[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 30652-30663]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3194, 
  CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2000

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 386 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 386

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 3194) making appropriations for the government of 
     the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in 
     whole or in part against revenues of said District for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read.
       Sec. 2. Upon adoption of the conference report addressed in 
     the first section of this resolution, the House shall be 
     considered to have adopted a concurrent resolution consisting 
     of the text printed in section 3.
       Sec. 3. The text of the concurrent resolution addressed in 
     section 2 is as follows:

[[Page 30653]]

       ``Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That the enrolled copy of the bill (H.R. 2466) 
     making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2000, and for other purposes, shall not be presented to the 
     President, to the end that the bill be, and is hereby, laid 
     on the table.''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 386 is a typical rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 3194, the conference report for the District of 
Columbia appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. The rule waives all 
points of order against the conference report and its consideration and 
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
  H. Res. 386 also provides that, upon the adoption of the conference 
report, the text of the concurrent resolution printed in the rule 
tabling the conference report accompanying the Department of Interior 
appropriations bill shall be considered as adopted.
  Finally, House rules provide 1 hour of general debate divided equally 
between the chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee on 
Appropriations and one motion to recommit with or without instructions 
as is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule and this conference report bring the budget 
process for the fiscal year 2000 to a close by implementing a 
bipartisan compromise on the remaining appropriations bills, District 
of Columbia, Interior, Commerce-Justice-State, Foreign Operations, and 
Education, Labor, Health and Human Services.
  Only three times in the last two decades has the Congress passed all 
13 appropriations bills by the fiscal deadline. I point out one was 
recently when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was chairman. It 
is true that we did not make this deadline this year. However, it is 
also true that keeping our fiscal house in order does take a little 
longer than the free-wheeling, big-spending days of the past because we 
must ensure that all funding is spent efficiently and where it is 
needed the most.

                              {time}  1415

  The conference report before us this afternoon not only holds the 
line on the President's additional spending requests, but also 
responsibly funds areas important to every American citizen and 
protects the American people from waste, fraud and abuse across the 
entire Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Republican Congress made a 
commitment to end the 30-year raid on Social Security and, according to 
the Congressional Budget Office, we have now completed that task. The 
President began the budget negotiations by taking a large step toward 
our position on the Social Security issue and joined us in locking away 
every penny of Social Security. We worked with him in a bipartisan 
fashion to protect retirement security. We were determined to protect 
American seniors and this Congress and its leadership denied any piece 
of legislation on the House floor that spent one penny of it.
  To achieve our goal of protecting American seniors and responsibly 
funding important programs, we are including in this bill a plan to 
direct every Federal agency to reduce spending by less than one-half of 
one percent, .38 percent of 1 percent, by routing out waste, fraud, and 
abuse. Surely the government can save less than about half a penny out 
of every dollar. This Republican Congress is simply asking those who 
run Federal agencies to make fiscally responsible budgeting decisions 
with the money taxed out of our paychecks. We all know the agency 
directors and executives know where the waste is, and I am relatively 
certain they will be able to weed out at least that much in savings 
with this sensible plan.
  In addition to meeting the fiscally responsible objectives, this 
conference report also ensures that our principles of quality and 
flexibility in the funding for teachers have been met. In the Labor-HHS 
section of the bill, this Congress ensures that funding may no longer 
be used to hire unqualified teachers, provides that schools will have 
more flexibility in using their funding for improving the quality of 
uncertified teachers, and increases the amount of funding that may used 
for professional training for teachers.
  The administration pushed for a one-size-fits-all mandate in which 
Washington controlled the 100,000 New Teachers program. Not every 
district needs new teachers. Some need better-trained teachers. Other 
districts need books, high-tech equipment, and updated math and reading 
programs. I think it is foolish for the Washington bureaucracy to tell 
every school district in America that Washington knows best how to 
spend tax dollars to educate our children.
  The debate in Washington is not only about money. It is also about 
how that money should be spent. This bill moves us closer to the right 
balance of education funding by providing additional funds for 
America's students through programs like Pell grants and special 
education while lowering the bureaucratic burden imposed by Washington 
through programs like Goals 2000.
  The Commerce, Justice, State section of the conference report 
maintains our commitment to enhancing local law enforcement without 
involving Washington bureaucrats. We also provide funding for 1,000 new 
border patrol agents, funds for increased criminal and illegal alien 
detention, and the resources necessary to end the severe naturalization 
backlog at the INS.
  The District of Columbia continues to receive the high level of 
funding provided in each round of this process. The conference report 
paves the way for dramatic improvement in the education of Washington's 
children, the safety of our streets, and the management of our Nation's 
Capital.
  H.R. 3194 also brokers a responsible compromise on the environment in 
the Interior appropriations section of this conference report. 
Republicans rejected attempts to impose the restrictions of the Kyoto 
global warming regime on Americans without Senate consideration of the 
treaty. Nevertheless, the bill maintains our high environmental 
standards and ensures our air and water will be cleaned into the next 
millennium.
  While I will permit the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
to describe fully all the contents of the appropriations bill, I did 
want to note the inclusion of the satellite copyright legislation about 
which many of our constituents have expressed concerns during the past 
year. I am pleased that this bill will provide a new copyright license 
to satellite television that will allow constituents to receive their 
local television channels over their satellite service.
  In addition, this bill will bring real competition, ensure better 
prices and choices for our constituents, protect existing subscribers 
from having their distant network service shut off, and make it easier 
for consumers to get either a waiver or an eligibility test for distant 
network service in the event the waiver request is denied. This bill is 
good for our constituents, and I am pleased to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), each of the 
subcommittee chairmen on the Committee on Appropriations, and the 
ranking minority member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for 
their tireless efforts over the past few weeks to reach an agreement on 
the budget.
  This rule was favorably reported by the Committee on Rules yesterday, 
I think that might have been this morning, at about 3:30 a.m., and I 
urge my colleagues to support the bill on the floor so we may proceed 
with the general debate and consideration of this important conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 30654]]

