some of the real numbers. NIH, we have a $2.3 
billion increase. President Clinton asked for a $300 million increase. 
From 2.3 billion, and the President only asked for $300 million. Now, 
all right, we are going to take a 1 percent cut out of it. But a $2.3 
billion increase. The President said, oh, cancer research is important. 
We agree. Special Ed has got a $1 billion increase. This is a good 
bill. Pass it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) may 
not have been here. This budget spends, in fiscal year 2000, $1.5 
billion less than the President of the United States asked for in NIH. 
That is what their budget does.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murtha), the distinguished ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues what worries me about 
the way we are doing this. I would doubt that the leadership asked the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense where to cut this bill.
  Now, during the entire time that I have been on this committee, we 
have cut substantial amounts from defense, but we never did an across-
the-board cut without knowing what the implications were.
  Some people said, well, General Shelton testified this way, General 
Shelton testified that way. Well, I have said, the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Lewis) has said, the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young) has said, the Defense Department has been short money 
for the last several years. We have said it over and over again.
  When I go to a base, I find 20 percent short across the line. I find 
them short on real property maintenance. I find them short on O&M. 
Anybody that goes to any of our military bases will find the same 
thing.
  Secretary Cohen called me the other day. He said, ``I want to tell 
you how much I appreciate what the Members of Congress did to raise the 
pay and change the whole thing for retirement.'' He appreciated it. He 
said the enthusiasm and morale is marvelous.
  Now, I do not want to say what I went through in order to make sure 
this bill was not vetoed. I mean, I have had a few amiable discussions 
with a lot of people. There was a tremendous pressure to veto this 
bill. I decided that we could not veto it. We had a good bill. 
Everybody said this is a good bill. This is a bill that funds the 
Defense Department with the allocation we got from leadership, whatever 
leadership gives us.
  If the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) gives us less money, we 
will make the appropriate cuts. If the leadership decides there should 
be less money, we will make those cuts.
  During the Reagan administration, we cut billions of dollars, item by 
item from his budget. As we went into the gulf war, one of our finest 
victories, we had apportioned that money so carefully that we were able 
to win a tremendous victory. But we did not do an across-the-board cut. 
We did a cut item by item.
  According to the figures that I have, the Defense Department, because 
it cannot cut pay, would have to cut personnel. When I go overseas, I 
find the members of the Armed Forces saying, I have been overseas four 
or five times. I went to one Marine unit, and they had been overseas 
four Christmases in a row because we have cut back so dramatically in 
the number of people that are available in the armed services.
  Now, we can argue whether they should be deployed so often or not, 
but this way of cutting the budget is absolutely against everything 
that we have been taught. What we should do is go back to committee and 
make the decisions based on the amount of money we have available.
  When we started this process, we had a bipartisan agreement in all 
the subcommittees, then the leadership said, Okay, you have got to cut 
a couple hundred million dollars more. Well, they did not do that with 
defense. With defense, they took the bill, they gave us a good 
allotment, and we came up with a bill which everybody is praising, and, 
yet, it is not enough money.
  Any way one cuts it, it is not enough money. They used to come over 
there and bring all those charts over when we were before the 
committee. I wonder where they got the money for the charts. But I will 
tell my colleagues this, cutting out a few charts is not going to make 
up for the amount of money, the $2.7 billion, we are going to cut out 
of this. This actually takes us below the O&M that the President 
requested. So this is not the way to do it.
  You take this bill back, and you give it to the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Lewis) and myself, and we will come up with a 
bill. We will come up with a legitimate cut. But the way we are doing 
it is absolutely wrong.
  I would ask the Members to think about the devastating impact that we 
would have when we just passed a pay raise, we just revised their 
pension, the morale is high. The Defense Department knows it needs 
more. There is no question about that. All of us agree with that on the 
Subcommittee on Defense. Yet, we are sending a signal that we are just 
cutting across the board.
  Even though my colleagues say, well, it is going to be vetoed, well, 
I could have said the same thing when I argued that our bill was going 
to be sent right back to them. I think it behooves us to give us the 
figure and let us work our will on where the bill should be cut.
  So I would urge the Members of this body to take this bill back to 
committee and let us work our will. Tell us how much money that our 
allocation is, and we will pass that bill out, and it will be a much 
better bill than an across-the-board cut.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the 
comments of my colleague and helpmate on the Subcommittee on Defense. 
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) is a great American, and I 
appreciate his help and his work.
  I would like to spend just a moment addressing a couple other areas 
relative to this debate before going back to defense. For, as I 
listened to other people earlier, Mr. Speaker, I could not help but 
think of that old line that there are darn liars and statisticians. 
That line very much applies to a lot of the debate that has taken place 
here today.
  Let me speak a moment about the whole ruckus swirling around the 
Social Security Trust Fund. That is very, very disconcerting to me. But 
I start by saying that one of the great things that have happened in 
this year is that the majority in Congress, and I know the Republicans 
as well as Democrats, are concerned about that trust fund.
  But to hear the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), my ranking 
member, talking about a set of statistics that suggest that one way or 
the other the bills that are passing here will be signed into law 
perhaps have already gone into the trust fund by $17 billion, and then 
another set of statisticians who reflect the administration's view of 
the way dollars worked, suggest we have not really gone into the trust 
fund yet.
  The point is really not that. It is that there is a new call to set 
aside the Social Security Trust Fund and to protect it. That, in view 
of the history of the Congress, the old majority, the business as usual 
majority, using it constantly to build more and more spending programs 
around the Federal Government, that is the point that needs to be made 
and remembered.
  One of the items that was discussed earlier today related to 
education funding within this bill, Labor-HHS, that portion of it, 
suggesting that one way or another we are of great disservice to 
Federal education efforts. Indeed, the proposal of the committee was 
$375 million above the President's request.

                              {time}  1615

  A 1 percent across-the-board would bring it down to the President's 
request. That is $30 billion in total; more

[[Page H11111]]

