[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 164 (Thursday, November 18, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H12756-H12789]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1545
    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3194, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS AND 
             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 386, 
I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3194) 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. Hansen). Pursuant to the rule, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
November 17, 1999, Part II.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  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. 3194, and that 
I 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 may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are coming to the successful conclusion of a long 
road toward completion of our fiscal responsibilities. I thank my 
friend and colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for calling for order in 
the House. I want to say ``thank you'' to him for the many, many long 
hours and long days we have spent together during this process as the 
House concluded its work on 13 separate appropriations bills.
  Mr. Speaker, the bills that are included in this conference report 
today, all of these bills, have gone before the House in one form or 
another. They have also gone before the House as part of a conference 
report. Most of those bills have not even been changed to

[[Page H12757]]

any great extent from their previous forms.
  The District of Columbia bill, which is the main vehicle for this 
conference report, has only one minor change that was acceptable to all 
parties involved. The bill on Foreign Operations is basically the same 
as passed the House, except for a minor change that was agreed to by 
all the parties. As for the other three bills remaining, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Interior Appropriations, will make some comments on that as we go 
through the debate.
  The chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, 
and Education Appropriations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), 
will have some comments on that portion of the bill. And the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), will have 
some comments on that bill.
  During the various discussions that have led up to the point where we 
are about to conclude consideration of our appropriations 
responsibilities, one of the complaints has been the size of the bill. 
And it is true that a number of nonappropriations issues have been 
added by virtue of reference to their bill number. But the fact is that 
the administration, the President's team, was here until nearly 3 
o'clock this morning reading all of those pages, and they did read them 
all and gave us a sign-off to go ahead and file the bill. Not that we 
needed that, but it was a courtesy that we extended to the 
administration.
  Mr. Speaker, of course, the staff representatives of the majority 
leadership and the minority leadership had access not only to this 
process last night and early this morning, but there has been ample 
opportunity for those who wanted to read the agreement and spend the 
hours late last night and early this morning to do so. They had that 
opportunity.
  We have spent a considerable amount of time, long days and long 
nights, in negotiation with the representatives of the President. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have spent a lot of time 
together in that room where we did the negotiating. But it is important 
to note, Members ought to know this, the negotiations were basically 
managed by the leadership of the subcommittees involved. This was not 
done at some high level with someone who was not involved in the day-
to-day activities relative to these bills.
  So, this is a real product of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
appropriations process. I can give at least 237 reasons to vote against 
this bill. But also I could give hundreds of reasons why this is a good 
bill. Throughout the debate we will do that, Mr. Speaker. I hope that 
we can get a good bipartisan vote for a good bipartisan bill that is 
even agreed to by the administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all of our colleagues on our side of 
the aisle show the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the courtesy of 
listening to what he has to say. There are some very strong differences 
here, and I would hope that the House would remain in order so that we 
could all hear what each of our speakers has to say.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point in the Record I would like to insert 
tables showing the details of the District of Columbia Appropriations, 
Foreign Operation, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
Appropriations, and Miscellaneous Appropriations.

