[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 164 (Thursday, November 18, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H12797-H12820]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H12797]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        House of Representatives

    

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        REVISED NOTICE--NOVEMBER 17, 1999
 
    If the 106th Congress, 1st Session, adjourns sine die on or before November 18, 1999, a final issue of the
 Congressional Record for the 106th Congress, 1st Session, will be published on December 3, 1999, in order to
 permit Members to revise and extend their remarks.
    All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the
 Official Reporters of Debates (Room HT-60 or S-123 of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of
 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through December 1. The final issue will be dated December 3, 1999, and will be
 delivered on Monday, December 6, 1999.
    If the 106th Congress does not adjourn until a later date in 1999, the final issue will be printed at a date
 to be announced.
    None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or
 relate to any event that occurred after the sine die date.
    Senators' statements should also be submitted electronically, either on a disk to accompany the signed
 statement, or by e-mail to the Official Reporters of Debates at ``Records@Reporters''.
    Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be submitted electronically by e-mail or disk,
 to accompany the signed statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the Extensions of Remarks
 template at http://clerkhouse.house.gov. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted
 electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication with, the hard copy, signed manuscript. Deliver
 statements (and template formatted disks, in lieu of e-mail) to the Official Reporters in Room HT-60.
    Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material submitted for inclusion in the Congressional
 Record may do so by contacting the Congressional Printing Management Division, at the Government Printing
 Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily.
    By order of the Joint Committee on Printing.
                                                                      WILLIAM M. THOMAS, Chairman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



N O T I C EEffective January 1, 2000, the subscription price of the 
Congressional Record will be $357 per year, or $179 for 6 months. 
Individual issues may be purchased for $3.00 per copy. The cost for 
the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year; single copies 
will remain $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based 
upon the cost of printing and distribution.
                                                                  
MICHAEL F. DiMARIO, Public Printer.

[[Page H12798]]

                              {time}  1645
    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3194, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS AND 
             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

                              (Continued)

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise to again indicate that the President did not win on 
education in this legislation, the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce did not win in this legislation. The 
children in this country won in this legislation. Above all, the 
children who are most disadvantaged won, thanks to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  When we were able to show the administration that 50 percent of 
teachers in many of the cities including New York are not certified or 
qualified, agreed there is no reason to send not one more teacher into 
that area, we better improve the teachers that are there. This happens 
all over the country. Therefore, they decided that 100 percent of this 
money, they agreed with us, could go for teacher preparation and 
teacher training for those that are already existing.
  We also indicated that overall, 25 percent of the money could be 
flexible for teacher preparation. We also indicated that to those 
schools, 7,000 of them in title I that are in schools improvement who 
have not improved even in 4 years' time, the parents have the 
opportunity to say, we go to another public school within that district 
where they are not a failing school.
  I want to also include that we wipe out Goals 2000 in the year 2000. 
We wipe it out in the year 2000 and gave a lot of money for special ed, 
which is very important.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, addressing the abortion compromise on Monday in Ankara, 
Turkey, our distinguished Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright said, 
and I quote, ``we do believe it will have a minimal effect on family 
planning.'' She went on to say ``the compromise will allow the 
President to carry out U.S. family planning policy around the world.''
  I agree wholeheartedly with the Secretary of State. In fact, the pro-
life side has always argued that the Mexico City Policy has no effect 
on those family planning organizations that divest themselves from the 
grisly business of abortion. The compromise provides that at least 96 
percent of all the money used for population purposes--that is about 
$370 million--will be subjected to the Mexico City safeguards that 
prohibit foreign nongovernmental organizations from performing 
abortions in foreign countries, from violating abortion laws of those 
countries, or from engaging in activities in efforts to change or alter 
those laws. If the President chooses, he can waive the restrictions for 
up to $15 million in that account.
  I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that H.R. 3427 is also enacted by 
this Act. It is the product of our Subcommittee on International 
Operations and Human Rights. It is in essence, a bill passed by both 
Houses.
  Mr. Speaker, addressing the abortion compromise on Monday in Ankara, 
Turkey, our distinguished Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, said, 
``We do believe'' it will have a ``minimal effect on family planning'' 
and that it, the compromise, ``will allow the president to carry out--
U.S. family planning policy around the world.''
  I agree wholeheartedly with Secretary Albright. In fact, the pro-life 
side has always argued that the Mexico City policy has no effect on 
those family planning organizations who divest themselves from the 
grisly business of abortion. Abortion is violence against children. 
Abortion dismembers or chemically poisons innocent children. It is not 
family planning. The compromise language before us today narrowly 
focuses on those organizations that advertise themselves as family 
planning groups, but promote and/or perform abortions in other 
countries.
  Let me reiterate in the strongest terms possible, this controversy 
has been, and is, all about the performance and promotion of abortion 
overseas, and not about family planning per se. The compromise provides 
that at least 96% of all the money used for population purpose--that's 
about $370 million--will be subject to the Mexico City safeguards that 
prohibit foreign non-governmental organizations from performing 
abortions in foreign countries, from violating the abortion laws of 
these countries, or from engaging in activities or efforts to change 
these laws. If the President chooses, he can waive the restrictions on 
up to $15 million in the account (4%). The abortion compromise language 
is far from perfect, it is a compromise but it is significant. The 
effect of the waiver is that up to $15 million would then be able to go 
to foreign organizations that did not make the Mexico City 
certifications with respect to performing abortions, violating abortion 
laws, and engaging in activities or efforts to change abortion laws. 
But this option comes with a consequence--$12.5 million will be 
transferred from the population account to the Child Survival fund for 
activities that have measurable, direct, and high impact on saving the 
lives of children in the Third World.
  On the negotiations with the White House, there was give and take--
the compromise is the result of a good faith effort to resolve 
difficult and complex issues. Neither side got everything it wanted. On 
balance, however, this bill represents a major step forward for the 
protection of unborn children around the world--without endangering 
genuine family planning activities.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that this bill enacts by reference the 
provisions of H.R. 3427, the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan 
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 200-2001, which I 
introduced along with Representatives Cynthia McKinney, Ben Gilman, and 
Sam Gejdenson. I insert at this point in the Record an agreed statement 
of the legislative history of H.R. 3427.

 Legislative History of H.R. 3427, the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg 
  Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000-2001

       Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, the conference report 
     on H.R. 3194, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 
     Fiscal Year 2000, incorporates and enacts by reference H.R. 
     3427, the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign 
     Relations Act, Fiscal Years 2000-2001, which I introduced 
     yesterday, November 17, 1999, along with Representatives 
     Cynthia McKinney, Ben Gilman, and Sam Gejdenson.
       Let me state for the record that H.R. 3427 is a compromise 
     between H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act, as 
     passed by the House, and the Senate amendment to H.R. 2415, 
     which incorporates the provisions of S. 886, the James W. 
     Nance Foreign Relations Authorization Act. H.R. 3427 is a 
     substitute for a conference report or an amendment between 
     the Houses to resolve the differences between the House and 
     the Senate versions of the bill.
       The text and the Statement of Managers of H.R. 3427 (which 
     appears in the explanatory statement to the conference report 
     on H.R. 3194) were agreed upon by Mr. Gilman and Mr. 
     Gejdenson, as well as by myself and Ms. McKinney--the 
     Chairman and Ranking Minority Members, respectively, of the 
     committee and subcommittee with jurisdiction over the bill in 
     the House. In the Senate, the Statement of Managers of H.R. 
     3427 has the concurrence of a majority of the conferees 
     appointed by the Senate for H.R. 2415.
       The original Senate version of H.R. 2415, S. 886, was 
     reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations on April 28, 
     1999 (S. Rept. 106-43) and passed the Senate, amended, on 
     June 22, 1999 by a vote of 97-2.
       H.R. 2415 passed the House, amended, on July 21, 1999. It 
     was not reported by our Committee but was sent directly to 
     the floor by action of the House pursuant to the special 
     Rule. H.R. 2415 was a successor to H.R. 1211. H.R. 1211 was 
     reported by the Committee on International Relations on March 
     29, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-122).
       The legislative history of H.R. 3427 in the House is the 
     legislative history of H.R. 2415 and H.R. 1211 in the House 
     as far as is applicable. Similarly, in the Senate the 
     legislative history of H.R. 3427 is the legislative history 
     of S. 886.

  The Foreign Relations Authorizations Act contains important 
provisions relating to the security of United States embassies and 
overseas employees, to human rights, to refugees, and to the activities 
of the States Department. I am particularly proud that the bill 
provides $12 million for the Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy, and 
Labor. It is scandalous that the State Department currently spends more 
on its public relations bureau than on the human rights bureau, and 
this legislation will put an end to that scandal. The bill also 
authorizes $750 million for refugee protection--unfortunately, far more 
than the Administration requested or than has been appropriated for FY 
2000--but we will work to get the request and appropriations for FY 
2001 up to the mark in the Authorization Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 3427) also 
contains important

[[Page H12799]]

United Nations reforms--standards to which the United Nations must live 
up in order to receive the amounts provided in the settlement of the 
dispute over arrearages. It authorizes $4.5 billion over five years for 
Embassy construction and improvement so as to reduce dramatically the 
vulnerability of our overseas facilities to terrorism, and provides 
strict conditions to make sure the State Department really spends the 
money on security instead of any other preferences it might have.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3427 ensures that as the United States Information 
Agency is folded into the State Department, the international 
information programs of USIA will not be converted into domestic press 
offices or propaganda organs. It requires that U.S. educational and 
cultural exchange programs provide safeguards against the inclusion of 
thugs and spies from dictatorial regimes and to increase the 
opportunities for human rights and democracy advocates to participate 
in these programs. (One of the requirements is that we conduct no 
further police training programs for members of the Royal Ulster 
Constabulary until we have in place vetting procedures to exclude 
participation by RUC officers who participated in or condoned serious 
human rights violations, such as the murders of defense attorneys 
Patrick Finucane and Rosemary Nelson.)
  Mr. Speaker, this bill makes clear that Congress expects important 
reforms in our Vietnamese refugee programs for allied combat veterans, 
former U.S. government employees, and their families. It continues a 
requirement of current law that the programs the United Nations 
Development Program conducts in Burma be conducted in consultation with 
the legitimately elected pro-democracy authorities in that country, and 
that these programs not serve the interests of the brutal military 
dictatorship that currently holds power in Burma. The bill also 
provides funding for UNICEF, the United Nations Voluntary Fund for 
Victims of Torture, the World Food Program, for the Tibet, Burma, East 
Timor, and South Pacific Scholarships, and for other programs which 
will promote American interests and American values around the world.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very 
much for yielding me this time.
  The Government Accounting Office, the Congressional Research Service, 
and the Pentagon have all complied with requests from the Congress or 
complied with law to document the amount of money that we have spent on 
legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. The total amount of money is 
at least $17.1 billion since 1992.
  Now, the U.N. has legitimized that accounting because they have 
credited us with $1.8 billion of that against past dues. But 
regrettably this legislation that is before us gives the United Nations 
nearly $1 billion of taxpayers' money, in spite of the fact that the 
GAO, the CRS and the Pentagon itself have documented that the U.N. owes 
us at least $15 billion. This is a travesty that I hope future 
legislation can correct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I just 
wanted to point out that there has been talk about winners and losers 
and victories and defeats. I would like to just make this point. I was 
very impressed by one visit to President Reagan's Oval Office. He had a 
sign there, and I will paraphrase it because I do not remember it 
exactly, but it goes like this: It's amazing what can be accomplished 
if you don't care who gets the credit.
  That is how we have tried to work through this entire appropriations 
process, without demanding or claiming credit for any one of our 
appropriators. We just get the job done. We believe that we have 
produced a good product here that would be acceptable to the American 
people and should be acceptable to the Representatives in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes), a member of the committee.
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I come to the floor today severely grieved and sad because the 
old ways of Washington continue to prevail. The men and women we serve 
with here today are honorable people, but the process is dishonest. I 
think that those of us who came here in 1995 as part of the crowd that 
was going to end these megabills, these omnibus spending bills, catch-
all bills that were thrown in with all kinds of pork, all kinds of 
spending, this is a dishonest process. I lament that. $385 billion on 
this floor right now passed by agreement last night at 4 o'clock in the 
morning. We should be ashamed, because we are upholding the old ways of 
Washington, the Washington math, dishonest. We are going home, and we 
are telling people that we did not spend the Social Security surplus. 
It is a bald-faced lie. Each one of us knows that. We should be 
ashamed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
bill. I just have to comment on the dairy part of this bill. We have 
people in this chamber who sing the praises of free trade with 
countries all over this world. Yet this chamber refuses to allow free 
trade in our own country. There is only one product, milk, only one 
product in this entire economy where the price of the product is 
dependent upon where it is made. That is wrong; that is a Soviet-style 
economy and everyone here knows it. The President did the right thing. 
The President tried to reform this system. Yet the Republican 
leadership in this House refuses to allow those market reforms to go 
into place. It is an embarrassment, and it is causing consumers all 
over this country to pay more for their milk. This bill should be 
defeated.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all with respect to the dairy provisions, I 
would like to publicly thank President Clinton for his personal efforts 
to salvage dairy reform and keep nongermane dairy riders off this 
appropriation bill. I also want to thank Secretary Glickman for twice 
trying to bring some degree of modernization to the 1937 milk marketing 
practices which have long since outlived their usefulness. I understand 
that given all the other items in the bill, the President cannot veto 
the bill over that; but I do appreciate very much the fact that he and 
his staff went to the well to try to help us when we really needed 
their help.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I think I should explain the motion to 
recommit. In large part due to the unrealistic budget caps established 
in the 1997 budget act, both parties agreed early on this year that the 
budget request for veterans medical care was inadequately funded. The 
Republican budget resolution this year called for an additional $1.7 
billion for veterans medical care, but that increase was for fiscal 
2000 only.
  The next 4 years of the Republican budget plan assumed that veterans 
health care would decline to a level below that of last year. The 
Democratic alternative budget provided not only for the additional $1.7 
billion in fiscal 2000, it continued that increase in future years. In 
total, the Democratic budget provided about $8 billion more for 
veterans health expenses than the Republican resolution that passed.
  When the VA-HUD subcommittee first marked up the fiscal 2000 bill, it 
ignored the guidance of the Republican budget resolution. It provided 
only the 1999 level with virtually no increase. After the hue and cry 
from veterans groups and the indication from the administration that it 
would be submitting a budget amendment for an additional $1 billion for 
veterans health care, the majority added $1.7 billion above the 
original request.
  Both in full committee and on the House floor, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards) tried to add $700 million more in veterans medical 
care by delaying for 1 year the effect of the Republicans' capital 
gains tax cut. We were rebuffed procedurally by the majority at every 
turn on that, with the argument that an appropriations bill could not 
be merged with tax measures. Let me point out today to my colleagues 
that this omnibus bill today contains several tax measures. So despite 
the availability of valid provisions that would have provided offsets 
negating the need for the across-the-board cut in this omnibus measure, 
the majority has once again decided to take an action which would 
provide veterans health care less than I believe they need.
  Therefore, our recommittal motion will be very simple. It will simply 
recommit the bill to the committee on

[[Page H12800]]

conference with instructions that House managers not agree to any 
provision whatsoever which would reduce or rescind appropriations for 
veterans medical care. In other words, it would eliminate the $72 
million reduction in the Republican budget for veterans health care. It 
would restore that $72 million. I would urge Members to vote ``yes'' on 
the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the hard-working, straight-talking, straight-shooting Speaker of the 
House, a great leader, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  I do not have to tell my colleagues that it has been a long and often 
challenging road to get us to this point. Today, we have before us a 
good bill, a fair bill, a bill that reflects our priorities as a 
Congress and reflects our priorities as a Nation.
  When I took over this job a little less than a year ago, I said the 
appropriations process needed to be a process that we sent the 13 
bills. After we moved through the process of the committee and we sent 
them to the White House and the President has the chance of signing 
those bills or vetoing those bills, and if he chooses to veto, give us 
the message and send the bill back and we will work it.
  We have done that. Every one of these pieces of legislation have gone 
through the process. Now we are back. We are dealing with the five 
bills that the President decided to veto. And over a long period of 
time, and working with the White House and working with our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, we have pieced together what we need in 
this Nation to make this Nation work on an appropriations process for 
the next fiscal year.
  For the past 30 years, our government has taken money out of the 
pockets of seniors and spent it on more wasteful Washington spending. 
Last February, our majority pledged to stop this raid on Social 
Security Trust Funds, and in this bill we have. Stopping the raid on 
Social Security is not just good news for our seniors, it is good news 
for our children who unfairly have been burdened with the national debt 
and paying the interest on that debt year after year, not only now but 
way into the future.

                              {time}  1700

  With this bill's passage today, we will be on target to pay down $131 
billion of national debt in this fiscal year. When I arrived in 
Congress in 1987, the idea of passing a budget that would actually pay 
down $130 billion worth of debt would have been laughable, and even 5 
years ago the thought of debt reduction was just that, a thought, but 
now it is a reality.
  This bill also represents a huge victory for those in this chamber 
who have spent many years fighting for local control of Federal 
education dollars. We had a long debate with the White House, and the 
White House wanted more teachers, and we put $300 million more in for 
education than the White House asked for. But with that we asked, let 
us give our local school districts, let us give our parents, let us 
give teachers and let us give superintendents and those people we ask 
to take care of our local schools the flexibility to do the work that 
they have to do.
  We did that in this bill. Working with the White House and the good 
work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), we got the 
flexibility, even in the teacher bill, so teachers would be there, we 
would have the people to do the discipline and do the teaching and do 
the work, but if we did not need teachers, we could use that money to 
lift up the level and capability of the teachers we already have.
  The debate over education has now changed. Instead of arguing about 
whether there should be local control of education dollars, we are now 
debating about how much local control there should be. There is money 
in this bill that can be used to hire more teachers and lower classroom 
size, but there is also flexibility in this bill. Parents and teachers 
will have more freedom to use this money as they see fit. Keeping more 
dollars and decisions in our classrooms is a victory for this Congress 
and a victory for our children.
  This bill also takes a very important first step in eliminating 
government waste. Every year our government spends billions and 
billions of dollars, and we are saying in this bill, let us take 38 
cents out of every $100 that the Federal Government spends and find 
waste and abuse. I think that is doable, and I think next year we ought 
to do the same thing, over and over again, because that is what the 
American people expect us to do.
  The across-the-board spending cut in this bill will force the 
agencies of government to take a close look at their budget and see 
what frivolous spending can be eliminated. Taxpayers deserve to have 
their money spent responsibly, and this bill will save the American 
taxpayers from over $1 billion in excess spending.
  I would like to take this opportunity certainly to thank the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), and to thank the subcommittee 
chairmen on the various appropriations committees, and to thank the 
gentleman on the other side of the aisle who has led a gallant fight 
and an honest and straight fight for what he believes is right.
  We do not put legislation like this together just at a whim. It takes 
a long time. It takes people standing up for their principles and their 
ideals. Sometimes we have different principles and we have different 
ideals; but at the end, we have a product that we can stand up for, 
that we can vote for, that we can be proud of.
  It is amazing to think about what this bill actually does. It stops 
the raid on Social Security, it keeps the budget balanced, it pays down 
our national debt and it gives parents and teachers more control and 
better benefits to our children. It was not too long ago that these 
accomplishments were nothing more than broad goals.
  So I encourage my colleagues to vote for this agreement, and let the 
American people know that this Congress is committed to fiscal 
discipline and sound policy, and as we open up the new millennium, the 
Year 2000, we can promise our seniors that their pension funds are 
secure, that their Social Security funds are secure, and our children 
are not going to have to pick up the interest on our debt that we have 
piled on their shoulders over the past years.
  I ask for support on this bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the DC Appropriations bill is the shell in 
which the Republican leadership has chosen to place the legislative 
kitchen sink, so the speak. This bill includes a myriad of provisions 
that have nothing to do with the District of Columbia--Interior 
Appropriations; Labor-HHS Appropriations; a Satellite Home Viewers Act; 
certain dairy provisions and, the bill about which I am here to speak 
today: The Medicare BBA Refinement Act.
  The Medicare BBA Refinement Act is a sweet and sour bill--it is has 
good features and bad features.
  First, the good features. The move toward prospective payment systems 
is continued. The arbitrary $1500 caps on rehabilitation services have 
been lifted for two years while we develop a better payment system. 
Medicare's coverage of immuno-suppressive drugs for transplant patients 
has been extended 8 months. Patients in hospital outpatient departments 
are protected against ever having to pay more than a single day's 
hospital deductible for the cost of the outpatient procedure. Today, 
patients face out-of-pockets costs $2000 to $3000 for certain 
outpatient procedures. Now, their costs will be limited to about $776.
  And, I want to commend Chairman Thomas for a bill which did not give 
away the future of Medicare. The lobbying pressures have been enormous. 
It would have been easy to bring forth a $30 or $40 billion bill. The 
bill is limited and generally--with some exceptions--directs its 
spending to the areas where there is the most evidence that some 
adjustment is needed.
  Nevertheless, I voted against the bill when it first passed the 
House, because it was not paid for-and thus shortened the life of the 
Medicare Trust Fund about a year, and increased beneficiary Part B 
premiums by at least 50 cents a month.
  It still is not paid for--and now reduces solvency by more than a 
year, and increases beneficiaries' costs by several billion dollars 
over the next five years, increasing premiums about a dollar a month. 
It spends about $16 billion of the Social Security surplus over the 
next five years, and $27 billion over ten years.
  It didn't need to be this way. In the $212 billion a year Medicare 
program, there is fraud, waste, and abuse, and we could have saved 
several billion a year to pay for the relief that some providers 
needed.