 money at a Federal level than throughout history for Federal money for 
education. We all know that most education dollars are raised and spent 
at the local level and the responsibility of the States and local 
school districts.
  My last point takes me to the comments of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). I could not agree with him more. We produced 
an excellent bill this year. An across-the-board cut is not the way to 
deal with our bill, in my view. And, indeed, to reduce that effort is 
not helpful to our national defense purposes.
  But having said that, the Congress has exercised itself by way of 
across-the-board cuts before. I remember a discussion with my friend, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), talking about his favorite 
programs around here in the Labor-HHS bill, this very bill. And I asked 
him how he could possibly stand aside for an across-the-board cut in 
Labor-HHS. Really, our discussion came to the point that at the crunch 
time, when there are Democrats and Republicans, and there are these two 
bodies, as well as the administration, sometimes that is the only way 
to get to the final straw.
  Well, my colleagues, we are at the final straw at this moment. It is 
time for us to come together and support this measure and get our work 
done.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I have only time to focus on one of the reasons for voting 
against this bill.
  My distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the honorable chairman 
and good friend, has a couple of times, several times, pointed out that 
the NIH budget, the National Institutes of Health budget, is up from 
$15.6 billion by 14 percent, up to $17.9 billion. What he does not 
point out, and that he has never mentioned, is that $7.5 billion of 
that, more than 40 percent, is shifted so that it may not be obligated 
until the 29th or 30th day of September next year.
  For him to speak about that would probably cause him to throw up. The 
number of dollars that are available because of that feature, the 
number of dollars for medical research in the fiscal year is, in 
reality, cut by about 15 percent in the year 2000. And that means that 
medical research on cancer research, on Alzheimer's, on AIDS, as well 
as genetic causes of disease and biotechnology, all of that has to be 
slowed down or stopped or put on the back burner.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  There have been many honorable men and women who have approached the 
microphone today to express their concerns about this bill, the two 
bills, and the 1 percent across-the-board savings. And although the 
message of the other side is very well organized, it is somewhat 
crippled by the well-publicized strategy that the minority has been 
directed to employ by its own leadership, and that strategy is 
identified in The Washington Post on Monday, January 12, and I quote 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). He said, ``It took us a 
little while to figure out how to be the minority. But Dick has it just 
right,'' meaning the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the 
minority leader, ``it is not our responsibility to legislate any more, 
it does not make sense for us to compromise.''
  That is the direction and that is the strategy. I do not know which 
to believe. Is it a true concern about education, about defense and the 
rest, or is it just a need to obstruct, to impede, to delay, to 
encumber, to foil? Which one should we believe?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does not extend the life of Social Security by 
one single day. This bill that we have before us fails to provide one 
penny for Medicare prescription drug benefits. The only thing it does 
is hurt American families.
  Compromise, the gentleman from Colorado said? We would be delighted 
to sit down to compromise. We cannot get them to the table.
  I want to talk about some folks that I represent. A lovely lady in my 
district, retired, widowed, with children, $600 a month she has coming 
in. She makes a few dollars baby-sitting. Her prescription drug costs 
per year are over $2,000. This bill does nothing to help her or 
millions of other American families who are in a similar situation.
  I have another wonderful woman who I know who called the district 
office complaining about these prescription drug costs the other day 
because she has cancer and her monthly cancer prescription drug costs 
are up to the ceiling. And all she wants is a few years to be able to 
spend with her grandchildren.
  What does this bill do? As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver) just mentioned, it stretches and it hurts the whole question of 
digging into cancer research and other medical research for Alzheimer's 
and Parkinson's disease. This bill does nothing for that lady. It 
denies her the hope that she would hope to have to spend those extra 
years with her grandchildren.
  And, of course, what does the majority do in this bill and in the 
budget that we have that could alleviate some of these problems? There 
is $500 million for a Mississippi shipyard boat that the Navy does not 
even want. For a boat in Mississippi, $500 million that the Navy does 
not want. Talk about waste, fraud and abuse, Mr. Speaker. This budget 
puts pork before people, and it puts special interests before saving 
Social Security.
  And let me also say that what this has been about, this battle here 
on the floor with respect to Social Security, is that they put together 
this incredible trillion dollar tax cut bill that they could not sell 
to the American people, because the American people did not want it. 
They saw the other needs we had. They did not want to bust the budget. 
And as a result of putting it together and advocating it, they scared 
the daylights out of senior citizens all over this country.
  Well, their poll numbers went into the toilet, excuse me, with 
seniors. The seniors saw that that trillion dollar tax cut going to the 
very wealthiest people in this country was going to stifle any 
prescription drug care and was going to cut out any benefits to extend 
Social Security and Medicare. Now they are in a panic. So they come 
here and they say to us, unbelievably, that we are the culprits here. 
After their own leaders, year after year after year have advocated 
phasing out Social Security, letting Medicaid wither on the vine, they 
have the gall to come here and suggest that they are the saviors.
  They have no credibility. They are as bankrupt on this as they are on 
this bill. And so I say, Mr. Speaker, the American people see through 
what is going on here. And what we need to do is vote ``no'' on this 
bill, and sit down, I say to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo), and deal with a compromise where the principals are sitting 
at the table, not coming here and playing these games with the American 
people that the Republicans are the saviors of Social Security, the 
party who wants to phase it out, the party that never provided a vote 
for Social Security when it was adopted in 1935.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, it is almost Halloween, and the Democrats are 
up to their usual tricks in search of the big government treats. Like 
all our appropriations bills, this conference report funds many very 
significant programs sufficiently while maintaining a balanced budget. 
But despite all the good qualities of this legislation, it is being 
opposed.
  Now, I hear a lot of rhetoric about getting down to business from the 
other side of the aisle. One Member after the other walks up to the 
podium and accuses the Republicans of partisanship. Well, I have a 
message for the Democrats. Stopping the raid on the Social Security 
Trust Fund is not a partisan issue. The Republicans want to ensure that 
every penny of the Social Security Trust Fund goes to those who paid 
into the fund.
  Today, with this vote, the Democrats will have the opportunity to 
join us in

[[Page H11112]]

this battle. But it seems very clear that many Democrats are going to 
turn their backs on this historic opportunity in voting ``no'' on this 
bill. When these individuals vote ``no'' in the coming minutes, they 
are telling their constituents in no uncertain terms that they are 
willing to raid the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for big 
government programs.
  Why will the Democrats vote to raid the Social Security Trust Fund? 
The answer is very simple. Because above all else Democrats want to 
increase Federal spending. They have continually said that the taxes 
that Americans pay to the Federal Government are not enough to fund 
their programs. Now they are saying that they need to take those tax 
dollars and the Social Security money to pay for these programs.
  Today, the Republicans are saying in one very clear voice that we 
will keep our hands off the Social Security Trust Fund. The Republicans 
know how important it is to secure the trust fund, and we have a plan 
to do it.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chair of the 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia for yielding me this time.
  I want to address one point. While this bill may not extend the life 
of Social Security, and it was not intended to, what it is intended to 
do for millions is to extend the hope that their retirement promise 
will be kept. And this is the day that begins.
  My subcommittee bill includes the veterans budget, and I would like 
to respond to that issue directly. First of all, the President proposed 
no increase in veterans' medical care this year. Flat line. No 
increase. We propose a $1.7 billion increase in veterans' medical care. 
So even if this 1 percent across-the-board reduction were embraced by 
the Congress and the President, we are still $1.5 billion above the 
President's request, the largest increase ever given to veterans' 
benefits for medical care.
  We have done much more for the veteran on our watch than the 
opposition has, and I think it is important that we make note of that, 
a $1.5 billion increase over what the President requested, even with 
this shaving across the top of all the budgets.
  I want to address one other item that was discussed today, this idea 
of budget gimmicks. When I received the President's request for our VA-
HUD bill, I looked and I found in that bill a $4.5 billion advanced 
appropriation for Section 8 housing.
  Now, the President proposes to be concerned about people getting 
public housing, and I think there is no question that he does. We all 
do. We are all very concerned. I said to staff, what is this advanced 
appropriation all about? I have been on the Committee on Appropriations 
for 5 years, and I had never seen anything like this before. They said, 
Mr. Chairman, that is a gimmick. The President has proposed to spend 
this money not this year but next year in order to fund Section 8 
housing.
  We rejected that budget gimmick. Ultimately, it was accepted by the 
Senate and the President, and the House joined in. And as one of the 
President's secretaries explained to me, if everyone embraces the 
gimmick, then it is an offset.
  So the facts are here that the President introduced this advanced 
appropriation, this so-called gimmick, into our bill. We rejected it 
initially. Ultimately, working together in the spirit of compromise 
with the White House, we accepted it.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Istook) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we look at the heart of 
this matter and how we got here. The real issue is are there limits, 
are there boundaries on this spending of the Federal Government, or do 
we go back to the old days of the former majority where they just kept 
spending and borrowing as much as they wanted to?
  We have achieved a balanced budget. No matter who wants to take the 
credit, the fact is it has been done. And there is plenty of credit to 
share. We have set the standard. It ought to be balanced without 
spending out the Social Security Trust Fund. Many people agree with 
that in principle, but when it comes to practice, they do not want to 
accept the boundaries that it places on spending.
  So we had the President's budget that proposes tons of new spending. 
And he said, well, we will spend it by having more taxes, more fees, 
and taking a third of this year's Social Security surplus, spending a 
third of it.
  We said to the President, the proper standard is do not spend any of 
it and do not raise taxes, either. That means there is a limit on 
spending. And frankly, Mr. Speaker, we have an across-the-board cut to 
balance out spending, to make it fit within the available money because 
our friends on the other side of the aisle are not willing to accept 
limits.
  They are still asking for more money. I have heard them identify a 
lot of new programs they want to put in. They do not want to reduce 
things. We cannot get specific agreements on reductions rather than 
across the board because they will not agree that this is all the money 
that there is available. This is the only method left. We could do it 
different ways, but this is the only method left if we want to keep the 
budget balanced and not raise taxes and not raid Social Security. That 
is why we are in this circumstance.
  But the American people understand that, Mr. Speaker. They have dealt 
with family budgets. They have dealt with business budgets. They know 
that a 1 percent shave is not the end of the world.
  Now, for some people, of course, it is never enough. And I am really 
appalled hearing some people say, well, this will not extend the life 
of Social Security. What they want to do will shorten the life of 
Social Security. They want to raid the Social Security Trust Fund so 
that when old Mother Hubbard gets to the cupboard it is bare; the money 
is already spent out.
  We want to preserve as much as we can by controlling spending. That 
is the whole issue. Keep the budget balanced, do not raid Social 
Security, and accept the fact that there is a finite amount that this 
Congress can and should spend.
  If they would stop their new spending programs, it would be a lot 
easier. But, in the meantime, nobody is going to be hurt by doing a 1 
percent across-the-board. If the American people have to do it, Uncle 
Sam should do it, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) so he might explain the motion to recommit that 
will be coming shortly.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I will be offering a motion to recommit at 
the conclusion of the consideration of this bill. The motion to 
recommit is not debatable, so I am explaining it at this time to all 
Members.
  The majority has included in this bill a provision which will strike 
the comparability adjustment for Members of Congress by 3.4 percent. 
The fact of the matter is that that provision will have no impact on 
Social Security and no impact on the deficit and, I point out to all 
the Members, no impact on Members.
  The reason it will have no impact on Members is because the 
Constitution precludes reducing a Member's compensation during the term 
of his or her office.
  Therefore, we are reliably informed that this provision will not take 
effect until January 1, 2001. It is, therefore, simply self-
flagellation which will not adversely affect us. But we will pretend to 
the public that it will; and we will, therefore, add to the cynicism of 
the public as we rhetorically say we are beating our chest and not 
taking a pay raise, when in fact it will occur on January 1, 2000.
  So I would say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, we adopted 
an adjustment of pay. Why did we do it? Because for 5 out of the 6 
years we had not