[[Page H12758]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.001



[[Page H12759]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.002



[[Page H12760]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.003



[[Page H12761]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.004



[[Page H12762]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.005



[[Page H12763]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.006



[[Page H12764]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.007



[[Page H12765]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.008



[[Page H12766]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the honorable minority leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members of the 
Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the aisle for tremendous 
long hours and hard work. I want to thank all of the Members of the 
President's staff for the work that they did in trying to bring this to 
a successful conclusion.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been an imperfect process, and this is an 
imperfect bill. But on balance, it has more to recommend it than not, 
and I will support its final passage. Procedurally, this bill repeats 
many of the same mistakes that were made last fall by the leadership. 
Despite the promises of the Speaker last January, once again we have a 
bill that was not done on time and was not done in regular order. We 
have an omnibus bill that reflects a ``kitchen sink'' approach to 
governing and, once again, Members did not have adequate time to read 
the bill to understand all of its provisions.
  On the substance of the bill, I am disappointed over the family 
planning provision that was contained and attached to the U.N. funding. 
I do not think it is the right thing to do. And I am upset that we 
failed to include a hate crimes provision in this bill, and I think we 
had a chance to do that.
  But on balance, this budget is an overall victory for our priorities. 
The President and Democrats in Congress hung together in support of an 
agreement that has made a real commitment to the priorities that we 
feel are critical to the continued health and well-being of America's 
families. Once again, as we did lasted fall in our negotiations with 
Speaker Gingrich, we snatched a modest victory out of a misguided 
Republican budget process that cared more about providing a tax cut for 
the wealthy and corporate special interests than about doing the right 
thing for average Americans.
  We achieved a big win for our efforts to educate our children for the 
challenges of the next century. This bill contains funding for 100,000 
new, qualified teachers to reduce class size and increase discipline 
and accountability in America's classrooms. I am very happy that that 
priority has been recognized in this budget.
  It makes a strong commitment to after-school programs to keep kids 
off the street and in safe and productive environments until they go 
home. And it advances us substantially on our goal towards getting 1 
million children included in Head Start finally in this country, and I 
am very happy that that priority has been advanced.
  We achieved a big win in the effort to fight crime. This budget will 
allow local police departments to hire an additional 50,000 officers 
over and above the 100,000 that have already been hired to continue our 
progress in making our neighborhoods safe.
  Mr. Speaker, we achieved a big win for the environment by stripping 
out the most extreme Republican anti-environmental provisions that were 
sneaked into the back door of this budget.
  But for all we have accomplished in this bill, this Congress has this 
year failed the American people. Despite the progress we made in the 
last several weeks on behalf of these priorities, we have not done 
enough on the agenda of the American people. And instead of doing the 
people's business, we squandered at least 2 months debating a failed 
trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy and special interests.
  Despite the chest beating, the button wearing and the commercial 
airing of the Republicans, this Congress failed to extend the life of 
Social Security by 1 day. We have done nothing to provide a 
prescription drug benefit for seniors to modernize Medicare to meet 
their current needs. We failed to enact key bipartisan reform efforts, 
the Patients' Bill of Rights, and the Shays-Meehan campaign reform bill 
into law.
  We dropped the ball, and we lost a real opportunity to modernize our 
health care system once and for all. And we did not help low-income 
families get a step up into the middle-class with a minimum wage 
increase. We did not strike a blow against violence in our schools and 
our playgrounds by passing common sense gun safety legislation.
  Our work, in short, is not finished. In many ways, it has not even 
yet begun. We intend to be back here in January ready and prepared to 
fight for the priorities and the agenda of the American people. And I 
simply say to our friends on the other side of the aisle, we have 
achieved a certain level of agreement here today on some important 
priorities. I am glad for that, and I thank them for their help in 
bringing that about.
  Mr. Speaker, in that same spirit of can-do, I say to our friends in 
the Republican Party today: let us continue to work together next year. 
Let us get a Patients' Bill of Rights that really gets the job done. 
Let us get campaign reform. Let us get something done on gun safety. 
Let us pass a minimum wage increase. Let us get Medicare reform. Let us 
extend the solvency of Social Security. Let us get a prescription drug 
benefit for our senior citizens. If we could do this, we can do that, 
and the American people would be very happy for it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) for yielding me this time. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I 
believe this is a very, very proud moment for this body. To think that 
we could in just these few short years move ourselves from where we had 
been in 1994, perpetual debt as much as $250 billion a year for as long 
as anybody could see to the point where with this budget deal we will 
consummate and finalize forever an end to the raid on Social Security.
  Beginning in 1998, fiscal year 1999, and now with this budget 
agreement in fiscal year 2000, we will have retired a third of a 
trillion dollars' worth of debt for the American people. We will have 
stopped the raid on Social Security forever. We will have enforced this 
with an across-the-board spending reduction that acknowledges truly it 
is time now to be disciplined to eliminate waste, inefficiency, fraud 
in the use of the taxpayers' dollars. A new commitment of good 
government in government.

                              {time}  1600

  Then when we start looking at the details, some of the things we did 
in education to bring a real opportunity for the schools that serve the 
children better, and for those children in the most desperate of 
economic circumstances in their families who find themselves with the 
most desperate of situations in their schools, to actually have the 
opportunity now in this bill for public school choice is a wonderful 
new break, through reinforcing the consistent pattern of this year of 
providing respect for local communities as they manage their schools, 
providing greater opportunity to use the resources provided through the 
Federal Government for better management, better performance on the 
school on behalf of the children. It is just another good example of 
the good work we have done.
  So I say to our colleagues, we saw the opportunity that was presented 
to us to stop the raid and to write good policy on education and 
defense and any number of ways. We seized the opportunity, and we saw 
it through, and today is the day.
  Let us vote it through, and let us go home and enjoy the results with 
our schools, our communities, our families, and our constituents.
  I say to everyone congratulations, and I thank all of my colleagues 
for their long, hard work. I know we are all tired at this time of the 
year, but we all should have such a sense of gratification. We did the 
right thing, and we did it well.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I share the views of the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), my leader, with respect to the process in 
which we have been engaged. Seven weeks late on a budget, and of course 
this budget is minus many important issues that he enumerated: Nothing 
for Social Security solvency, nothing on Medicare reform, nothing on 
prescription drugs,

[[Page H12767]]