[[Page H12801]]

  I am most disappointed about the budget games that were played on the 
5.7 percent hospital outpatient department issue--which is a $4 billion 
gift to hospitals. When the BBA passed, we meant to reduce payments to 
hospitals which had been shifting overhead costs to outpatient 
departments. It is the rankest Orwellian revisionist history to claim 
otherwise. But revisionist history is what has happened. So that 
neither the White House nor the Congress would be charged for the $4 
billion gift, there has been an exchange of letters in which no one is 
`scored' for the cost of spending $4 billion more. It is like manna 
from heaven, a miracle for which no one is responsible and no one has 
to pay.
  Mr. Speaker, it is all phony, it is all a distortion of the budget 
process. The give-away to hospitals does cost money; $1 billion will 
come from seniors. Therefore, we should have been honest and paid for 
it. It is money that will not be available to save Medicare. It is 
money that comes out of the Social Security surplus. And that is the 
truth.
  Mr. Speaker, this kind of dishonest budget game destroys faith and 
trust in government. Its true cost is much more than the $4 billion 
gift to hospitals.
  There are other bad features. There is absolutely no hard proof that 
some of these providers need more money. In many cases, the Congress 
has just been rolled by lobbyists and major contributors.
  Standards for Medicare managed care plans have been weakened. We 
continue to grossly overpay HMOs. The HMO industry that we beat in the 
Patient Bill of Rights has crept in the backdoor of this bill to weaken 
consumer protections and receive $4 billion dollars in overpayments.
  I would vote no if this were a free-standing bill based on is merits 
alone. That decision is made even easier by the process used here today 
which compiled all of these unrelated, important bills into one gaint 
package in order to try to force members of Congress to vote yes. Well, 
that theory doesn't work on everyone. I vote no.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the DC 
Appropriations/Omnibus budget Conference Report. This conference report 
is a vast improvement over previously vetoed appropriations bills, yet 
in some instances falls, in my opinion, short of where we should be. I 
will support this legislation as it is a true compromise and will bring 
many benefits to the citizens of this country, funding valuable 
programs while having the small 0.38 percent across the board budget 
cut. While I believe this bill to be fiscally responsible, it does 
nothing to extend the life of Social Security. I strongly encourage the 
Republican leadership to bring up legislation early next year to extend 
the life of Social Security by ensuring its solvency.
  The Omnibus covers much ground and I would like to touch on several 
important issues to my constituents. In the areas of Health and Human 
Services and Education, I feel it is important to highlight the support 
this Omnibus gives to our nation's teachers and our education system; 
to AIDS funding and NIH research in general; to family planning 
services; and to Medicare payment relief for our hospitals.
  Overall, the Omnibus provides $39 billion for education programs. 
This is a 7 percent increase over Fiscal Year 1999. Importantly, the 
Class Size Reduction Initiative remained intact. The controversy about 
this program led to the President's veto of previous Labor/HHS 
appropriations bills. However, the $1.3 billion appropriated for class 
size reduction will in large part remain designated for that purpose. 
School districts will be permitted to use up to 25 percent of the funds 
for professional development, an increase over last year. Nonetheless, 
the majority of funding will remain targeted for its intended purpose--
reducing the sizes of our children's classes. This funding was 
imperative for schools in my district and in New York City. Last year, 
New York City used its funding under the class size reduction 
initiative to fund the full salaries of 808 new teachers and to 
partially fund the salaries of an additional 788 early grade teachers. 
Had there been no funding for class size reduction, the city would have 
been unable to retain more than 1500 teachers. This is important in my 
district, which contains the most overcrowded school district in the 
city, CSD 24, operating at 119 percent over capacity. Overall, the 
funding New York City receives will reduce the class sizes for 
approximately 90,000 students--27 percent of its K-3 enrollment. While 
this is nowhere near enough--it is an important first step in improving 
the education for all K-3 children in New York City and across the 
country.
  Another important program that this Omnibus funds is the 21st Century 
Community Learning Centers. This agreement appropriates $453 million 
for after-school centers, $253 million more than last year. After 
school centers are vital to keeping our children off the streets.
  Our communities and schools are facing the fact that most families 
need to have two parents working full time to provide for their 
children. This leaves as many as 15 million school-aged children 
without supervision from the time school ends until the time their 
parents arrive home from work. After-school programs provide school-age 
children whose parents both work a supervised environment providing 
constructive activities. Such a structured setting makes these students 
less likely to use alcohol, drugs, and tobacco, commit crimes, receive 
poor grades, and drop out of school. No one in my district, or in the 
nation, wants to see children go home to empty houses or apartments, or 
worse yet, succumb to anti-social activities on the street.
  The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program allows schools to 
address the educational needs of its community through after-school, 
weekend, and summer programs. After school programs enable schools to 
stay open longer, providing a safe place for homework centers, 
mentoring programs, drug and violence prevention programs, and 
recreational activities. Additionally, after school programs enhance 
learning, increase community responsibility, and decrease youth crime 
and drug use. I fully support the increase in Fiscal Year 2000 funding 
for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program and only wish 
the there was more funding to enable more schools to provide this much 
needed service to our communities.

  The Omnibus also increases funding for Head Start programs by 13 
percent, bringing funding for Fiscal Year 200 to $5.3 billion. As you 
know, Mr. Speaker, the Head Start Program was instituted in 1965 and 
has been reauthorized through 2003. Head Start funds are provided 
directly to local grantees and the programs are locally designed and 
administered by a network of 1600 public and private nonprofit 
agencies. Head Start has been an unequivocal success. A 1995 report by 
the Packard Foundation presented evidence that high quality early 
childhood education for low-income children produces long-term 
educational, economic, and societal gains. I have one such program in 
my district, The Little Angels Program run by the Archdiocese of the 
Bronx, which exemplifies the mission of the head start program and 
success of the Head Start program. Little Angels provides comprehensive 
early childhood development, education, health, nutrition, social and 
other services to low income preschool children and their families. I 
applaud the leadership for continuing to support this essential early 
education and development program.
  Under Health and Human Services programs, we once again expressed our 
support for the research being done by the National Institutes of 
Health, as well as AIDS programs and family planning. Overall, the 
Omnibus provides a 15 percent increase over Fiscal Year 1999 for NIH, 
bringing its funding to $17.9 billion. This majority of this money will 
be seen by NIH researchers this year, rather than being until September 
29, 2000, as originally reposed by the Republican leadership. Imagine 
the impact of not funding research projects for almost an entire year. 
A year without cancer research, diabetes, lupus, this list goes on and 
on. Every day important break-throughs happen, and I am happy the 
Republican leadership did not sacrifice health research to balance the 
budget.
  I am also heartened by the support for Ryan White AIDS program, which 
will receive $1.6 billion in funding, a 13 percent increase from last 
year, and $44 million more than the last Labor/HHS bill. We all know 
the battle we face against AIDS an HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In 
1998, the Center for Disease Control reported that 665,357 persons were 
living with the AIDS virus and CDC estimates that 650,000-900,000 
American live with the HIV virus. Sadly, so far 401,028 individuals 
have not survived their battle with AIDS. However, we all know that due 
to lack of reporting or lack of knowledge on the part of individuals 
and states, that these numbers are low respsentations of the actual 
number of those living with HIV and AIDS.
  In New York, the crisis is particularly acute. In 1998, there were 
129,545 thousand reported AIDS cases and 80,408 reported AIDS deaths. 
New York City AIDS cases represent over 85 percent of the AIDS cases in 
New York State and 17 percent of the national total with 109,392 AIDS 
cases and 67,969 AIDS related deaths as reported in 1998.
  My own Congressional District spans two Boroughs in New York City 
with rapidly growing AIDS cases. In the Bronx, the Pelham and Throggs 
Neck area covered by the 7th Congressional District has report 3,045 
AIDS cases and 1,957 deaths due to the AIDS virus in 1998. In Queens, a 
Borough with a rapidly growing population, there are 6,962 AIDS cases 
and 4,082 known dead from AIDS related causes as reported in 1998.
  Sadly, this horrible disease has disproportionately affected 
minorities. The majority of individuals living with AIDS in New York 
City are people of color. African Americans are more than eight times 
as likely as whites to have

[[Page H12802]]

HIV and AIDS, and Hispanics more than four times are likely. The most 
stunning fact I have read comes from the U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services in October of 1998, when they reported that AIDS is the 
leading killer of black men age 25-44 and the second leading cause of 
death for black women aged 25-44. Together, Black and Hispanic women 
represent one fourth of all women in the United States but account for 
more than three quarters of the AIDS cases among women in the country.
  I know we are making progress, Mr. Speaker. The number of AIDS cases 
reported each year in Queens and the Bronx is on the decline. This is 
in large part to the bipartisan commitment by the House of 
Representatives to funding research at NIH and programs through the 
department of Health and Human Services. Now that we have had 
breakthroughs in treatment of HIV and delaying the onset of full blown 
AIDS, we must concentrate more of our effort on prevention and 
treatment programs. These programs are especially important for 
minorities, who are so disproportionately affected by this disease, and 
I fully support the inclusion of $138 million for early intervention 
programs in this Omnibus bill.

  In my District, there is an organization that is actively reaching 
out to the community, both in treatment and services for AIDS sufferers 
and preventative education for the community. Steinway Child and Family 
Services, Inc., serves many areas in Queens that are devastated by high 
incidences of AIDS. The majority of these people are low-income 
minorities who have historically received little, if any, assistance 
due to low levels of funding.
  Steinway's CAPE program (Case Management, Advocacy, Prevention & 
Education) offers services to people who have contracted HIV, increases 
general public awareness of the methods of HIV transmission, and 
provides targeted outreach services to people considered ``at risk.'' 
Steinway's Scattered Site Housing program located dwellings in Queens 
for homeless persons with AIDS and their families. It is currently the 
largest program of its type in the country. I am proud that this 
Omnibus includes $50,000 in funding for Steinway's CAPE program.
  Another area addressed by the Omnibus is family planning within Title 
X programs. On October 26, I sent a letter to President Clinton, signed 
by 53 of my colleagues, expressing our support for Title X of the 
Public Health Service Act, the only federal program devoted solely to 
the provision of high quality contraceptive care to almost five million 
low-income Americans. Title X has had a tremendous impact over the 
years on reducing rates on unintended pregnancy and abortion as well as 
improving maternal and child health. Primary care services provided by 
clinics receiving Title X funds range from contraceptive supplies and 
services to breast and cervical cancer screening, to anemia testing and 
STD/HIV screening.
  I laud the Administration and the Republican leadership for 
appropriating $239 million to the Title X Family Planning program. This 
is a $24 million increase from last year. However, I must express my 
disappointment with the majority on adding a provision to the Commerce-
Justice-State section of the Appropriations conference report, which 
allows physicians to refuse to ``prescribe'' contraceptives on the 
basis of moral or religious beliefs. This is in complete opposition to 
the provision passed by recorded vote in the FY 2000 Treasury Postal 
Appropriations that provides contraceptive coverage to federal 
employees covered by the Federal Employee Health benefits Plan.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment to address the measure 
which would give hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies 
and other health care providers relief from cuts in Medicare payments 
that were enacted in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
  This agreement provides an estimated $12.8 billion over five years in 
additional Medicare payments for hospitals, home health care agencies, 
managed care plans and other health care providers to help them restore 
the 5.7 percent cut in payments to hospital outpatient departments 
suffered as an unintended result of the Balanced Budget Agreement of 
1997. Additionally, I am happy that the conference committee was able 
to remove the egregious provision in the House passed version that 
would have severely impacted New York City's teaching hospitals. Rather 
than take away much needed funds from teaching hospitals that are 
perceived as receiving a higher share of funds, the conference 
agreement reduces inflation adjustments for hospitals with high doctor 
training costs. This cut is less than the original Subcommittees bill, 
which in turn is less devastating to our hospitals. I urge Congress to 
revisit this issue in the next year.
  Finally, this Omnibus bill will also fund a number of key 
environmental priorities while at the same time deleting several of the 
anti-environmental amendments that would have been detrimental to the 
health and quality of life of my constituents in Queens and the Bronx.
  I salute the conferees for providing funding for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund (LWCF). Although the Congress was unable to provide 
all of the resources requested by the White House, the approximately 
$470 million allocated for land acquisition, preservation and 
conservation is a solid first step.
  It is my hope that next year, we will be celebrating the passage of 
the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) which will provide even 
more badly needed funds for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, urban 
parks and historic and wildlife preservation. These additional 
resources will greatly assist the people of my district. As the only 
New York member of the House Committee on Resources, I will continue my 
responsibility to the people of my state in fighting for key 
environmental projects like the LWCF.

  Further, I am pleased that the Urban and Community Forestry Program 
at the Department of Agriculture continues to receive stable funding 
under this measure. Over the last four years, the Urban and Community 
Forestry program (U&CF) has provided more than $1 million to contain 
and prevent further tree loss associated with Asian Longhorned Beetle 
outbreak in New York City. That includes providing specially trained 
smoke jumpers to assist city foresters in checking the tops of trees 
for beetle infestation where they are more difficult to detect. U&CF 
has also provided technical assistance to help city officials plant and 
care for trees that are resistant to the beetle to prevent future 
outbreaks. We've lost over 1400 trees in Queens alone from the Asian 
Longhorned Beetle, with more trees being infested. This is why the 
Urban and Community Forestry program is so important. It aims to 
provide increased green space and shade for our urban residents.
  Additionally, this bill does not include some of the more troublesome 
riders that were feared to be included in this Omnibus bill. 
Specifically, there are no restrictions on the ability of the State of 
New York or the Federal government to sue coal-fired power plants in 
the Midwest that fail to comply with major modifications provisions of 
the Clean Air Act.
  Furthermore, I am pleased that an amendment I offered to the original 
Interior bill last summer pertaining to urban minorities and their 
ability to receive grants from the National Endowment for the Arts was 
included in this final budget bill. My amendment would include urban 
minorities among the traditionally ``underserved populations'' who are 
given priority for services from the National Endowment for the Arts or 
awarding the NEA's financial assistance for projects and workshops that 
serve these communities.
  My language specifies that ``underserved populations'' including 
African Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, and other 
minority communities that are located in urban areas should have equal 
access to Federal arts funding.
  This amendment will ensure that all Americans will have equal access 
to the arts and will fulfill the NEA's mission to guarantee that no 
person is left untouched by the arts. Projects targeted at urban youth 
will greatly help keep these young people off the streets, and away 
from the lure of drugs and crime. The arts also help to break down 
barriers, bring communities together, and offer hope.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the positive funding increases outweigh 
the short amount of time and offsets of this Omnibus bill. Therefore, I 
support the measure and urge its passage by the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report to H.R. 3194, the FY2000 District of Columbia Appropriations 
Act. This legislation encompassing the five remaining appropriations 
bills for fiscal year 2000--the Commerce, Justice and State 
appropriations bill, the District of Columbia appropriations bill, the 
Foreign Operations appropriations bill, the Interior appropriations 
bill, and the Labor, Health and Human Services and education 
appropriations bill--is a good compromise that will address our 
Nation's domestic and foreign policy priorities while retaining fiscal 
discipline.
  While I am concerned with the budget gimmicks that are being used to 
mask the size of the overall spending in this package, I will support 
the legislation because I believe that overall, this legislation will 
maintain a balanced budget and keep us on track toward budget surpluses 
in the future. This legislation represents an attempt to do something 
that other Congresses never attempted to do. By resisting the historic 
temptation to spend the Social Security surplus, we have changed the 
terms of debate in Washington. Future Congresses will now work to 
maintain a balanced budget and protect all of the Social Security trust 
fund surplus.
  Following the 1994 election, Congress inherited a projected four-year 
budget deficit of $906 billion. In response, Congress with a Republican 
majority, worked to limit the growth of Federal spending and the 
President joined us in the 1997 balanced budget agreement. Limits on 
the growth of Federal spending and the

[[Page H12803]]

continued strong performance of our economy helped to produce a net 
surplus of $63 billion in the Federal budget in fiscal years 1996 
through 1999. In fiscal year 1999 the Federal Government enjoyed a $123 
billion surplus, and the surplus is growing as we begin fiscal year 
2000. Congress has ended the discretionary spending frenzy of the late 
1980's and early 1990's and Federal spending is more responsible today.
  With the goal of protecting the Social Security trust fund surplus, 
Congress is holding the line on expanding Government programs and is 
finally starting to pay down the national debt. We are accomplishing 
these goals while still meeting basic governmental responsibilities 
such as increasing Medicare payments to our hospitals and nursing homes 
by approximately $12 billion over five years, increasing funding or 
education and health care programs, and paying the United States 
overdue commitments to the United Nations. This legislation meets the 
basic needs of our country in a responsible manner.
  To help meet our goal of limiting the growth of Federal spending, his 
legislation includes a 0.38 percent across-the-board spending reduction 
which applies to all thirteen annual appropriations bill, saving 
taxpayers about $1.3 billion. I support this type of ``belt 
tightening.'' The Federal Government should find savings in every 
program to demonstrate to our constituents that the Federal Government 
can cut waste and operate more efficiently. I know from my days as 
Governor of Delaware that every government agency can and should be 
required to eliminate unneeded costs.
  When Republicans became the majority party in Congress in January 
1995, we promised to reform and improve our education programs to 
ensure that they help all children reach their full academic 
potential--regardless of their economic status or other personal 
challenges. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research 
Service, in 1995 spending for elementary and secondary education 
programs totaled almost $15 billion, with all Department of Education 
programs funded at $32.3 billion (fiscal year 1995).
  Since 1995, the House Education Committee, on which I serve, has 
worked to provide unprecedented accountability and flexibility in the 
operations of these programs. That effort paved the way for the bill 
the House of Representatives will consider today. I am pleased to 
report that this final appropriations bill provides $21 billion for 
elementary and secondary education programs and $39 billion for all 
Department of Education Programs--increases of 44 percent and 21 
percent over fiscal year 1995 respectively.
  Most important, this bill provides very generous funding for those 
programs that help all children receive a quality education. 
Specifically, it provides $8.7 billion for Title 1, the program that 
helps educate our most disadvantaged students--an increase of $265 
million over fiscal year 1999. In addition, State grants for the  
education of children with disabilities are increased $700 million over 
fiscal year 1999, bringing the total to $5.8 billion. While this 
increase will not fully fund the Federal Government's share for the 
education of our disabled children, it will increase the per pupil 
contribution to 13 percent--the highest level in the history of the 
program.

