[Congressional Record: November 18, 1999 (House)]
[Page H12797-H12820]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr18no99pt2-5]


                          Congressional Record
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
     <box> This symbol represents the time of day during the House
               proceedings, e.g., <box> 1407 is 2:07 p.m.
 Matter set in <Helvetica Roman> indicates words inserted or appended,
       rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

<recycle symbol> Printed on recycled paper containing 100% post
consumer waste

                C O N G R E S S I O N A L   R E C O R D

      PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol. 145        WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1999         No. 164

[[Page H12797]]

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

                        House of Representatives



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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        REVISED NOTICE--NOVEMBER 17, 1999

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

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

MICHAEL F. DiMARIO, Public Printer.

[[Page H12798]]

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

                              (Continued)

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

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

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

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

[[Page H12799]]

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

[[Page H12800]]

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

                              {time}  1700

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

[[Page H12801]]

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

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

[[Page H12802]]

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

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

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

[[Page H12803]]

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

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

[[Page H12804]]

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

[[Page H12805]]

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

[[Page H12806]]

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

[[Page H12807]]

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

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

[[Page H12808]]

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

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

[[Page H12809]]

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

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

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

[[Page H12810]]

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

[[Page H12811]]

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

[[Page H12812]]

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

[[Page H12813]]

to Congress highlights the crisis we are facing in this area. Our
Congressional review can be particularly helpful in working through
these concerns.
  The D.C. Budget funds the local court system. These courts are going
through an important process right now that demands our continuing
interest. The GAO, at our request, has been supplying very helpful
background material.
  The House passed this month legislation I sponsored with Eleanor
Holmes Norton and others to enhance college access opportunities for
D.C. students. I commend the president for signing that bill. Just this
week it was officially designated as Public Law 106-98. I'm very proud
of that. I thank the appropriators for working with me to make the
money for that landmark new law subject to the authorizing enactment.
  There is additional much-needed money in this budget for public
education, including charter schools.
  This budget contains the largest tax cut in the city's history, which
is central to our goal of retaining and attracting economic
development.
  There is money in this budget to clean up the Anacostia River, open
more drug treatment programs, and study widening of the 14th Street
Bridge.
  We've worked long and hard together to turn this city around. The
D.C. Budget before us is another step in helping to keep us moving in
the right direction.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, today represents the culmination of a multi-
year-long process to update the copyright licensing regimes covering
the retransmission of broadcast signals. When the Satellite Home Viewer
Act was first passed in 1988, satellite dishes were a rare sight in
communities across America, and the dishes that did exist were almost
all large, ``C-band'' dishes. Today, the satellite dish has become
ubiquitous, and the dishes that most people use are now much smaller--
only 18 inches across. The small dish industry alone has more than 10
million subscribers, with nearly two million other households still
relying on large dishes. With this massive change in the marketplace,
we are overdue for a fresh look at the laws governing retransmissions
of television station programming.
  The existing provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Act allow
satellite carriers to retransmit copyrighted programming for a set fee
to a narrowly defined category of customers. The Act thus represents an
exception to the general principles of copyright--that those who create
works of authorship enjoy exclusive rights in them, and are entitled to
bargain in the marketplace to sell those rights. In almost all other
areas of the television industry, those bedrock principles work well.
Indeed, virtually all of the programming that we enjoy on both
broadcast and nonbroadcast stations is produced under that free market
regime. Because exclusive rights and marketplace bargaining are so
fundamental to copyright law, we should depart from those principles
only when necessary and only to the most limited possible degree.
Statutory licenses represent a departure from these bedrock principles,
and should be construed as narrowly as possible.
  Reflecting the need to keep such departures narrow, the existing
Satellite Home Viewer Act permits network station signals to be
retransmitted only to a narrowly defined group of ``unserved
households,'' i.e., those located in places, almost always remote rural
areas, in which over-the-air signals are simply too weak to be picked
up with a correctly oriented, properly functioning conventional rooftop
antenna. The definition of an ``unserved household'' continues to be
the same as it is in the current statute, i.e., a household that cannot
receive, through the use of a properly working, stationary outdoor
rooftop antenna that is pointed toward the transmitter, a signal of at
least Grade B intensity as defined in Section 73.683(a) of the FCC's
rules. The courts have already interpreted this provision and nothing
in the Act changes that definition. The ``Grade B intensity'' standard
is and has always been an ``objective'' signal strength standard--not,
as some satellite carriers claimed, a subjective picture quality
standard. (In fact, as the courts have discussed, Congress expressly
rejected a subjective standard in first enacting the statute in 1988.)
The objective Grade B intensity standard has long been used by the FCC
and the television engineering community to determine the level of
signal strength needed to provide an acceptable television picture to
median, unbiased observers. Few, if any, subscribers in urban and
suburban areas qualify as ``unserved'' under this objective, easy-to-
administer definition.
  The existing compulsory license for ``unserved households,'' was not,
however, designed to enable local TV stations to be retransmitted to
their own local viewers. Congress has never before been asked to create
such a license, because technological limitations made the local-to-
local business unthinkable in 1988 and even in 1994, when Congress
passed the first extension of the Satellite Home Viewer Act. Today,
however, local-to-local service is no longer unthinkable. In fact, two
satellite companies, DirecTV and EchoStar, stand ready to offer that
service, at least in a limited number of markets, immediately.
  To help local viewers in North Carolina and across the country, and
to assist satellite companies in competing with cable, I have worked
with my colleagues to help craft a new copyright statutory license that
will enable local-to-local retransmissions. Today, we can finally
celebrate the fruits of our efforts over many months of hard work and
negotiation. The bill before the House reflects a carefully calibrated
set of provisions that will, for the first time, authorize TV stations
to be retransmitted by satellite to the viewers in their own local
markets.
  The bill will also extend, essentially unchanged, the current distant
signal compulsory license in Section 119 of the Copyright Act. The only
significant changes to that provision are that (1) the mandatory 90 day
waiting period for cable subscribers will no longer be part of the law;
(2) royalty rates for distant signals will be reduced from the
marketplace rates currently in effect; (3) a limited, specifically
defined category of subscribers subject to recent court orders will
have delayed termination dates under the bill; (4) the bill will limit
the number of distant signals that a satellite carrier may deliver even
to ``unserved households''; and (5) the bill will require satellite
carriers to purchase rooftop antennas for certain subscribers whose
service has been turned off by court order. Except for these specific
changes in Section 119, nothing in the law we are passing today will
take away any of the rights and remedies available to the plaintiffs in
copyright infringement litigation against satellite carriers. Nor will
anything in the bill (other than the specific provisions I have just
mentioned) require any change whatsoever in the manner in which the
courts have enforced Section 119.

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

[[Page H12814]]

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

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

[[Page H12815]]

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

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

                       A Costly Deal on U.N. Dues

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

[[Page H12816]]

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

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

[[Page H12817]]

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

[[Page H12818]]

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

                                              Library of Congress,

                                                Department 17,

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

                                           Harvard Law School,

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

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

[[Page H12819]]

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

                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

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

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the
conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212,
nays 219, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No 609]

                               YEAS--212

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

                               NAYS--219

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brady (TX)
     Capps
     Conyers
     Wexler

                              {time}  1725

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

[[Page H12820]]

                             [Roll No. 610]

                               YEAS--296

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

                               NAYS--135

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brady (TX)
     Capps
     Conyers
     Wexler

                              {time}  1736

  Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. PRYCE of Ohio and Mr. HILLIARD changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to Section 2 of House
Resolution 386, House Concurrent Resolution 234 is considered as
adopted.

                          ____________________