[[Page H11113]]

taken an adjustment, which means that the 2.3 percent that we received 
in 1998, if divided by six, was a four-tenths of a percent adjustment 
per year.
  Certainly, I would hope that none of my constituents, nor any of my 
colleagues', would think that was an unreasonable adjustment in 
salaries for the service given.
  My colleagues, the 3.4 percent, as all of us know, is 1.4 percent, or 
about 35 percent, less than Federal employees will receive and less 
than the military will receive. That is appropriate. We want to take 
less to ensure that the public knows we are not here for money's sake. 
But it is fair to keep us even.
  I would hope my colleagues realize that the inclusion of this 
language will have a pretense to the public that we are doing something 
adverse to ourselves and trying to tighten our own belts. But because 
it is a pretense and when they find that it does not happen, they will 
be cynical.
  Very frankly, I do not think anybody thinks this is going to happen 
anyway, which is also adding to the cynicism of the public.
  I urge all Members to vote for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter), chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
additional time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I want to commend the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of our committee, for 
the absolutely marvelous job that he has done in shepherding all 13 
appropriations bills through this process. We could not have a better 
chairman, a man who keeps his cool under fire, who works with all of 
the Members to try to accommodate greatly different interests often. We 
thank him for the marvelous job he does in leading all of us.
  Let me thank the committee staff Tony McCann, Bob Knisely, Carol 
Murphy, Susan Firth, Francine Salvador, Nicole Wheeler; and on the 
minority side, Mark Mioduski and Cheryl Smith. They do a terrific job 
for all of us.
  My personal staff: my AA, Rob Bradner; my LA, Spencer Perlman, who 
has worked on the bill, and Christina Hamilton on the staff of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have all done absolutely wonderful 
work. And Bettylou Taylor for the Senate majority staff, and Ellen 
Murry for the Senate minority staff and their coworkers have done an 
absolutely marvelous job.
  Let me also thank the members of my subcommittee. They do yeoman's 
work in hearing months and months of hearings before the subcommittee 
and it is a very, very tough job for them.

  Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying that the other side said to us 
earlier that they believe we are $17 billion off. This Federal budget 
is $1,800 billion. We are talking about less than one percent. Even if 
we take their figures, and they cite a CBO letter that is based upon 
CBO revenue estimates, we cannot estimate within 1 percent. We cannot 
even estimate within 3 percent of what the Federal revenues are going 
to be for the next year.
  Let us celebrate. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) said 
earlier, we have done a terrific job in getting this process under 
control and protecting the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Let me say something else. We have learned in the last 5 years to 
focus on the bottom line. We are doing it on a bipartisan basis. We 
have learned to protect Social Security. We did not do it before. We 
are doing it now.
  We demand from every Federal spending program results for 
individuals, the betterment of their lives. The money has to be spent 
well. We have to see that it gets something positive done in the lives 
of every single American that it affects.
  We have brought the budget into balance. We have brought an end to 
the raiding of Social Security. I believe that all of us ought to go 
back home and celebrate the tremendous job that has been done, 
celebrate the tremendous economy that our constituents have brought to 
all of us. We have done the people's work in the right way.
  Support the conference report.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure that before this debate is done the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young) will point out that in all the years, going 
back to the Mesozoic Era, that the Congress borrowed Social Security 
money. I will stipulate that is true. I will also stipulate that, in 
every year but one, Congress did less of that than we were asked to do 
by Republican Presidents.
  The problem with this bill today is that it is a giant fudge ball of 
gimmicks to enable the Republican party to pretend that they are 
helping Social Security.
  What are the gimmicks? First of all, the bill provides $12 billion in 
aid to schools. That money is supposed to go out this July to the 
school districts. Instead, it delays it until October 1 so it slips 
just over the line and is not counted in this fiscal year.
  That does not help Social Security. In fact, it does spend next 
year's Social Security money.
  The bill also contains $18 billion for NIH for medical research. 
Sixty percent of the dollars for those research grants are delayed for 
a year. New research grants will be cut by 90 percent for a full year 
under those recommendations. Again, that helps the Republicans pretend 
that they are not spending Social Security money. But it again spends 
that same Social Security money next year. That does not do Social 
Security any good. Just a political gimmick.
  The 13-month gimmick that they provide, it is not only a gimmick, it 
is a public fib. Taxpayers pay $50 million a year in order to staff the 
Congressional Budget Office that is supposed to tell us how much 
everything we do is going to cost. And they have told us today, despite 
denials to the contrary, that the Republican budget right now, even 
with all these gimmicks, still spends $17 billion out of Social 
Security money.
  So what does the Republican leadership do to try to avoid it? They 
simply set up a device that says, ``Ignore it.'' They order the 
scorekeeping agency to simply ignore $13 billion worth of spending in 
the defense bill. In this bill today, they tell them to ignore $1.6 
billion, just ignore it.
  They then have another gimmick. They declare $25 billion of so-called 
emergencies, because if we call it emergencies, that also does not 
count.
  Example: the fuel assistance program. That provide help to low-income 
elderly so they can pay their heating bills in the wintertime. Last 
year, the Republican leadership tried to eliminate that program. This 
year they call it an emergency. I have a little trouble following that 
one. That is a double reverse even the Green Bay Packers could not 
duplicate.
  Another problem: when we provide all of these phony emergency 
designations, it really removes all restraints on spending. When we 
take the Department of Defense bill, which the chairman has already 
indicated is $16 billion above the President--and he said that, I did 
not--when we add up all other increases, we have bills that add $30 
billion to the President's budget.
  So then how do they deal with it? They totally disrupt the NIH 
funding stream for research grants and they say, ``Oh, we are going to 
give them this harmless little 1 percent across-the-board cut.'' The 
problem is they rig it so that we cannot really attack the waste and 
fraud that they are talking about.
  I have a list here from Senator McCain of all of the congressional 
pork put into the Department of Defense bill. It is 11 feet long. They 
have got it rigged so that none of these projects can be eliminated, 
even though the Defense Department did not ask for them. One of them 
alone is $1.5 billion. Do my colleagues call that responsible to say, 
no, we are not going to cut this but, oh, yes, we are going to cut 
cancer research, we are going to cut education? We do not think that is 
the right way to do it.

                              {time}  1645

  And then as was also mentioned, one powerful chairman has gotten all 
of his programs effectively exempted. They get cut this year but, oh, 
the money gets put back this year. I love highways, but I do not love 
them more than I love cancer research, or providing health care to 
people who do not have it. If you are an American family and you have 
to cut back in your budget and you had a trip to Bermuda and you

[[Page H11114]]