  Mr. Speaker, at 3:20 a.m. this morning the Committee on Rules was 
convened to report this rule. The chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), said at that 
time that he would like to take the time to explain to the committee 
what was in this conference agreement, but that to do so might take 4 
days. While I know he was engaging in a little hyperbole, I cannot 
think he was too terribly off the mark.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule rolls five appropriation bills, agriculture 
disaster assistance funding, and $576 million for Hurricane Floyd 
disaster assistance, all into one bill. The conference agreement also 
contains a much-needed Medicare reimbursement fix for hospitals and 
nursing homes, the authorization for the Department of State, which 
contains terms and conditions that must be met in order for U.S. 
arrearages to be paid, as well as other matters that were not made 
clear to the Committee on Rules early this morning.
  I am perfectly aware that Members are anxious to end the session of 
the 106th Congress, but could we not wait an extra hour or 2 to give 
Members an opportunity to find out what is really in this bill? I am 
also concerned that this enormous bill is only going to get 1 hour of 
debate when in fact each one of these bills in it should be considered 
separately. Evidently, the Republican leadership does not think that it 
is necessary for Members to know what they are voting on.
  This is a very bad way to do business, Mr. Speaker. And no one should 
be surprised if Members raise objections to considering this rule at 
this time. While the contents of this omnibus appropriations bill might 
be known to negotiators from Congress, the White House, and a few 
select others, most of the Members of this body know what is in the 
bill only through news reports and summaries.
  This is not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the 
last; but, Mr. Speaker, how hard would it be to give Members of this 
body a few extra hours to ask questions? The Republican leadership is 
obviously making contingent plans in case the other body does not act 
quickly on this conference agreement. The Committee on Rules reported a 
rule making in order two additional continuing resolutions that will 
carry us through November 23 and December 2. A few hours more today is 
not an extraordinary request, Mr. Speaker.
  So what is in this bill? There are currently some significant 
improvements over the earlier appropriations vetoed by the President, 
and these represent a victory for Democrats and for the people of this 
country. The Commerce, Justice, State appropriation contains increased 
funding for the COPS program, increases for the Office of Civil Rights, 
the EEOC, and for Legal Services.
  The Foreign Operations appropriation fully fund the Wye Agreement, 
allowing the United States to meet its obligations in the Middle East. 
The Interior appropriation contains increases in funding for the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs and for Indian schools and tribal community colleges, 
provides funding for the Lands Legacy program, and deletes the most 
objectionable riders that have been added to the bill in the Senate.
  The Labor-HHS, Education appropriation provides $35.7 billion in 
funding for one of the top Democratic priorities, class size reduction. 
This is a major victory for the President and for Democrats in 
Congress; but even more so, it is a victory for parents and their 
children and for quality public school education. This conference 
agreement also includes funding for the Maternal and Child Health Block 
Grant, for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and for the 
Older Americans Act programs.
  This bill represents a lot of hard work and many hard-won 
compromises. However, there is one provision that is problematic for 
many Members of this House. While the bill funds the arrearages owed to 
the United Nations, these funds have been won at an extraordinarily 
high cost, a cost that for some Members may be too high. The fact that 
this bill trades off payment to the U.N. for family planning around the 
world is tragic. Women's lives and health are being held hostage, Mr. 
Speaker; and for many of us in this body, such a situation is 
deplorable. No one should be surprised if Members vote against this 
conference agreement because of that issue alone.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill does contain an across-the-board cut. 
Granted, it is far smaller than originally proposed by the Republican 
majority, but the symbolism is hard to miss. Because this bill has only 
been whole for a matter of hours, it is doubtful that the Congressional 
Budget Office has had an opportunity to cost it out. But this across-
the-board cut is a fig leaf designed to conceal the fact that gimmicks 
and bells and whistles have been used to mask the fact that this bill 
most likely does cut into the Social Security surplus. The White House 
may have bought into this charade, but this is one Member who 
understands that in this case the emperor and all his men have no 
clothes.
  Mr. Speaker, this agreement is a mixed bag; and Members should really 
be given the time to look at it so they can intelligently make a 
decision about how they want to vote. There is a lot at stake here, and 
surely it is worth a little more time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of the 
rule as well as the bill.
  There are numbers of issues here that are well taken care of in this 
bill, but I specifically want to say for people in New Jersey that we 
have not only help here for the victims of Hurricane Floyd, but also 
for New Jersey farmers who have suffered a terrible drought over the 
past year or more.
  The FEMA use of money in this bill, $250 million, to buy out homes 
that were severely damaged by Floyd, is very, very necessary in New 
Jersey; and it will help to not only have mitigation efforts but also 
do the buyout of some of these homes.
  But I rise particularly today to point out, as a member of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services as well as a member of the 
board of directors of Bread for the World, that we do have in this bill 
a wonderful effort to help debt burden relief for those poorest 
countries, and I think that is very important. I want to commend the 
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), because it was 
through his efforts that we were able to get this money in there, help 
the hungry and the poorest countries of the world, and really help put 
in place reforms for the next year that will address the questions of 
transparency in the International Monetary Fund.
  But for my part, aside from the fact that this is long overdue to 
help feed those poor people in the poorest countries, I also want to 
say that I will continue to track the distribution of that debt relief 
and ensure that it is not being diverted by corrupt government actions. 
This is a wonderful activity. We cannot forget these poor people, and 
it is in the grand tradition of our great country, the United States of 
America.
  Although we have spent many weeks trying to get to this point I 
believe we have a fair compromise for all. Although there are many 
items in this bill that I could speak about today there are a few I 
would like to mention today.
  First I am pleased that this bill contains extra funding to help 
victims of Hurricane Floyd and the disastrous drought suffered by our 
New Jersey farmers.
  This legislation allows FEMA to use $215 million to buyout homes 
severely damaged by the flood caused by Hurricane Floyd. This is very 
important to my state of New Jersey where many homes were damaged. This 
will help relocate some of those homes outside of the natural flood 
plain.
  This bill also has additional funds to help our farmers who have 
suffered from weather related disasters.
  I would also like to put my colleagues on notice--we, in New Jersey, 
are still tallying the price tag of Floyd. When the totality of the 
damage from this unprecedented hurricane is determined, we will most 
likely have to address this issue again early next year. And

[[Page 30655]]

when we do, I strongly urge my colleagues to address the unique 
circumstances of small businesses that were damaged by the storm. These 
small businesses are the economic backbone of many of our communities 
and need and deserve direct grants to help them back on their feet.
  Also I am pleased that this bill contains many of the provisions of 
H.R. 1402 which implements the Option 1-A milk pricing system that is 
so important to the small dairy farmers in New Jersey and the 
northeast. It also extends the dairy Compact for two years.
  Finally, I am pleased that this bill advances the international plan 
to provide debt relief to the world's poorest countries.
  Mr. Speaker, I am on the Board of Directors of Bread for the World--
one of the distinguished and notable groups that have been spearheading 
the debt relief movement. Indeed, much of the religious community is 
urging us to write off some of the unpayable debt of the world's 
poorest countries during the year 2000. And under the right conditions, 
it's the right thing to do.
  The language Majority Leader Armey has negotiated with Treasury is 
very helpful and I commend him for his efforts. It will increase the 
impact of the funding the House has already voted to appropriate for 
the relief of debts that very poor countries owe to the United States. 
This language will ensure that the International Monetary Fund and 
other governments also help provide for this debt relief. In addition, 
I believe it will require accountability to ensure that the monies will 
be directed to feeding the hungry in these poorest countries.
  For my part, I will continue to track the distribution of this debt 
relief to ensure that it is not being diverted by corrupt government 
actions.
  Mr. Speaker, this language will also give Congress another 
opportunity next year to push for IMF reform. Many Members--from both 
parties--agree that the IMF should be more transparent and more 
accountable--to the taxpayer's of the United States and to people in 
the countries where it works.
  There is also widespread agreement on the basic goal of debt relief--
to support economic development and the reduction of poverty in the 
poorest countries. Treasury, the World Bank and IMF have adopted 
promising new policies and procedures recently, and Congress will need 
to be vigilant that these changes really do translate debt relief into 
help and opportunity for poor and hungry people.
  Mr. Speaker, this nonomnibus package is far from perfect. Like many 
Members, I could find certain parts of this bill problematic. But, we 
must look at the whole picture. And on the whole this bill is fair.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, once again I want to make clear why I have offered the 
motions that I have offered for the past 2\1/2\ hours. I did so because 
it was the plan of the leadership to bring the rule and the continuing 
resolution that just passed, to have that up right away at 10 o'clock, 
whiz it through the House, immediately move to the rule, which we are 
now on, and then move immediately to the omnibus appropriation bill, 
which none of us have read and none of us understand. And that vote 
would have been taken by noon without even having a single copy of that 
bill on the floor.