  In addition, this bill increases the maximum Pell Grant for low-
income college students to $3,300--$175 over fiscal year 1999. Finally, 
it provides $1.3 billion to help our local schools and school districts 
reduce class size but also provides the necessary flexibility to ensure 
that all teachers receive the training they need to impart a high 
quality education to our children.
  This legislation also includes important funding for Health and Human 
Services programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, family support services 
and health research. As part of our ongoing commitment to double 
biomedical research in five years, the appropriations bill provides 
$17.9 billion for the National Institutes of Health. This 15 percent 
increase over fiscal year 1999 will help ensure progress on all 
diseases, including diabetes and Alzheimer's. It also provides $3 
billion, nearly $264 million more than fiscal year 1999, for disease 
prevention programs run by the Centers for Disease Control. This 
funding will help prevent those chronic illnesses that result in death 
and major disability.
  Of particular importance to many of Delaware's hospitals, nursing 
facilities and other providers, this bill also incorporates the budget 
fixes of the Medicare Refinement Act. This language ensures that 
America's seniors will continue to receive high quality health care by 
correcting the funding concerns that inadvertently arose as the result 
of the Medicare reforms in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
  I am particularly pleased to note that the annual Medicare 
rehabilitation therapy caps will be lifted entirely for the next two 
years. This will ensure that those with multiple ailments can get the 
treatment they need to fully recover while experts consider a better 
way to implement payment modifications that address the real needs of 
rehabilitation patients. I am also pleased to note that this bill 
increases access to cervical cancer screening through the use of pap 
smears. By increasing the Medicare reimbursement rate, we ensure that 
more women will get the screening they need to identify and treat 
problems before they become a threat to their health, their fertility 
or their lives.
  I am disappointed that the compromise language in this bill does not 
reflect the Senate position on community health centers and the 
prospective payment system, as these organizations play an important 
role in the delivery of health care in Delaware. That said, I believe 
these changes are an improvement on current law and I hope that we can 
continue to move legislation to strengthen the delivery of services to 
our most at-risk populations.
  This bill also goes a long way toward restoring protections for the 
environment that were absent when the Interior appropriations 
conference report passed the House without my support. Seven of the 
twenty-four anti-environmental riders added by the Senate were stripped 
and the remaining riders were significantly changed to reduce their 
threat to the environment. The congressional leadership was responsive 
to concerns I raised that Congress should not attempt to prevent EPA 
enforcement action against midwest electric utility companies whose 
emissions are polluting Delaware's air and water. The judicial system 
is fully equipped to give these companies their day in court to defend 
their actions. I am extremely pleased that this proposed rider was not 
included in the bill. Furthermore, the Interior appropriation bill 
increases funding for our national parks, our national wildlife 
refuges, and restoration efforts in the everglades. Finally, the 
Interior bill contains funding for a program of particular interest to 
Delaware--the stateside land and water conservation fund, which 
provides Delaware with funding for its state parks and environmental 
land acquisition programs.
  One of the weaknesses of this package is in the Commerce, Justice, 
State appropriations bill. I opposed this bill when it passed the House 
because it designated $4 billion in funding to conduct the 2000 census 
as ``emergency'' spending that is not subject to the annual spending 
limits. Although an accurate census is important, it is not a true 
unanticipated emergency like a hurricane. Congress should responsibly 
budget for this and all future censuses. this budget gimmick led to a 
7.8 percent increase in spending on this bill--far too much for a 
single year increase. Despite this short coming, I am pleased that the 
bill privided increased spending on anti drug programs, legal aid 
programs for the poor, and programs to combat violence against women.
  Another highlight of this bill was its attention to the needs of 
farmers in the northeast. The bill provides additional funds for 
farmers affected by natural disasters, such as flood damage from 
Hurrican Floyd and crop loss from this summer's drought.
  Furthermore, the bill contains measures to ensure that Delaware's 
dairy farmers are adequately compensated for the fluid mild they supply 
to milk processors.
  Finally, this legislative package contains the Satellite Home Viewer 
Act which benefit thousands of Delawareans. Legislation has been added 
to eliminating outdated restrictions on satellite TV companies that 
prohibit them from carrying local network television stations. Many 
Delawareans who rely on satellites to receive quality TV reception must 
watch out-of-State news shows due to their restrictions. This 
legislation will bring them needed relief and allow them to be better 
informed about local, state, and regional events.
  I strongly urge the congressional leadership and the President to 
institute measures to allow Congress to finish its work on these 
spending bills earlier in the year to avoid last minute deals that 
inevitably lead to more spending. Strong budget enforcement mechanisms, 
such as biennial budgeting and my proposal for a ``rainy day''account 
for emergency spending, should be considered in the next session.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect piece of legislation. It contains 
compromises that were necessary to meet the President's demands and to 
reach agreement between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Despite 
these compromises, this legislation maintains our hard-won commitment 
to fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget. This commitment to 
fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget. This commitment will help 
protect the Social Security trust fund and enable the rest of our 
Government to meet the needs of all Americans in a fiscally responsible 
manner.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concern over one 
particular provision in the FY 2000 Omnibus Appropriations Act 
providing funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act's 
Title I program for school improvement and public school choice 
activities.
  Specifically, this provision would provide $134 million in fiscal 
year 2000 to States, who

[[Page H12804]]

in turn would distribute 100 percent of this funding to school 
districts, for (1) activities to provide assistance to schools which 
are failing academically, and (2) public school choice for all children 
in schools which are identified as ``schools in school improvement'' 
under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. While on 
its face, this provisions seem beneficial, I am concerned about its 
impact on Title I and our nation's schools.
  The statutory language of this provision does not specify how funds 
are distributed from the State to school district level. Presently, 
98.5 percent of Title I funds are distributed directly to the local 
level. In addition, Title I funds designated for the local, or school 
district level, have always been distributed via a targeted formula 
that provides the bulk of funding to the most disadvantaged areas. This 
provision's departure from the current statutory focus opens the door 
to the elimination of targeting funds to the local level--a dangerous 
step towards taking precious Federal funds away from those who instruct 
our children on a day to day basis. I expect the Department of 
Education to issue regulations or guidance which will target these 
funds to either the school districts with the highest numbers of 
schools in school improvement or through the existing Title I formula.
  I also have concerns over the mandate in this provision to provide 
public school choice. I do want to make clear that I support public 
school choice as one of several tools which local school districts may 
implement in their efforts to improve student achievement. H.R. 2, 
legislation passed by the House earlier this year reauthorizing Title 
I, also recognized the need to include public school choice provisions 
in Title I, also recognized the need to include public choice 
provisions in Title I, but contained important provisions that would 
(1) tie the requirement to implement public school choice to local 
school board policy, and (2) ensure that school districts had adequate 
time to properly design public school choice plans by providing 18 
months to implement such plans. In contrast, the provisions contained 
in this legislation would become effective immediately and are vague on 
whether local school board policy would be superseded. It is my 
expectation that the Department of Education will issue guidance or 
regulations which ensure that school districts can responsibly 
implement this mandate in adequate time.
  It is my hope that we can continue to refine the policy that will be 
implemented through the enactment of this provision as we finish our 
work on ESEA.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
  The bill before us addresses a number of critical national and local 
priorities of which I will only highlight a few. It provides funding to 
continue putting 100,000 more teachers in our classrooms. It will also 
allow school districts to use some of that money to meet other critical 
educational needs like teacher training if those needs are more 
pressing. The bill also continues our commitment to put 50,000 more 
police officers on our streets to fight crime. I have been a strong 
supporter of the COPS program, seeing the benefits in numerous Central 
Coast cities like Santa Maria, Lompoc, Atascadero and Morro Bay.
  This bill also provides more money to the hospitals, doctors, home 
health agencies and nursing homes that take care of seniors in the 
Medicare program. Cuts imposed by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act threaten 
the ability of critical Central Coast health care providers to serve 
our seniors and this bill restores some of that funding. The bill also 
contains some changes to the Medicare HMO program to encourage more 
coverage in underserved areas like the Central Coast. While I support 
these provisions, they don't go far enough and I will continue to push 
for legislation to raise reimbursement rates in rural counties like San 
Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara.
  Mr. Speaker, there are three provisions of particular importance to 
my district that I would like to highlight. First, this legislation 
contains $100,000 for Santa Barbara's Computers for Families 
organization. Run by the highly respected Santa Barbara Industry 
Education Council and the Santa Barbara Office of Education, DFF 
refurbishes old computers and gets them into the homes of low-income 
families. This valuable program helps open the doors of opportunities 
for all in our community and this expansion will enable CFF to bring 
this critical technology to more needy families.
  The bill also provides $50,000 for the San Luis Obispo County Medical 
Society which, in conjunction with the Volunteers in Health Care 
program and pharmaceutical companies, will provide prescription drugs 
for some underserved seniors. Ensuring seniors' access to prescription 
drugs has been a priority of mine and this small program will help many 
needy seniors obtain the drugs they need to live a quality life.
  Finally, this legislation authorizes a study of the beautiful Gaviota 
Coast in Santa Barbara county. This will allow the National Park 
Service, working in conjunction with Central Coast ranchers and 
preservation groups, to determine how we can best protect one of the 
last undeveloped stretches of California's coast. This provision is 
based on the Gaviota Coast Act of 1999, which I introduced earlier this 
year.
  I must note, however, that there are items in this legislation that I 
do not support. For example, the bill inappropriately restricts funding 
to international family planning organizations. This shortsighted 
provision will keep life saving family planning services from poor 
women around the world.
  While the bill does increase funding at the National Institutes of 
Health and continues us on a track to double the agency's overall 
funding, it still delays some $4 billion in NIH funding until the end 
of the fiscal year. This delay will actually have the effect of cutting 
the increase in NIH funding and could slow critically important medical 
research.
  I am also deeply disappointed in the process that has brought us a 
bill that funds nearly half of the government programs at one time. 
This process does not allow Members to properly study the details of 
the legislation. I fear that over the next several days and weeks we 
will be appalled at special provisions that have been tucked into this 
bill for special interests. Taxpayers deserve more respect from 
Congress in the way it spends their money. This is not the way the 
House should do business. I urge the leadership of this House to begin 
work today on a bipartisan basis to ensure that we do not end up in 
this position again next year.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is far from perfect. I have serious 
reservations about the process and I oppose certain provisions in the 
bill. But, on balance, it represents a good compromise and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against the Omnibus Budget 
Agreement because it continues a pattern of budgeting which I feel 
undermines the confidence and credibility of the American public in one 
of the most important congressional responsibilities we have--managing 
the people's money.
  I opposed the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement because it was clear 
there was no intention of implementing it. It was a ruse. Last year, 
there was $35 billion in excess spending at the last minute omnibus 
bill. This year, there is no more time for analysis, and the amount of 
money that is being gimmicked, manipulated and spent in violation of 
the budget rules is up to $45 billion.
  While there is much in the bill that I support, and while it has been 
made better due to heroic efforts on the part of the Administration and 
the House Democratic leadership, it still falls far short of the mark 
to which Congress should be accountable. I continue to hope that the 
day will come when the budget process is transparent, not larded with 
unfortunate spending decisions and is done in a fashion that both 
Congress and the people we represent can follow what we're doing. Until 
that day, I feel it appropriate to vote no.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report, 
and, in particular, of the final agreements on the programs of the 
Commerce, Justice, and State Departments, the Judiciary, and the 
related agencies under our Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
  This has been a difficult process, Mr. Speaker, with more perils than 
Pauline, but at each step of the way the Commerce-Justice bill has been 
improved, first under the capable leadership of our Chairman, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and finally in negotiations with 
the Administration.
  I must repeat what others have already said, that the Committee and 
Subcommittee chairmen and ranking Democrats, our staff, and the 
President's staff have worked long and hard, day and night, weekday and 
weekend, to get us to this point. And don't forget that the staffs 
often stay hours longer when members go home. We owe the staff an 
enormous debt of gratitude.
  Mr. Speaker, Chairman Rogers has explained our part of this package, 
but I will just note that there is more money for COPS, for SBA, for 
NOAA, for various civil and employment rights activities, and that most 
of the President's funding priorities have been addressed.
  Of special importance, in my view, is that the resources and 
authority are provided to let the U.S. pay a substantial portion of the 
arrears due the UN. This avoids loss of our vote in the UN General 
Assembly and enhances our leverage over both UN policies and activities 
in the world and the management of the UN itself.
  But the price for this victory may be the lives and health of women 
all over the world. This is very troubling.
  We were not able to include a Hate Crimes provision, but I hope this 
issue can be taken up in the next session.
  Mr. Speaker, the procedure used to create this wrap-up bill was most 
unusual, and while I know there are very positive provisions in the 
bigger package, there are also sins of both

[[Page H12805]]

omission and commission that have been discovered. But I wonder what 
sins may still be hidden from view since few have had the chance to 
read it through.
  For my part, however, I believe that our work has mostly been well 
done and I intend to support the conference report.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as a member of the Judiciary 
Committee, to express my support for the American Inventors Protection 
Act of 1999, which is included as Title IV of the Intellectual Property 
and Communications Omnibus Reform Act. This act is included in the 
Omnibus spending package, H.R. 3194, that we are considering today.
  This patent reform measure includes a series of initiatives intended 
to protect the rights of inventors, enhance patent protections and 
reduce patent litigation. Perhaps most importantly, subtitle C of title 
IV contains the so-called ``First Inventor Defense.'' This defense 
provides a first inventor (or ``prior user'') with a defense in patent 
infringement lawsuits, whenever an inventor of a business method (i.e., 
a practice process or system) uses the invention but does not patent 
it. Currently, patent law does not provide original inventors with any 
protections when a subsequent user, who patents the method at a later 
date, files a lawsuit for infringement against the real creator of the 
invention.
  The first inventor defense will provide the financial services 
industry with important, needed protections in the face of the 
uncertainty presented by the Federal Circuit's decision in the State 
Street case. State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Signature Financial 
Group, Inc. 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir., 1998). In State Street, the Court 
did away with the so-called ``business methods'' exception to statutory 
patentable subject matter. Consequently, this decision has raised 
questions about what types of business methods may now be eligible for 
patent protection. In the financial services sector, this has prompted 
serious legal and practical concerns. It has created doubt regarding 
whether or not particular business methods used by the industry--
including processes, practices, and systems--might now suddenly become 
subject to new claims under the patent law. In terms of every day 
business practice, these types of activities were considered to be 
protected as trade secrets and were not viewed as patentable material.
  Mr. Speaker, the first inventor defense strikes a fair balance 
between patent law and trade secret law. Specifically, this provision 
creates a defense for inventors who (1) acting in good faith have 
reduced the subject matter to practice in the United States at least 
one year prior to the patent filing date (``effective filing date'') of 
another (typically later) inventor; and (2) commercially used the 
subject matter in the United States before the filing date of the 
patent. Commercial use does not require that the particular invention 
be made known to the public or be used in the public marketplace--it 
includes wholly internal commercial uses as well.
  As used in this legislation, the term ``method'' is intended to be 
construed broadly. The term ``method'' is defined as meaning ``a method 
of doing or conducting business.'' Thus, ``method'' includes any 
internal method of doing business, a method used in the course of doing 
or conducting business, or a method for conducting business in the 
public marketplace. It includes a practice, process, activity, or 
system that is used in the design, formulation, testing, or manufacture 
of any product or service. The defense will be applicable against 
method claims, as well as the claims involving machines or articles the 
manufacturer used to practice such methods (i.e., apparatus claims). 
New technologies are being developed every day, which includes 
technology that employs both methods of doing business and physical 
apparatus design to carry out a method of doing business. The first 
inventor defense is intended to protect both method claims and 
apparatus claims.
  When viewed specifically from the standpoint of the financial 
services industry, the term ``method'' includes financial instruments, 
financial products, financial transactions, the ordering of financial 
information, and any system or process that transmits or transforms 
information with respect to investments or other types of financial 
transactions. in this context, it is important to point out the 
beneficial effects that such methods have brought to our society. These 
include the encouragement of home ownership, the broadened availability 
of capital for small businesses, and the development of a variety of 
pension and investment opportunities for millions of Americans.
  As the joint explanatory statement of the Conference Committee on 
H.R. 1554 notes, the provision ``focuses on methods for doing and 
conducting business, including methods used in connection with internal 
commercial operations as well as those used in connection with the sale 
or transfer of useful end results--whether in the form of physical 
products, or in the form of services, or in the form of some other 
useful results; for example, results produced through the manipulation 
of data or other inputs to produce a useful result.'' H. Rept. 106-464, 
p. 122.
  The language of the provision states that the defense is not 
available if the person has actually abandoned commercial use of the 
subject matter. As used in the legislation, abandonment refers to the 
cessation of use with no intent to resume. Intervals of non-use between 
such periodic or cyclical activities such as seasonable factors or 
reasonable intervals between contracts, however, should not be 
considered to be abandonment.
  As noted earlier, in the wake of State Street, thousands of methods 
and processes that have been and are used internally are now subject to 
the possibility of being claimed as patented inventions. Previously, 
the businesses that developed and used such methods and processes 
thought that secrecy was the only protection available. As the 
conference report on H.R. 1554 states: ``(U)nder established law, any 
of these inventions which have been in commercial use--public or 
secret--for more than one year cannot now be the subject of a valid 
U.S. patent.'' H. Rept. 106-464, p. 122.
  Mr. Speaker, patent law should encourage innovation, not create 
barriers to the development of innovative financial products, credit 
vehicles, and e-commerce generally. The patent law was never intended 
to prevent people from doing what they are already doing. While I am 
very pleased that the first inventor's defense is included in this 
legislation, it should be viewed as just the first step in defining the 
appropriate limits and boundaries of the State Street decision. This 
legal defense will provide important protections for companies against 
unfair and unjustified patent infringement actions. But, at the same 
time, I believe that it is time for Congress to take a closer look at 
the State Street decision. I hope that next year the Judiciary 
Committee will consider holding hearings on the State Street issue, so 
that Members can carefully evaluate its consequences.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this Omnibus bill rejects the 
devastating cuts on seniors, children, and young adults proposed only 
last month by the Republican majority. The Labor/HHS portion of this 
bill, which adds $7.3 billion over last year's bill, more appropriately 
reflects the overwhelming public support for increased investment in 
education and fairness in the workplace.
  I am particularly pleased that the Conferees decided to continue 
funding the Clinton/Clay Class Size Reduction Program, which will hire 
100,000 new, highly qualified teachers nationwide. I am particularly 
pleased that the Conferees rejected the Republican plan to divert class 
size funds into block grants, which could have been used for private 
school vouchers and purposes unrelated to class size reduction.
  The Conference report provides an increase from $1.2 billion to $1.3 
billion for class size reduction, it continues class size reduction as 
a separate program, and it ensures that such funds are targeted to the 
neediest public schools. The agreement also includes the Democratic 
plan to ensure that all teachers become fully certified, and it 
continues the program's flexibility to use funds for teacher 
recruitment and professional development in order to reduce class 
sizes.
  It also provides new provisions, strongly advocated by President 
Clinton, that allows $134 million in Title I funds to be used to 
improve low-performing schools.
  The conference report also increases investment in critical education 
and labor initiatives above the last conference agreement. It provides 
$454 million for After School Centers, an increase of $154 million over 
the vetoed bill and $254 million over 1999. It provides $8.6 billion 
for Title I grants for the disadvantaged, an increase of $144 million 
over the vetoed bill and $265 million over 1999. It provides $136 
million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, an increase 
of $7.25 million over the vetoed bill and $12.7 million over 1999. It 
also provides $7.7 billion for Pell Grants to fund a maximum award of 
$3.300--the same as the vetoed bill and a $175 increase over 1999.
  In the Labor area, the bill provides $11.3 billion--$54 million over 
the vetoed bill, and $389 million over 1999.
  I urge support for the bill.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to express my 
agreement with language contained in the report accompanying H.R. 3075, 
which was included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill, encouraging the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to allow home health agencies to 
use technology to supervise their branch offices. This language also 
calls on the government to allow home health agencies to determine the 
adequate level of on-site supervision of their branch offices based on 
quality outcomes. I need not remind my colleagues that Congress is 
expecting home health agencies to operate efficiently under greatly 
reduced Interim Payment System (IPS) and Prospective Payment System 
(PPS) reimbursement. It is therefore necessary that home health 
agencies be allowed