bought a new car and you bought milk and you bought groceries and you 
paid the rent, if you go to cut back in your budget, you do not cut all 
of that back evenly 1 percent. You say, ``Well, probably the trip to 
Bermuda isn't necessary.'' You will cut that out. You pick and choose. 
You make intelligent choices, not the kind of choices in this bill.
  This is not a bill at all. This is a magic show, designed to put on a 
phony debate on Social Security. If you really care about Social 
Security, if you really care about Medicare, recognize this turkey of a 
bill does nothing to strengthen Social Security or Medicare. What you 
ought to do is extend the solvency of Social Security, put a 
prescription drug benefit into Medicare. I held 16 hearings around my 
district to listen to seniors who needed help to pay for their drugs. I 
ran into one woman who paid $600 a day, yes, a day, for prescription 
drugs. This bill does nothing for her. I ran into another couple, they 
spent $28,000 a year on prescription drugs.
  Your leadership, the same leadership that has said on other occasions 
that Medicare should not even be here and that Social Security ought to 
be phased out, you now give this cock and bull story that somehow you 
become the last-minute defenders of Social Security. Give me a break. 
Let us play it real. Drop the debates, sit down in a room, figure out 
what is practical, end this debate. I know the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) would like to do that. He knows I want to do it. And I know 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) wants to do that, too. We are 
not able to do it because of a dispute above our pay grade, but this 
Congress is not going to get out of session until that dispute stops, 
we play this real for a change and give the American people what they 
deserve, an honest budget.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before closing comments on the 
bill itself, I wanted to add to the comments that were made about our 
friend Bob Knisely at the beginning of the debate and say that I 
certainly agree with those comments. I would also like to say that the 
Committee on Appropriations staff, we have a tremendous staff, and they 
work long, hard hours and long days and after we have finished our 12- 
and 14-hour days as Members, they add another 5 or 6 hours to put on 
paper or put into the computer decisions that we made during that day. 
I want to thank Jim Dyer, who is the clerk of the full Committee on 
Appropriations and Chuck Parkinson and Dale Oak and John Mikel and all 
the staff of the Committee on Appropriations. They all do a tremendous 
job, and I think they deserve that recognition.
  I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I envy the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey). The gentleman from Wisconsin had the privilege to chair 
this committee for a year and during that time the gentleman had 81 
more Democrats than we had Republicans. As Chairman in this year I only 
have 10 more Republicans than Democrats. That makes it a lot different. 
In addition, the gentleman from Wisconsin was able to spend $60 billion 
out of the Social Security trust fund that year. Chairman Young cannot 
spend anything out of the Social Security trust fund and does not want 
to.
  Despite the fact that we have this small majority, which we hope will 
increase the next time we organize the next Congress, there are some 
things that we promised to do. A lot of people do not realize that 
politicians keep their promises. We promised to do everything we could 
to balance the budget. We kept that promise. The report yesterday said 
that we not only have a budget surplus this year but we had one last 
year. This is record-setting. This is the first time since Eisenhower's 
administration that we had two back-to-back surpluses. We promised to 
increase national defense. And if I misspoke and said that we were $16 
billion over the President's budget, that was not correct. This budget 
is $16 billion over last year, the fiscal year 1999 defense budget. So 
we have increased our investment in national defense, a promise that we 
made.
  We have increased medical research, a promise that we made. Despite 
the rhetoric today to the contrary, we have increased medical research. 
We have increased education, over and above the President's request. 
The only argument that we have with the Democrats and the 
administration on education is who makes the decision on how it is 
spent. Does some bureaucrat in Washington make that decision or do our 
local school boards make the decision? The needs in one district may be 
different than the needs in another district and those needs should be 
determined by the people who control and are elected in those school 
districts to make those decisions.
  We stopped spending the Social Security money. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin's party controlled this Congress for 40 years. What did they 
do about Social Security? They spent it. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
just said that this bill does nothing to deal with Medicare or 
prescription drugs. That is true. Why? This committee does not have 
jurisdiction over that issue. That is a Ways and Means issue. But I 
would say again, the gentleman from Wisconsin's party controlled this 
House for 40 years. What did they do in 40 years to provide for 
prescription drugs and Medicare? Nothing.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we adopted Medicare.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman has had his hour.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The gentleman from Florida 
controls the time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it has not been easy because of a 
small majority. And the 1997 budget accord which the gentleman from 
Wisconsin did not have to deal with, either, because he was Chairman 
before the 1997 budget agreement has not made it easy. But we made 
promises, and we have kept those promises, and this bill today will 
complete the promise of having 13 bills on the President's desk. Then 
we will go to the final phase of our appropriations process for this 
year, and then we can all go home and be with our constituents, where 
we should spend considerable time.
  After this bill gets to the White House, then the final phase will be 
to deal with the President's vetoes, on whichever bill he determines to 
veto. At that point the gentleman from Wisconsin and I will once again 
become major players to try to settle those differences and get 
signable bills. But now let us vote against the motion to recommit and 
vote for this conference report.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
conference report.
  Let's look at how we got to this shameful place in the budget 
process.
  First, the Republicans tried to cut taxes for the wealthiest 
Americans by billions of dollars.
  When that didn't sell, they decided on across-the-board cuts to 
programs that affect all families.
  I hope my colleagues look at what this bill doesn't do and the 
consequences it will have on families and children.
  First, this bill does not extend the life of Social Security by a 
single day.
  It also fails to provide one penny for a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit.
  Most importantly, this bill fails to take care of our children.
  It will leave children unable to participate in the Head Start; title 
I; before and after-school programs that families need.
  What does this bill do? Well, it does take $17 billion from the 
Social Security surplus.
  Robbing the Social Security surplus and not investing in our 
children--that's not a responsible and fiscally prudent way to run a 
government.
  I urge my colleague to oppose this conference report.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the combined 
D.C. and Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations conference 
report.
  First Mr. Speaker, linking a Labor HHS conference report to another 
rider laden conference report is wrong. But even more egregious, is the 
fact that this House did not consider a Labor HHS bill. Instead, the 
Republican leadership sent it straight to conference, leaving Democrats 
with no opportunity to amend the bill.
  This is tantamount to denying my constituents representation in 
Congress! I strongly believe each member should have the opportunity to 
debate and amend this extremely important appropriations measure.
  Instead, we have a Labor HHS bill, which has:
  1. A 21 percent across the board spending cut;
  2. Guts the class size reduction initiative this Congress funded last 
year;

[[Page H11115]]

  3. Denies funding to after-school centers--centers that keep our 
children off the streets;
  4. Cuts title I funds which help disadvantaged students;
  5. And, dramatically underfunds bilingual and immigrant education.
  What is the impact of an across the board budget cut? It means that 
Head Start programs will service almost 5,000 fewer children and their 
families. It means that more than 70,000 fewer women, infants and 
children will benefit from food assistance and nutrition services. It 
means that over 117,000 disadvantaged children will have their reading 
and math assistance programs eliminated! I don't know about my 
Republican colleagues, but the thought of allowing over 70,000 women, 
defenseless infants, and children be malnourished so we can give tax 
cuts to the rich makes me sick.
  Mr. Speaker, the real truth is that a Democratic-led Congress created 
the Social Security Program, and it was signed into law by a Democratic 
President, despite fierce opposition from Republicans. Now we are 
expected to believe that Republicans are protecting Social Security? 
Something they never wanted in the first place.
  The Republicans are clearly playing games with the budget--games with 
the lives of the American people.
  Does this Republican leadership care? No. They tout the ``tax 
relief'' packages, which only help the top one percent of wage earners 
in the country. Does the Republican leadership care about Social 
Security? If so, it is not evident in this bill, which does not extend 
social security by one day. Instead, this budget would still exceed the 
discretionary caps set by this leadership, thereby dipping into the 
social security surplus. The Congressional Budget Office reports that 
$17 billion in excesses in this year's budget will be taken from the 
social security surplus. How does this indicate a Republican Party who 
purports to care about saving social security?
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this bill provide one penny for 
prescription drug benefits to our financially strapped seniors. In 
fact, this bill takes food out of their mouths and services from them. 
This Labor HHS bill cuts the Meals-On-Wheels Program, resulting in over 
1.3 million fewer meals being delivered to the elderly.
  What about other cuts in this bill? Schools in my district are 
bursting at the seams. I now have to go home and tell these schools 
that the little relief they have received from the class size reduction 
initiative will be reduced. Schools that are already operating at 119 
percent over capacity will lose funds. School districts that are seeing 
a growth of 30,000 students every five years are losing funds for class 
size reduction, after-school programs, and title I assistance. 
Furthermore, this bill does not even address the national crisis that 
our school infrastructure is in. With walls and ceilings sagging, paint 
peeling, and antiquated heating systems--in my district they still have 
coal burners for heat--our Nation's schools need help. But do we have 
any school modernization fund assistance here? No. Did we have it in 
the Republican tax package? No.
  This bill is a travesty Mr. Speaker, and I urge all Members to vote 
against it. Don't take food from the mouths of infants, seats from our 
students, or services to our elderly. Vote against this Labor-HHS 
conference ``agreement.''
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Mr. Obey and the 
Democratic members of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee. They worked hard to 
defend critical health programs from short-sighted Republican proposals 
like slash-and-burn, across-the-board cuts.
  But I am deeply troubled by the inclusion of a rider delaying vital 
reforms of our national organ allocation system. A 1-year moratorium on 
the Department's final rule expired last week. A revised final rule has 
been published. We are ready to reform organ allocations for the 
better.
  So why is there a new rider? How much longer are we going to play 
political games with transplant patients and their families? Every day 
of delay hurts patients across the country.
  This rider flies in the face of sound science and equity.
  First, we have hard data from UNOS itself documenting dramatic 200 to 
300 percent transplant and survival disparities between centers across 
the country. These are precisely the inequities which the final rule 
would address. But the rider would delay the final rule.
  Second, we have the Institute of Medicine recommending ``that the 
final rule be implemented'' because broader sharing ``will result in 
more opportunities to transplant sicker patients without adversely 
affecting less sick patients.'' But the rider would delay the final 
rule.
  Finally, we have the Institute of Medicine correcting the mistaken 
objections that local donations and small transplant centers would do 
poorly under the final rule. IOM says the evidence is that neither 
would happen. But again, contrary to the evidence, the rider would 
delay the final rule.
  I know the opponents to organ reform will say, ``What's the harm of 
getting more public comment?''
  The answer is simple. ``Been there, done that.''
  There is no excuse for delaying the final rule any longer. The 
Secretary has already bent over backward to achieve a consensus. She 
has revised the final rule to reflect the concerns of patients, 
surgeons and transplant centers.
  The final rule already embodies years of deliberation, three separate 
public comment periods and input from public meetings held across the 
country. It embodies the consensus that organs should be shared more 
broadly to end unjust racial and geographical disparities in organ 
allocation.
  A delay in the final rule is a vote for the status quo: a status quo 
of gross racial injustice; a status quo of parochial self-interest 
which flies in the face of equity and the evidence; a status quo that 
is slowly killing patients who deserve to live, but are deprived of 
that right by a system that stacks the odds against them.
  If you want to help them, let the final rule go into effect. It's 
that simple.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill is yet 
another example of the Republican party's inability to govern. I will 
vote against this bill because it fails the American people. It is a 
failure with regard to Medicare and education and other important 
Democratic priorities. It fails to fund a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit for seniors, and it fails to provide funds to reduce class size 
and hire 100,000 new teachers.
  Adding insult to injury, Republicans have added a 1-percent across-
the-board budget cut to the Labor-HHS bill. This cut will have 
disastrous effects on programs that are critical to children, seniors, 
veterans, farmers, and national security. In lieu of an egregious 
across-the-board cut, I have proposed that the Republican leaders 
eliminate the Members' pay raise, as well as all Member earmarks. 
However, the Republican leadership would rather put money in their 
pockets and pet projects than use it to fund the priorities of the 
people.
  Republicans have also proven, through this across-the-board cut, that 
they will take care of their own priorities at any cost, even if it 
means losing up to 48,000 military personnel and cutting much-needed 
assistance to our farmers by $86 million. Putting money in their 
pockets must also be more important than fighting the war on drugs and 
maintaining strong law enforcement. Their budget cut would cut 90 
agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration and 247 FBI agents.
  Moreover, Democrats are not alone in their concerns about the 
inevitable cuts in defense. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Henry 
Shelton has confirmed the disastrous effects of the Republican-proposed 
budget cut on our military. In testimony before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, he stated that the across-the-board budget cut 
would be ``devastating'' to the military.
  In addition, the Congressional Budget Office, the Republican-
appointed budget score-keepers, announced today that Republicans have 
already spent $17 billion of the Social Security trust fund. This 
announcement comes as Republicans take to the floor one after another 
to praise the importance of Social Security, vowing not to dip into the 
trust fund. These are crocodile tears from the party that has 
consistently raided Social Security. They have opposed this program 
since its inception and have consistently tried to kill it.
  The sad truth is that the Republicans' new-found concern for Social 
Security is merely a political ploy. They weren't concerned last year 
when they spent one billion dollars of the trust fund, and they weren't 
concerned during the Reagan administration or the Bush administration, 
when Republicans consistently proposed spending billions of dollars of 
the Social Security trust fund.
  I urge my colleagues to cast their vote against the Labor-HHS bill. A 
vote against this product of poor Republican governance, budget 
gimmicks, and cynical political maneuvering, is a vote for bolstering 
our national security, educating our children, caring for our seniors, 
respecting our veterans, and helping our farmers.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to let my colleagues know 
what the proposed 1-percent across-the-board cuts will mean for hungry 
and poor people in the United States.
  One percent may not sound like very much, and I might agree with our 
colleagues who argue that there is one percent of fat in the overall 
federal budget that can be cut. But those cuts should be made with 
care--not with this meat-cleaver approach.
  Many federal programs--and virtually every one that benefits low-
income Americans--already have faced cuts year after year. For example, 
the food stamp program--which was slashed in order to pay for welfare 
reform--would be cut by $210 million. The fund that helps churches and 
charities operate their