                              {time}  1430

  What I was trying to do is to give Members, first of all, enough time 
to simply get a copy on the floor; secondly, to give our staffs an 
opportunity to try to determine with greater certainty exactly what is 
in the authorization attachments and what is not; and thirdly, to 
develop at least some pieces of information available to rank and file 
Members so that those Members who were not in the negotiations 
understand just how replete with gimmicks and replete with fraud this 
upcoming bill is.
  Now, we have done I think as much as we could reasonably do. It has 
never been my intention once the debate on the bill starts to offer 
further motions because I think both parties are entitled to lay out 
their views on that bill without interruption, and I have no intention 
of making future motions once we get to the bill itself.
  I do ask the House, on this bill, to vote against this rule because 
we have no business doing business this way. We have no business adding 
nine separate authorization bills to the underlying appropriations 
bill. We have no business hiding from Members the $45 billion in 
spending gimmicks that are in these bills.
  It just seems to me that the way we should proceed is to have an 
hour's debate on each of the provisions being added to the 
appropriations bills so that, whether Members are for them or against 
them, the House at least has an opportunity to understand what it is 
doing.
  Nobody knows what we are doing on these bills except perhaps a few of 
the staffers who put them together, I will grant that. But I doubt that 
any Member is fully aware of all of the provisions in these bills. And 
we are going to regret a good many of them, I am sad to say.
  I would simply say, for instance, that there are pieces of this bill, 
and this is not true of the appropriation items, but there are other 
pieces of the bill which we will consider which have not yet been 
scored by the Congressional Budget Office. We ought to know what they 
estimate the cost to be before we vote on this bill.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier in dissertation on the floor it was mentioned 
that the President won something in the area of education. I want to 
make sure, and I will do this several times this afternoon, that 
everybody understands that the President did not win anything in 
education.
  The chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce did not 
win anything in the area of education. The children of the United 
States won a lot in the area of education. And, above all, the most 
disadvantaged children in the United States won in the area of 
education.
  When I was able to show to the administration that 50 percent of many 
of the teachers in the schools in New York City and duplicated in large 
cities all over the country were totally uncertified and, beyond that, 
probably not qualified, some that were certified, they agreed there is 
no reason to put one more teacher in there. We better get those who are 
there properly qualified.
  When they realized that last year 10 percent of all those new 
teachers that were hired were totally unqualified, they realized 
putting one teacher in there was not going to help anything, they 
better get the people who are there more qualified. And so, we say in 
that legislation agreed to by the administration that any new hires 
must be properly qualified and anybody that was hired last year that 
was not qualified must be qualified within 1 year.
  That is why the administration agreed that we should move from 15 to 
25 percent in the area of flexibility. That is why the administration 
agreed that we should move it 100 percent in those school districts 
where they have all the uncertified and unqualified teachers.
  That is why the administration agreed that public school choice 
should be available to the 7,000 schools that are Title I schools who 
are not doing anything about improving the quality of their education, 
and they said those parents should have the right, and we agreed.
  We brought it up. They agreed. So nobody won except the children of 
the United States and, above all, those children who are most 
disadvantaged.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark).
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the calendar and explain that 
Thanksgiving does not come until Thursday, a week, and the ``turkey'' 
that we are about to consider today is

[[Page 30656]]

stuffed with a lot of horrendous gifts and failures.
  For example, stuffed away in this bill, unknown to many of my 
colleagues, is a gift of over $500 million a year to drug companies who 
have their pharmaceutical drugs exempted from certain protections under 
the Medicare bill. But at the same time we are giving $500 million a 
year to these pharmaceutical companies, members of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, all of them, all of the Republicans who were there 
voted to deny seniors a discount on their prescription drugs.
  That means that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), and the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) all voted to deny the seniors in their 
district a discount on their prescription drugs, which would have cost 
the Federal Government not one penny. Yet, grandly, they are going to 
vote to give $500 million a year to the pharmaceutical companies.
  Now, this bill is not paid for. There is a $4 billion gift to the 
medical providers. Yet it shortens Medicare solvency and raises the 
Part B premium on all of our seniors by $12.
  At the same time, this bill has failed to give Medicaid to children 
of legal immigrants. Young children are denied medical care if they 
came to this country after 1996.
  Yet, we had a great gift to the Blue Cross/Blue Shield company by 
weakening quality control standards for managed care under Medicare. We 
weakened the standards when this same Congress has been unable to 
finalize the managed care bill of rights. We are doing nothing under 
the Republican leadership except giving big dollars to the 
pharmaceutical companies in exchange for their donations, giving big 
gifts to Blue Cross and for-profit managed care plans who are reaming 
our seniors.
  And yet, in the next bill to be considered, if this turkey that we 
will consider in the extenders happens to have a bowel movement, we are 
going to spend $40 million or $30 million a year turning the results of 
that activity into energy.
  I would suggest, if we are going to put up with all this Republican 
alchemy, why do we not ask these same poultry producers to turn that 
by-product into gold; and then they might find the $17 billion they 
cannot find to pay for in this bill and, so, it is going to come out of 
the Social Security trust fund.
  All in all, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) is correct. It is a 
bill we should not be voting on in the dark. Vote ``no'' on the rule 
and the bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the Chairman of 
Appropriations, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to be talking about a rule. But, 
obviously, we are into the substance of these measures. There has been 
a characterization of some of that substance by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark), and I would like to take just a couple of 
minutes to set the stage for those of our colleagues who may be nervous 
about the fact that the body does not know what we are doing in terms 
of the Medicare reform or that items have been slipped into this bill.
  Perhaps the gentleman does not remember that we had a subcommittee 
mark-up on October 15. We examined the bill at that time and voted it 
favorably to the full committee.
  In between subcommittee passage and the full committee vote, the 
President wrote a letter to me dated October 19 and said, ``Dear Mr. 
Chairman, I am writing to respond to your request about administrative 
actions.''
  He goes on and provides an outline for what the administration has 
been trying to do notwithstanding the Y2K computer problems that the 
administration has had the day after he signed the Balanced Budget Act 
of 1997. We were not aware of them prior to signing the bill, but they 
discovered them immediately after they signed the legislation.
  His next-to-last paragraph said this: ``We believe that our 
administrative actions can complement legislative modifications to 
refine BBA payment policies. These legislative modifications should be 
targeted to address unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act 
of 1997 that can expect to adversely affect beneficiary access to 
quality care.''
  That was exactly what we did. We targeted it. This is a refinement 
bill. And on October 21, it passed the full committee with a bipartisan 
vote. This is not something that was done in the dead of night at 3 
a.m. in the morning. It went through the subcommittee. It went through 
the full committee. And then it came to the floor on November 5. And 
with 388 Members of the House supporting the very specific provisions 
that have been characterized as insidious or give-backs or rip-offs, 
388 Members of the House voted for it.
  But beyond that, after we worked with our sister committee on this 
side in jurisdiction, the Committee on Commerce, with the Senate 
Finance Committee, and with the White House to craft an agreement that 
looked virtually exactly like the House bill, there was a comment by 
White House representative Chris Jennings, who is identified as the 
health policy coordinator at the White House, in news stories published 
on November 11, Mr. Jennings said, ``This is an honorable compromise. 
It lays down a foundation for more significant Medicare reforms next 
year.''
  It is quite true that the gentleman from California tried to offer a 
number of killer amendments to fundamentally alter Medicare, to change 
the entire structure on a modest bill that the President agreed needed 
to correct some flaws in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 refinements.
  No refinement bill could carry the kind of amendments the gentleman 
from California offered. And clearly, the purpose of those amends was 
to be able to stand up on the floor and then make a statement that 
somehow we refused to provide prescription drugs to seniors.
  It seems to me that if less of that kind of hyperbole were employed 
and more of a willingness to work together, as has been indicated by 
the White House, health care coordinator, we could accomplish much. In 
a letter dated November 15 that was addressed to the Speaker signed by 
John Podesta, Chief of Staff to the President of the United States, in 
which he said, for example, in the third paragraph, ``As Office of 
Management and Budget Director Lew indicated in his letter to Mr. 
Thomas on October 18, findings or clarifications by Congress do not 
change the law and do not result in scoring. Therefore, the attached 
clarifying language on the hospital outpatient department policy would 
not be scored by the OMB. With this in mind, we would not characterize 
such legislation as having an adverse effect in any way on the Social 
Security surplus.''
  A letter from the White House says it does not affect the Social 
Security surplus. The comments from the White House people we worked 
with said it was an ``honorable compromise''. CBO has scored it, and I 
will put it in the Record in terms of the dollar amounts on a 1-year, 
5-year, 10-year, in fact, a detailed scoring.
  Why anyone would stand up on the floor of this House and characterize 
the Medicare legislation as reckless or inappropriate, when Democrats 
that we worked with to put the package together, such as the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), White House representatives, Chief of Staff 
John Podesta and their health care coordinator say this is an honorable 
agreement, that we have it scored that it does not affect the important 
hospital outpatient area, any adverse effect on Social Security, I have 
got to say it sounds a little desperate on the part of some individuals 
who voted no in subcommittee, no on the floor, and are voting no now 
that, frankly, their colleagues do not agree with them.
  This is a good package. People are pleased to and it is endorsed by 
Republicans, some Democrats, most Democrats, 388 votes on the floor of 
the House, and the White House.
  I am pleased to work together with those who want to improve Medicare 
to