nothing on Patients' Bill of Rights, nothing on the minimum wage.
  We, indeed, have not done the people's work, and we have squandered a 
good deal of our time debating a tax bill that did not meet the 
approval of the American public.
  But the bill that we have before us today does have some good 
features in it. It is with that in mind that I rise in support of it. 
It is a victory, first of all, for our children because it provides 
funding to hire and train 100,000 new teachers and dramatically expand 
the after-school program.
  It is a budget victory, in a sense, for public safety because it 
provides funding to hire and train 50,000 police officers to patrol our 
streets and neighborhoods and keep our children safe in school.
  Third, this budget is a victory for the environment because it 
increases funding to protect our clean water, to preserve community 
parks and forests and historic sites through the Lands Legacy Program, 
and to fight the congestion and pollution that threaten our quality of 
life of our constituents.
  The fourth issue that I would mention here this afternoon is in the 
foreign policy area. This provides the resources to move the Mideast 
peace process forward, providing resources for the Israelis, the 
Palestinians, and the Jordanians. I think that moves on successes that 
we have had in the past.
  This year, Federal funding allows schools in my congressional 
district Macomb and St. Clair Counties in Michigan to hire 60 new 
teachers. What that has done is it has translated into smaller classes, 
greater discipline, more learning, higher academic performance. This is 
an investment in our future, and it is an investment that will pay 
dividends in years to come.
  This year's budget also provides funding to enable 675,000 students 
to participate in the after-school program where they can mentor with 
seniors and other adults working in athletic and crafts and the 
computer rooms and the libraries and all the things that are necessary 
to keep them safe in a safe environment after school, to help them 
mentor in a way in which they can learn the respect of their elders and 
work with their elders and learn the skills of those who have gone 
before them.
  Programs like the Kids Klub in Macomb and St. Clair Counties will 
directly benefit from this budget and will help young people set off on 
the right foot.
  This budget will also help keep our families safe through the hiring 
of 50,000 new police officers. As with the teacher initiative, this 
builds on our past successes.
  Because of Federal funding, 85 extra officers patrol in my district 
today. That makes people safer in their homes and their businesses, and 
serves as a strong deterrent to would-be criminals. It also makes our 
students strong in their places of education.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying that I am very 
pleased that we Democrats were able to strip some of these 
environmental riders from the bill, protecting the environment, 
protecting the budget process itself. We have done good things for 
education. We have done good things to protect our communities in terms 
of its safety with the addition of the police officers. We have done 
the responsible thing to move peace forward in foreign lands.
  So for these reasons, for our children, for our communities, for our 
environment, for our international responsibilities and obligations, I 
am voting yes on this budget.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, 
on an outstanding performance in bringing this bill to the floor and 
finalizing the budget process. This chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the chairmen of the subcommittees have done an 
outstanding job.
  I rise in support of this bill, but more importantly, I rise to set 
the record straight. The Republican majority in Congress has redefined 
the way that budgets are crafted. In so doing, we have set the Nation 
down the path to fiscal responsibility.
  When I ran for office the first time, I ran because I found a 
situation where we were running up the debt on my children and my 
grandchildren and no one wanting to pay down the debt; that we had 
budgets that ran deficits as far as the eye could see and no one trying 
to balance the budget; that we had a situation where we raised 
surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund so that we could spend the 
money on big government programs.
  I ran for office and never really thought that I would be standing 
before my colleagues today very, very proud of the work of this House 
over the last 5 years. At this time, it is important for everyone to 
reflect on how far we have come.
  When Republicans took control 5 years ago, we pledged that we would 
change the scope of government; and we are delivering on that promise, 
going down the line of issues that are important in this country. The 
fact is unavoidable that this Congress has been an overwhelming 
success.
  Even when people would like to rewrite recent history, this is the 
first time in my 15-year career that we put 13 appropriations bills on 
the desk of the President. He signed eight of them and vetoed five 
because there was not enough spending to suit him.
  We negotiated each bill individually. This is not an omnibus bill. 
Each bill was negotiated individually, and each authorizing bill that 
is in this package has been voted on by this House.
  We have rebuilt our military after years of neglect. We took 
significant power over education away from the Federal Government, 
returned it to the States. We tried to cut waste by just suggesting a 1 
percent across-the-board cut. Incredibly, the Democrats maintain that a 
measly 1 percent of waste could not be found in the Federal Government. 
Well, even the President eventually agreed with us. Now we have an 
across-the-board spending cut.
  We have stopped the raid on Social Security. We have balanced the 
budget for the second time in 50 years without raising a dime of taxes 
to do it. We are paying down the debt, $99 billion last year. We will, 
next year, pay $130 billion down on our children's debt.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is the last step in a very successful budget 
season. We have worked hard to balance the budget and pay down the debt 
without raising taxes or raiding Social Security. The hard work has 
paid off. Vote for this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage my 
colleagues to vote against this. It is not necessarily that it is an 
entirely bad bill. But a year ago right now, all of us went around our 
respective districts and asked for the opportunity to spend the 
people's money wisely.
  The problem that I have with this bill is that, for the next 3 weeks, 
The Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Times are going 
to be running a series of articles every day of what was in this bill, 
and one is not going to know it was there. But one is going to have to 
tell one's constituents, well, gosh, I did not know that money for a 
fleet buyout in Alaska was there or for a wood lot in North Carolina 
was there or for all the other silly things.
  I encourage my Republican colleagues to vote against it because many 
of them ran against Goals 2000. Yet, there is $491 million for Goals 
2000 in here. Many of them said they were against the Department of 
Commerce. Well, it has got a $3.6 billion increase, but they call it 
emergency because it has got money for the census that apparently no 
one knew was coming even though the Constitution says we are going to 
do it every 10 years.
  But more than everything else, I think my colleagues are playing a 
shell game with the men and women of the United States military. 
Everyone was real proud a couple weeks ago when they said we increased 
the defense budget. Well, today, my colleagues are cutting it back by 
$1 billion, $1 billion.
  To make matters worse, those troops who are already underpaid, who 
got a minuscule pay raise just a few weeks ago, my colleagues are now 
telling them we are going to delay the time they are paid. Now, for a 
Congressman, we make pretty good money. Getting paid a day or two later 
really should not affect us. But when one is an E-1, E-5, O-1, O-2, and 
one is just barely