[[Page H11116]]

soup kitchens and food banks is another example. This fund already is 
running on empty because of the growing need working poor families have 
for help with their grocery bills. All around the nations, food banks 
and soup kitchens are turning people away--and yet this bill would cut 
their funding by nearly $1 million a year.
  Nor do one percent of the people who receive meals-on-wheels, WIC 
assistance, food stamps, or help from soup kitchens and food banks 
deserve to be dropped from these programs. If this bill becomes law, 
here is what will happen: 1.3 million fewer meals would be delivered 
through the nation's Meals on Wheels programs; 71,000 fewer women and 
their young children would get assistance from the WIC nutrition 
program; 4,800 fewer poor children would be enrolled in Head Start--a 
program that enjoys bi-partisan support and has proven to be an 
effective way to ensure children succeed; and 2,900 fewer poor children 
would receive childhood immunizations.
  Mr. Speaker, while our nation is enjoying the best of times a 
generation of Americans has known, too many Americans still face the 
worst of times. This country should not ever balance its budget on the 
backs of the poor--and especially not at the time when there are 
responsible ways to meet our commitment to all American citizens.
  Cutting spending across-the-board is the wrong way to meet our 
responsibilities. It will hurt people who are doing all they can to be 
self-sufficient. It will hurt children who swell the ranks of 
impoverished Americans. I urge my colleagues to reject this proposal.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we are here today in a spirit of 
compromise. My compliments to Chairman Istook for his patience and the 
statesmanlike approach he has taken in bringing this conference 
committee Report to the floor.
  The last D.C. budget was vetoed by the President on September 28. The 
city, and I emphasize that this is a city we are talking about--not an 
agency or department--is operating under a continuing resolution. This 
is not acceptable.
  The Nation's Capital is caught in the middle, and many urban needs 
here are being adversely affected. It is my sincere hope that the 
flexible approach taken by the House conferees will encourage the 
administration to sign the bill containing the D.C. budget. This may be 
the city's last clear chance to get the resources and reforms it needs.
  While much progress has been made in the District, there are still 
enormous problems which must be addressed. A substantial number of 
functions remain in receivership, including foster care and offender 
supervision. The enhanced resources for foster care in this budget, to 
take just one example, are desperately needed by many children.
  Our local courts are funded in this budget. They too very much need 
the added resources this bill provides.
  Very soon I expect the House will pass the legislation I sponsored to 
enhance college access opportunities for D.C. students. The money to 
fund that program is in this budget.
  There is additional money in this budget for public education. There 
are 146 public schools in this city, and now 29 charter schools. The 
money to help the children in those schools is in this budget.
  This budget contains the largest tax cut in the city's history, which 
is central to our goal of retaining and attracting economic 
development.
  There is money in this budget to clean up the Anacostia River, open 
more drug treatment programs, and study widening of the 14th Street 
Bridge.
  What the city needs is a stronger tax base and more taxpayers. This 
bill takes us another step in that direction.
  This D.C. budget is the one the President's strongest supporters in 
Congress have always insisted he would sign. Let's hope so.
  In the 5 years I've had the honor to serve as chairman of the 
District's authorizing subcommittee, it's been my philosophy that you 
cannot have a healthy region without a healthy city. Working in a 
bipartisan manner, building consensus, I'm proud of the way we have 
helped to turn this city around. I urge this House and then the White 
House to let us continue.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
conference report on fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill for the 
District of Columbia and the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education. The conference report before us is a sham 
budget which I cannot support.
  The bill before us today perpetuates a fraud on the federal budget 
process and the American people. The Republican leadership has produced 
a budget that exceeds the budget caps we established in the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997 by $30 billion, according to the Congressional 
Budget Office. This Republican-majority budget would also spend at 
least $17 billion of the Social Security Trust fund, something the 
Republicans are claiming they do not want to do. This bill includes 
many budget gimmicks, such as advance funding, delaying medical 
research funding until September 29, 2000, and delaying paying private 
contractors who provide services to the Federal Government. Today, we 
also learned that the Republican leadership has cut a deal with the 
House Transportation Committee chairman by promising to restore any 
transportation funds lost from the across-the-board cuts included in 
this bill. He will get his highways, but medical researchers trying to 
find a cure for cancer or AIDS in Houston, Texas will get the shaft.
  I am especially concerned that this bill includes a budget gimmick 
that will backload $7.5 billion or 40 percent of the National 
Institutes of Health's (NIH's) medical research Fiscal Year 2000 budget 
until September 29, 2000. What this means is that new and renewing 
research grants to universities and teaching hospitals will be delayed 
by nine months to a year. This $7.5 billion delay for NIH's funding 
would affect up to 60 percent or 40,000 research grants. For 
researchers at Texas Medical Center in my district which receives about 
$300 million in NIH grants annually, the spigot will be turned off for 
nine months and people will be laid off. This delay is unworkable and 
would adversely impact the cutting-edge medical research done at those 
teaching hospitals. With this budget gimmick, those projects like the 
Human Genome Project, and the recently announced ovarian cancer 
research project at Baylor College of Medicine could be put on hold 
until their annual funding is paid on the last day of the next fiscal 
year. All this in the name of politics.
  I am also concerned about some of the funding levels included in this 
bill. For instance, this conference report would cut title I funding 
for 5,400 teachers who provide reading and math assistance for 290,000 
disadvantaged children and would cut $1.1 billion or 46 percent from 
the title XX social services block grant programs. The title XX program 
provides federal funding for a variety of social services, including 
family planning, adoption services, and foster care. Without this 
funding, states will be forced to reduce the number of families which 
they serve. Finally, this conference report also eliminates $508 
million in emergency aid to farmers related to Hurricane Floyd.
  I am also troubled by the process which brought this bill before us. 
The fiscal year 2000 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
appropriations bill has never been considered by the House of 
Representatives. Yet, today we are considering a conference report on 
this bill. This highly unusual procedure has bypassed the House of 
Representatives and not provided sufficient time for the Members to 
participate in this process.
  No matter how much my Republican friends say it, no matter how much 
they wish it, the fact remains, as scored by the CBO, that their own 
budget exceeds the 1997 spending caps by $30 billion, and spends $17 
billion of the Social Security surplus. And this is before the House 
takes up the bills to rewrite the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, tax credit 
extensions and minimum wage tax cuts which will cost billions more. 
It's not really about whether you can cut 1 percent across-the-board, 
or pound your chest about how we are cutting our pay, it's about the 
fact that you have already busted the budget and do not have guts or 
the integrity to stand before the American people and tell them so and 
why.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Labor-HHS-
Education appropriations funding plan. The fact that the Republican 
leadership has sought to avoid a separate vote on the measure reveals a 
fundamental weakness in this legislation. Proponents will talk about 
increases in funding for Pell grants, for special education, and for 
the National Institutes of Health. Of course we can all agree that 
these are important programs. However, there are several other programs 
which are being under funded or completely cut out. This bill is like a 
pea and shall game, but without the pea. The GOP leadership has been 
shuffling dollars and shifting funds from the Labor-HHS-Education 
allotment to other appropriations bills to make them passable. Now that 
there is so little money left that passage of the Labor-HHS-Education 
bill is impossible, they declare billions of dollars for regular 
programs as emergency spending. They have even shifted spending 
irresponsibility into next year, inventing a 13-month year for 2000 and 
compounding problems, creating an impossible equation for fiscal year 
2001. No matter how slick the GOP leadership is, we can not be fooled 
into thinking that there will be a winner in this game of gimmicks and 
phony arithmetic.
  The American public time and again has rated education as a top 
priority . . . above tax cuts, above foreign affairs, above Pentagon 
spending, even above gun control and protecting social security. While 
I am not discrediting the need for Congress to address all of those 
issues, it is important that we listen to what constituents are saying. 
Republican