[[Page 30657]]

make sure that it is better for our seniors today and tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, November 15, 1999.
     Hon. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: We are pleased that we have been able to 
     work out a strong, bipartisan agreement on the Balanced 
     Budget Refinement Act of 1999. All parties to the agreement, 
     in particular Mr. Thomas, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Dingell, Mr. 
     Rangel, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Johnson, Mr. McCrery, Senator Roth, 
     Senator Moynihan and Senator Nickles, played critical roles 
     in achieving this outcome. We know that this was as high a 
     priority for you as it has been for the President and we 
     appreciate your leadership.
       As you know, a technical drafting change in the BBA has 
     resulted in some confusion over the outpatient payment 
     formula that could result in a reduction in payments. Aside 
     from correcting a payment formula flaw, the hospital 
     outpatient PPS was not designed to impose an additional 
     reduction in aggregate payments. We continue to believe that 
     such a reduction would be unwise. During our deliberations on 
     the balanced Budget Refinement Act, we agreed to resolve any 
     confusion through a Congressional intent clarification 
     provision. Earlier today, language to this effect was worked 
     out between the White House and Mr. Thomas.
       As Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Law 
     indicated in his letter to Mr. Thomas on October 18, findings 
     or clarifications by Congress do not change the law and do 
     not result in scoring. Therefore, the attached clarifying 
     language on the hospital outpatient department policy would 
     not be scored by OMB. With this in mind, we would not 
     characterize such legislation as having an adverse effect in 
     any way on the Social Security surplus.
       Achieving a bipartisan consensus on addressing the 
     unintended consequences of the BBA is an important 
     accomplishment. The President hopes that we can build on this 
     achievement and pass legislation to strengthen and modernize 
     Medicare.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John D. Podesta,
                                  Chief of Staff to the President.
       Enclosure.

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF THE ``MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND S-CHIP BALANCED BUDGET
                        REFINEMENT ACT OF 1999''
                        [In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         CBO estimate
                 Program refinement                  -------------------
                                                       5 year    10 year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House-Senate agreement:
    Hospitals.......................................       3.4       5.3
    Skilled Nursing Facilities......................       2.1       2.1
    Outpatient Therapy Services.....................       0.6       0.6
    Home Health & Hospice...........................       1.3       1.4
    Dialysis & Durable Medical Equipment............       0.3       0.8
    Pap Smears & Immunosuppressive Drugs............       0.2       0.4
    Medicare+Choice.................................       1.9       2.5
    Medicaid........................................       0.7       1.2
    S-CHIP..........................................       0.2       0.4
    Part B Interaction and Medicare+Choice                 0.8       1.8
     Interaction....................................
                                                     -------------------
      Total spending (reflecting House-Senate             12.4      17.1
       agreement) \1\...............................
Addition per administration's request:
    Administration's Request for Hospital Outpatient       3.9       9.6
     PPS Clarification \2\..........................
                                                     -------------------
      Total spending (reflecting Administration's         16.0      27.0
       request) \1\.................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Components may not add to total due to rounding.
\2\ Request detailed in letters from the OMB (10/18/99). Clarification
  will not be scored by OMB on its baseline.

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly in opposition to this rule because I 
believe that it is not fair and it is not in keeping with the great 
tradition of this House for us to have an open debate and for Congress 
to work its will on important matters that affect our country.

                              {time}  1445

  There are at least nine bills rolled into this bill that this rule is 
for, five appropriations bills. I do not like to spend a good deal of 
time talking about process, but when the rule for a bill for at least 
nine pieces of legislation allows for 1 hour of debate, one-half an 
hour on each side, that is not serving the American people well.
  One of the issues that I wish we could debate more fully if our bill 
on foreign operations were brought up separately, which it should have 
been, is the issue of international family planning. I think it is very 
instructive to the American people to see that the Republican majority 
in this House was willing to hold hostage the United States 
international role in the world. The Republican majority was willing to 
hold hostage the poorest women in the world and their access to family 
planning. They were willing to hold hostage our position at the United 
Nations at a time when we are calling out for multilateralism and not 
the U.S. carrying the full burden.
  I think it points to the extremism of the Republican Party that this 
is, and I point out, my colleagues, this is not about abortion; it is 
about family planning, that a majority of the Republicans have voted to 
oppose all funding for all international family planning, that they 
would take that position and use it against the administration and 
force the administration's hand to agree to their position in order for 
us to maintain our vote at the U.N. while we paid our dues.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule in the hopes that we 
could bring back the substantive matters before this House in a fair 
and open and democratic way.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and wish to set the 
record straight on the swirling misperceptions that have surrounded the 
West Virginia delegation's efforts to provide a balance between 
protecting jobs so essential for our Nation's energy security and 
protecting our environment at the same time. Over the past several 
weeks, the national media, environmental organizations, and the White 
House have engaged in a campaign of misinformation regarding a proposal 
by the West Virginia congressional delegation to address a coal mining 
crisis in our State.
  Over the years, litigation in the State of West Virginia has resulted 
in some of the toughest mining reclamation laws in the Nation. Indeed 
our coal industry in West Virginia operates under greater environmental 
scrutiny than the industry does in any other State in our Nation. As a 
result of litigation, environmental plaintiffs entered into a 
settlement agreement with the United States on matters involving both 
the Clean Water Act and the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act.
  On October 20 of this year, a Federal court decision rendered a 
rather unique interpretation of the relationship between provisions of 
the Clean Water Act and SMARA. This interpretation in my view is 
contrary to congressional intent in enacting the applicable statutes. 
Our delegation has sought to reaffirm the interpretation of these 
provisions of law and regulations that have been upheld by the EPA, the 
Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department. Nothing, and I repeat, 
nothing in our efforts have sought to undercut the Clean Water Act. In 
fact, the provision of our legislation clearly states, and I quote, 
``nothing in this section modifies, supersedes, undermines, displaces 
or amends any requirement or any regulation issued under the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act.''
  I do not know how to better state it, how to make it more clear. Yet 
despite these facts, a campaign of misinformation has been trumpeted 
around this Nation and has been unfair to our West Virginia 
congressional delegation. The White House certainly is to blame. This 
is unfortunate, because the White House and the President's senior 
advisors particularly have turned their back on the many hundreds of 
hard-working men and women whose livelihoods, whose families and whose 
futures now hang in the balance. These are the individuals who have 
toiled beneath the surfaces of this Nation in order to provide us 
energy security that lights this very chamber today.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Wise).
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the 
final spending bill. There may be many laudable provisions, but 
unfortunately this bill does not include the important Byrd-McConnell 
mining amendment that the West Virginia delegation has sought so hard 
to include. Failure to include the West Virginia delegation's language 
which would rectify a Federal court decision means months, perhaps even 
years of uncertainty, uncertainty about whether to enter into coal 
contracts, uncertainty about whether to