[[Page H12806]]

the flexibility to establish and serve large service areas by utilizing 
cost efficient branch offices.
  My district includes many rural areas which are experiencing access 
problems due to the Health Care Financing Administration's (HCFA's) 
home health branch office policies affecting time/distance limitations 
and on-site supervision requirements. In many cases, these requirements 
do not recognize technology advances. In order to ensure that senior 
citizens in rural areas have access to quality home care, it is vital 
that any regulations on home health care branch offices promulgated by 
the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) evaluate the offices by 
quality of outcome instead of arbitrary administration requirements and 
restrictions.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my support for the report 
language accompanying H.R. 3075 urging the use of outcome instead of 
arbitrary requirements and restrictions, to determine a home health 
care agency's ability to establish and supervise branch offices.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3194, 
the Omnibus Appropriations Bill of 1999. This bill is a travesty, a 
massive symbol of the failure of this Congress to accomplish its most 
basic goal--passage of the 13 appropriations bills by September 30, the 
end of the fiscal year--on time and in order. Instead, we have lumped 
together numerous pieces of legislation, as well as five appropriations 
bills, and slapped them together like a giant Thanksgiving turkey to 
present to the American people.
  The process by which we come to this vote on this House. This bill--
over a foot high, hundreds of pages thick and in its final form with 
only a few copies available to all 435 members--was filed at 3:00 a.m. 
this morning. Members of this Chamber have not had the opportunity to 
read or even review this legislation. No one knows what kind of 
special-interest boondoggles lie in the text of this bill, and no one 
will know for days to come.
  The majority in this House even voted to suspend the rules that 
govern the budget process by forbidding the Congressional Budget Office 
to `score' this bill, which would let members know just how much all of 
these provisions will cost the taxpayers. According to the last CBO 
estimate of this bill, the majority would pass a bill that breaks their 
promise to leave untouched the Social Security Trust Fund. CBO recently 
said this bill would use $15 to $17 billion of the Trust Fund--and who 
knows just how much this Congress will raid from the Trust Fund once 
this bill in its final form is enacted.
  Finally, it exceeds all of the budget caps put into place in 1997 to 
balance the federal budget, stretching credibility and the imagination 
by declaring things like the Head Start program--begun in 1964--as an 
`emergency,' along with the census, operations of the Pentagon and 
other basic functions of government. If we intend to `bust the budget 
caps' and declare them obsolete now that we have a budget surplus, we 
should do so in an honest way and be straight with the American people.
  There are some good provisions in this legislation, along with the 
bad provisions. It provides the President with his priorities of 
100,000 new teachers and tools to create smaller teacher/student 
classrooms; 50,000 more police on America's streets; and a much-needed 
pay raise for military personnel.
  However, there is no reason why this Congress could not have passed 
these initiatives in a deliberative manner with full debate in this 
House, instead of in this format. Instead, the majority has cobbled 
together a massive Thanksgiving turkey of a bill, to present to the 
American people in one whole form to avoid the scrutiny that would mean 
the death of some of the more controversial provisions in this 
legislation. These are the same leaders that told the American people 
that if they were in charge they would pass a budget on time, with 13 
appropriations bills passed separately, without spending any of the 
Social Security Trust Fund. Their failure to keep their word has 
resulted in this bill, which I urge my colleagues to oppose.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill 
and the process that brought it to the floor. My primary concerns are 
that we have not received sufficient guarantees that the Social 
Security surplus is protected, and we have not extended the Social 
Security Trust Fund for even one day. Prior to consideration of this 
package, the Congressional Budget Office certified that Congress was on 
pace to spend $17 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund in Fiscal 
Year 2000. Given that the offsets in this bill do not reach this level, 
and that this bill relies on numerous questionable budget gimmicks 
geared to mask the overall effect on Social Security, I cannot support 
it. At the same time, there are numerous examples of wasteful, 
unnecessary spending projects--money that would be better spent on 
Social Security and Medicare.
  What makes the above problems all the more tragic is that there are 
many positive aspects to this measure. As a sponsor of the COPS 2000 
legislation, which will authorize the placement of 50,000 additional 
police officers on our streets, I am especially pleased that a down 
payment on this funding is included in this bill. In addition, money to 
add 100,000 new teachers to our schools to reduce class size is also 
included, as well as an increased commitment to the Lands Legacy 
Initiative, which will protect our natural areas. I voted for funds to 
help implement the Wye River peace agreement when they were considered 
previously, and I would like to be able to vote for them today. This 
bill restores resources, at least modestly, to our hospitals, nursing 
homes, and home health facilities that have been negatively impacted by 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, but it does not do enough to solve the 
long term problems with Medicare reimbursement levels. I have been a 
leader of this effort, and I voted for similar provisions when they 
passed the House a few weeks ago. But I said at that time that more 
needed to be done to adequately address unfair cuts in Medicare. This 
budget puts pork barrel projects before funding for home health care, 
hospitals and nursing homes, and this is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress opened with a bipartisan commitment to 
preserving the integrity of the Social Security system. This budget 
does not live up to that commitment. Protecting and strengthening 
Social Security and Medicare are top priorities for the families I 
represent and this budget does not pass the test. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on the omnibus Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Bill for the 
District of Columbia, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education, Commerce, Justice, State, Interior, and Foreign 
Operations.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the process which brought about this 
omnibus bill makes a mockery of regular order in this House. Over seven 
weeks into the new fiscal year, and requiring an array of accounting 
gimmicks purporting to stay within the budget caps, my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle should be ashamed of themselves for 
bringing such a monstrosity forward at this eleventh hour. Filing 
conference reports at three in the morning and then insisting that we 
pass legislation which no one has had the opportunity to 
comprehensively review serves no useful purpose other than to convey to 
the American people how incapable the majority is of effectively 
governing. Their display of ineptitude is, however, a perfect ending to 
a session of Congress that will long be remembered as one of missed 
opportunities to address the needs of Americans. Included in this 
graveyard of dead legislation are such important initiatives as a 
patients' bill of rights, prescription drugs for the elderly, and 
substantive reform of Medicare and Social Security.
  This bill caps this Congress' departure from the 1997 Balanced Budget 
Act which I helped write and supported. Because of that bill and 
previous actions, the Nation today enjoys both a budget surplus and 
good economic times. Early in the year, however, the Republican 
Leadership determined to increase funding for defense, agriculture, 
education; much of it justified, but in excess of the 1997 caps. Rather 
than honestly explaining this to the American people, the Republican 
Leadership chose instead to engage in budget gimmicks and subterfuge as 
is evident today. Unfortunately, at this late hour, they have held 
hostage must-pass initiatives related to health care, general 
government, foreign policy and education. Because of that fact, and the 
fact that we continue to maintain a balanced budget and dedicate the 
vast majority of the projected surplus to debt reduction, I will 
support this conference report. Many of the items contained in the bill 
are too important to be allowed to lapse.
  For instance, this bill includes clarifications and corrections to 
the Medicare changes contained in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act which 
exceeded spending reduction targets at the expense of our seniors and 
teaching hospitals. This bill provides $12.8 billion over five years in 
new funding for Medicare reforms which are necessary and vital to the 
health of our nation's senior citizens.
  Specifically, these provisions include a section based upon 
legislation, H.R. 1224, which I have sponsored, along with 
Representative Cardin, to ensure fair and equitable Medicare funding 
for residents being trained to be physicians. Section 541 of Title V of 
this bill would, for the first time, ensure that teaching hospitals, 
such as those at the Texas Medical Center, will receive higher Medicare 
reimbursements for their physician residents. Under current law, these 
graduate medical education resident payments are based upon hospital-
specific costs. As a result, teaching hospitals in Texas currently 
receive as much as six times less than those paid to hospitals in New 
York. This

[[Page H12807]]

provision would fix this equity by establishing three new tiers of 
payments for residencies. For those teaching hospitals whose payments 
are more than 40 percent above the national average, their GME payments 
would be frozen for Fiscal Year 2001 and 2002. From Fiscal Year 2003 to 
2005, their payments would be reduced by a factor of market basket 
minus 2 percent. For those hospitals whose payments are less than 40 
percent of the national average, their payments would be increased to 
at least 70 percent of the national average.
  This bill also includes a modified version of legislation, H.R. 1483, 
which I have sponsored, along with Representative Crane, to provide 
graduate medical education funding for nursing and paramedical 
education programs. Under existing law, Medicare payments for nursing 
and paramedical graduate medical educational programs are based upon 
the number of traditional Medicare patients seen at these teaching 
hospitals. As more Medicare patients enroll in Medicare managed care 
plans, many of these patients are no longer seen at these facilities. 
As a result, teaching hospitals receive less funding for these nursing 
and paramedical programs. H.R. 1483 would carve out a portion of the 
payment paid to Medicare managed care plans and transfer these funds to 
those hospitals with these teaching programs similar to the manner in 
which physicians training programs are paid. Under this conference 
report, teaching hospitals with nursing and paramedical teaching 
programs will receive $60 million in new funding. Regrettably, this 
funding will not come from Medicare managed care plans. Rather, this 
funding would be transferred from physicians training programs. As a 
result, teaching hospitals with both physician and nursing training 
programs will receive no new net funding. I will continue working to 
restore to original funding stream so that Medicare managed care plans 
contribute toward the cost of these training programs.
  Other important Medicare provisions include adjustments to ensure the 
higher costs of training our nation's physicians. This provision would 
increase Medicare reimbursements for Indirect Medical Education (IME) 
costs. The conference report provides an IME reimbursement of 6.5 
percent in Fiscal Year 2000, 6.25 percent in Fiscal Year 2001, and 5.5 
percent thereafter. Under existing law, these IME payments would be 
reduced to 5.5 percent. These provisions are estimated to save 
hospitals $700 million over five years.
  I am also pleased that this conference report includes language to 
provide higher reimbursements for pap smears. Under existing law, 
Medicare reimbursements for pap smears are $7.15 each. This bill would 
increase this reimbursement level to $14.60 per pap smear. This 
reimbursement level has not been increased for many years and will help 
to ensure that senior citizens receive this important preventive health 
test. This provision also covers the new pap smear technology so women 
would be eligible to receive these state-of-the-art tests which have a 
better record of finding and diagnosing ovarian cancers. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that this provision will cost 
$100 million over five years and $300 million over ten years. I am 
pleased that Congress has decided to provide the investment for many 
women whose lives will be saved by this test.
  This conference report also includes a provision to ensure that the 
State of Texas can keep $27 million to help states conduct outreach 
identifying Medicaid eligible children. The State of Texas has the 
highest uninsured rate of 24.5 percent of its population. The Texas 
Department of Health has determined that 800,000 of the 1.4 million 
uninsured children are eligible for, but not enrolled in, Medicaid. 
Under existing law, the State of Texas and other states would lose up 
to $500 million on December 31, 1999 because of a sunset provision in 
the Welfare Reform Act of 1995. This measure eliminates this deadline 
while ensuring that the State of Texas get the resources it needs to 
identify and enroll Medicaid-eligible children.
  The conference report further includes $150 million in Medicare 
reimbursements for immunosuppressive drugs. Under existing law, 
Medicare beneficiaries can only receive three years of 
immunosuppressive drugs following a lifesaving transplant operation. 
However, all of these patients must take these drugs indefinitely. I 
have cosponsored legislation, H.R. 1115, to eliminate this 3-year 
restriction. The conference report would provide eight months of 
additional coverage for these life-sustaining drugs in Fiscal Year 2001 
and 2002. In addition, this funding permits the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to extend this coverage up to $150 million over five 
years. Although the 3-year restriction was not eliminated, I believe 
that this extension is important because it means that Medicare 
beneficiaries can receive the prescription drugs they need. For many 
Medicare beneficiaries, these immunosuppressive drugs are extremely 
expensive and a financial burden. Many of these transplant operations 
are conducted at the teaching hospitals in my district at the Texas 
Medical Center. I will continue to work to extend this coverage 
indefinitely for those who need it.
  As a Co-Chair of the Congressional Biomedical Caucus, I am pleased 
that this bill will provide a total of $17.9 billion, or $2.3 billion 
more for biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health 
(NIH). This fifteen percent increase is the second down payment on our 
efforts to double the NIH's budget over five years. This increase is 
necessary to ensure adequate funding for cutting-edge research such as 
the Human Genome Project being conducted at Baylor College for Medicine 
in my district. Currently, NIH funds only one in three of peer-reviewed 
medical research grants and many potential cures and treatments go 
undiscovered.
  While I am grateful for the increase, I am concerned that the 
Republican majority continues to insist on a budget gimmick to delay up 
to $3 billion in NIH's budget until the final day of the next fiscal 
year. As a result, some medical research grants will be delayed. This 
is better than an earlier proposal to delay $7.5 billion, but it is 
still counterproductive to speed up research for cures to diseases like 
juvenile diabetes and AIDS.
  I am also pleased that this conference report includes funding for a 
project which I have been working on to provide $500,000 for the Center 
of Excellence for Research on Mental Health (CMRH) to the University of 
Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in my district. This Center would build 
upon the Institute of Medicine report issued earlier this year 
indicating that there is a disproportionate share of minority and 
medically under-served patients who suffer from cancer and other health 
related diseases. The CRMH would establish a multi-disciplinary center 
for excellence in basic, applied, and clinical research to help meet 
the unique health-related challenges of minority and under-served 
populations. The goal of this Center would be to improve the low 
mortality rate among minority and medically under-served populations, 
and to translate these methods to other minority and under-served areas 
nationwide.
  This omnibus measure also contains language which I requested to help 
ensure that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is conducting 
sufficient research on breast and ovarian cancer among women of 
Askenazi descent who carry the BRCA1 gene. There is an abnormally high 
incidence of breast and cervical cancer among Azkenazi Jewish women. 
This research will help to identify and isolate some of the reasons for 
this high incidence of cancer. This conference report urges the NIH to 
provide funding for a binational program between the United States and 
Israel establishing a computerized data and specimen sharing system, 
subject recruitment and retention programs, and a collaborative pilot 
research program.
  I am also pleased that this budget agreement makes education a top 
priority by providing $1.3 billion to hire and train 100,000 new 
teachers to help lower class size in the early grades. This is truly 
good news for our children and for their future. We know that school 
enrollments are exploding and that record numbers of teachers are 
retiring. Every parent and teacher in America knows that a child in a 
second-grade class with 25 students will not get as much attention as 
he or she needs and deserves. Overall, this plan means more teachers 
with higher educational credentials--and for students, more individual 
attention and a better foundation in the basics. I am also pleased that 
this budget doubles funds for after school and summer school programs 
while supporting greater accountability for results by helping 
communities turn around or close failing schools.
  This omnibus measure also strengthens America's role of leadership in 
the world by paying our dues and arrears to the United Nations, by 
meeting our commitments to the Middle East peace process, and by making 
critical investments in debt relief for the poorest countries of the 
world. Of critical importance is the $1.8 billion to fund the United 
States' commitment to the Wye River Agreement. For decades, the U.S. 
has worked with Israel--our most consistent Middle East ally--to 
provide the aid and military equipment necessary to defend itself 
against hostile neighbors. The funds appropriated in this year's budget 
send the message that the United States is a full partner in securing a 
lasting peace in the Middle East.

  This budget continues the Administration's COPS program by including 
funding to help local communities hire up to 50,000 police nationwide. 
This program has been tremendously successful in Harris County helping 
the County, and some of its cities including virtually all those in my 
district, more than 1,000 police positions to fight crime.
  This bill also includes important funding for the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) to combat illegal immigration and 
administer legal immigration both functions of government terribly 
important to the people of the 25th District. The bill also funds the 
upcoming

[[Page H12808]]

census, which is important to government and commerce.
  Mr. Speaker, this is by no means a perfect bill and the process has 
been deplorable. However, this bill does meet important priorities in 
health care, education, crime control, immigration, general government 
and foreign affairs. Furthermore, this bill ensures that we maintain a 
balanced budget, dedicating the surplus to debt retirement and 
preserving its use for strengthening Social Security and Medicare in 
the future. On that basis, I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to 
explain to my colleagues an important change made to the Satellite Home 
Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 since the Conference Report was 
considered on the floor last week. As my colleagues know, I had been 
concerned that sections 1005(e) and 1011(c) of the Conference Report 
could unfairly discriminate against Internet and broadband service 
providers and, in doing so, would stifle the development of electronic 
commerce. I was particularly concerned that these provisions could be 
interpreted to expressly and permanently exclude any ``online digital 
communication service'' from retransmitting a transmission of a 
television program or other audiovisual work pursuant to a compulsory 
or statutory license.
  Under the agreement embodied in the bill before us, these provisions 
were deleted, and rightly so. They were essentially added after 
agreement had been reached on the fundamental parameters of the 
Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, without any consultation with 
the Committee on Commerce and, equally important, without any record 
evidence submitted about their necessity. The committees of 
jurisdiction will now have an opportunity to give deliberate and 
careful consideration to the application of the Copyright Act to the 
Internet and broadband service providers. The importance of the 
Internet and other online communications technologies for enhancing 
consumer access to information and programming cannot be overstated. 
Online technology has transformed the way consumers receive 
information, including audiovisual works. Because rapid technological 
changes are having an ever more positive impact on our economy, it is 
thus essential that we give full attention to this issue early next 
year.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, as with any compromise legislation, the 
final budget agreement has both very positive aspects and very 
troubling features. The agreement provides funding for several high 
priority spending items, particularly rural health care and education. 
In addition, the agreement preserves increases in programs affecting 
agriculture, veterans, defense and other priority areas. However, it 
falls far short of the standards of fiscal responsibility that were set 
forth in the Blue Dog budget and will create serious problems for the 
budget process that will begin next year.
  This package provides much-needed relief for rural hospitals, nursing 
homes, community health centers, rural health clinics, home health 
agencies, and other health care providers who have struggled to cope 
with the impact of the Medicare payment reductions included in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Along with my colleagues in the House 
Rural Health Care Coalition, I introduced the Triple A Rural Health 
Improvement Act, legislation intended to help rural health care 
providers continue to provide vital services to rural seniors. I am 
pleased that this package includes a number of the important rural 
health provisions that we included in our legislation.
  Specifically, this bill includes protection for low-volume, rural 
hospitals from the disproportionate impact of the hospital outpatient 
prospective payment system, an alternative payment system for community 
health centers and rural health clinics, reforms of the Medicare Rural 
Hospital Flexibility/Critical Access Hospital program, expansion of 
Graduate Medical Education opportunities in rural settings, Rebasing 
for Sole Community Hospitals, Extension of the Medicare Dependent 
Hospital program, and permitting certain rural hospitals in urban-
defined counties to be recognized as rural for purposes of Medicare 
reimbursement.
  The most significant accomplishment of the budget process this year 
is the success of fiscally responsible Members to block efforts to 
spend the projected surpluses over the next ten years on tax cuts or 
new entitlement spending. The bulk of the projected surpluses over the 
next ten years are preserved for debt reduction. I intend to join with 
my fellow Blue Dogs next year to renew our efforts to lock up half of 
these projected surpluses for debt reduction. In spite of all of the 
budget gimmicks and other fiscal shortcomings of this budget agreement, 
our successful vigilance in other efforts will result in a reduction of 
at least $130 billion in debt held by the public, following on the $123 
billion in debt reduction achieved in fiscal year 1999.
  Sadly, this particular budget agreement is a product of a terribly 
flawed process. Instead of spending the first eight months of the year 
debating a fiscally irresponsible tax cut that was destined to be 
vetoed, Congress should have been working with the administration to 
develop a responsible budget plan for the next five years. We should 
have set realistic spending caps and establish a framework for 
protecting the Social Security surplus and paying down the debt over 
the next five years.
  The negotiating process did establish a very valuable precedent as a 
result of the administration's commitment to offset all increased 
spending they requested. Since the administration proposed offsets for 
all of their increased spending requests, any spending above the 
discretionary spending caps and any spending out of the Social Security 
surplus was a result of the legislation passed by the Majority in 
Congress prior to the budget negotiations.

  The failure to put together a long-term budget framework has produced 
a bill that will cause real problems for the budget process next year 
and beyond. The cumulative effect of the budget legislation passed by 
Congress this year in the absence of a long-term plan will make it 
virtually impossible to comply with the discretionary caps in the next 
two fiscal years or balance the budget without counting Social 
Security. The discretionary spending caps in statute have lost much of 
their credibility as a tool to restrain spending.
  As a result of all of the budget gimmicks placed in the spending 
bills passed by the Majority before the budget negotiations began, the 
final agreement will result in spending at least $17 billion of the 
Social Security surplus in 2000 and will put us on a course to spend a 
similar or greater amount of the Social Security surplus in 2001 and 
consume more than 75% of the projected on budget surplus in 2002.
  When the timing shifts, emergency designations, and delays in the 
starting point for spending are taken into consideration, these bills 
put us on a path for an on-budget deficit of at least $20 billion in 
fiscal year 2001 and will reduce the fiscal year 2002 projected surplus 
from approximately $82 billion to approximately $13 billion in fiscal 
year 2002.
  My fellow Blue Dogs and I have advocated locking up a portion of the 
projected on-budget surpluses to reduce debt held by the public to 
effectively pay back the money borrowed from the Social Security trust 
fund. The impact the final budget agreement will have on the on-budget 
surplus in the next two years would have been mitigated if it was 
accompanied by a solid commitment to repay any monies borrowed from the 
trust fund to meet operating expenses through additional debt 
reduction. Unfortunately, the Majority leadership never seriously 
considered this approach.
  The outcome of the budget process this year underscores the critical 
importance of developing a responsible budget plan that addresses the 
long-term problems of Social Security and Medicare and provides for a 
reduction in the national debt in addition to providing room for tax 
cuts and priority programs. I am committed beginning work early next 
year with the administration and Congressional leadership on a 
bipartisan budget framework.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I want to explain why I voted the 
way I did on this bill.
  First, I had very serious concerns about the way in which this bill 
came before the House. It was a far-reaching measure, rolling into one 
oversize pile not just five appropriations bills but also several 
important authorization bills. It was filed in the early hours of this 
morning. I am confident that very few if any Members were able to read 
it all. Yet that is how it was, and we had to vote it up or down, with 
only limited time for debate and no chance to change it.
  This is not the way we should do our work. While we are already more 
than two weeks late, today we passed yet another continuing resolution 
to keep the agencies covered by this bill operating. So we had some 
time--and we should have taken the time to do things the right way.
  However, the majority's leadership decided to reject that more 
orderly way of proceeding. We had to choose a simple yes or no. And, 
after careful consideration, I decided to vote against this bill.
  This was not an easy decision. In reaching it, I was conscious of 
many good things that were in the five appropriations bills and the 
other measures that were rolled into this one large, indigestible lump.
  The bill has many provisions that are good for the country--and, in 
fact, some of particular benefit for Colorado as a whole and my own 
district in particular. Many of them were things that I have sought to 
have included.
  For example, under the bill the National Oceanographic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will receive an appropriation of $2.3 
billion, up 8% from last year and nearly 20% more than in the House-
passed bill. This is something that I worked to achieve, and something 
I strongly support.
  Further, the National Institute of Standards and Technology is funded 
at $639 million,

[[Page H12809]]

which is about 1.3% less than in fiscal 1999 but an increase of 46% 
above the amount in the House-passed bill. This includes funding for 
the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which has been zeroed out in the 
House-passed bill. These appropriations are very important. Their 
inclusion is something I worked to achieve and I would have liked to 
have been able to support them.