[[Page H12768]]

getting by, to move payday back, in many instances, is the difference 
between them being able to buy diapers for their kids or one can put 
food on the table.
  It is not right. We should not do it. If it takes us waiting a couple 
more days to do it right, then I encourage us to do so.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on the Interior.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, Webster defines ``perfect'' as being without 
fault or flawless. He defines ``good'' as being praiseworthy, useful, 
or beneficial.
  Well, the document before us is not perfect under Webster's 
definition. It abundantly does fit Webster's definition of good. It is 
praiseworthy. It is useful. It is beneficial.
  In the conference report, we have modified a number of the riders. I 
believe many of my colleagues will be pleased with our changes. Most 
importantly, they are fair. I am especially pleased with this report as 
it continues our commitment to the American people in protecting the 
environment, in providing for our national parks, forests, wildlife 
refuges, and public lands, as well as our cultural resources.
  As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) said, this bill is a 
victory for the environment. It is a bill that will provide pride in 
America's heritage, not only now, but far into the future. I think it 
is something we all could take pride in.
  I urge each of my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-
Hage) for a colloquy.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior, to 
clarify some matters concerning the President's so-called American 
Heritage Rivers initiative that concerns the Interior and related 
agencies portion of the appropriations act.
  Is it the understanding of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) that 
there is nothing in his bill that authorizes the American Heritage 
Rivers initiative?
  Mr. REGULA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that matter. 
There is no language whatsoever in the Interior portion that provides 
an authorization for the American Heritage Rivers initiative.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Speaker, in addition, is it true that there 
is no separate appropriation for the American Heritage Rivers 
initiative in the Interior portion of the bill?
  Mr. REGULA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is true there is no appropriation 
for the American Heritage Rivers initiative in the appropriations act.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there is no 
appropriations, nor authorization, but on their insistence on spending 
money on this unauthorized and unappropriated initiative, how have you 
instructed the Forest Service managers in this?

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. REGULA. There is no such authorization or appropriation, Mr. 
Speaker. The statement of the managers provides a limitation on 
spending for the Forest Service for purposes related to designated 
American Heritage Rivers.
  This is not an appropriation, but provides the maximum that may be 
spent. It is language of limitation on what can be spent from existing 
funds.
  Mr. Speaker, Webster defines ``perfect'' as being without fault, or 
flawless. He defines ``good'' as praiseworthy, useful or beneficial. 
While the document before you is not perfect under Webster's 
definition, it abundantly does fit Webster's definition of good.
  In this new conference report we have modified a number of the riders 
and I believe that many of you will be pleased with our changes. Most 
importantly they are fair.
  I am especially pleased with this conference report, as it continues 
our commitment to the American people in protecting the environment and 
in providing for our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and 
public lands, as well as our cultural resources. As the gentleman from 
Michigan said, ``This bill is a victory for the environment to the 
State of Florida.'' I urge you to support this new bill.
  At this point Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a 
table detailing the various accounts in the bill. It is a bill that 
will provide pride in America's heritage not only now but far into the 
future.