[[Page 30658]]

make investments in future mining, uncertainty in families' lives about 
whether they will continue their jobs in the mining industry and, 
finally, uncertainty, yes, even for the environmental advocates, 
because there are no final rules of the road.
  If this day ends without the important Byrd-McConnell language, I 
believe, though, we must continue working. First, all parties must 
agree that the present stay of the court decision has to remain in 
effect. Second, the DEP and Federal agencies must work together to 
analyze the full impact of the court's decision. And, third, all 
parties, mining, State and Federal officials, and environmental 
representatives must undertake serious negotiations to see if agreement 
can be reached to deal with the most severe impact of the court's 
decision.
  But, Mr. Speaker, let me make a point. Great progress has been made 
in improving surface mining. As a result of environmental legislation 
and a sweeping environmental settlement just months ago, surface mining 
will never be the same again in the State of West Virginia. So great 
progress has been made. The question is whether balance will be 
preserved. And the court's decision takes it too far the other way. The 
important Byrd-McConnell language would guarantee that there would be 
balance, that gains in regulating mining would be preserved and at the 
same time the important mining jobs, particularly in those areas of 
high unemployment, would be preserved.
  Mr. Speaker, mountaintop removal will never be conducted the same 
again. That is already a given. The Byrd-McConnell language, though, 
would guarantee that as we improve regulation in mountaintop removal, 
we do not automatically result in job removal. I wish this language had 
been included.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me this time.
  I reluctantly have to rise in opposition to this rule. I want to at 
least explain why. Early in the process we were told that there was not 
going to be an omnibus bill. We now know that that is not true. We were 
also told that very controversial issues would not be included in the 
final bill. We know that is not true, either. But part of the reason I 
have to rise in opposition to this rule is I remember several years ago 
when one of my favorite Presidents stood right there and he held up a 
bill that weighed about 45 pounds and he dropped it on the desk right 
here with a big thud, and he said, Congress should not send bills like 
this to my office, and he said, and if they do, I will veto them. He 
did not keep that promise. He probably should have.
  But in many respects, we all know, everybody in this body knows it is 
wrong to have these omnibus bills where we throw almost everything into 
it. If anybody here can say with an honest expression on their face 
that they know what everything is in that bill, well, God save you. We 
know that there is a lot of stuff in that. We are going to read over 
the next several months about issues that are in the bill, and we are 
going to be embarrassed by it.
  But I am most embarrassed about what is happening to the dairy 
farmers in the upper Midwest. Every morning at 4:30 lights go on all 
over the upper Midwest, 3,000 in my district. Nobody works harder than 
dairy farmers, and this is a knife in the back to those people. For 62 
years they have labored under the yoke of an unfair milk marketing 
order system, and this leadership has knifed them in the back in the 
11th hour in a back-room deal. I can live with the outcome if we have 
regular order. I understand democracy. If we have an honest up or down 
vote and we lose in the House; we have an honest up or down vote and we 
lose in the Senate, I can live with that. That is called democracy. But 
when it is done at the 11th hour by a handful of leaders in a back-room 
deal, well, I cannot live with that, and I cannot vote for a rule that 
would support it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this conference 
report and to commend my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) specifically, and those in the 
administration for their efforts. Bringing this package to the floor 
has not been easy. I want to applaud the patience and the determination 
both sides showed in reaching this agreement. I reluctantly opposed the 
conference report for the Interior appropriations bill earlier in the 
year because of numerous anti-environmental provisions that were 
attached by the other body. Thankfully we have removed or modified 
nearly all of those riders and significantly improved the Interior 
bill.
  Additionally, though, through our negotiations with the White House, 
we were able to increase funding levels for some key programs that will 
better protect our environment. In the last few weeks, we negotiated 
millions of additional dollars for the President's land legacy 
initiative to protect sensitive or threatened lands in this country. 
The administration and Congress should be proud of the benefits this 
compromise means to our public lands.
  Funding was included in both the Commerce Department as well as the 
Interior Department to help my State and three other West Coast States 
address the recent salmon listings under the Endangered Species Act. 
Funding for these programs was my top priority. I want to sincerely 
thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for 
working with me to provide these critical funds that will help our 
State protect and restore West Coast salmon provisions.
  Additionally, funds were included to help implement the recently 
negotiated treaty between the United States and Canada that will aid 
our efforts to recover these fish by substantially reducing their 
harvest. I regret that the conference agreement did not provide the 
requested increase for the National Endowment for the Arts, but 
appreciate the modest increase for the National Endowment for the 
Humanities. I believe there is strong public support for both of the 
endowments and wish the funding levels to the arts better reflected 
that support.
  Again I wish to warmly thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for 
his tireless work on the Interior appropriations bill. These 
negotiations were lengthy and tedious, but he demonstrated 
extraordinary leadership and was instrumental in bringing this 
agreement to the floor today.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak out in 
opposition to not only this rule but to this final bill for many 
reasons, but chief among those reasons why I am opposing this rule and 
why I am opposing this bill is because of the dairy policy provisions 
contained within this bill. Blame can be spread all over the place. The 
President did not adequately protect his own agency's reform. The 
majority of Congress swept against us.
  The point is this: we are preserving a 62-year-old antiquated program 
that pays a farmer more for the price of milk he produces the farther 
away from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, he lives. This Congress, which is 
elected to defend the Constitution, freedom, this Congress which 
contains most Members of Congress who proclaim to be in favor of free 
market principles, are voting in this bill to destroy those very free 
market principles. What I say to those Members of Congress from the 
Northeast, from the South, you like milking cows, I understand that, 
``Just don't milk our dairy farmers in the upper Midwest.''
  The problem with this bill is that half of this dairy policy never 
came to this body. It did come to the Senate and it was defeated. So 
why on earth are we dealing with this legislation in this big 
appropriations bill? This should be done through regular order. It 
should not be done in this appropriations bill. Worst of all, it pits 
one, two,

[[Page 30659]]

three regions of dairy farmers against one region, the upper Midwest. 
We simply want a chance to compete fairly on a level playing field in 
the upper Midwest, and we are being deprived of that because of this 
legislation that is being tacked onto this bill like a giant, ugly 
ornament on a big Christmas tree.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of this body to vote against this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. There is so much to say and so little time, but I would like 
to focus on two specific items of importance to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I consider the health-related provisions of this bill to 
be a mixed bag. I am extremely pleased to see that Congress is 
continuing its commitment to double the budget of the National 
Institutes of Health over 5 years. This is the lifesaving research 
which families fighting cancer and other dread diseases are depending 
on. The bill increases the NIH budget by another 15 percent, raising it 
from $15.6 billion last year to $17.9 billion in fiscal year 2000.