  I also would have liked to have been able to support the amounts the 
bill provides for the Department of the Interior and the Forest 
Service. Again, I have been working to provide these agencies the 
resources they need to properly manage our federal lands and to help in 
the crucial job of protecting our open spaces against growth and 
sprawl.
  And I very much would have liked to have been able to vote for the 
bill's funding for education and its provisions to improve health care 
for seniors and other Americans. Nothing is more important for our 
society, and nothing is more important for me. And the bill includes 
other good things as well.
  However, on balance, I decided that the bill's virtues were 
outweighed by its faults.
  They were outweighed by the fact that the bill includes an arbitrary 
reduction across many departments and agencies which is not only 
totally unnecessary but also very unbalanced--even unfair--in the way 
it's structured. It isn't really across-the-board: for example, in the 
defense department it will not apply to protected pork-barrel items and 
thus will fall on operations and maintenance that are really the key to 
our national security. And, apparently just to make it even worse, it 
does not apply to Congressional pay, so that come the first of the year 
we will get a cost-of-living increase--something that I voted against--
without any reduction. That was something I could not support.
  The bill's virtues were also outweighed by the way it offends against 
fiscal candor and public accountability. It is loaded with accounting 
gimmicks and transparent fictions--things like calling the 
constitutionally-required census an ``emergency,'' delaying some 
payments so they will technically fall into the next fiscal year, and 
directions to use the most convenient estimates of costs. The effect of 
these gimmicks and ruses is to pretend that more than $30 billion 
that's in the bill isn't really there.
  ``Peekaboo'' is something that's fun to play with toddlers, but I 
don't think we should be trying to pull it on the taxpayers.
  So, as I said, Mr. Speaker, my decision was not an easy one. But I 
think it was the right one. I hope that next year the choice will be 
different. I hope that the House will do its work the way it should be 
done, on time and in keeping with the best principles of fiscal 
responsibility and public accountability. Let us learn, and let us 
change.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, for the record, this is to clarify that 
the ``no'' vote I cast today against H.R. 3194, the District of 
Columbia Appropriations Conference Report for FY 2000, is by no means 
an indication that I am opposed to the Medicare Balanced Budget Act 
(BBA) refinement provisions included in this legislation. Indeed, I 
voted for the Medicare relief package when it came before the U.S. 
House of Representatives on November 5, 1999, and passed overwhelmingly 
by a vote of 388 to 25. As Co-Chairman of the Rural Health Care 
Coalition, I supported this legislation because it clearly represents a 
step in the right direction toward allaying the current health care 
crisis facing our nation and mitigating the impact of Medicare cuts 
mandated by the BBA on health care providers. Unfortunately, my 
colleagues and I in the House were not given the opportunity to vote on 
the revised language as free-standing legislation. Rather, it was 
attached to the D.C. Appropriations Conference Report with various 
other unrelated measures, including hurricane relief funding. The 
reason I voted against H.R. 3194 is because we, as a nation, have an 
obligation to provide the citizens of eastern North Carolina with the 
necessary emergency aid to recover from three major hurricanes. 
However, this measure does not go far enough in providing adequate 
relief to those individuals who need it the most.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this bill. 
Approaching almost two months into the Fiscal Year 2000, we are forced 
to vote on this massive catchall spending bill which covers programs 
that would normally be funded by five separate appropriations bills. I 
am not sure if my Colleagues are privy to the substance of this Omnibus 
Appropriation and it may take months to honestly sort through the 
ramifications of these provisions included in this careless budget 
process.
  While H.R. 3194 contains important programs to hire additional 
teachers and police officers, finally fulfill our responsibilities in 
paying the United Nations (UN) back dues, underwrite and implement the 
Wye River peace accords, provide critical debt relief for the world's 
poorest nations, increase payments to Medicare health care providers 
and secure land acquisition for the purposes of environmental 
protection and conservation, this measure extends the Northeast Dairy 
Compact which adversely affects Minnesota's dairy farmers, and relies 
upon budget gimmicks in order to mask the perception of spending any of 
the Social Security Insurance Trust Fund.
  Through across-the-board cuts, gimmicks and scorekeeping adjustments, 
the Republicans claim to keep their promise to balance the budget 
excluding Social Security. However, the CBO recently scored the 
Republican budget plan and verified that they have broken their promise 
by spending the Social Security surplus long before this measure was 
even considered.
  According to CBO, the appropriations bill turns a $14.4 billion on-
budget surplus into a $17.1 billion on-budget deficit. No cooking the 
books or scorekeeping gimmicks can deny the facts of the bottom line. 
This clearly shows that the Republicans are spending the Social 
Security surplus rather than saving it. It is indeed ironic that the 
Republicans are publicly attacking Democrats for ``raiding Social 
Security'' when their own Republican appointed budget scorekeeper, CBO, 
tells us that it is their appropriations that have already created an 
off-budget incursion into Social Security funds. Unfortunately the 
overall process of combining five appropriations bills, with numerous 
policy matters and attaching dozens of authorization bills which should 
be considered separately is an admission by the GOP leaders that they 
cannot deal with policy fairly and give Members of the House a vote on 
each. Rather the Leadership has stuffed this Omnibus Bill to the point 
of making it resemble a Thanksgiving turkey! What a sad way to do our 
work and serve the people.
  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 safety and protecting social security. While I 
am not discrediting the need for Congress to address all of these 
issues, it is important that we listen to what constituents are saying. 
Republican rhetoric boasts a strong commitment to education, claiming 
funding levels exceeding last year's appropriations and above the 
president's requests. However, I have concerns about the methods used; 
this legislation resembles a pea and shell game, shifting funding 
responsibility and using advance FY2001 appropriations. The bottom line 
is that in terms of actual FY2000 funding the agreement actually 
provides less than last year's appropriations and bodes problems for 
FY2001 education budgeting.
  However, I will concede that this final compromise is certainly a bit 
more palatable than the original legislation. I am pleased that 
additional funds have been designated for President Clinton's class 
size reduction program which just last year was agreed to, but denied 
funding by the GOP up and to the Administration's insistence, the 
increased flexibility for the use of these funds, for teacher 
qualification and certification is a plus. Important programs such as 
Goals 2000, School-to-Work, Education Technology, and 21st Century 
Community Learning Centers have been sufficiently funded. Additionally, 
I am supportive of increased funding for student financial aid. These 
investments in education are the smartest spending that our national 
government can make.
  Although I would have preferred to see more funds dedicated to the 
President's initiative to hire new community police officers in FY 
2000, I was pleased to see increased funding for a program to address 
violence against women.
  This bill provides necessary relief to alleviate some of the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) cuts on health care providers in my district 
and throughout the nation. I am particularly pleased that a clerical 
error which would have severely underfunded Minnesota hospitals that 
care for a disproportionate share of low-income individuals has been 
corrected. Also, this measure recognizes the importance of National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) research in addressing public health issues 
such as cardiovascular diseases, Alzheimers and diabetes. Regrettably, 
overall Medicare reform, prescription drug coverage and the imbalance 
in Medicare payment levels which adversely impacts seniors in Minnesota 
have not been addressed this session. I am also disappointed that the 
bill will continue a pattern of cuts to the Social Services Block Grant 
program which provides important social services to the elderly, poor 
and developmentally disabled.

  I am pleased that I can, in good conscience, look favorably upon the 
provisions contained in the Interior funding portion of this 
legislation. Although it does not satisfy all of my concerns regarding 
many of the anti-environmental riders, the Democratic conferees and the 
Administration were successful in thwarting the most egregious of the 
riders to preserve the quality of our lands. Specifically, I commend 
the conferees for choosing to keep the authority of the Clean Water Act 
intact regarding mountaintop mining, allowing the Bureau of Land 
Management to cancel, modify

[[Page H12810]]

or suspend grazing permits after their environmental review is complete 
and delaying the new formula for oil royalty valuation only until March 
15, thus permitting implementation after nearly three years of GOP 
stalling to the benefit of the oil companies. In addition, I am also 
pleased to see that additional funds have been added to the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for high priority land acquisitions. 
Both the federal and stateside portion of this program have been 
woefully underfunded for years. Hopefully this signals the end of that 
era and a renewed commitment to this vital LWCF law.
  I would like to express my displeasure with Congress' inability to 
fund important clean air programs for fear that somehow the 
Administration will secretly implement the clean air agreement reached 
under the Kyoto Protocol. It is vitally important that this nation put 
the health and welfare of its citizens before the profit of utilities 
and big business. The costs associated with protecting the public will 
save this nation money and lives.
  After three years of holding up UN arrears by linking restrictive 
language to family planning organizations, the President was forced to 
capitulate and prohibit funding for preventive family planning. The 
choice: lose the U.S. vote in the UN or pay the dues with restrictive, 
unworkable conditions. Unfortunately, this policy will lead to an 
increase in unintended pregnancies, maternal deaths, and in abortions 
abroad. I will point out, however, that the President can waive these 
``Mexico City'' provisions on the condition that overall family 
planning assistance would then be cut by $12.5 million. No doubt the 
President will find it necessary to do so to the predictable howls of 
protest by the proponents of these limits. Some it would seem want a 
political issue, not a workable policy.
  I am pleased that the President's request of $1.8 billion to help 
implement the Wye River peace accords between Israel, the Palestinian 
Authority and Jordan was included. With this important funding, Israel 
and Palestine can move head with the Wye agreement and final status 
negotiations. This financial assistance is vital for the future of the 
peace process and all more critical for the United States to do its 
part in meeting its commitments and obligations. The United States has 
a deep commitment to Israel and its Arab partners in the peace process 
to facilitate the ongoing negotiations. Our continuing support now is 
both the right thing to do and serves to promote stability in the 
Middle East.
  Moreover, I especially applaud the inclusion of debt relief for the 
world's poorest countries. Debt relief is one of the most humanitarian 
and moral challenges of our time. The agreement is very similar to the 
final product of H.R. 1095, which passed out of the Banking Committee 
earlier this month. Albeit the agreement deleted regrettably several 
amendments to the bill, including my amendment which requires the 
President to take into account a nation's record on child labor and 
worker's rights before granting debt relief.
  Specifically, the agreement would authorize U.S. support for an IMF 
proposal to sell some of its gold reserves to finance debt forgiveness 
and participate in the HIPC initiative. The re-evaluation of the IMF's 
gold reserves and the profits from these sales, roughly $3.1 billion, 
could only be used for debt relief. In addition, H.R. 3194 includes 
$123 million for bilateral debt relief, which is about equal to the 
President's original request. Unfortunately, the first of four $250 
million in payments for multilateral debt relief was not included, thus 
delaying action on the President's pledge with other industrial nations 
to forgive $27 billion in foreign debt owed by HIPC countries.
  In regards to the Satellite Home Viewer Act provisions included in 
this agreement, I am pleased that this measure has finally dropped 
language which would have authorized $1.25 billion in loan guarantees 
for satellite companies to provide local-into-local service in rural 
areas. I had jurisdictional, policy and cost concerns due to the fact 
that this loan provision was not cleared through the Banking Committee, 
which led me to vote against the original conference agreement of the 
Satellite bill last week.
  In conclusion, this bill provides essential increases in education, 
law enforcement, and public health initiatives; reaffirms our 
commitment to the UN, Israel and Palestine, authorizes debt relief for 
the world's poorest, and seeks to protect the environment. At the same 
time, this measure is a budgetary bag of tricks which offsets requires 
across the board cuts that will do mischief into necessary and 
fundamental federal commitments and consists of clever gimmicks to 
paper over the promise of breaking the Republicans majority to protect 
surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund. But, considering the 
Republican control of Congress and the state of denial for the past 10 
months more work and time would not likely cure the objections I harbor 
to this funding policy. The Clinton Administration and Democrats in 
Congress have balanced most of the adverse impacts of this Omnibus 
budget bill and I shall reluctantly cast a ``yes'' vote and urge its 
passage.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, well here we go again. Another year and 
another last minute, take-it-or-leave-it, catch-all budget that funds 
most of the government. The Republican Leadership didn't do its 
homework all year and now they expect a gold star because they got a C 
on the final exam.
  Most Americans will probably find little fault with many of the major 
provisions of the legislation we are considering today. Although the 
Republican Majority fought it every step of the way, most Americans 
support our initiative to hire 100,000 new teachers to reduce class 
size in our schools. They support the President's program to put more 
police on the streets in our communities. They support our efforts to 
strip the harmful anti-environmental riders that threatened the 
ecological health of our land, water and air. The American people 
support our efforts to preserve access to health care for older 
Americans by correcting the excesses of the 1997 Balanced Budget 
Agreement. On all of these issues and countless others, President 
Clinton prevailed over the extreme opposition of the Republican 
Leadership.
  The major shortcoming of this agreement is not what's in it; the 
problem with this bill is what's not in it. As just one example, the 
vast majority of Americans support managed care reform; indeed, the 
House passed a strong Patients' Bill of Rights earlier this year. There 
is one reason, and one reason alone why HMO reform is not included in 
the package we are debating today: the Republican Leadership does not 
support meaningful managed care reform.
  The Congress also should have acted this year to extend prescription 
drug benefits to the elderly, too many of whom are being forced to 
choose between food and medicine. Most Americans support this, I 
support this, the President supports this. A major reason prescription 
drug coverage is not included in this budget is because the Republican 
Leadership does not support it. It's ironic that the Majority spent 
most of this year trying to push through a massive and irresponsible 
tax cut that chiefly benefited the very richest people in America, but 
was unwilling to even discuss a Medicare prescription drug benefit for 
seniors.
  I remain dismayed that the Majority has also blocked campaign finance 
reform, a much needed raise in the minimum wage and sensible gun safety 
measures. In addition, this Congress should have done more to help low-
income working families. Despite the good economy, the number of people 
with health insurance has declined and the number of children going 
hungry has actually increased. We should have taken action on all these 
fronts this year.
  Finally, despite the repeated claims of the Majority that they are 
not spending even one dime of the Social Security surplus, the fact is 
that this agreement falls short of their rhetoric. As with the 
previously adopted appropriations bills, the budget package before us 
contains numerous accounting gimmicks whose only purpose is to disguise 
the real cost of this legislation. I don't think anybody is fooled by 
all the smoke and mirrors. What is the point of having a budget process 
when the Leadership of this body consistently refuses to follow it?
  I will vote for this agreement, but I do so reluctantly. At the end 
of the day, the lasting legacy of this session of Congress will be 
shaped more by what we failed to accomplish this year than what we're 
doing in this legislation today.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, once again a more curious process has 
produced an omnivorous end-of-session spending bill. It is fair--and 
accurate--to say that most Members of this body would fail a pop quiz 
on the contents of this legislation, given that it only became 
available for review late this morning, replete with handwritten 
additions, deletions and elisions.
  Almost in spite of itself, this Congress has written legislation that 
does some good.
  For instance, one of the many extraneous provisions included in this 
package is the Satellite Home Viewer Act. Consumers will greatly 
benefit from this bill. They will finally be legally entitled to 
receive their local broadcast stations when they subscribe to satellite 
television service. No longer will consumers be required to fool with 
rabbit ears, or erect a huge antenna on their rooftop, to receive their 
local network television stations. The satellite dish many consumers 
buy this holiday season finally will be able to provide them with a 
one-stop source for all their television programming.
  The bill also will allow satellite companies to compete more 
effectively with cable systems, and provide a real-market check on the 
rates they charge their consumers. If cable rates continue to climb, as 
they have done for the past several years, consumers will be able to 
fight back: they will have a real choice for their video programming 
service.
  I am also pleased that this legislation rectifies some of the 
consequences of the

[[Page H12811]]

1997 Balanced Budget Act for Medicare beneficiaries and providers.
  Nonetheless, the fact remains that we are voting on a matter of great 
importance to the 38 million Americans covered by Medicare, yet most 
members have had only hours to examine all of the provisions in this 
bill. Doubtless, there are secret little provisions in this bill that 
help special interests and are known only to Republicans.
  Our Republican friends have also made a great fuss about the need to 
protect the Social Security surplus, but the bill they are offering is 
not paid for. Preliminary estimates show that the Medicare provisions 
of this bill cost almost $16 billion. Unpaid for, the bill will shorten 
the life of the Medicare Trust Fund and increase premiums to seniors. 
Apparently, fiscal responsibility only suits the Republican Party when 
it is convenient.
  I am also concerned that in some areas, we may not have done enough. 
In the area of quality, this bill moves backward rather than forward. 
The bill further removes Medicare managed care plans from oversight and 
some quality requirements. They have even exempted some plans from the 
requirements entirely. Who knows what other nefarious provisions lurk 
within the dark corners of this bill?
  The compromise on Community Health Centers is a good beginning, but a 
permanent solution is needed. I applaud the willingness of the 
Republican leadership to work with us to find a middle ground on 
assistance for these providers who serve a large number of America's 
uninsured and lower-income families.
  For women with breast or cervical cancer, however, this bill is 
inadequate. We had the opportunity to include a bill by my colleague 
Ms. Eshoo that would have provided great assistance in treating breast 
and cervical cancer, but this evidently was not a priority for the 
Republican leadership.
  The Republican leadership is at least consistent in its coddling of 
managed care companies. While the conferees on the Patients' Bill of 
Rights have yet to hold their first meeting, this legislation gives 
nearly $5 billion to managed care plans, despite considerable evidence 
from the General Accounting Office that these plans are already 
overpaid. At the same time, this bill omits what is perhaps the most 
important relief that Congress could offer to Medicare beneficiaries: 
relief from the high cost of prescription drugs. Seniors should not be 
forced to choose between food and needed medicines.
  Mr. Speaker, my modest experience as a legislator teaches me that 
even the best legislation inevitably contains flaws and compromises. 
But the entire process by which the Republican leadership produced this 
massive package and brought it to the floor today is a travesty, and I 
hope to never again see it repeated.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, the BBA contains a study by GAO of the 
Community Health Centers payments under which the conferees intend that 
the GAO should look at all State programs including those with 1115 
waivers.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Is this a perfect bill? The answer is no. 
There are several provisions contained in this measure that I do not 
and did not support in the past. However, there are also many 
provisions contained in this funding bill that I do support. They are 
as follows.
  The give-backs to Medicare that are included in H.R. 3624 are 
tremendously important to the people in my district. I want to 
compliment the conferees of the Committees on Commerce, Ways and Means 
and the Senate Finance Committee who worked so diligently to reach an 
agreement to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to health 
care services. This measure will be of assistance to those who rely on 
Medicare for their health care needs.
  I have worked closely with Chairmen Bilirakis and Bliley to ensure 
that Medicare+Choice receives an increase in funding because we need to 
make sure that seniors have the same choices available to them as other 
Americans.
  H.R. 3624 restores funding to the Medicare+Choice program. It also 
makes some positive changes that will offer Medicare beneficiaries more 
flexibility in a number of ways. First and foremost, it authorizes 
incentives for health care providers to enter counties that do not 
currently offer managed care plans. This is a key provision because I 
represent a rural area with very few HMOs.
  It also allows Medicare+Choice beneficiaries an open enrollment 
period when they learn their plan is ending its contract. In addition, 
it would slow down the implementation of Medicare+Choice payment rates 
to reflect the differences in enrollees' costs. Lastly, it would 
provide beneficiaries more time to enroll in Medicare+Choice or Medigap 
plans when health plans withdraw from the market.
  The bill is also endorsed by many organizations including the 
National Rural Health Association and the American Hospital 
Association. The bill contains specific provisions to correct many of 
the unintended consequences of the BBA that have adversely affected the 
rural communities.
  It also strengthens the Medicare rural hospital critical access 
hospital program and expands Graduate Medical Education opportunities 
in rural settings.
  Another important provision provides payments for orphan and cancer 
therapy drugs and new medical devices. I have focused on the issues my 
constituents said they wanted fixed, but there are certainly other 
improvements that I have not listed here today.
  The Medicare Balanced Budget Refinement Act will provide much needed 
relief to Medicare beneficiaries and providers alike. It may not 
provide everything that has been requested, but it does address the 
issues with which my constituents have greatest concern.
  This appropriation package also provides for a study to be conducted 
on the role of Ft. King in the Second Seminole war. This is something I 
have tried to accomplish for several years and I am pleased that it is 
moving forward. Ft. King is an important historical site located in 
Ocala, Marion County, Florida. I also want to thank Chairman Regula for 
his help in getting this language included in the Interior bill.
  I also was successful in securing funding for an aircraft training at 
an Aviation/Aerospace Center of Excellence project operated by the 
Florida Community College at Jacksonville utilizing resources at Cecil 
Field. This is an important instructional program that will prepare 
students to take the appropriate certification exams which are required 
by the Federal Aviation Administration for employment in aircraft 
maintenance. This is tremendously valuable since there is no such 
training program currently available in Northeast Florida.
  Another important provision that I was able to help get included is 
the prohibition on the Public Broadcast Stations from sharing their 
donor lists with political parties or outside parties without the 
donors consent. We must ensure that taxpayer dollars are not misused 
for political purposes.
  This measure also contains language allowing consumers choices when 
it comes to getting their television signals. As a member of the 
Telecommunications Subcommittee I worked to ensure that consumers can 
receive local television stations and further worked to ensure that 
they will not lose their distance signals.
  Notwithstanding all these things that are good within the bill, I am 
concerned about the process. This bill forward funds much too much 
money. Also, I am concerned with the whole process of not being able to 
read the five (5) bills. Putting all five bills together in one omnibus 
spending bill is not good and does not serve this House well.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, we have apparently not learned from 
history. The Omnibus Appropriations bill the House is considering today 
is very similar to the budget-busting, catch-all bill that Congress 
passed last year. This time the bill, which was filed at 3:00 a.m. this 
morning in the cloak of darkness, measures one foot tall. It is 
impossible for Members to know all the details included in this massive 
measure, including the type and amounts of pet projects inserted 
without debate. Sadly, this omnibus bill comes to us after we heard the 
Republican Leadership maintain their commitment to make the trains run 
on time and send the President 13 separate appropriations bills.
  Although this bill contains many favorable provisions, such as 
increased nursing home funding for the most vulnerable seniors in the 
Medicare program and an agreement to permit satellite TV carriers to 
transmit the signals of local broadcast stations back to subscribers in 
the same local market, the negative aspects out-weigh the good and 
therefore I must oppose this legislation.
  The Republican Leadership made a hand-shake agreement that they would 
not include dairy legislation on any appropriations bill. They have 
gone back on their word by attaching language that will maintain the 
depression-era milk pricing system and stop the Department of 
Agriculture's modest milk market dairy reforms. This provision will 
hurt Wisconsin dairy farmers and consumers nationwide.
  I am also concerned that this bill does not go far enough to prevent 
the implementation of the Department of Health and Human Services organ 
allocation rule. The HHS proposal will take much-needed organs away 
from Wisconsin and threatens the very existence of our nation's smaller 
transplant centers. While I welcome any delay of this ill-conceived 
policy, I am extremely disappointed that Congress was unwilling to 
postpone the restructuring of the organ allocation system until we can 
address this issue in a more comprehensive manner.
  Perhaps the most egregious parts of this bill are the accounting 
gimmicks used to ``pay for'' the programs within the bill. The .38% 
across-the-board spending cut allows the individual agencies and 
departments to determine which programs and accounts shall be subject 
to the spending reduction. However, no project can be cut by more that 
15%. This means that