[[Page H12769]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.020



[[Page H12770]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.021



[[Page H12771]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.022



[[Page H12772]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.023



[[Page H12773]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.024



[[Page H12774]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Yes, my colleagues, there is good news in this bill; but there is a 
strong commitment to the education of our young people, there is a 
significant increase to Title X, America's family planning program, and 
there is desperately needed relief for hospitals, which have been 
struggling with budget cuts.
  The bill demonstrates our ongoing support for a secure and lasting 
peace in the Middle East. The Wye River package will help bolster 
Israel's security and provide the momentum needed to carry both parties 
through this delicate period in the peace process.
  The bill also fulfills our obligation to pay our U.N. arrears. I have 
fought hard with my colleagues to make this a reality, but my 
enthusiasm has been dampened by the dangerous family planning 
restrictions that were forced upon us by the majority in return for 
these critical dues. The restrictions are unreasonable and 
irresponsible, and my colleagues can be sure I will fight to ensure 
that they are never again codified in U.S. law.
  I am also very disturbed that Federal employees' access to 
contraceptive coverage has been damaged in this bill. The majority has 
modified the provisions which the President just signed into law only 2 
months ago to dramatically expand the number of individuals who can opt 
out of providing contraceptives. My colleagues, this is sneaky 
politics, and it is bad policy.
  I want to make it clear today that I will not rest in my efforts to 
ensure that Americans have true access to family planning services. We 
cannot continue to let a few extremists hold good public policy hostage 
to their narrow agenda.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  (Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill.
  Today, America's seniors will be able to breathe easier and worry 
less about their health care. Why? Because with the passage of the 
Medicare Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999, health care providers 
who have been struggling under the burden of money-saving regulations 
imposed in 1997 will now be getting some much-needed relief.
  For several years Medicare Providers have been caring for Medicare 
patients day in and day out--often for Medicare payments that are not 
adequate to cover their costs. In my district, for example, the 
Sylvester Cancer Hospital was losing approximately $700,000 a year 
caring for Medicare cancer patients. Until now. This bill will give 
cancer hospitals the opportunity to break even. Hospices, which care 
for the most vulnerable Medicare patients will also benefit. They will 
get the help they need to provide the newest medications to comfort 
their patients.
  In the last year I have worked with Chairman Thomas, who I want to 
thank for his efforts in addressing the many concerns that have been 
brought to my attention by Medicare providers and beneficiaries in my 
district. The result of that work is this bill. While it doesn't 
provide all the Medicare fixes that are needed--it does address the 
most urgent needs immediately.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the majority leader in a 
colloquy regarding the satellite legislation which has been added to 
this omnibus bill.
  As the majority leader is aware, I have been working for some time 
with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and many 
others, to pass legislation that will reauthorize the compulsory 
license for satellite broadcasts and encourage the development of 
technology that will deliver local network signals to satellite owners.
  We passed the Satellite Home Viewer Act reauthorization earlier this 
year with overwhelming bipartisan support and engaged the other body in 
a lengthy and difficult conference. The conference report was filed and 
passed last week in the House by a vote of 411 to 8. Few bills of this 
magnitude have passed by such a wide margin. Included in this 
conference report was important language supported unanimously by the 
conferees to ensure that rural Americans are not left behind as this 
new local-into-local technology is rolled out by the satellite 
companies.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and let me simply compliment my friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for the excellent work he has done in 
the face of very difficult circumstances in order to obtain a way that 
viewers in the cities, medium-sized and small, and throughout rural 
America will have the opportunity to have their local TV stations 
delivered to them by satellite.
  We have had a range of problems. We are about to have those resolved 
in a manner that I think is satisfactory, and I want to thank my 
colleague and friend from Virginia for his very able assistance in 
reaching that satisfactory result.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for his kind words and for his critical support in this effort.
  Yesterday, we delivered to the Speaker a letter that included over 
245 signatures from Members who supported the rural provisions of this 
conference report. Similar letters were delivered to the Senate 
majority leader from rural Senators.
  Mr. Speaker, Rural America should take note of the high level of 
support for this language in Congress and the hard work of members like 
Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, Senator 
Jonn Warner of Virginia, Senator Patrick Leahy of Virginia, 
Congresswoman Barbara Cubin of Wyoming, and Congresswoman JoAnn Emerson 
of Missouri.
  Unfortunately, problems in the other body have doomed this language 
for the year. Because the other body did not wish to take the steps 
required to pass the bill over a threatened filibuster, they have 
reached an agreement with our leadership in the House to attach the 
Satellite Home Viewer Act to the D.C. appropriations bill next year.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher) so that the gentlemen might continue their 
colloquy.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOUCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the supporters of this legislation understand that along 
with this agreement comes a commitment from our leadership to work to 
pass similar legislation early next year, and if the gentleman will 
yield to him, the majority leader will clarify the details of this 
commitment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOUCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) on his 
hard work on this important issue. I share the gentleman's commitment 
to ensuring that rural Americans can receive their network signals over 
satellite.
  The Satellite Home Viewer Act conference report, which included the 
loan guarantee language, was supported by myself and the majority of 
both parties in the House. I share the gentleman's concern that time 
constraints prevented the conference report from being enacted as it 
passed the House; however, I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to 
reach an agreement that will ensure passage of the rest of this 
satellite legislation that is so important to satellite subscribers.

[[Page H12775]]