                              {time}  1500

  But, unfortunately, the shell game continues in order to pay for this 
spending.
  The bill delays the release of $4 billion of the NIH appropriations 
until September 29, 2000. Twenty of our colleagues wrote to the 
conferees urging them not to take this action, because medical research 
is not a faucet that can be turned off and on. No disease will wait for 
a clinical trial to get to the next round of funding. A colony of 
bacteria is not going to hibernate until the researcher receives the 
promised grant. Frankly, I am not too sure the researcher will stick 
around either. I am deeply concerned about the impact of this delayed 
appropriations on vital medical research.
  In addition, I am appalled that Congress and the administration have 
conspired to imperil the health and welfare of women across the world 
by attaching onerous conditions to international family planning 
spending. Under this bill, United States funds are not only barred from 
going to groups that perform abortions directly or indirectly, but also 
to any group that lobbies in any way regarding governmental policies on 
abortion. An organization could even be barred from informing a 
government how many women were being harmed by unsafe or botched 
abortions, not just lobbying for abortion rights.
  If the President uses his authority to waive this provision, 
international family planning funds are cut by 3 percent. At that 
point, thousands of women will not receive birth control, leading to 
unintended pregnancies and abortions. It is simply beyond my grasp how 
abortion opponents believe that policies like this one help their 
cause.
  This provision will not prevent a single abortion. It will only cause 
more and more dangerous abortions to occur. A woman in the Third World 
dies every 3 minutes. Surely that is the harshest kind of birth 
control, and we will be prevented from telling them how to prevent 
unintended pregnancy.
  I am pleased that the bill makes progress in restoring the 
unexpectedly deep cuts made in Medicare reimbursement to hospitals, 
home care and other facilities under the Balanced Budget Act. Although 
the relief provided itself is modest, it will make a major difference 
in my district of Rochester, New York, in enabling our health care 
community to continue to provide world class care.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, what I think is important to note today as this House 
appears poised apparently to vote for this bill with the anti-dairy 
reform in it, is it is important to point out why it was added to this 
bill.
  It was added to this bill because these anti-reform provisions could 
not pass Congress in the normal fashion. Extension of the compact and 
1(a) have not passed both Houses of Congress. Right now, there is a 
fight going on in the Senate that I think proves that point. Because 
they could not pass it in the normal fashion, they had to add it in the 
wee hours of this debate. That is unfortunate, but maybe it means that 
there is hope for those of us who believe in free market reforms. Maybe 
it shows to us, the fact that they have to try to get it done this way, 
maybe it shows us that there are more people behind us than we 
realized.
  I can only hope that in the future, if given a chance to proceed in 
the normal order, maybe, just maybe, we will prevail, and maybe, just 
maybe, we will have true dairy reform.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and to the final 
bill. Where does a promise mean nothing anymore? Right here on the 
floor of the House of Representatives. Where is one of the last 
remaining vestiges of a Soviet style, state-controlled economic 
industry? Right here in the blessed United States of America, with a 
depression-era Federal milk marketing order policy. Unfortunately, 
because of a last minute deal brokered behind closed doors, the first 
significant step to reform an antiquated, senseless dairy policy will 
be blocked by language contained in this bill.
  Just a couple of months ago, Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting with some 
of the leaders in the Republican Party on the House floor, where they 
promised me and other representatives that they would not allow any 
anti-dairy reform legislation to be attached to one of the year-end 
spending bills. But we wake up this morning and, lo and behold, there 
it is. Promises made, promises broken. And you would think an 
administration whose own reform proposals are under attack after three 
years of exhaustive work would stand a little more firm and fight for 
it, but that did not happen.
  Now, it is never fun or pleasant to hold up the business of the House 
with delay tactics, and it is unfortunate we have had to resort to that 
tactic today. But I for one am willing to stay here until the cows come 
home, until we get this budget right, right for the American people, 
and right for the family farmers across the country.
  For those of you who believe in budget integrity and fiscal 
discipline, there are a number of reasons for voting against it. It is 
$35 billion over the spending caps from the 1997 budget agreement. We 
are dipping into the Social Security surplus by $17 billion to $18 
billion according to our own Congressional Budget Office. We have done 
absolutely nothing to extend the solvency of Social Security and 
Medicare by one day in this budget. To top it all off, we are milking 
family farmers across the country and consumers and taxpayers with this 
11th hour, back-room deal that will prohibit reform of a depression-era 
national dairy policy. We can do a lot better. I think the American 
people demand that we do a lot better.
  I would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this budget agreement. 
Let us start over, let us get it right, and then let us go home.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the bill, and particularly want to call attention to the Medicare 
``salvation'' section. It is really a testament to the vitality of our 
democracy.
  This Medicare salvation section is the direct result of a lot of us 
getting out there, visiting our nursing homes, talking to the people 
who run them and hearing from seniors who were being denied critical 
care because of mistakes made in past legislation or in administration 
policy.
  Let me tell you, democracy is not a spectator sport, and this bill 
reflects that truth. Members of the subcommittee were out there, other 
Members of Congress were out there, and

[[Page 30660]]

our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), whose very 
bright mind and big heart wrote this bill, also took the time to get 
out there into the facilities and talk with the seniors. That enabled 
us to build a very precise effective package, providing relief to 
hospitals, home health care agencies and nursing home facilities.
  And it is a very fine job we've done. It helps all of our providers, 
but it does not fundamentally step back on this Congress' commitment to 
save Medicare in the long run, from financial crisis, and to be there 
for our seniors with quality health care.
  I just want to say that while the administration was very helpful and 
has really worked with us in many ways, it is unfortunate that the 
process, because it costs money, does not allow them to make specific 
proposals to help us. We did all of this, and it was heavy lifting, 
just as Members, listening to seniors and care providers and putting 
together an honest package that goes right to the heart of the problem 
and addresses it.
  Members can take great pride in having saved Medicare quality health 
care for our seniors. As we go home, we can help our hospitals, nursing 
homes and health care agencies understand this expansion of resources 
and provide the care our seniors richly need and deserve.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is what I have been trying to do in the last few 
minutes, is to review what this House has brought to the American 
people and calling it a budget, that has who knows what and does not 
address many of the concerns that the American people have asked them 
to address.
  Just as an example, Mr. Speaker, this is what part of the bill looks 
like, lines drawn through, scribbles being made, and no one knows what 
was in it and what is out of it.
  My concern, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, and this rule concerns me 
and I rise to oppose the rule, is that what we have is a mishmash that 
includes a number of addendums that have nothing to do with the 
appropriation process.
  The satellite issue is an important issue that I would argue that we 
needed to support. The State Department authorization is likewise very 
important, and I have fought long and hard for Medicare help for our 
hospitals and health providers and will continue to fight for that. But 
we do not have a Patients' Bill of Rights, we do not have the 
protection of seniors for prescription drugs, and we have two inserts 
on the family planning issue typed up that deny family planning for 
women around the world.
  Though I am certainly concerned about those who have a different view 
from me, I am likewise concerned about developing nations where women 
will be violated, intimidated, forgetting family planning because of 
this legislation.
  I can say that I am gratified that my office worked to increase the 
amount of money for mental health services in the Community Mental 
Health Program, but I do say we are doing a tragic injustice to have 
Members be responsible for voting for a bill whose paperwork has yet to 
come to the floor and who has given us the responsibility of reading 
this within the few hours that we have.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule, this is a bad process, and I am 
sorely disappointed that this is what we have come to. We need to go 
back to work and present to the American people the kind of legislative 
initiative that will be warranted of this country and this Congress.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt)
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and support of the bill. 
First of all, I want to say how much I appreciate the work of the 
appropriators. The new chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), has done a tremendous job at a time when we are really laying 
out some new rules for appropriations, and all the members of 
appropriations on both sides of the aisle have worked hard to try to 
redefine this culture of what we are trying to achieve: A balanced 
budget, without spending Social Security.
  We have heard a lot of debate about whose numbers may be right, whose 
predictions may be right. We really did not debate those things. 
Apparently the Congress did not debate them for 40 years, because we 
did not have a balanced budget without spending Social Security and 
nobody seemed to care.
  It is great that we are down now to debating whose projection about 
income may be the closest to accurate next September, because that is 
really the projection date that counts. I am convinced we are not going 
to spend for the second year in a row a penny of Social Security 
income.
  I like the way the committee put this package together. It is a big 
package, but it is a package of individual bills. You can go to each of 
those bills and see exactly what was in them, and what is in them are 
the items that should be in them. This is not a package that people 
have put things in that should not be there or are not understood to be 
there.
  Social Security was not spent. That gives us a chance to really look 
at the future of Social Security. We cannot really talk about Social 
Security reform if we cannot stop spending the trust fund.
  Somebody said the problem with the Social Security trust fund has 
been there was no trust and there is no fund. Well, this restores both 
of those concepts.
  The balanced budget adjusters do tremendous things for home health 
care, for rural hospitals. This is a good bill, this is a good rule. I 
urge my colleagues to support both.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues who insist they do not know what is in 
this bill, they have not been paying attention during regular order, 
because within this bill are the multitude of bills that have been 
discussed in committee, discussed on this floor, and now rolled into 
one bill as we leave this process.
  The others that suggest somehow we are dipping into the Social 
Security trust fund, the only reason we are here still is because the 
President keeps asking for more money, more spending, more funds for 
programs that he needs.
  Now, some have suggested somehow we have been held hostage on 
international family planning. The President of the United States 
agreed to that provision in the bill.
  Now, let us talk about why some people will vote against the fine 
bill here today. I challenge them to vote against increasing funding to 
Medicare choice. Organ transplant patients will have an extended 
coverage on anti-rejection drugs. Vote no to that today. I urge you to 
today.
  Rehabilitation services, increasing therapy caps, something we have 
heard complaint after complaint from our citizens about, the need to 
increase physical therapy and rehabilitation.
  Women's health. Pap smear tests now and cervical cancer screenings. 
Go ahead and vote against those fine initiatives. I challenge you to do 
it.
  Increased flexibility for rural hospitals. Cancer hospitals, ensures 
that cancer hospitals will not face any reduction due to new outpatient 
prospective payment systems.
  Changing the prospective payment system for hospital outpatients. 
Nursing home skilled facilities will be, in fact, have increased 
patients.
  Home health care, reduce the scheduled reduction and increase benefit 
caps for some citizens.
  Hospice care. Matt Lauer and I and several others were with hospice 
this week in Palm Beach County raising money for hospice.