[[Page H12812]]

wasteful and inappropriate pork-barrel spending projects, such as Naval 
ships not even requested by the Navy, cannot be targeted for 
elimination.
  Another troubling gimmick is the bill's use of forward funding. 
Delaying payments for defense contractors, delaying veterans medical 
care obligations, and rescinding Section 8 housing program funds are 
just a few of these accounting gimmicks which add up to over $4 
billion. Further so-called ``savings'' are achieved by delaying the 
paychecks of our military personnel and payments made to recipients of 
social services block grants.
  Furthermore, roughly one-third of all education funding being spent 
this fiscal year is counted against next year's spending caps. This 
will spend nearly $12.4 billion that will not be counted until next 
year, subverting the budget caps. Even though this spending is within 
the Budget Caps, it still results in a Fiscal Year 2000 outlay that 
taps into Social Security funds. To top it off, $4.5 billion of the 
Census funding is classified as emergency spending and thus does not 
count against the spending caps. This too, spends funds from the Social 
Security Trust Fund--for an activity the government has performed like 
clockwork for every ten years for over 200 years! Not only is the 
Census called an ``emergency,'' but also included in the long list of 
surprise spending by the government are funds for the Head Start 
program and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program.
  Finally, even though this bill contains everything but the kitchen 
sink, it does nothing to extend the life of Social Security or to 
modernize the Medicare Program. This budget bill also does not offer a 
plan to allow seniors to buy prescription drugs at an affordable cost, 
nor does it contain legislation to allow patients and doctors to make 
medical decisions instead of HOMO bureaucrats.
  For these reasons Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3194, a $385 
billion omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. Although the 
bill includes many beneficial provisions that I have worked hard to 
advance, I regret that they have been tied to a package that is deeply 
flawed in both procedure and substance.
  This bill violates a rather simple rule of good legislating--members 
ought have the opportunity to review legislation before they are asked 
to cast their vote. They clearly have not had that opportunity here. 
This mammoth bill, more than a foot thick and thousands of pages long, 
was filed after 3 a.m. this morning. It became available to view only a 
few short hours ago. In reality there is not one member of the House 
who knows all of what is in this bill. All we know for certain is that 
there are a multitude of provisions here that would never have survived 
the normal legislative process.
  Second despite all the rhetoric of the majority party, this bill 
spends at least $17 billion of the Social Security surplus. The 
Congressional budget Office, like all of us, has not had the 
opportunity to review this legislation, and, as a result, we are voting 
without the benefit of an official cost estimate. The previous CBO 
report, however, that did not include the additional spending added in 
negotiations with the White House, estimated that the surplus generated 
by Social Security will be tapped for $17 billion.
  This bill is stuffed full of accounting gimmicks to create that 
illusion that it does not spend Social Security surplus. The gimmick of 
choice was to artificially postpone spending just beyond fiscal year 
2000 into 2001. Unfortunately, this gimmick results in even more money 
from the Social Security surplus being spent. If you add all the 
spending that has been pushed into the next fiscal year and subtract 
the total from the expected budget surplus in 2001, you'll find that 
not only does this bill spend Social Security surplus in 2000, but it 
spends more than $20 billion from Social Security in 2001.
  As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I regret that this bill is so flawed 
in certain important respects, because in many other areas it deserves 
strong support. For instance, I strongly support the increases in 
funding for federal education programs in this legislation, including 
the class size reduction initiative. Last year, the class size 
reduction initiative provided North Dakota schools with over $5 million 
in additional resources, and I am pleased that this legislation 
increases funding for that program by 10 percent. This legislation 
fulfills the promise to our children made last year by ensuring that 
schools in North Dakota and across the country can continue to pay the 
dedicated teachers recruited last year.
  Second, I am pleased that Congress has addressed the unintended 
financial consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) on 
health care providers. As a member of the Congressional Rural Health 
Care Coalition, I have worked long and hard to address these problems 
on behalf of the hospitals, home health agencies and nursing homes in 
North Dakota. These health care providers have done their best to 
maintain a high standard of care, even under the constraints of the 
BBA. I believe it is time that Congress provide them with the relief 
they desperately need.
  I was pleased to have voted for H.R. 3075, the Medicare Balanced 
Budget Refinement Act, in the House of Representatives. This measure, 
which passed by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority, was an important 
first step toward addressing the problems of the BBA. I look forward to 
working with health care providers in my state to come to an agreement 
on further relief in the coming year.
  Finally, this measure also fulfills the promise we made to America's 
communities, by continuing funding for the COPS program. The dedicated 
community police officers funded through this program, many of whom 
serve my constituents in North Dakota, have helped keep our families 
safe, an they deserve our support.
  In summary, Mr. Speaker, this bill contains many laudable provisions 
that have, unfortunately, been attached to legislation I simply cannot 
support. For this reason, I urge my colleague to vote ``no'' so that we 
can advance the positive features of this bill in legislation that is 
fiscally sound and protects Social Security.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment 
with this omnibus appropriations bill.
  While this appropriations bill is good for education and does make 
good on our commitment to the United Nations, this bill also contains a 
provision that compromises women's rights around the world.
  Republican extremists, in their zeal to limit women's rights, left 
the President no choice but to accept a budget compromise that links 
the payment of the United Nations dues with restrictions on 
international family planning. That is wrong.
  This compromise is a bad deal for women around the world.
  Family planning shouldn't be linked to United Nations dues. It has 
nothing to do with family planning. This is about our fundamental 
responsibility as the remaining superpower to support the United 
Nations. This is not a trade-off.
  Mr. Speaker, women are not negotiable.
  The Republicans need to stop attacking women's rights and they need 
to start living up to our international obligations--no strings 
attached.
  By adopting this appropriations language linking the payment of our 
United Nations dues to restrictions on family planning, we set a 
dangerous precedent.
  Once legislative language is adopted, it will be hard to remove. 
Further, the waiver provision will be meaningless in the future if 
there's an anti-choice President in the Oval Office. The waiver is only 
as strong as the President who would sign it.
  For every step backward that we are forced to take on family 
planning, we will have to take two steps forward to maintain progress.
  We are disappointed by the political posturing that created this 
budget deal that hurts women. But make no mistake about it, the women 
of this House are as committed as ever to protecting the rights of 
women around the world.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is the 6th time the D.C. 
Budget has been on the floor in the last 6 months. Let's hope our 
collective ``sixth sense'' will carry the day.
  Way back in July the D.C. Appropriations Act was heralded with 
virtual unanimity. It was one of the first appropriation bills to hit 
the floor, and I joined many others on both sides of the aisle in 
showering Chairman Istook with well-deserved praise.
  That was two vetoes and three conference reports ago. Ironically, the 
D.C. Budget became a necessary vehicle for other matters.
  The D.C. Budget incorporates all appropriations for the District of 
Columbia. This includes not only federal funds, but all locally 
generated revenue as well, which accounts for most all of the Budget. 
This local part of the D.C. Budget was passed in consensus form by the 
city's elected leaders and the Control Board.
  When Congress did its constitutional duty and passed the D.C. Budget, 
not once but twice, I joined others in urging the president to approve 
it. I compliment the appropriators and conferees for their patience and 
persistence in continuing to refine the bill following the vetoes. I am 
particularly pleased by the addition of needed resources to address the 
environmental necessity of cleaning up the old Lorton Correctional 
Complex.
  The resources in this budget will help the Nation's Capital continue 
its reform efforts.
  While much progress has been made in the District, there are still 
enormous problems which must be addressed. The D.C. Subcommittee I 
chair will hold a hearing on December 14 to gather information on many 
of these questions.
  A substantial number of city functions remain in receivership, 
including foster care and offender supervision. A recent audit and the 
Annual Report submitted by the Control Board

[[Page H12813]]

to Congress highlights the crisis we are facing in this area. Our 
Congressional review can be particularly helpful in working through 
these concerns.
  The D.C. Budget funds the local court system. These courts are going 
through an important process right now that demands our continuing 
interest. The GAO, at our request, has been supplying very helpful 
background material.
  The House passed this month legislation I sponsored with Eleanor 
Holmes Norton and others to enhance college access opportunities for 
D.C. students. I commend the president for signing that bill. Just this 
week it was officially designated as Public Law 106-98. I'm very proud 
of that. I thank the appropriators for working with me to make the 
money for that landmark new law subject to the authorizing enactment.
  There is additional much-needed money in this budget for public 
education, including charter schools.
  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.
  We've worked long and hard together to turn this city around. The 
D.C. Budget before us is another step in helping to keep us moving in 
the right direction.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, today represents the culmination of a multi-
year-long process to update the copyright licensing regimes covering 
the retransmission of broadcast signals. When the Satellite Home Viewer 
Act was first passed in 1988, satellite dishes were a rare sight in 
communities across America, and the dishes that did exist were almost 
all large, ``C-band'' dishes. Today, the satellite dish has become 
ubiquitous, and the dishes that most people use are now much smaller--
only 18 inches across. The small dish industry alone has more than 10 
million subscribers, with nearly two million other households still 
relying on large dishes. With this massive change in the marketplace, 
we are overdue for a fresh look at the laws governing retransmissions 
of television station programming.
  The existing provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Act allow 
satellite carriers to retransmit copyrighted programming for a set fee 
to a narrowly defined category of customers. The Act thus represents an 
exception to the general principles of copyright--that those who create 
works of authorship enjoy exclusive rights in them, and are entitled to 
bargain in the marketplace to sell those rights. In almost all other 
areas of the television industry, those bedrock principles work well. 
Indeed, virtually all of the programming that we enjoy on both 
broadcast and nonbroadcast stations is produced under that free market 
regime. Because exclusive rights and marketplace bargaining are so 
fundamental to copyright law, we should depart from those principles 
only when necessary and only to the most limited possible degree. 
Statutory licenses represent a departure from these bedrock principles, 
and should be construed as narrowly as possible.
  Reflecting the need to keep such departures narrow, the existing 
Satellite Home Viewer Act permits network station signals to be 
retransmitted only to a narrowly defined group of ``unserved 
households,'' i.e., those located in places, almost always remote rural 
areas, in which over-the-air signals are simply too weak to be picked 
up with a correctly oriented, properly functioning conventional rooftop 
antenna. The definition of an ``unserved household'' continues to be 
the same as it is in the current statute, i.e., a household that cannot 
receive, through the use of a properly working, stationary outdoor 
rooftop antenna that is pointed toward the transmitter, a signal of at 
least Grade B intensity as defined in Section 73.683(a) of the FCC's 
rules. The courts have already interpreted this provision and nothing 
in the Act changes that definition. The ``Grade B intensity'' standard 
is and has always been an ``objective'' signal strength standard--not, 
as some satellite carriers claimed, a subjective picture quality 
standard. (In fact, as the courts have discussed, Congress expressly 
rejected a subjective standard in first enacting the statute in 1988.) 
The objective Grade B intensity standard has long been used by the FCC 
and the television engineering community to determine the level of 
signal strength needed to provide an acceptable television picture to 
median, unbiased observers. Few, if any, subscribers in urban and 
suburban areas qualify as ``unserved'' under this objective, easy-to-
administer definition.
  The existing compulsory license for ``unserved households,'' was not, 
however, designed to enable local TV stations to be retransmitted to 
their own local viewers. Congress has never before been asked to create 
such a license, because technological limitations made the local-to-
local business unthinkable in 1988 and even in 1994, when Congress 
passed the first extension of the Satellite Home Viewer Act. Today, 
however, local-to-local service is no longer unthinkable. In fact, two 
satellite companies, DirecTV and EchoStar, stand ready to offer that 
service, at least in a limited number of markets, immediately.
  To help local viewers in North Carolina and across the country, and 
to assist satellite companies in competing with cable, I have worked 
with my colleagues to help craft a new copyright statutory license that 
will enable local-to-local retransmissions. Today, we can finally 
celebrate the fruits of our efforts over many months of hard work and 
negotiation. The bill before the House reflects a carefully calibrated 
set of provisions that will, for the first time, authorize TV stations 
to be retransmitted by satellite to the viewers in their own local 
markets.
  The bill will also extend, essentially unchanged, the current distant 
signal compulsory license in Section 119 of the Copyright Act. The only 
significant changes to that provision are that (1) the mandatory 90 day 
waiting period for cable subscribers will no longer be part of the law; 
(2) royalty rates for distant signals will be reduced from the 
marketplace rates currently in effect; (3) a limited, specifically 
defined category of subscribers subject to recent court orders will 
have delayed termination dates under the bill; (4) the bill will limit 
the number of distant signals that a satellite carrier may deliver even 
to ``unserved households''; and (5) the bill will require satellite 
carriers to purchase rooftop antennas for certain subscribers whose 
service has been turned off by court order. Except for these specific 
changes in Section 119, nothing in the law we are passing today will 
take away any of the rights and remedies available to the plaintiffs in 
copyright infringement litigation against satellite carriers. Nor will 
anything in the bill (other than the specific provisions I have just 
mentioned) require any change whatsoever in the manner in which the 
courts have enforced Section 119.

  I trust that the courts will continue to vigorously enforce the 
Copyright Act against those who seek to pretend it does not apply to 
them, including any satellite companies that have not yet been subject 
to injunctive relief for infringements they have committed. Indeed, the 
very premise on which Congress creates statutory licenses is that the 
limitations on those licenses will be strictly respected; when 
satellite carriers go beyond those limitations, they not only infringe 
copyrights, but destroy the premise on which Congress agreed to create 
the statutory license in the first place.
  I want to say a word about the ``white area'' problem and about the 
delayed terminations of certain categories of subscribers. In 
particular, I want to express my extreme displeasure with the conduct 
by the satellite industry over the past few years. It is apparent, and 
at least two courts have found in final judgments (one affirmed on 
appeal), that satellite companies have purposely and deliberately 
violated the Copyright Act in selling these distant network signal 
packages to customers who are obviously unqualified. Those decisions 
have correctly and properly applied the Copyright Act. Whether or not 
satellite companies like the law, they have no right to merely 
disregard it. The ``turnoff'' crisis was caused by the satellite 
industry, not the Congress, and I do not appreciate having an industry 
take innocent consumers as hostages, which is what has happened here.
  Now we as members of Congress, have been asked to fix this problem 
created by satellite industry lawbreaking. The bill reflects the 
conferees' best effort to find a solution to a problem that the 
satellite industry has created by signing up millions of ineligible 
customers. Unfortunately, the solution the conferees have devised--
temporary grandfathering of certain categories of ineligible 
subscribers--may seem to amount to rewarding the satellite industry for 
its own wrongdoing. I find this very troubling, even though I 
understand the impetus to protect consumers who have been misled by 
satellite companies into believing that essentially everyone is 
eligible for distant network signals. In any event, let me be very 
clear: with the exception of delayed termination dates for certain 
subscribers, nothing in this bill in any way relieves any satellite 
company from any remedy whatsoever for any lawbreaking, past or future, 
in which they may engage. To list just a few, nothing in the bill will 
relieve any satellite carrier from any court order (a) requiring 
immediate termination of ineligible small-dish subscribers predicted to 
receive Grade A intensity signals from any station of the relevant 
network, (b) requiring strict compliance with the Grade B intensity 
standard for all signups after the date of the court order, (c) 
requiring the payment of attorney's fees pursuant to Section 5.5 of the 
Copyright Act or payment for testing costs pursuant to Section 
119(a)(9), or (d) imposing any statutorily mandated remedy for any 
willful or repeated pattern or practice of violations committed by a 
particular satellite carrier. Congress has determined the outer limits 
of permissible grandfathering in this bill, and courts

[[Page H12814]]

need not entertain an arguments for additional grandfathering. And I 
should emphasize that the only subscribers that may have service 
restored pursuant to the grandfathering provisions of this Act are 
those that have had their service terminated as a result of court 
orders, and not for any other reason.
  As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property 
of the House Judiciary Committee, I also want to make clear that 
Congress is not in any way finding fault with the manner in which the 
federal courts have enforced the Satellite Home Viewer Act. To the 
contrary, the courts (including the United States District Court for 
the Middle District of North Carolina, the Fourth Circuit, and the 
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida) have 
done an admirable job in correctly carrying out the intent of Congress 
which established a strictly objective eligibility standard that 
applied to only a tiny fraction of American television households. 
Although the conferees have reluctantly decided to deal with the 
unlawful signups by postponing cutoffs of certain specified categories 
of consumers, that prospective legislative decision--to which Congress 
is resorting because of the no-win situation created by past satellite 
industry lawbreaking--does not reflect any criticism whatsoever of the 
federal courts. And I should emphasize that we have re-enacted, intact, 
the procedural and remedial provisions of Section 119, including, for 
example, the ``burden of proof'' and ``pattern or practice'' provisions 
that have been important in litigation under the Act.
  The bill will require satellite carriers that have turned off 
ineligible subscribers pursuant to court decisions under section 119 to 
provide those subscribers with a free rooftop antenna enabling them to 
receive local stations over the air. This provision may redress, to 
some degree, the unfairness of appearing to reward satellite carriers 
for their own lawbreaking. The free-antenna provision is a pure matter 
of fairness to consumers, who were told, falsely, that they could 
receive distant network signals based on saying ``I don't like my TV 
picture'' over the telephone. I trust that many North Carolinians will 
benefit from the satellite carriers' compliance with this important 
remedial provision.
  I should briefly discuss the addition of the word ``stationary'' to 
the phrase ``conventional outdoor rooftop receiving antenna'' in 
Section 119(d)(10) of the Copyright Act. As the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Judiciary 
Committee, which has jurisdiction over copyright matters, and as the 
original sponsor of this legislation, I want to stress that this one-
word change to the Copyright Act does not require (or even permit) any 
change in the methods used by the courts to enforce the ``unserved 
household'' limitation of Section 119. The new language says only that 
the test is whether a ``stationary'' antenna can pick up a Grade B 
intensity signal; although some may have wished otherwise, it does not 
say that the antenna is to be improperly oriented (i.e., pointed away 
from the TV transmitter in question). To read the Act in that way would 
be extraordinarily hypocritical, since ``stationary'' satellite 
antennas themselves must be perfectly oriented to get any reception at 
all. In any event, the Act provides controlling guidance about antenna 
orientation in Section 119(a)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the bill, which 
specifies that the FCC's existing procedures (requiring correct 
orientation) be followed. See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 73.686(d), Appendix B, at 
para. (2)(iv); see also FCC Report & Order, Dkt. No. 98-201, at para. 
59 (describing many precedents calling for correct orientation). A 
contrary reading would leave the Copyright Act with no fixed meaning at 
all, since while there is a single correct way to orient an antenna to 
receive a particular station (which is what the Act assumes), there are 
at least 359 wrong ways to do so as one moves in a circle away from the 
correct orientation.