  To address my good friend's concern, I commit to the gentleman from 
Virginia that we will move rural satellite loan guarantee legislation 
through the House early next year. It is my hope that the relevant 
committees of jurisdiction will engage in a full debate and discussion 
of the merits of this loan guarantee package and move appropriate 
legislation forward expeditiously.
  However, if for whatever reason such legislation is not ready for 
floor consideration in the House under regular order by early spring, I 
further commit that I will allow the gentleman from Virginia an 
opportunity to have an up or down floor vote by March 31, 2000, on the 
rural loan guarantee program, similar to that which appeared in the 
Satellite Home Viewer Act conference report which passed in the House.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. BOUCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority leader 
for his support and commitment to scheduling floor time for this 
important legislation by April of next year.
  Am I to understand that the legislation to be scheduled for a vote 
will authorize a level of appropriations that is both sufficient to 
accomplish such a program and at least $1.2 billion?
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, it is my 
understanding that is consistent with the language in the Satellite 
Home Viewer Act conference report; that is correct.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. It is also my understanding that the Senate leadership 
has made a similar commitment to floor consideration by a time certain 
next year.
  Mr. ARMEY. That is also my understanding, yes.
  In addition, I will commit to placing time limits on the referral of 
the legislation to committees in such a way that causes the legislation 
to be discharged by all relevant committees by the March 31 deadline, 
and I will work with the Speaker on committee referrals and understand 
that he shares my commitment to this timetable.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a victory for the 
American agenda. In my portion of the bill there is extra money for 
disasters through the disaster loan program in SBA. We fully fund the 
year 2000 census, every penny that is needed; we increase the drug and 
crime funding, FBI, DEA and local law enforcement block grants, as well 
as the COPS program of the President, which is fully funded at less 
than half of what he requested; and there is embassy security money 
here to beef up the security for our personnel serving overseas in our 
embassies.
  But most importantly to me is a final vindication in this bill of an 
effort started by this subcommittee many years ago to reform the U.N. 
Along with the monies in the bill to fully pay the U.N. arrears 
payments of the U.S., there are conditions which the U.N. must agree 
to. This subcommittee several years ago began what now has become a 
full-blown U.N. reform agenda which now requires the U.N. to consider 
our payments of arrearages to be payment in full, reduces the rate of 
U.S. contributions to the U.N. from 25 to 22 percent for the annual 
assessment, plus a reduction from 31 to 25 percent for the peacekeeping 
rate of contributions, requires the U.N. to live with a zero-growth 
budget, requires personnel reforms at the U.N., opens their books to 
GAO scrutiny, requires IGs, inspectors general, in the affiliated 
organizations of the U.N., like the ILO, the WHO, and the FAO, and 
gives the U.S. a voice on the budget committee of the U.N., among other 
reforms. This is an effort that now is vindicated.
  This subcommittee led the way many years ago. It gained a head of 
steam, and it has been a rough and rocky road; but now we can say that 
with these payments of the arrearages to the U.N. comes the conditions 
of reform in the U.N. that will make the U.N. a better agency for all 
of us.
  I would like, at this point, to insert into the Record a table 
detailing the funding for the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary 
section of the bill.

[[Page H12776]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.009



[[Page H12777]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.010



[[Page H12778]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.011



[[Page H12779]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.012



[[Page H12780]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.013



[[Page H12781]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.014



[[Page H12782]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.015



[[Page H12783]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.016



[[Page H12784]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.017



[[Page H12785]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.018



[[Page H12786]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.019



[[Page H12787]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair advise how much 
time is remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) has 15\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ 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 this 
time and for his leadership in bringing this bill to final passage.
  Mr. Speaker, compromise is the nature of our process under the 
Constitution, and the American people are the winners with this 
legislation.
  In the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education portion of the 
bill we have plussed up Job Corps, consolidated health centers, and 
Ryan White AIDS they are at the highest priority. I am particularly 
proud that we have funded biomedical research through the National 
Institutes of Health with a 15 percent increase, or $2.3 billion. This 
is the second 15 percent increase in a row toward our goal of doubling 
funding for biomedical research over 5 years. This is the best spent 
money in all of government and lengthens and protects the lives of 
every American.
  In education, we increased the overall account by $2.2 billion over 
FY 1999 and included large increases for impact aid, for Pell Grants, 
for the TRIO program, and a very large increase for special education, 
allowing our local school districts a great deal more flexibility with 
their own money.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, for the record, I want to ensure that our intent on 
section 210, the provision concerning the Secretary's organ 
transplantation rule, is totally clear. Section 210 delays for 42 days 
publication of the organ transplant rule to allow the Secretary to 
consult with the transplant community. The provision is the result of 
difficult negotiations between Members of both bodies and the 
administration.