[[Page H11117]]

rhetoric makes a strong commitment to education. However, this is a 
classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. In order to showcase the 
funding increase for Pell grants and special education, this budget 
severely shortchanges other essential education programs. To site just 
a few: GEAR UP, technology training for teachers, bilingual education, 
adult education, and Head Start. To add insult to injury, this 
legislation would gut last year's bipartisan commitment to hire 100,000 
new teachers and reduce class sizes, abandoning the program and 
substituting an under-funded, undefined block grant. Education is a 
continuous journey, and the GOP scheme of hitting a few highlights 
along the way is short-changing and short-sighted; a shallow and 
insincere approach to ensuring that all students have the support they 
need to succeed.
  Congress must do more to restore and increase funding for important 
human needs programs. This bill is emblematic of how budget distortions 
and faulty priorities often have grave consequences for some of our 
most vulnerable citizens. The most glaring example of this is static 
funding for social service block grants (SSBG). Over the last 20 years, 
SSBG has been one of the primary sources of social service funding for 
states, providing the flexibility to afford vital services for 
children, youth, seniors, families, and persons with disabilities. Now, 
in a healthy productive, economic time, Congress should not intensify 
social-economic disparities, but rather maintain commitments to ensure 
that all Americans have an opportunity to contribute to and share in 
America's prosperity.
  As a great man, fellow Minnesotan, and congressional mentor Hubert H. 
Humphrey said, ``The moral test of government is how it treats those 
who are in the dawn of life, the children; those in the twilight of 
life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the 
needy and the handicapped''. It is apparent to me that this legislation 
reflects, through distorted priorities, political posturing and 
questionable accounting methods, serious shortcomings on the part of 
the majority leadership who are failing this moral test. I urge all of 
my colleagues to vote no on this GOP appropriations fiasco which plays 
games with funding for vital and necessary programs.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I rise today in strong opposition to the District of 
Columbia/Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education conference 
report. This bill is bad policy and I am appalled that the Republican 
majority is bringing this bill to the floor today. As a strong 
supporter of education, health and public welfare programs, I cannot 
support this report and I will vote against it.
  The Republican leadership once again is bringing the Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill to a vote without 
giving Members of Congress the opportunity to improve the underlying 
bill. Last year, the ineptitude of the Republican leadership resulted 
in an omnibus appropriations bill. The Republican leadership, under the 
fear of opening this bill up to amendments, attached the Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill to the D.C. 
appropriations bill. The majority's job is to pass spending bills to 
keep this country running. The Republican majority is failing by 
sending bills like this to the floor and I am distressed and saddened 
that the Republican leadership is resorting to these gimmicks to pass 
such important legislation.
  First let me address the underlying bill. While the latest version of 
the D.C. appropriations bill is slightly improved from the bill sent to 
the President--a bill I voted against--it is still far from perfect. 
The bill still maintains the language that prohibits the District from 
using any funds for abortions or to implement the District's Domestic 
Partners Act. I would have voted against this conference report even if 
the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill had not been 
attached to the report.
  This bill is a perfect example of how far out of touch the 
Republicans are with the people in Massachusetts and around the 
country. While we are working to improve the programs Americans want 
and need, the Republicans are playing games with the health and 
education of America's families. Instead of working to improve the 
quality of life for Americans, the Republican leadership is sacrificing 
sound policy for partisan politics.
  The spending priorities in this bill are not consistent with what 
Americans want or need. For example, this bill cuts $1.1 billion in 
social services for elderly and low-income Americans, ignores our 
children by refusing to fund $44 million to immunize over 333,000 
children against childhood diseases, and punishes our farmers for 
natural disasters outside of their control by striking $508 million in 
emergency aid to farmers devastated by Hurricane Floyd.
  As my colleagues are well aware, I am a strong supporter of federal 
funding for public education and families and students finance a 
college education. That's why I support continuing the bipartisan-
initiated Class Size Reduction Program to put more qualified teachers 
in our schools. This bill guts that program and uses the deception of 
block grants to hide that fact.
  I support programs to help our elementary and secondary teachers 
strengthen their professional and subject matter skills, but this bill 
freezes funding for these programs. This bill underfunds technology 
training for our teachers and schools. It eliminates funding for 
education reform and the establishment of high standards for our 
children in reading, math, and science.
  At the same time, this bill perpetuates another deception on the 
American people. It proposes increases in Pell grants, special 
education, TRIO programs, and modest increases or funding freezes for 
most other programs, while at the same time requiring a .97 percent 
across-the-board-cut in all federal programs. This cut will wipe out 
most of the modest increases in K-through-12 education programs. For 
example, the Bilingual and Immigrant Education Program is designated to 
receive $387 million, or $7 million more than fiscal year 1999. But 
after the across-the-board cut, this program will be reduced by $3.75 
million, for an annual increase of only $3.2 million.
  Even more deceptive is the fact that for many of our critical 
education programs, the funds noted in the bill are not available for 
fiscal year 2000. Instead, they are forward funded for fiscal year 
2001. This translates into deep reductions in public education programs 
for next year and increases the budget problems the Congress will 
confront in fiscal year 2001.
  For example, for special education programs, a program the Republican 
leadership praise themselves for providing more funding than the 
President's request, the current fiscal year 1999 level of funding is 
$5.08 billion. The Republicans say they are providing $6.0 billion for 
special education, or $587 million more than the administration's 
request. The reality, however, is quite harsh. Only $2.3 billion is 
available for special education in fiscal year 2000, which means an 
actual decrease of $2.78 billion from fiscal year 1999 funding. The 
remaining $3.7 billion is advanced funding for fiscal year 2001, and 
cannot be used in the coming year.
  And after a year that has seen the safety and security of our schools 
rise to such public prominence, the Republican appropriators perpetrate 
a horrible deception on our families and school children. The 
conference report purports to provide $460 million is targeted for 
state grants for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, in theory $19 
million more than the President's request. Of this total, however, only 
$115 million of these funds will be available in fiscal year 2000--the 
remaining $345 million only becomes available one year later in fiscal 
year 2001. This will require deep, deep cuts in this program at the 
local school district level. The administration, in its balanced budget 
proposal, had proposed $441 million for state grants, all of it 
available in fiscal year 2000 funds.
  As we can see, the programs are both underfunded and funded in 
backhanded ways. The Republicans are doing this in the false pretense 
that the Social Security fund will not be raided. Unfortunately, the 
Republican majority is playing games by using advanced appropriations, 
delayed funding and emergency declarations for non-emergency programs. 
They are playing partisan games because they know that they are raiding 
the Social Security trust fund. We are witnessing the deception of the 
American public instead of working in a bipartisan way to improve the 
health, education and public welfare of America's families. Let's look 
at the ways the Republicans are playing games in this budget process 
today.
  First, the Republican leadership concocted the bright idea of 
changing the payment structure for the earned income tax credit (EITC). 
The EITC is a tax credit for low-income working families with children. 
This credit helps reduce the regressive burden of the payroll tax on 
wages and it prevents minimum-wage workers with children from sinking 
far below the poverty level. However, the Republican leadership decided 
to change the payment structure, causing an $8.7 billion tax increase 
on low-income working families. By examining this cut, it's evident 
that the Republican leadership is out of touch with America. For 
example, the 1.9 million low-income working families in Texas, the home 
of both the majority leader and the majority whip, would have lost 
almost $1 billion in tax credits. Fortunately, this provision was 
dropped somewhere along the way.
  Now the Republican leadership has unveiled its new spending bill, 
which includes a 97 percent across-the-board spending cut as well as 
other misguided funding priorities. This provision would cut all 
programs funded by the Federal Government except for Medicare, 
Medicaid, Social Security, and the cost-of-living increase and salaries 
of Federal workers. Here is a list, compiled by the Office of 
Management and Budget, of what this cut would mean for various 
programs:

[[Page H11118]]

  Head Start--A 0.97-percent cut would cause Head Start to provide 
services to approximately 4,800 fewer children and their families than 
otherwise would be served.
  WIC--Approximately 71,000 fewer women, infants, and children would 
benefit from the food assistance and nutrition services offered by the 
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
(WIC).
  Meals on Wheels--A 0.97-percent cut would result in over 1.3 million 
fewer Meals on Wheels being delivered to the elderly than would 
otherwise be provided.
  Title I, Education for the Disadvantaged--$76 million would be cut 
from title I, eliminating reading and math assistance for 117,000 
disadvantaged children.
  Reading Excellence--$2.5 million would be cut out of the Reading 
Excellence Program, eliminating literacy services to approximately 
9,700 children.
  Childhood Immunizations--$4.7 million would be cut from childhood 
immunizations, preventing roughly 2,900 additional children from 
receiving the full complement of child immunizations.
  Superfund--$13 million would be cut from Superfund, eliminating 
funding for an additional two new, federally-led Superfund cleanups, 
jeopardizing public health for those living near affected sites.
  FBI--Staff would be cut by approximately 247 full-time employees, 
including 106 FBI agents and 141 analysts, computer specialists, 
engineers, and other support staff.
  INS--Staff would be cut by approximately 116 Border Patrol agents and 
154 support staff (if taken from the enforcement account).
  Defense Department--A 0.97-percent across-the-board cut would equate 
to a $2.7 billion cut to Defense--with $2.6 billion coming from the 
Defense appropriations bill and $0.1 billion coming from the military 
construction appropriations bill. The indiscriminate nature of the cut 
would mean certain accounts that fund military pay and readiness, 
appropriated at or below the Administration's request, would suffer. 
For example, the cut would require the military services to make cuts 
in recruiting and engage in a loss of up to about 48,000 military 
personnel.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is bad policy drafted on politics and not 
policy. I reject this bill, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote 
against this bill and I welcome President Clinton's impending veto.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
3064, the combination District of Columbia appropriations and the 
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education appropriations bill. This 
bill makes a mockery of the legislative process and is paid for with 
numerous budgetary gimmicks.
  The majority is bypassing the normal legislative process and is 
asking us to vote on the final version of the Labor/HHS bill. What 
happened to the amendment process? For every other appropriations bill 
Members of Congress had the opportunity to present amendments to the 
Rules Committee and have the amendments debated on the House floor. Why 
are we skipping this step on one of the most important bills to be 
discussed each year?
  The Labor/HHS bill funds crucial domestic programs including: Title 
1, for disadvantaged students; Meals on Wheels; National Institutes of 
Health; Pell grants; and workers health and safety programs. The 
American people deserve a full debate on this bill.
  Not only are we denied a full debate, but also we are asked to accept 
a bill that is paid for with numerous budget tricks. For example, there 
are some strange emergency designations. The 25-year-old Low-Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is now considered emergency 
spending. Did the Republicans forget that winter is coming? My 
constituents in western Wisconsin know that winter is coming. We saw 
our first snow fall back on October 1.
  In addition, this bill delays $11 billion in obligations to NIH, Head 
Start, and other agencies until September 29, 2000. We are giving these 
important programs desperately needed money, but telling them they 
cannot spend it until the end of the fiscal year. Further, there is $10 
billion in new fiscal year 2001 appropriations, avoiding the problem 
for this year but creating a deeper hole for next year's budget.
  Finally, I want to talk about the 1-percent across-the-board cut in 
discretionary spending. This is a fiscally irresponsible way to budget. 
By advocating an across-the-board cut, the majority is abdicating its 
responsibility to make the tough choices. Though a 1-percent cut may 
sound fair, it penalizes efficient government and wasteful government 
equally. What is fair about cutting nutrition programs for seniors, 
health care for veterans, and education programs for children, just 
because Members of Congress cannot help themselves when it comes to 
parochial projects? We should be cutting wasteful pork-barrel spending 
such as a $1.5 billion ship to be built in Senator Trent Lott's home 
state that the Department of Defense did not ask for and does not even 
want. Let's cut the true waste and pork first before we cut crucial 
services to people in need.
  Some Members today have said that surely we can cut one cent of every 
dollar out of the budget, just as many families do every day across the 
country. But, would a family cut spending on a medical operation for 
their child the same as they would cut spending on a new pair of roller 
skates? Of course not. Would a senior cut prescription drug purchases 
and the expense of buying a new T.V. equally? Of course not. The point 
is, as with family budget decisions, federal budget decisions should be 
a question of priorities. This 1-percent cut abdicates our 
responsibility to allocate our limited resources to our most important 
priorities as a nation.
  The American people deserve a full and open debate on this important 
legislation. They deserve more than smoke and mirrors; they deserve a 
responsible budget. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the District 
of Columbia/Labor-HHS-Education conference report. This is a terrible 
way to approve the federal government's budget and for that reason 
alone I would urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  However, there are other reasons to oppose this legislation. The 
District of Columbia conference report, while still including 
provisions I support, does not include the kind of reform and oversight 
I believe is necessary to provide accountability for taxpayer-funded 
programs in the nation's capital.
  In addition, the Labor-HHS legislation include a 1-percent across-
the-board cut of all 13 appropriations bills, indiscriminately cutting 
defense, veterans, education, and other programs. If this effort were 
to achieve the goal of not touching the Social Security Trust Fund 
while balancing our federal budget, it would be worth consideration. 
However, the Congressional Budget Office--which for years the majority 
in this House has used as the agency with the most accurate budget 
numbers--estimates it will still result in dipping into the Social 
Security Trust Fund. The Republican majority is deluding itself by 
using the administration's more optimistic estimates in spending, 
something that would have been unthinkable in past years. By CBO's 
standard, this bill will cut into the Social Security Trust Fund, 
something I cannot support.
  I urge those on the appropriations committee to keep working on a 
solution that will balance our federal budget, fund our nation's 
priorities while not dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill in its current 
form.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, today we will vote for 1-percent across-
the-board savings in the budget by targeting waste, fraud, and abuse in 
the federal bureaucracy--not from critical services like Social 
Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support this sensible proposal.
  This proposal does not compromise vital programs. Even with a 1-
percent across-the-board saving, our defense spending level remains at 
$265.1 billion, $1.8 billion more than the President's request. For 
education, our funding level is $34.8 billion contrasted to the 
President's proposal of $34.7 billion. This budget also contains $3.25 
billion to continue our fight against crime versus the President's 
proposal of $2.85 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, this 1-percent across-the-board saving proposal makes 
sense. It forces federal agencies to closely examine their spending and 
make wise decisions on where tax dollars are most needed. Congress 
remains committed to holding the line on protecting the Social Security 
Trust Fund despite pressure by President Clinton to raid the fund to 
pay for more government spending. Again, I urge my colleagues to 
support the 1-percent across-the-board saving proposal.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this appropriations bill. 
It fails to live up to our commitments on some of the most vital 
federal programs and plays budgetary games with others.
  Last week, this House debated two education bills. Throughout the 
debate, one of the most common things heard, by Members on both sides 
of the aisle, is how terribly important education is. How improving 
education in this country is one of the most important issues today. 
And now we stand here with a bill in front of us that makes 
unsustainable cuts in some of the most vital educational programs there 
are. This is unthinkable.
  Hidden in this bill is a provision that would delay critical medical 
research for a year. Under the spending plan for the National 
Institutes of Health, $7.5 billion in funding is essentially locked up 
until next September 29th, the end of fiscal year 2000. This Republican 
Congress is prioritizing its budgetary gimmicks--gimmicks that don't 
even save Social Security--over research that could result in 
lifesaving breakthroughs for millions of Americans suffering from 
hundreds of diseases.
  We cannot ask seven year old Mackenzie Mahr, who testified in front 
of the Commerce Committee just 2 weeks ago about her diabetes, to wait 
that much longer for a cure for her