  A contrary reading would also fly in the face of the text of the Act, 
which makes eligibility depend on whether a household ``cannot'' 
receive the signal of particular stations. The Act is clear: if a 
household could receive a signal of Grade B intensity with a properly 
oriented stationary rooftop antenna of a particular network affiliate 
station, the household is not ``unserved'' with respect to that 
network.
  The Copyright Act amendments also direct courts to continue to use 
the accurate consumer-friendly prediction and measurement tools 
developed by the FCC for determining whether particular households are 
served or unserved. I understand that the parties to court proceedings 
under Section 119 have already developed detailed protocols for 
applying those procedures, and nothing in today's legislation requires 
any change in those protocols. If the Commission is able to refine its 
already very accurate ``ILLR'' predictive model to make it even more 
accurate, the courts should apply those further refinements as well. 
But in the meantime, the courts should use the accurate, FCC-approved 
tools that are already available, in the same way in which they are 
doing now. As I mentioned, nothing in the Act requires any change 
whatsoever in the manner in which the courts are using those FCC-
endorsed scientific tools.
  The Act does authorize the Commission to make nonbinding suggestions 
about changes to the definition of Grade B intensity. (The definition 
of Grade B intensity is, of course, separate from FCC decisions 
concerning particular methods of measuring or predicting eligibility to 
receive network programming by satellite, as the FCC's February 1999 
SHVA Report and order discusses in detail.) Any suggestions from the 
FCC about the definition of Grade B intensity will have no legal effect 
whatsoever until and unless Congress acts on them and incorporates them 
into the Copyright Act.
  The conferees and many other members of this body have worked hard to 
achieve the carefully balanced bill now before the House. We have spent 
the better part of four years working with representatives of the 
broadcast, copyright, satellite, and cable industries fashioning 
legislation that is ultimately best for our constituents. The 
legislation before us today is not perfect, but it is a carefully 
balanced compromise. The real winners are our constituents, who can 
expect to enjoy local-to-local satellite delivery of their own hometown 
TV stations in more and more markets over the next few years.
  I want to thank the chairman of the committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), as well as the subcommittee ranking 
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for their support 
and leadership throughout this process. I also want to recognize the 
contributions of the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Bliley); the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell); the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley); and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who worked with us 
tirelessly to bring this to the Floor. Finally, I want to thank my 
fellow Subcommittee members, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte 
and Mr. Boucher) for their service on the committee of conference. I 
urge all Members to support this constituent-friendly legislation.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against the omnibus 
appropriations bill that is before us today. No respectable business 
would operate this way--and neither should our government.
  I did not come to Congress to engage in business as usual. The people 
of Kansas' Third District expect more of us. As Congress has done for 
too many years, today it will be voting on a bill estimated at 2,000 
pages, which no one in this chamber has read, or even had the 
opportunity to give a cursory review. We are asked to vote based upon 
sketchy summaries of a huge piece of legislation that was filed as a 
conference report at 3:00 a.m. this morning. Is it too much to ask that 
we have 24 hours to review and consider a $395 billion appropriations 
bill before voting? This bill has not even been printed or placed on-
line for our review or for the public's examination. This is wrong and 
none of us should be a party to it.
  But, more bothersome is that while the bill contains many programs 
which I have fought for and for which I would vote under normal 
circumstances, the bill is a lie and a cruel hoax on the American 
people. The majority claims they have not spent Social Security funds. 
Just the opposite is true.
  There are many things in this bill which I support: increased funding 
to reduce public school class sizes by hiring qualified teachers and 
funding teacher training; funding for the National Institutes of 
Health; payment of the United States' outstanding debt to the United 
Nations; increased funding for the hiring of new community police 
officers; additional funds to preserve and acquire open spaces and 
ecologically important lands; funds to help implement the Wye River 
Accord between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan; and funds 
for development in the world's poorest nations and supports an IMF 
proposal to revalue some of its gold reserves to finance debt 
forgiveness.
  There also, however, are a number of provisions in this bill which I 
oppose: a cut of $100 million in veterans' benefits; payment of the 
United Nations arrears is linked to unwarranted restrictions on 
international family planning funding; funding for the Army's School of 
the Americas, which has a dismal record of training personnel 
supporting past military dictatorships in Latin America, who have been 
engaged in gross human rights violations; and most importantly, this 
package has not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office; despite 
the majority's unsupported claims to the contrary, we really do not 
know what the ultimate impact will be upon Social Security funds. 
Indeed, of the three major offsets provided in this conference report, 
only one actually reduces expenditures. The other two--expediting 
transfers from the Treasury to the

[[Page H12815]]

Federal Reserve and delaying payments to our military personnel--are 
accounting gimmicks which start us in a hole in next year's budget 
process. This is not fiscally responsible and it does not protect 
Social Security.
  Additionally, other non-appropriations measures have been added to 
this omnibus package at the last possible minute. I would gladly 
support several of these bills if I had the opportunity to vote on them 
individually, under regular order. These bills include measures to: 
increase Medicare payments to hospitals, nursing homes, home health 
care agencies and other health care providers, providing some financial 
relief from the Medicare cuts imposed by the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997; allow satellite carriers to transmit the signals of local 
broadcast stations back to subscribers in the same local market and 
allows satellite subscribers scheduled to lose their distant signals at 
the end of the year to continue receiving them for five years; and 
preserve local, low power television stations when the broadcast 
industry upgrades to digital service.
  Under the rules of the House, Congress is supposed to consider 
thirteen appropriations bills for each fiscal year. Under normal 
procedures, those bills should come before the House individually, with 
opportunities for amendment and debate. After a conference report is 
negotiated, the House should then have the opportunity to vote on each 
bill, standing alone. Unfortunately, Congress has refused to follow its 
own rules.
  I have only been a member of this body for eleven months, but I 
understand that the rules and procedures of the House were put in place 
to protect the rights of all Members to represent fully the interests 
and concerns of our constituents. We cannot do so when we are 
confronted with an omnibus conference report which I am told is 
estimated at 2,000 pages, carries an overall price tag of $395 billion 
in fiscal year 2000 appropriations, and countless other provisions, 
whose consequences we cannot possibly know at this time.
  I will vote against this package today and I urge my colleagues to do 
likewise.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly against H.R. 3194, 
the District of Columbia Appropriations Conference report. While I 
support many of the provisions of this legislation, I cannot support 
any legislation which perpetuates the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
Compact and does not allow for the modest federal milk marketing order 
reforms to go into effect. While this legislation maintains a balanced 
budget and protects Social Security, which I strongly support, I simply 
cannot condone its treatment of Wisconsin farmers. I understand the 
plight of farmers in other regions of the country; however, passing 
this legislation in an effort to help them directly punishes the 
farmers in my district, in my state, and throughout the Midwest. This 
is completely unacceptable and therefore, I must vote against it.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment 
in the so-called compromise worked out between the White House and the 
Republican leadership on the payment of U.S. arrears to the United 
Nations.
  Do not be fooled by this slight of hand, there is no compromise. All 
this does is codify the Smith Mexico City policy in legislation for the 
first time and include a Presidential waiver that will result in a 
funding reduction. A funding reduction which will affect the healthcare 
of women and children around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. I support payment of our financial 
obligation to the United Nations one hundred and ten percent. In fact, 
I am ashamed that the United States has lost so much prestige in an 
institution we helped create, in an organization instilled with many of 
the values we in this country hold so dear.
  I am ashamed, Mr. Speaker, because the United States, which should be 
a respected leader in that world body has squandered its authority by 
not living up to its commitments. My Republican colleagues, as they've 
said so often, believe in moral leadership. Well, I ask them, where is 
the United States' moral leadership when we do not pay our fair share?
  Mr. Speaker, paying our U.N. dues is an important national security 
concern; almost no one disputes this. Former Secretaries of States, 
former Presidents and former Senate Majority Leaders have all expressed 
the critical need to pay our arrears. Sensing this urgency, some in 
this House have placed partisan political considerations above the very 
real security needs of our country by linking the issue of our payment 
to the U.N. to the global gag rule on international family planning. 
For several years now, this linkage has held up the payment of our 
dues. I would submit an editorial from the November 17, 1999 New York 
Times which eloquently addresses this issue.
  Now, some of my colleagues may question the harm in limiting the 
activities of international family planning organizations. Still others 
have deeply felt convictions on the issue of abortion and do not want 
to see U.S. taxpayer's funds pay for abortions. Not only do I 
sympathize with these sentiments, I agree with them. And that is 
exactly why I oppose the codification of the Smith Mexico City policy.
  First, U.S. law rightly prohibits, in no uncertain terms, the use of 
U.S. funds to pay for an abortion, lobby for abortions, and coerce 
someone into having an abortion or purchase supplies or equipment to 
perform an abortion. And, no one has ever been able to show any U.S. 
funds used for this cause. Placing restrictions on the ability of 
foreign groups to use their own funds to participate in the democratic 
process and make their voices heard by their own governments is a 
violation of the sacred American right of free speech. This is just one 
way which this gag rule will prevent these organizations from doing 
their work to protect the health of families.
  Second, the best means of preventing the instances of abortions 
overseas is to promote access to family planning services. Families 
that are in control and informed about their options are less likely to 
need or seek abortions. International family planning agencies around 
the world are committed to providing accurate information to families 
about their healthcare needs, from stopping the abhorrent practice of 
female genital mutilation to proper spacing of children to protect the 
health and well-being of mothers and children. Any reduction in these 
already under funded organizations, as this deal will ultimately result 
in, means that real women around the world will not have access to the 
basic medical information needed to raise their families in a healthy 
manner.
  Mr. Speaker, while I am disappointed in this agreement, I am outraged 
that the will of a majority of the House was pushed aside to placate a 
few obstructionists who oppose providing access to family planning 
programs. In a historic compromise, the House included an amendment to 
the FY 2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, offered by 
Congressman Jim Greenwood and Congresswoman Nita Lowey, which provides 
an acceptable bipartisan and majority supported alternative set of 
restrictions on U.S. funds for international family planning. The 
Greenwood/Lowey compromise includes: a requirement that international 
family planning organizations use U.S. funds to reduce the incidences 
of abortions; it allows only foreign organizations which are in 
compliance with its own countries abortion laws to receive U.S. funds; 
and, it bars family planning aid from organizations which are in 
violation of their country's laws on lobbying or advocacy activities.
  As I stated, a majority in the House supported this compromise, but 
the Republican leadership chose to ignore it. By ignoring the will of 
the House and codifying the Smith Mexico City policy, we set a 
dangerous precedent that will only serve to hurt women and families 
around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that this provision was included in the 
Omnibus package which has so many other worthwhile programs. Funding 
for 100,000 teachers to help reduce class size, money for the COPS 
program, which keeps police on the beat and crime down, as well as 
other critical priorities supported by myself, my colleagues and a 
majority of Americans. Because of the inclusion of these key 
priorities, which will benefit the lives of every American, I will 
support this Omnibus package. However, I plan to work with my 
colleagues next year to restore the funding cuts that will result from 
this so-called compromise.

                [From The New York Times, Nov. 17, 1999]

                       A Costly Deal on U.N. Dues

       President Clinton paid a regrettably high price to win the 
     House Republican leadership's assent to give almost $1 
     billion in back American dues to the United Nations. Last 
     weekend, White House bargainers agreed to new statutory 
     language restricting international family planning assistance 
     that the administration had firmly and rightly resisted in 
     the past. Understandably, advocates for women's health and 
     reproductive choice, even including Vice President Gore, 
     bemoaned that damaging concession and questioned its 
     necessity.
       Nevertheless, House approval of the U.N. arrears payments, 
     assuming that final details of the agreement can be worked 
     out and sold to the Republican rank and file, will be a 
     significant achievement. Failure to pay these assessments had 
     undermined the finances of the U.N., weakened American 
     influence there and put Washington's voting rights in the 
     General Assembly at risk. The United States cannot exercise 
     global leadership unless it honors its financial obligations. 
     Nor can Washington reasonably expect other countries to 
     consider Congressional demands for lower American dues 
     assessments in the future until it pays off most of the dues 
     it already owes.
       To get the U.N. money approved, the White House compromised 
     on an important issue of principle, and may have encouraged 
     radical anti-abortion crusaders to expand their assault on 
     abortion rights. Under the newly agreed language, foreign 
     family planning organizations that spend their own money to 
     provide abortions or lobby for less harsh abortion laws will 
     now be legally ineligible for American assistance.

[[Page H12816]]

       As part of the compromise, the administration won the right 
     to waive this restriction if it chooses. But even with the 
     waiver, no more than $15 million in American assistance can 
     be given to organizations engaged in abortion services or 
     lobbying. That is about the amount such groups got last year. 
     Another part of the deal stipulates that if the 
     administration exercises the waiver the $385 million budgeted 
     for aid to women's health groups will be reduced by $12.5 
     million.
       The practical effect of these restrictions is likely to be 
     small, at least for as long as the Clinton administration is 
     in office and invokes the waiver provision. But there is no 
     disguising the political victory it hands the anti-abortion 
     crusaders in the House who were willing to hold American 
     foreign policy to their ideological agenda. Although part of 
     only a one-year spending bill, the language is likely to 
     reappear in future years unless a majority of House members 
     vote to exclude it.
       Senate Republicans, including committed abortion foes like 
     Senator Jesse Helms, behaved more responsibly than their 
     House colleagues on this issue. But the House obstructionists 
     held firm, faced down the White House and walked away with a 
     disturbingly large share of what they wanted.

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Foreign 
Operations Conference Report and I applaud the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee for joining together and bringing to the floor a bill to 
make the world a better place.
  This is a good resolution, however I believe it fails to provide an 
adequate amount of funds for Sub-Saharan African nations, the most 
needy nations of the world. U.S. leadership and support are critical to 
the growth of Africa. In the past, our diplomatic efforts and bilateral 
aid programs have given significant stimulus to democracy-building and 
economic development. Our contributions leveraged with those of other 
donations to the programs of the World Bank and in Sub-Saharan Africa 
have reinforced economic policy reforms and infrastructure development 
across the continent.
  The increase aid and debt relief for Sub-Saharan Africa has 
significant implications for U.S. interests. First, the progress 
realized to date, has stimulated growing interest and opportunities for 
U.S. business. Second, the emergence of more stable, more democratic 
governments has given us responsible partners with whom we can address 
the full range of regional and international issues: settling or 
preventing conflicts; combating crime, narcotics, terrorism, and 
weapons proliferation; protecting and managing the global environment; 
and expanding the global economy.
  We must maximize our current efforts to protect and develop the vital 
human and physical resources that are necessary to drive economic 
prosperity in Sub-Saharan Africa. By increasing Sub-Saharan Africa aid 
and debt relief, we will ensure that the United States continues to be 
constructively engaged with the people of Africa. It's my hope as we 
approach the time to deliberate over a new Foreign Operations 
Conference Report we sincerely increase aid and debt relief to these 
needy nations. Again, I strongly support the Foreign Operations 
Conference Report and urge all members to vote yes.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, the victory we have achieved on debt relief 
is arguably the most important legislative action the Congress has 
taken this year, and brings real hope to the world's poorest people and 
countries. It marks an important victory for all of those committed to 
reducing poverty and improving the standards of living in the world's 
highly indebted poor countries.
  It is a victory for Pope John Paul II, who has said:
  ``Christians will have to raise their voice on behalf of all the poor 
of the world, proposing the jubilee as an appropriate time to give 
thought, among other things, to reducing substantially, if not 
cancelling outright, the international debt which seriously threatens 
the future of many nations.''
  It is a victory for Bread for the World and Oxfam who have pressed 
consistently and effectively for ``using U.S. leadership 
internationally to provide deeper and faster debt relief to more 
countries, and directing the proceeds of debt relief to poverty 
reduction.''
  It is a victory for the United Church of Christ, which has termed 
debt relief ``one of the foremost economic, humanitarian and moral 
challenges of our time'' (John H. Thomas, President).
  It is a victory for the Episcopal Church, which has emphasized that 
``closely linked with this notion of Jubilee is our heritage of caring 
for the poor and needy. . . . We must seize this historic opportunity 
to take moral action, grounded in Scripture and our compassion for 
those in need.'' (Bishop Francis Campbell Gray)
  It is a victory for the U.S. Catholic Conference which has stated 
``we cannot let the new millennium begin without offering hope to 
millions of poor people in some of the world's most impoverished 
countries that the crushing burden of external debt will soon be 
relieved.''
  Had it not been for the concerted effort of the Jubilee 2000 
Movement, including the nongovernmental private and voluntary 
organizations (NGOs) and the ecumenical array of church and faith-based 
organizations that have been pushing so hard for debt relief, we would 
never have gotten to this point. The following organizations and many 
others fully share in this victory and I am truly grateful for their 
efforts: the U.S. Catholic Conference, Bread for the World, Church 
World Service, The Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in 
America, Lutheran World Relief, National Council of Churches, Oxfam 
America, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, United 
Methodist Church, American Jewish World Service, and the Catholic 
Relief Service.
  In enacting this legislation, we have responded to a moral and a 
practical imperative. The increasingly wide gap between the world's 
richest and poorest is both unjust and unsustainable. The economic 
prosperity the developed world now enjoys certainly imposes a 
concomitant obligation to help the less fortunate. But this debt relief 
agreement is also sound and prudent economic policy. The severe 
economic and social dislocation, and resulting political instability in 
the world's poorest countries will inevitably impact the developed 
world if it is not addressed.
  Ever since the LDC debt crisis of the early 1980s, I have authored 
and pressed for passage of debt relief legislation. As part of those 
efforts, I have repeatedly urged and authored bills to mobilize the 
resources inherent in IMF gold holdings. Today I am particularly 
pleased because the debt relief provisions of the omnibus bill 
substantially reflect the Banking Committee reported version of H.R, 
1095, the debt relief bill I introduced in March of this year. The 
agreement represents major victories for us in the following areas:
  All bilateral debt of highly indebted poor countries will be totally 
cancelled;
  Fundamental reforms have been made to the IMF and World Bank 
programs, and the relationship between those programs, to ensure a 
primary emphasis on poverty reduction rather than structural 
adjustment;
  Mobilization of IMF gold using a revaluation rather than a sale, and 
using the resulting monies only for debt relief rather than structural 
adjustment, has been specifically authorized;
  Greater transparency has been assured in regard to Paris Club 
deliberations on multilateral debt reduction (an informal forum where 
mainly industrial creditor countries discuss the settlement of official 
loans to countries unable to meet their debt service obligations);
  Senate efforts to impose unreasonable trade policies on recipient 
countries, which would have severely restricted debt relief efforts, 
have been defeated.
  All of these achievements reflect priorities and emphases of the bill 
reported by the Banking Committee.
  While we should enjoy this victory, we must not lose sight of the 
fact that much more remains to be done. The agreement does not contain 
money for the HIPC Trust Fund, nor are such funds authorized. While the 
agreement provides for $123 million for bilateral debt relief for FY 
2000, the Administration had requested $370 million, and is seeking 
$970 million over the next four years. We need to fully meet that 
standard. Finally, the agreement provides for use of a large portion of 
the resources coming from revaluation of the IMF gold for debt 
reduction, but still only a portion.
  I am fully committed to pressing the Congress to begin early next 
year to meet these needs and finish the good work we have started.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 1095, the 
``Debt Relief for Poverty Reduction Act of 1999.'' This legislation has 
strong bipartisan support with over 130 cosponsors. Providing debt 
relief for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) (ie. countries with 
debt 220% higher than their annual exports or debt greater than 80% of 
their GNP), is a crucial form of foreign aid desperately needed by the 
citizens of these countries.
  The United States won the Cold War not only through military 
expenditures, but also through foreign aid to countries that were 
targeted by pro-communist forces. Many of these countries were, at 
best, only beginning to evolve toward democracy and some were governed 
by autocrats who wasted these U.S. funds. Now future generations in 
these countries are saddled by these overwhelming debts making it 
difficult to provide for their basic human needs--food, clothing, 
medicine, and shelter. There is a consensus in the global community and 
among creditors from all sectors that some relief must be provided if 
these countries are to be able to meet the basic human needs to their 
citizens and grow their economies in their future.
  Whenever debt relief is debated, there is always cause for concern 
that creditors create a ``moral hazard'' when they forgive the debts of 
others. The forgiveness of debt can encourage debtors not to pay back 
interest on loans in