                              {time}  1630

  Our provision originally provided for a 90-day delay with a required 
60-day comment period. Based on the agreement between myself; the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee; the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the 
subcommittee and the full committee; the chairman of the Senate 
subcommittee, Senator Specter; and the administration, we changed the 
comment period from 60 days to 21 days and provided 21 days for the 
Secretary to review the comments.
  There has been a major study by the Institute of Medicine Study on 
this issue and several periods of comment either have occurred or will 
occur under the proposed rule. The compromise assures that those with 
an interest in this issue will have one more chance to comment and have 
these comments reviewed. As a result, our agreement includes language 
in the Statement of the Managers that there will be no further delay 
following the 42-day period.
  Mr. Speaker, this was a difficult negotiation. However, I believe 
that the provisions of this bill represent the true compromise between 
all parties, and not a provision placed in the worker incentive bill 
without the knowledge or any participation in the negotiations by those 
at our table, including the Secretary of Health and Human Services and 
the Director of OMB that were there in our negotiation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to engage in a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter).
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement encourages the Secretary of 
Labor to spend up to $2 million to answer several questions relating to 
the costs and benefits of safety and health programs. But am I correct 
in stating that the conferees do not intend in any way that the 
Secretary delay her rulemaking on safety and health programs while 
developing this information?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. It was not our 
intent in funding this data collection to block or delay the issuance 
of the safety and health program standard.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments; and I 
want to say it has been a pleasure to work with him, as usual.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way from where we started in this 
session.
  Originally, the Republican budget resolution that was presented in 
this House maintained the fiction that we could afford a huge tax cut 
with 70 percent of the benefit going to persons earning over $100,000 a 
year and still not do damage to the rest of our national priorities.
  That tax cut would have used every single dollar that could have been 
used to extend the life of Social Security and Medicare. And the public 
understands that; and in the end they, I think, by their actions in the 
polls, convinced our friends on the Republican side to begin to walk 
away from that issue.
  In September, we were given a different problem because the majority 
established a budget allocation for the bill containing Education and 
Health and Labor programs which would have resulted in cutting 
education funding by almost one-third in real terms. We said no to 
that. The President said no to that. And the shape of these 
appropriations bills today is far different as a result.
  I want to publicly thank the President. I want to publicly thank the 
Vice President. I want to thank the President's Chief of Staff, John 
Podesta; Jack Lew, his principal budget negotiator; and all the others 
who stood with us fighting for smaller class sizes, fighting for 
quality teachers, fighting for more cops on the beat, fighting against 
legislation that threatened environmental cleanup, fighting against 
short-sighted efforts to limit our international leadership 
responsibilities abroad.
  I am also proud of the fact that we have in the area of education 
provided for additional support for comprehensive school reform, for 
additional support for teacher training, additional support for smaller 
class size, and additional support to assist local school districts to 
reduce high school size in order to get a better handle on student 
violence and juvenile adolescent behavior.
  I am also proud of the fact that, under this bill, 10 States will be 
provided planning grants in order to develop plans for a Federal-State 
partnership to cover all of their citizens with health coverage. I 
think that is a major breakthrough; and I hope it leads to ending the 
abomination in this country, the moral abomination of having some 40 
million people in this country without health insurance.
  But I am still going to oppose this bill despite all of those 
features because someone, I believe, has to stand for the institutional 
need to present budgets in a forthright way.
  Three years ago, when the executive and legislative branches of 
Government agreed on a budget deal, I called it a public lie. I said, 
if it was not a public lie, it was at least a giant public fib, because 
it was promising that Congress would live by spending levels that, in 
fact, it would never live by. And history has demonstrated that to be 
correct.
  Last year, Congress spent $35 billion more than that budget agreement 
provided; and this year it is spending much more than that before the 
limits. Some of that spending is outrageous, and some of it is 
perfectly defensible.
  I do not so much object to some of that spending as I object to the 
fact that the Congress, in my view, is simply lying about it and 
pretending that it is not taking place. That, I think, is an even more 
fundamental problem.
  It is clear to me that, in the end, after all of their initial 
efforts to cut all of the priorities that the President has been 
fighting for, it is clear that the Republican majority in this House, 
in order to get out of town, was willing to give the President 
virtually everything he asked for in spending so long as we would adopt 
accounting fictions that would hide what, in fact, we were doing. And 
that is the honest truth.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this. I understand there are 
many good

[[Page H12788]]