[[Page H11119]]

disease. Nor can we ask her father, a lieutenant with the Capitol 
Police, to watch his daughter give herself over 700 shots next year, so 
that this budget fits arbitrary boundaries.
  The NIH has said the result of this ploy could postpone all new grant 
awards for a year. We cannot ask the 16 million diabetics who are 
waiting for a cure, to risk kidney failure, amputations, and blindness 
because these research grants cannot be released until the very end of 
the fiscal year for these budgetary gimmicks.
  We are at a critical point in diabetes research. 271 Members of 
Congress joined Congressman Nethercutt and me to urge the NIH to fully 
fund the $827 million by the Diabetes Research Working Group Report, a 
comprehensive research plan to help us attack diabetes head on. They 
understand that diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death due to 
disease in the United States, the third leading cause in some minority 
groups. They also understand that the extraordinary research 
opportunities identified in this report are the critical first steps 
towards a cure for diabetes.
  The DRWG recommendations are encouraging and will profoundly impact 
people with diabetes. A primary goal of the report is to understand the 
causes of diabetes and how we can prevent or delay the onset of the 
disease. Additionally, the plan sets forth efforts to effectively 
manage diabetes to delay, or hopefully avoid altogether the 
complications of the disease. The DRWG applies recent discoveries in 
areas like genetics and immunology to diabetes research. If the plan is 
carried out, a cure is within reach.
  Do not allow these research opportunities to be delayed, or worse, 
not funded at all, in the interest of a budgetary shell game.
  It is the job of Congress to make tough choices and prioritize what 
is truly important. Numbers should never be placed above research that 
will save lives.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the circumstances under which we are 
considering this bill are rotten: Because other appropriators have 
raided Labor/HHS for money to pad their proposals, this D.C./Labor HHS 
bill contains a variety of budget gimmicks that shift billions in 
spending into fiscal year 2001. Such gimmicks will negatively impact 
many worthy programs, including delays in critical biomedical research 
projects funded by the National Institutes of Health.
  But these forward funding gimmicks are not even the bill's biggest 
flaw. The Labor/HHS proposal deserves to fail because it harms programs 
that are critical to the well-being of Americans across the country. 
Simply stated, it's a rotten bill.
  Look at what we're being asked to approve: A 1-percent across-the-
board cut in every program in the federal budget. Such crude, desperate 
budgetary tactics will result in decreasing vital federal funding for 
new community police officers, after-school services to children, 
worker protection programs funded by the Department of Labor, and 
childhood immunization programs. All of these and many more programs 
will be damaged.
  For seniors, the impact will be particularly severe. This bill cuts 
funding for nursing home survey and certification programs--reversing 
the increases of last year. It proposes to cut the operating budget for 
the Health Care Financing Administration, which needs far more then it 
is slated to receive to do an effective job in administering Medicare 
and Medicaid.
  If we continue to slash HCFA's administrative budget--which today 
stands at only 2 percent of the entire agency's budget--then we will 
have only ourselves to blame when HHS comes back next year to report 
that they are months behind in implementing initiatives that we 
directed them to accomplish.
  It is particularly sad and ironic that House appropriators are 
proposing to reduce spending for nursing home surveys. Have they not 
heard about the many General Accounting Office reports that detail 
appalling conditions in our long-term care facilities? In California, 
which I represent, GAO found that one in three nursing homes between 
1995 and 1998 were cited by state surveyors for having serious or 
potentially life threatening care problems.
  The year-old federal/state initiative spearheaded by the HCFA to stem 
nursing home abuse has just begun to yield important findings. These 
findings didn't appear magically. They came about because last year, we 
voted to approve increased funding for additional state inspectors, who 
are now visiting more facilities more often--and on an unscheduled 
basis. This stepped-up scrutiny is showing where the worst quality 
flaws are in nursing homes generally, and which individual homes are 
actually harming people.
  The bill before us proposes to reverse these gains--and to put frail 
nursing home residents at serious risk again. As one frustrated HCFA 
official said to me: `You can't possibly give states money one year to 
hire more inspectors, and then take it away the next year and expect to 
make any progress.'
  It is equally wrongheaded to bleed funds from the government's 
primary health care fraud-fighting initiative, the Medicare Integrity 
Program. Congress crafted this program in 1996 so that it would be 
funded from mandatory spending accounts, precisely so that it would not 
be subject to the appropriations process. The whole notion was to try 
to create a secure, stable source of funding. This bill effectively 
proposes to unravel the Medicare Integrity Program, which the 
Congressional Budget Office has credited with producing an actual drop 
in Medicare spending of 2.5 percent last year.
  There is another huge problem with this bill--and that is that it 
delays HHS regulations that would reform our current organ allocation 
system to better serve the neediest--regardless of where they live. At 
present, our locally based systems mean that patients with terminal 
diseases in some parts of the country have a good chance of getting an 
organ transplant, while equally--and sometimes more--needy and 
deserving people in other states, where allocation systems are poorly 
developed, have no chance at all.
  The Institute of Medicine has issued a report that criticizes our 
current unfair system of organ allocation, and which recommends policy 
that is very similar to what the Secretary's regulations would do. I 
urge my colleagues to listen to these medical experts, to patients and 
to transplant advocates, and to support reform of our current skewed 
system.
  For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
Labor/HHS bill.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to object strenuously to this 
appropriations conference report.
  We have had almost one year to craft these appropriations bills. Yet 
now the Republicans are talking about across-the-board cuts that would 
decimate those who we deeply care about--our families, our children, 
our senior citizens. It does not protect Social Security or Medicare. 
This bill does not extend Social Security by a single day. It does not 
provide for our senior citizens' need for a minimum Medicare 
prescription drug benefit. It does not support effort to strengthen 
community policing.
  This bill attacks our national cry to improve our educational program 
and hurts our children by reducing efforts for immunizations, reading 
instruction, math and reading teachers and after school centers, and 
small class sizes.
  In a time when the Republicans wanted a $790 billion tax cut, which 
of course the American people said no to, we see now an effort to wreak 
havoc in the daily lives of those we care about.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, a 1-percent across-the-board 
cut is one of the most half-baked wacky ways to balance a budget this 
country has ever seen.
  One leg of the federal government that needs no budget trimming is 
the Decennial Census. And I thought the House leadership knew that--
because just a few weeks ago, we were told that the Census budget is so 
crucial that it is ``an emergency.'' And now, we're being told that the 
Census budget should be cut. Well, is the Census an emergency or should 
it be cut?
  This cut to the Census Bureau's budget will lead to a less accurate 
census.
  Can the Republican leadership tell me where there is waste, fraud or 
abuse in the Census Bureau? Because, the GAO cannot. The GAO released a 
report only last month that said there was no waste in the budget for 
the 2000 Census!
  Mr. Speaker, the Census, has had its budget called an emergency one 
week and had its budget cut the next. This is wacky.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, Democrats will continue to fight for 
critical priorities in the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations 
bill so that the bill will address the education and health needs of 
all America's children.
  The bill as currently drafted fails in this regard:
  For example, it cuts $60 million of the President's request for the 
GEAR UP Program, leaving over 100,000 disadvantaged high school 
students without mentoring, counseling, and tutoring services critical 
to helping them reach their fullest potential.
  It cuts $50 million from the President's proposal to educate 
disadvantaged youth and their families about college opportunities.
  And at a time when we need to increase resources to attack the HIV/
AIDS crisis particularly in our communities of color, where African-
Americans represent 43 percent and Latinos 20 percent of new HIV/AIDS 
cases--the bill cuts $39 million from this critical program.
  This is a sad commentary on the Republican vision for our country's 
future, and it is the wrong choice for America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.

[[Page H11120]]

                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hoyer

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. HOYER. Yes, the gentleman is.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hoyer moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill H.R. 3064 to the committee of conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
     disagree to section 1001(e) of Division C (relating to pay 
     for Members of Congress) in the conference substitute.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 11, 
nays 417, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 548]

                                YEAS--11

     Doolittle
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     King (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Rahall
     Watt (NC)

                               NAYS--417

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Engel
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hinojosa
     Mascara
     Rush
     Scarborough
     Waters

                              {time}  1713

  Messrs. CAPUANO, NADLER, TANCREDO, SIMPSON, Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, 
Mrs. BONO, and Messrs. WHITFIELD, SMITH of New Jersey, BARR of Georgia, 
HINCHEY, OWENS and TOWNS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. KING changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays 
are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 211, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 549]

                               YEAS--218

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw

[[Page H11121]]


     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--211

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hinojosa
     Mascara
     Rush
     Scarborough
     Waters

                              {time}  1731

  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.

                          ____________________