[[Page H12817]]

the future. However, in this circumstance, it is important to 
distinguish that the debt burden these countries face is so great that 
it would be impossible for them to repay. This is a form of 
international bankruptcy for these countries. The international 
community has recognized that conditions are so bad in these countries 
that future loans are not likely. Rather, grants are and will continue 
to be the form of assistance these countries receive.
  As a strong fiscal conservative, I am cautious of programs that 
simply throw money at a problem. I believe government programs must be 
carefully structured to maximize efficiency and minimize waste in 
solving a problem. As originally drafted, H.R. 1095 contained measures 
conditioning debt relief on economic reforms in these countries. 
History has proven time and gain that free market capitalism maximizes 
efficiency and economic growth better than any other market system. 
Helping these countries move to a free market capitalism system is its 
own form of foreign aid in addition to foreign aid grants or debt 
relief. In fact, teaching foreign countries that the market is the most 
efficient way to allocate scarce resources is the only form of foreign 
aid that is truly lasting. Transitioning to a new market system is 
never easy. Change is always resisted by those empowered by the status 
quo. If the ``carrot'' of debt relief can be used to overcome the 
status quo in these countries in order to guide them to lasting relief, 
then Congress should structure this debt relief program to accomplish 
this goal. Unfortunately, these economic reform conditions were amended 
out of the original text during the House Banking Committee Markup.
  Mr. Speaker, although I continue to support H.R. 1095, it is my 
intention to support efforts to restore the economic reform conditions 
before its final passage in the House.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of S. 1948, 
which will be enacted by reference upon the enactment of H.R. 3194. S. 
1948, the ``Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act 
of 1999,'' concludes years of hard work and compromise. We spent 
considerable time balancing the interests of our constituents, 
intellectual property owners, satellite carriers, local broadcasters, 
and independent inventors in formulating this legislation. We have 
spent the past five years working on this legislation, and I can say 
without hesitation that this is a very good bill. This legislation will 
have a tremendously beneficial affect on the citizens of this country, 
whether they are subscribers to satellite television, inventors, brand 
owners, or Internet users. Title I of S. 1948, the ``Satellite Home 
Viewer Improvements Act,'' creates a new copyright license for local 
signals over satellite and makes necessary changes to the other 
television copyright licenses.
  We have all been concerned about a lack of competition in the multi-
channel television industry and what that means in terms of prices and 
services to our constituents. This bill gives the satellite industry a 
new copyright license with the ability to compete on a more even 
playing field, thereby giving consumers a choice.
  With this competition in mind, the legislation before us makes the 
following changes to the Satellite Home Viewers Act.
  1.  It reauthorizes the satellite copyright compulsory license for 
five years.
  2.  It allows new satellite customers who have received a network 
signal from a cable system within the past three months to sign up 
immediately for satellite service for those signals. This is not 
allowed today.
  3.  It provides a discount for the copyright fees paid by the 
satellite carriers.
  4.  It allows satellite carriers to retransmit a local television 
station to households within that station's local market, just like 
cable does.
  5. Protects existing subscribers from having their distant network 
service shut off at the end of the year and protects all C-band 
customers from having their network service shut off entirely.
  6. It allows satellite carriers to rebroadcast a national signal of 
the Public Broadcasting Service.
  7. It empowers the FCC to conduct a rulemaking to determine 
appropriate standards for satellite carriers concerning which customers 
should be allowed to receive distant network signals.
  The satellite legislation before us today is a balanced approach. It 
is not perfect, like most pieces of legislation, but is a carefully 
balanced compromise. For instance, I am extremely disappointed the 
rural loan guarantee program was deleted from this legislation. We 
included those provisions in our original Conference Report to 
accompany H.R. 1554 to ensure all citizens, particularly those who live 
in small or rural communities, will receive the benefit of the new 
local-to-local service. I pledge I will do everything I can to ensure 
those provisions are acted upon early in the next session of Congress.
  Additionally, language clarifying the application and eligibility of 
these compulsory licenses has also been deleted from this version of 
the legislation. This is not to be interpreted to indicate any change 
in the application of the cable or satellite compulsory licenses as 
they applied before the enactment of this legislation. The copyright 
compulsory licenses were created by Congress to address specific needs 
of a specific industry. Any further application of a compulsory license 
will be decided by Congress, not by an industry or a court. I am 
incorporating in this statement letters from the Register of 
Copyrights, Marybeth Peters, and from the Chairman and Ranking Members 
of the Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property and from Professor Arthur R. Miller of the 
Harvard Law School which accurately restate the eligibility and 
interpretation of the copyright compulsory licenses. I am also 
enclosing extended remarks which express my views concerning the 
legislative history for the ``Intellectual Property and Communications 
Omnibus Reform Act of 1999.''
  On balance, this is a very good piece of legislation and I urge all 
Members to support this constituent-friendly legislation.
         Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, 
           Committee on the Judiciary,
                                Washington, DC, November 15, 1999.
     Hon. Tom Bliley,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bliley. Thank you for your letter concerning 
     sections 1005(e) and 1011(c) of the conference report on the 
     Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act 
     (``IPCORA'').
       We do not believe there is any question about the current 
     state of the law: Internet and similar digital online 
     communications services are not, and have never been, 
     eligible to claim the cable copyright compulsory license or 
     satellite copyright compulsory license created by sections 
     111 and 119 of the Copyright Act, respectively. The cable 
     copyright license was created in 1976 specifically to apply 
     to the nature of the cable industry. The satellite license 
     was created in 1988 specifically to apply to the nature of 
     the satellite industry. It should be noted that the satellite 
     industry could not avail itself of the cable license, because 
     that license was created specifically for cable. It had to 
     seek its own government license. The Internet services 
     industry is not cable, nor is it satellite. It provides a new 
     type of service which has not been considered by the Congress 
     for purposes of a copyright compulsory license. Consequently, 
     the Internet services industry may not avail itself of the 
     cable copyright license or the satellite copyright license. 
     If such a government imposed license is to apply to such 
     services, it must be created by Congress specifically for 
     those services.
       To my knowledge, no court, administrative agency, or 
     authoritative commentator has ever held or even intimated to 
     the contrary. The Copyright Office, which administers these 
     compulsory licenses, studied this issue exhaustively in 1997 
     and came to the same conclusion, which it reaffirmed in a 
     letter this week. The conference provisions to which you 
     object simply codify this well-established principle, nothing 
     more.
       Compulsory licenses constitute government regulation of 
     private ownership, and therefore, like any other restriction 
     on property, must be extended only with specific 
     congressional action after considered deliberation. They are 
     not flexible, nor are they to be interpreted to evolve to 
     accommodate new situations. Government regulation of property 
     is not to be decided by a court, but rather by Congress 
     itself. Placing restrictions on property or preserving an 
     ``opportunity'' for someone to make a case to an agency or 
     court to take property without authorization is not proper 
     under the law, or is it proper in the context of this 
     conference.
       A compulsory license is not an entitlement, but a specific 
     public policy determination by Congress in response to a 
     specific demonstrated need. Whether online services should 
     have the benefit of a compulsory license to retransmit 
     certain copyrighted materials without the permission of the 
     copyright owner must be considered on its own merits after a 
     need is demonstrated to the Congress. If Congress is to 
     examine such a request, it must do so on the basis of a 
     complete record, not in the haste of the closing hours of a 
     session. Of course, nothing that is included in or omitted 
     from the IPCORA conference report (or any other pending 
     legislation) could possibly foreclose Congress from 
     undertaking that examination in the future. Thus, any 
     implication that approval of the conference report would 
     ``permanently'' rule out any compulsory license for online 
     services is unfounded. We are sure you did not intend to 
     suggest otherwise.
       Any resolution that we may adopt in the future does not 
     change the current law which requires that issues concerning 
     the dissemination of copyright materials over digital online 
     communications services must be addressed and resolved in the 
     marketplace, as no compulsory license currently exists for 
     such services. Nothing prevents Internet services from 
     negotiating directly with owners of copyrights regarding any 
     of the exclusive rights guaranteed under section 106 of the 
     Copyright Act pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 8 of 
     the Constitution.
       We are currently prepared to consider other means of 
     expressing the same conclusion in statutory language, but one 
     way or

[[Page H12818]]

     the other it is essential that we spell out unambiguously 
     what the law now is. To do otherwise would sow confusion and 
     risk encouraging defiance of the law, and would undermine the 
     well-settled property rights of a key sector of the U.S. 
     economy, the copyright industries. Most significantly, it 
     would also be a disservice to our common goal of encouraging 
     the widespread dissemination of copyrighted material through 
     all available technologies. We stand ready to work with you 
     to avoid that outcome.
           Sincerely,
     Henry J. Hyde,
       Chairman.
     John Conyers, Jr.,
       Ranking Democratic Member.
     Howard Coble,
       Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
     Howard Berman,
       Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Courts and 
     Intellectual Property.
                                  ____

                                              Library of Congress,


                                                Department 17,

                                Washington, DC, November 10, 1999.
     Hon. Howard Coble,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, 
         Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Coble. I am writing to you today 
     concerning pending proposals regarding the Satellite Home 
     Viewer Act, and particularly the compulsory copyright 
     licenses addressed by that Act. As the director of the 
     Copyright Office, the agency responsible for implementing the 
     compulsory licenses, I have followed the actions of the 
     Congress with great interest.
       Let me begin by thanking you for all your hard work and 
     dedication on these issues, and by congratulating you on your 
     success in achieving a balanced compromise. Taken as a whole, 
     the Conference Report on H.R. 1554, the Intellectual Property 
     and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, represents a 
     clear step forward for the protection of intellectual 
     property. I particularly appreciate your support for 
     provisions that improve the ability of the Copyright Office 
     to administer its duties and protect copyrights and related 
     rights.
       I was greatly concerned when I heard the statements of 
     Members on the floor of the House suggesting that in the 
     final few legislative days of this session, subsection 
     1011(c) of the Conference Report should be amended or 
     removed. Section 1011(c) makes unmistakable what is already 
     true, that the compulsory license for secondary transmissions 
     of television broadcast signals by cable systems does not 
     apply to digital on-line communication services.
       It is my understanding that some services that wish to 
     retransmit television programming over the Internet have 
     asserted that they are entitled to do so pursuant to to the 
     compulsory license of section 111 of Title 17. I find this 
     assertion to be without merit. The section 111 license, 
     created 23 years ago in the Copyright Act of 1976, was 
     tailored to a heavily-regulated industry subject to 
     requirements such as must-carry, programming exclusivity, and 
     signal quota rules--issues that have also arisen in the 
     context of the satellite compulsory license. Congress has 
     properly concluded that the Internet should be largely free 
     of regulation, but the lack of such regulation makes the 
     Internet a poor candidate for a compulsory license that 
     depends so heavily on such restrictions. I believe that the 
     section 111 license does not and should not apply to Internet 
     transmissions.
       I also question the desirability of permitting any existing 
     or future compulsory license for Internet retransmissions of 
     primary television broadcast signals. In my comprehensive 
     August 1, 1997 report to Congress, A Review of the Copyright 
     Licensing Regimes Covering Retransmission of Broadcast 
     Signals, Internet transmissions were addressed in chapter 
     VIII, entitled ``Should the Cable Compulsory License Be 
     Extended to the Internet?'' The report concluded that it was 
     inappropriate to ``besto[w] the benefits of compulsory 
     licensing on an industry so vastly different from the other 
     retransmission industries now eligible for compulsory 
     licensing under the Copyright Act.''
       The report observed that ``Copyright owners, broadcasters, 
     and cable interests alike strongly oppose . . . arguments for 
     the Interest retransmitters' eligibility for any compulsory 
     license. These commenters uniformly decry that the 
     instantaneous worldwide dissemination of broadcast signals 
     via the Internet poses major issues regarding the United 
     States and international licensing of the signals, and that 
     it would be premature for Congress to legislate a copyright 
     compulsory license to benefit Internet retransmitters at this 
     time.'' The Copyright Office believes that there would be 
     serious international implications if the United States were 
     to permit statutory licensing of Internet transmission of 
     television broadcasts.
       Therefore I urge that no action be taken to remove or alter 
     section 1011(c) of the Conference Report. At this point, to 
     do so could be construed as a statement that digital on-line 
     communication services are eligible for the section 111 
     license. Such a conclusion would be reinforced in light of 
     section 1011(a)(1), which replaces the term ``cable system'' 
     in section 111 of Title 17 with the term ``terrestrial 
     system.'' In the absence of section 1011(c), section 
     1011(a)(1) might incorrectly be construed as implying a 
     broadening of the section 111 license to include Internet 
     transmissions.
       The Internet is unlike any other medium of communication 
     the world has ever known. The application of copyright law to 
     that medium is of utmost importance, and I know that you have 
     personally invested a great deal of time and energy in recent 
     years to assure that a balance of interests is reached. 
     Permitting Internet retransmission of television broadcasts 
     pursuant to the section 111 compulsory license would pose a 
     serious threat to that balance.
       Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any 
     assistance on this matter. Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Marybeth Peters,
     Register of Copyrights.
                                  ____



                                           Harvard Law School,

                                 Cambridge, MA, November 15, 1999.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairmen Hatch and Hyde: I am writing to you to 
     express my views on a proposal to amend the cable and 
     satellite compulsory licenses in Sections 111 and 119 of the 
     Copyright Act. I have taught Copyright Law at Harvard Law 
     School, as well as Michigan and Minnesota, for over thirty-
     five years and have written extensively and lectured 
     throughout the world on this area of the law. In addition, I 
     was very active in the legislative process that led to the 
     Copyright Act of 1976 and appointed by President Ford and 
     served as a Commissioner on the Commission for New 
     Technological Uses of Copyright Works (CONTU).
       The Conference Report on H.R. 1554, the Intellectual 
     Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, 
     included amendments to Sections 111 and 119 to state 
     explicitly that digital online communication services do not 
     fall within the definitions of ``satellite carrier'' and 
     ``terrestrial system'' (currently ``cable system'') and, 
     therefore, are not eligible for either compulsory license. I 
     understand that Congress is currently considering deleting 
     these amendments or enacting legislation that would not 
     include them. I believe that the amendments were wholly 
     unnecessary and that the deletion or exclusion of them will 
     have no effect on the law, which is absolutely clear digital 
     online communication services are not entitled to the 
     statutory license under either Section 111 or Section 119 of 
     the Copyright Act.
       A compulsory license is an extraordinary departure from the 
     basic principles underlying copyright law and a substantial 
     and significant encroachment on a copyright owners' rights. 
     Therefore, any embiguity in the applicability of a compulsory 
     license should be resolved against those seeking to take 
     advantage of what was intended to be a very narrow extension 
     to the copyright proprietor's exclusive rights. As the Fifth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals has noted in a case involving 
     another compulsory license: the compulsory license provision 
     is a limited exception to the copyright holder's exclusive 
     right to decide who shall make use of his [work]. As such, it 
     must be construed narrowly, lest the exception destroy, 
     rather than prove, the rule.
       Fame Publishing Co. v. Alabama Custom Tape, Inc., 507 F.2d 
     667, 670 (5th Cir. 1975).
       In this situation, however, there is absolutely no 
     ambiguity as to the correct construction of the cable and 
     satellite compulsory licenses. Neither the language of the 
     Copyright Act, nor any statement of Congressional intent at 
     the time of their enactment, nor any judicial interpretation 
     of Section III or Section 119 in any way suggests that these 
     compulsory licenses could apply to digital online 
     communication services. And, as far as I know. the 
     representative of these services have not offered any 
     substantive argument to the contrary--with good reason. No 
     reasonable person--or court--could interpret these statutory 
     licenses to embrace these services.
       And if there was any doubt left in anyone's mind, the 
     federal agency charged with interpreting and implementing 
     these statutory licenses, the United States Copyright Office, 
     has addressed this issue directly: retransmitting broadcast 
     signals by way of the Internet is clearly outside the scope 
     of the current compulsory licenses. In fact, the Copyright 
     Office recommended in 1997 that Congress not even create a 
     new compulsory license, concluding that it would be 
     ``inappropriate for Congress to grant Internet retransmitters 
     the benefits of compulsory licensing.'' See U.S. Copyright 
     Office. A Review of the Copyright Licensing Regimes Covering 
     Retransmission of Broadcast Signals (August 1, 1997), at 99 
     and Executive Summary at xiii.
       My work in the field of copyright over the past decades, 
     especially my extensive activities in connection with the 
     development of the legislation that became the Copyright Act 
     of 1976, leads me to agree with the Office's conclusions that 
     it would be far too premature to extend a compulsory license 
     to the Internet. That conclusion seems sound given the 
     enormous differences between the Internet and the industries 
     embraced by the existing licensing provisions and the need to 
     engage in extensive research and analysis regarding the 
     potentially enormous implications of digital communications. 
     We simply

[[Page H12819]]

     do not know enough to legislate effectively at this point. 
     Doing so at this time--especially without hearing from 
     numerous affected interests--would create a risk of upsetting 
     the delicate balance between the rights of copyright 
     proprietors and the interests of others.
       Thus, in any judicial action, that might materialize by 
     against the providers of digital online communications 
     services, the court would be bound by the Copyright Office's 
     interpretation of the statutory licenses. See Cablevision 
     Systems Development Co. v. Motion Picture Association of 
     America, Inc., 836 F.2d 599, 609-610 (D.C. Cir. 1988) 
     (deferring to the Copyright Office's interpretation of 
     Section 111, noting Congress grant of statutory authority to 
     the Copyright Office to interpret the Copyright Act, and the 
     Supreme Court's indication that it also would defer to the 
     Copyright Office's interpretation of the Copyright Act), 
     Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Assoc. v. Owens, 17 
     F.3d 344, 345 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding that valid exercises 
     of the Copyright Office's statutory authority to interpret 
     the provisions of the compulsory licensing scheme are binding 
     on the court).
       In summary, based on the unmistakable fact that digital 
     online communication services are ineligible for the cable 
     and satellite compulsory licenses and the identical, 
     unequivocal interpretation by the Copyright Office, 
     amendments to the existing statute reiterating this legal 
     truth are unnecessary. Consequently, the status quo with 
     respect to who is eligible for the statutory licenses will 
     remain undisturbed whether Congress deletes these amendments 
     from the pending legislation or excludes them from subsequent 
     legislation.
           Respectfully yours,
                                                 Arthur R. Miller,
                                   Bruce Bromley Professor of Law.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). All time has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 386, the previous question is ordered.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. OBEY. I think it is safe to say that I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the conference report on H.R. 
     3194 to the Committee of Conference with instructions that 
     the House Managers not agree to any provisions which would 
     reduce or rescind appropriations for Veterans Medical Care.

  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. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the 
conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212, 
nays 219, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No 609]

                               YEAS--212

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     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)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     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
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntosh
     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
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     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)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--219

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     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
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     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
     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
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     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
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brady (TX)
     Capps
     Conyers
     Wexler

                              {time}  1725

  Messrs. GARY MILLER of California, MANZULLO, DREIER, CUNNINGHAM, and 
Mrs. MYRICK changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. LUTHER, Ms. RIVERS, Mr. McINTYRE, Mr. HILL of Indiana, Mr. 
HILLIARD, Ms. CARSON, Messrs. DOGGETT, LaFALCE, and GREEN of Wisconsin, 
and Ms. McKINNEY changed their 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. Pease). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 296, 
nays 135, not voting 4, as follows:

[[Page H12820]]

                             [Roll No. 610]

                               YEAS--296

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--135

     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coburn
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Etheridge
     Filner
     Ford
     Gejdenson
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Simpson
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wise

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brady (TX)
     Capps
     Conyers
     Wexler

                              {time}  1736

  Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. PRYCE of Ohio and Mr. HILLIARD changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to Section 2 of House 
Resolution 386, House Concurrent Resolution 234 is considered as 
adopted.

                          ____________________