                              {time}  1515

  This bill includes an increase in hospice coverage. Tell your hospice 
friends that you rejected this bill today because, I do not know why, 
but increased funding for them.

[[Page 30661]]

  Teaching hospitals for New York and other places who have been belly-
aching about not enough money for teaching hospitals. Thanks to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the Committee on Ways and 
Means, we have increased money for teaching hospitals. Durable 
equipment, increased senior access to durable equipment. Rural health 
care. On and on goes the list. For my Floridians who say they are going 
to vote against the bill, they are going to be voting against $142 
million for Everglades restoration. Go back and tell that to the 
Floridians who depend on the Everglades for water. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' and go home and explain that.
  Indian programs. You name the list of things that are accomplished in 
this bill through the hard work of the committee in order to make this 
a better country. Money for national forests, bettering education, 
continuing our commitment to block grants. On and on goes the list of 
fine things in this bill.
  Those that live in rural farming areas, please pay special attention, 
because in this bill is a $178 million loan authorization for disaster 
relief, okay? My colleagues can go home and face their farmers this 
weekend and explain to them that they voted against this very important 
provision, if they have experienced a drought. Anyone from North 
Carolina, anyone from Florida, I urge you to go home and tell your 
farmers you had a chance to help them today and you chose not to from a 
partisan perspective. Juvenile accountability. On and on goes the list.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule, support the bill. It 
is a good bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply address two points, since other 
Members have also addressed the dairy issue.
  I believe that in this House a handshake is as good as a contract, 
and I believe that the day that one's word ceases to be one's bond is 
the day that we lose something very precious in this democratic 
institution.
  I was told in August and again in September, and this was confirmed 
by one of the two Members of the Republican leadership 3 days ago in a 
conversation with me, I was told that if I would cooperate procedurally 
on appropriation bills with the majority, they would assure me that no 
extraneous dairy provision would be attached to any appropriation 
vehicle. The three key words were ``any appropriation vehicle.'' That 
promise has now been violated. I think that says more about the people 
who violated it than it says about anybody else in this institution. I 
deeply regret it.
  I find it incredibly ironic that at a time when people are cheering 
with great huzzahs over the World Trade Organization-China deal, when 
they are earnestly pushing for free trade internationally, they are 
supporting internal trade barriers to the free flow of dairy products 
in the United States. That is absurdly old-fashioned, and no self-
respecting free marketeer should be supporting it.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 18, 1999]

                             Lott Has a Cow

       There are a million stories inside the Beltway, most of 
     which the pols don't want you to know. But we thought you 
     might be amused by the one about Trent Lott, dairy queen.
       As Public Works Chair . . . sorry, Senate Majority Leader, 
     Mr. Lott has already built himself a pork-barrel legacy for 
     the Mississippi ages. But who would have thought his largess 
     was big enough for all New England? There's apparently 
     nothing the guy won't do to re-elect a fellow ``singing 
     senator,'' in this case the liberal James Jeffords of 
     Vermont.
       Vermont has lots of dairy farmers, most of whom are much 
     less efficient than those in the Upper Midwest. Worse yet, 
     Congressional permission for a six-state price-fixing dairy 
     cartel known as the Northeast Compact is about to expire. So 
     Mr. Jeffords who is running for a third term next November, 
     got hold of Mr. Lott, who promised to jam an extension past 
     an otherwise reluctant Senate.
       Never mind that this milks consumers to the tune of about 
     20 extra cents a gallon. (Milk consumed by the same ``poor 
     children'' who liberals like Mr. Jeffords and Vermont 
     Democrat Pat Leahy are constantly invoking to sell their new 
     programs.) Never mind that the Senate voted down and 
     extension earlier this year.
       And never mind that in the process of helping Mr. Jeffords, 
     Mr. Lott is sticking a shiv in the back of another vulnerable 
     GOP incumbent, Rod Grams of Minnesota. ``I guess Jeffords is 
     in a tough race,'' Mr. Grams told us ruefully. ``But it can't 
     be tougher than mine. And this is going to hurt me back in 
     Minnesota, because it will hurt our farmers.''
       Mr. Lott likes to complain that he lacks a real 
     conservative majority. Yet Mr. Jeffords is a routine 
     apostate, agreeing with Ted Kennedy on demand, while Mr. 
     Grams is a reliable conservative. It's nice to know how much 
     Mr. Lott values ideological loyalty when he's doling out 
     backroom favors.
       Not that Mr. Lott deserves all of the credit. He has help 
     in the House, where Speaker Dennis Hastert has caved in to 
     Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt's attempt to gut the free market 
     dairy reforms that Congress urged on a reluctant Clinton 
     Administration as recently as 1996. Mr. Blunt's affront would 
     add another 16 cents or so to a gallon of milk around the 
     country. Mr. Lott wants to ram this into the end-of-session 
     budget bill too.
       Beyond the muscle politics, all of this is one more 
     embarrassing sign that Republicans seem to have kicked over 
     the reform stool. They're mainly into incumbent protection 
     now. Messrs. Blunt and Lott are supposed to be GOP leaders. 
     But the difference between them and Dick Gephardt is more and 
     more a matter of whose special interest gets gored.
       As of this writing, Mr. Grams and Wisconsin Democrat Herb 
     Kohl were promising to filibuster the Lott-Jeffords-Blunt 
     cartel plans. But the way these things usually go, the 
     dissenters get run over by the Members stampeding to leave 
     town to brag about all of the pork they just voted to 
     deliver. Cow-abunga, Trent.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 17, 1999]

 GOP Chiefs Sour on Milk Reform--White House, Wisconsin's Kohl Balk at 
                         Lott-Hastert Agreement

                         (By Michael Grunwald)

       Three years after Congress ordered the Agriculture 
     Department to revamp the nation's convoluted system for 
     setting milk prices, Republican leaders agreed yesterday to 
     send a new message to the department: Never mind.
       Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and House 
     Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill) settled on language undoing 
     the department's modest market-oriented dairy reforms and 
     largely preserving the depression-era ``Eau Claire system'' 
     that sets milk prices according to distance from Eau Claire, 
     Wis. They also agreed to a two-year extension of the 
     controversial Northeast Dairy Compact, a regional milk cartel 
     that sets prices even higher in New England.
       But the last minute maneuvering faced stiff opposition from 
     the White House, which warned that plans to attach the dairy 
     provisions to a giant year-end spending bill could jeopardize 
     the entire budget deal. ``It would create all sorts of 
     obstacles,'' said presidential spokesman Jake Siewert, who 
     noted that Clinton had promised to veto other spending bills 
     including the milk language.
       The upshot of the proposal--which lott pushed on behalf of 
     Sen. James M. Jeffords (R-Vt.), who is up for reelection in 
     2000--would be a bitter defeat for dairy farmers in the upper 
     Midwest, a huge victory for dairy farmers in the Northeast, 
     and a status-quo solution to a battle that could have 
     resulted in lower prices for consumers. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-
     Wis.) yesterday vowed a last-ditch effort to hold up 
     congressional business to block the deal, and he could have 
     assistance from the administration.
       ``This is a very big thing for us, and I'm going to do 
     whatever I need to do to try to make sure this doesn't 
     happen,'' said Kohl, who noted that his state has 25,000 
     dairies, compared with 3,000 for all of New England.
       The byzantine Eau Claire system was designed to ensure that 
     every region of the country maintained a local supply of 
     fresh milk, at a time when it was not possible to transport 
     milk long distances in refrigerated trucks. The 1996 farm 
     bill, touted as an effort to introduce free-market principles 
     to America's farm economy, required the Clinton 
     administration to propose a replacement for the Eau Claire 
     regime. And while it authorized the Northeast Compact, it set 
     its expiration date for this year.
       Now Congress appears set to change its mind.
       The Agriculture Department plan, which was supposed to go 
     into effect last month before it was held up by a lawsuit in 
     Vermont, would have smoothed out the formulas that favor 
     farmers farther away from Eau Claire. Consumer advocates 
     estimated that it would have cut milk prices by at least 2 
     cents a gallon nationally, saving consumers $185 million to 
     $1 billion a year and saving taxpayers $42 million to $149 
     million on food programs. But the House passed a bill last 
     month to