things in the bill, and I am proud to have helped negotiate some of 
them. But, in the end, I believe that next year we are going to come 
back here with the budget problem being fundamentally worse because of 
the fictions we have in this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of our 
Committee on Commerce.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. There are a few 
items in particular that I would like to highlight from the Medicare 
provisions of this bill.
  First, it directs a significant amount of new monies toward 
hospitals. This includes more funds for small, rural hospitals and for 
patients who receive cancer treatments, those most in need of 
assistance. Congress cannot allow these hospitals, which serve an 
important role in our communities, to close their doors.
  Additionally, we provide new monies for the Medicare+Choice program. 
This vital program gives seniors the option to choose a private health 
plan instead of remaining in the traditional Medicare program.
  I am also proud to have strengthened this bill by including $150 
million to pay for immunosuppressive drugs for transplant patients. 
Medicare currently only covers these drugs for 36 months. Through our 
work in the Conference Committee, however, we have ensured that organ 
transplants will have greater access to these life-saving drugs for a 
longer period of time. Access of these drugs to patients could 
literally mean the difference between life and death.
  Finally, this bill dedicates more funding for community health 
centers and rural health clinics, for S-CHIP, and also for State 
outreach efforts for former welfare recipients.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the ``Medicare, 
Medicaid and S-CHIP Balance Budget Refinement Act of 1999.'' This bill 
restores needed funds to hospitals, nursing homes, managed care 
providers, and home health agencies most seriously impacted by changes 
made in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
  The Conference Report, included in this omnibus bill, reflects many 
hours of hard work in the House and the Senate. I want to particularly 
commend the efforts of Members of the Commerce Committee, Ways and 
Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. I am pleased that we 
were able to come together and craft this bill--there is much to be 
proud of in the legislation.
  Congress made some very important changes to the Medicare and 
Medicaid programs when it passed the Balanced Budget Act. The Medicare 
program was facing bankruptcy and seniors' choice of private health 
plans and providers was limited. The Balanced Budget Act changed that 
and helped ensure the vitality of this program for years into the 
future.
  In that legislation, the Commerce Committee also helped create the 
State Children's Health Insurance Program--otherwise known as S-CHIP--
to provide health coverage for millions of low-income uninsured 
children. It was historic legislation and I am very proud of it.
  But in some areas we all went a little too far. Now we are doing the 
right thing by going back and refining some of the policies put into 
effect by the BBA to address some of the unintended consequences of 
that legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of the work the Committees in both chambers 
put into this bill. I know it enjoys wide bipartisan support and 
deserves the support of all my colleagues.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 1 
minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here to point to that portion of the deal that 
deals with seniors and the disabled in the Medicare section. This would 
not have happened without a bipartisan, cooperative effort.
  I especially want to thank the staff: Ann Marie Lynch and the 
majority committee, Bill Vaughn, for his willingness to maintain 
confidentiality as we worked on this; the commerce staff, especially 
the members of the Subcommittee on both Ways and Means and Commerce; 
chairmen of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) 
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), who just spoke; my 
friends and colleagues, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) 
and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), without which the 
congressional portion would not have been put together.
  I want to thank Chris Jennings from the White House, Nancy Ann 
MinDeParle at the Health Care Financing Administration and Bonnie 
Washington.
  Details of the Medicare measure can be found at TND.house.gov. This 
lays the groundwork for next year.
  Republicans brought prevention in Medicare in 1997. We brought 
refinement this year. And working in a cooperative way, as evidenced by 
my friend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), and other Democrats, we can move forward in 
modernizing Medicare next year as well.
  I want to thank them all. There is no reason in the world why my 
colleagues should not vote yes on this measure.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
Wisconsin for yielding 1 minute to me.
  The previous speaker said there should be no reason to vote against 
this bill. I will give my colleagues one darn good reason why we should 
not vote for this bill, because this bill contains within it anti-dairy 
provisions which go right to the bottom line of the dairy farmers in 
the upper Midwest.
  I really do applaud this Medicare provision. I would like to thank 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Health, for including very important Medicare language 
which helps southern Wisconsin Medicare beneficiaries.
  But what this legislation includes is legislation that has not even 
passed through the House of Representatives or through the United 
States Senate which goes right to the bottom line of the dairy farmers 
in the upper Midwest.
  Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues, let us bring this legislation 
down the pike on regular order, not tack it on this ugly Christmas tree 
as a big ugly ornament.
  This legislation is not fair for our dairy farmers. This legislation 
takes them and puts them at a competitive disadvantage against all 
other farmers in the country. And it revokes the free market principles 
that we were elected to protect.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this omnibus bill. I 
commend the House leadership, the majority leader, the majority whip, 
in addition to the Committee on Appropriations chairman, the 
distinguished gentleman, for their untiring efforts to finalize the 
conference report on the H.R. 3194 and for their willingness to include 
it in certain important authorization measures. I also extend thanks to 
House staffers Bill Inglee, Brian Gunderson, and Susan Hirschman for 
their diligent efforts on our behalf.
  In particular, this package includes the authorization for the 
important U.N. reform and arrears payment package as well as other 
significant programs, such as the 5-year authorization for a greatly 
enhanced embassy security program to protect American personnel and 
facilities abroad and a 10-year authorization for Radio Free Asia.
  The legislative vehicle by which this is accomplished is the 
inclusion of H.R. 3427, introduced by the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) of the Subcommittee on International Operations 
and Human Rights; the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), the 
ranking Democrat on that subcommittee; and the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the committee's ranking member; and 
myself.
  H.R. 3427 reflects the House and Senate agreements that were reached 
on

[[Page H12789]]

H.R. 2415 and S. 886, the Senate amendments to H.R. 2415. This 
compromise measure also accommodates numerous requests of the 
administration. The House Committee on International Relations worked 
diligently to produce a bipartisan bill in concert with our colleagues 
on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  I thank the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations, and I urge 
my colleagues to fully support this omnibus measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) has 9 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time and for his leadership on the issue that he and I 
are joined together on, and that is dairy.
  I must reluctantly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill today 
because of the dairy provisions that it contains.
  It is real important to understand what has not happened today with 
the inclusion of these provisions. We have not done one thing to help 
dairy farmers in this Nation. We have not addressed the fact that most 
of the dairy farmers that we are losing in this Nation we are losing in 
the upper Midwest. In my home State, we are losing five each and every 
single day.
  We have not addressed the fact that many of the Nation's largest co-
ops are gouging our dairy farmers, underpaying them. And we have not 
taken one step away from the Soviet style dairy system that has ruled 
this country since 1937.
  Because of what this bill does not do in dairy, I must reluctantly 
urge a no vote.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh), the very distinguished chairman of our 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the chairman. We did it. 
We balanced the budget, as we said we would. We cut the national debt 
by over $100 billion with this budget, as we said we would. And we did 
it without touching the Social Security trust fund for the first time 
in this half century.
  Remember back in his State of the Union address, the President 
promised to spend 38 percent of the Social Security trust fund for the 
surplus for Social Security. We said, no, Mr. President, we want 100 
percent of that surplus. And that is what we did. We gave our troops in 
the field a good solid pay raise, and they deserve it.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, on dairy, it would be terribly wrong for us 
to harm 75 percent of the farmers, the dairy farmers in this country by 
supporting the Glickman-Clinton dairy proposal. It is wrong for the 
country. The Congress is on record opposing that legislation.
  What is in this bill was supported by 380 Members of the Congress. 
This is good legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

                            LEAVE OF ABSENCE

  By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
  Mrs. Capps (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today and the balance 
of the week on account of family illness.

                          ____________________