[[Page 30662]]

     suspend the new plan, and congressional leaders have agreed 
     to include a version of that bill in the overall budget 
     agreement. And yesterday's deal will extend the compact until 
     February 2001.
       Kohl complained that maintaining the status quo would mean 
     maintaining an unfair playing field, providing government 
     protection to help inefficient dairies compete with 
     midwestern farmers. John Czwartacki, a spokesman for Lott, 
     cautioned that no deal is final until the budget agreement is 
     complete, but he suggested that midwestern senators such as 
     Kohl and Rod Grams (R-Minn.), who also is up for reelection, 
     will be unable to stop it.
       ``It's all done but the fireworks,'' Czwartacki said. ``I'm 
     sure people will voice their unhappiness in tried and true 
     ways. But on this issue, you can't make everyone happy.''
       Not even the regional alliance of compact supporters--who 
     include likely New York Senate candidate Hillary Rodham 
     Clinton, but not her husband--got everything it wanted. It 
     did not get a permanent extension of the Northeast Compact. 
     And the agreement did not create a Southern Compact. Still, 
     Kohl vowed yesterday to protest the deal by filibustering 
     anything that hits the floor. And Grams warned that he might 
     force the Senate clerk to read the entire budget bill aloud, 
     which could take days.
       ``We have the government picking winners and losers, and 
     that's wrong,'' Grams said. ``It's the whole country ganging 
     up on the Midwest.''
       The Agriculture Department proposals, while somewhat more 
     market-oriented that the current system, would have 
     maintained the government's guarantee of a minimum milk price 
     in all regions. But according to Christopher Galen, spokesman 
     for the National Milk Producers Federation, they would have 
     cost dairy farmers across the country about $200 million a 
     year, at a time when prices have dropped precipitously after 
     several good years.
       ``We know people are upset in the Midwest, but we think 
     this deal would create a rising tide that will lift almost 
     all dairy farmers,'' said Galen, whose organization took no 
     position on the compacts.

  I also want to note that this bill is replete with gimmicks. This 
bill walks away from the majority party commitment to stick to the 
budget caps; it walks away from their ``let-us-pretend'' argument that 
they are saving Social Security; it hides $45 billion in budgetary 
sleight of hand.
  We have in this bill, first of all, in spending that is not counted 
by Congress, $17 billion, $17 billion. We then have in so-called 
emergency spending, which is another way of avoiding the spending caps, 
we have over $11 billion in outlays; again, spending that is hidden in 
terms of whether or not it is going to be counted against the so-called 
budget limits that my Republican colleagues promised to live by in 
their own budget resolution.
  Then we have what is called ``delayed outlays.'' What this really 
means is that we legally delay spending until the final days of the 
fiscal year, so it is not counted this year, but it is still spent. 
That accounts for $4.2 billion. Then we have what is called ``advance 
appropriations,'' spending that illegally counts spending against last 
year, even though it is available for this year, and that comes in at 
$2.4 billion. Then we have other gimmicks worth $9.9 billion. This from 
the new centurions who came in this place 5 years ago promising that 
under the Republican Party, things were going to be different. They are 
different. They have gotten worse.
  So it seems to me, as I said earlier, this would be laughable if it 
was not so corrosive of the public's ability to believe what we are 
doing.

                LIST OF GIMMICKS IN APPROPRIATIONS BILLS
                        [in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        BA         O
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending Not Counted By Congress
 
Directed CBO to reduce their spending estimates,
 but actually spends Social Security:
    AG--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA).....  .........       -163
    CJ--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA).....  .........       -336
    DOD--Directed outlay scoring..................  .........    -10,500
    E & W--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA)..  .........       -103
    FO--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA).....  .........       -144
    INT--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA)....  .........       -170
    L-HHS--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA)..  .........       -970
    Directed outlay scoring (highway and transit    .........     -1,341
     firewalls)...................................
    TRANS--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA)..  .........       -143
    TPO--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA)....  .........       -151
    VA HUD--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA).  .........       -820
    DOD--Spectrum asset sales.....................     -2,600     -2,600
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal....................................     -2,600    -17,441
                                                   =====================
Declaration of emergencies for normal program
 spending:
    Declare Year 2000 Census an emergency.........     -4,476     -4,118
    Defense emergency designations................     -7,200     -5,500
    Declare part of Head Start an emergency.......     -1,700       -629
    LIHEAP emergency declaration..................     -1,100       -825
    Refugees emergency declaration................       -427       -126
    Forest Service Wildland Fire Management.......        -90         -3
    Public health emergency declaration...........       -584       -310
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal....................................    -15,577    -11,511
                                                   =====================
 
   FY 2000 Spending Counted Against 1999 or 2001
 
Legally delay spending until the final days of the
 fiscal year so it is counted next year:
    DOD--Delay contractor payments................          0     -1,250
    Labor HHS--Delayed Obligations $5.0 B in BA     .........     -1,674
     delayed until 9/29/00........................
    VA medical care delay obligation of $900 M....  .........       -720
    FO--Delayed obligations.......................  .........       -104
    CJS--Delayed availability of balances in Crime       -485       -485
     Victims Fund until after FY 2000.............
    Rescind section 8 housing funds...............     -1,300          0
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal, delayed obligations...............     -1,785     -4,233
                                                   =====================
Legally count spending against last fiscal year
 even though it is available for FY 2000:
    DOD--Advance Appropriations...................     -1,800     -1,800
Legally count spending against next fiscal year
 even though it is available for FY 2000:
    DOE--Elk Hills School Lands Fund..............        -36        -36
    L-HHS--Increased advance funding for FY 2001      -10,100       -532
     (total FY 2001 advances are $19 billion).....
    HUD--section 8 advance appropriation for FY        -4,200          0
     2001 (37% of program total)..................
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal....................................    -16,136     -2,368
                                                   =====================
 
     Miscellaneous Special Accounting Gimmicks
 
Across the Board cut 0.38%........................     -2,143     -1,206
Capture Federal Reserve Surplus...................     -3,752     -3,752
New Hires Data Base for student loan collection          -878       -876
 (incl directed scoring)..........................
Slip military and civilian pay by one day.........  .........     -3,589
Labor HHS--HEATH loan recapture...................  .........        -27
United Mine Workers Combined Benefit Fund.........        -68        -39
L-HHS--Title XX, social services block grant, cut        -608       -430
 below mandatory level............................
TRANS--Mandatory offsets (rescission of FAA               -30        -10
 contract authority)..............................
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal....................................     -7,479     -9,929
                                                   =====================
      Grand total.................................    -43,577    -45,482
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time of the minority has expired.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 30 seconds remaining.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Linder

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Linder:
       At the end of the first section of the resolution add the 
     following:
       The conference report shall be debatable for one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     conference report to final adoption without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit.

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I urge my colleagues to support 
the rule and the amendment to the rule, and I move the previous 
question on the amendment and on the resolution.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin will state it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand what the import of 
the previous motion was. I understand that this is the method which 
will gag us and prevent any further motions being offered in protest to 
the rule that is brought before us. That is the effect of the 
gentleman's motion. It is, in fact, a new gag order, which will prevent 
us from doing anything except obediently moving toward passage of the 
bill. I am not going to contest it, but I think people need to know 
what it is. It is another symptom of how this House is run.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a parliamentary inquiry. The 
gentleman from Georgia managing the rule is offering an amendment to 
the rule.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the amendment 
and on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 204, not voting 4, as follows:

[[Page 30663]]



                             [Roll No. 608]

                               YEAS--226

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

                               NAYS--204

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brady (TX)
     Capps
     Conyers
     Wexler

                              {time}  1543

  Messrs. BONIOR, DICKEY, MATSUI, FLETCHER, BALDACCI, HINCHEY, WEYGAND, 
Ms. MALONEY of New York and Mrs. McCARTHY of New York changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________