[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 77 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5725-H5732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 178, CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1997
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XX, and at the
direction of the Committee on the Budget, I ask unanimous consent to
take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res
178) establishing the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for
fiscal year 1997 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for the
fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, with a Senate amendment
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference
asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
motion to instruct offered by mr. sabo
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Sabo moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the House and
Senate on H. Con. Res 178, the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal years 1997 through 2002, be instructed--
(1) to agree to the Senate-passed levels of discretionary
spending, as set by the amendment offered by Senator
Domenici;
(2) to agree to section 325 of the Senate-passed
resolution, relating to ``balance billing'' of Medicare
patients by health care providers;
(3) to agree to section 326 of the Senate-passed
resolution, relating to Federal nursing home quality
standards; and
(4) to agree to section 327 of the Senate-passed
resolution, relating to protection under the Medicaid program
against spousal impoverishment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, in light of the
fact that there are some flights at 9:30, that we limit debate on each
side to 15 minutes. I have talked to the gentleman from Minnesota. It
is okay with him. I would hope it would be okay with the gentleman from
Ohio, too.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do not know
whether this would then be a standing rule against the generally long-
winded exhortations of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], but
if he wants to set a precedent here for brevity, I would be more than
happy to accept this recommendation.
Still reserving the right to object, I have not heard the gentleman
respond to that.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as I can.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. For the sake of my friend from Ohio, the gentleman from New
York is not scheduled to speak.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, we will accept that.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, Members, the motion to instruct does four very important
things: It asks the House to agree to the Senate discretionary levels
as set by an amendment offered by Senator Domenici in the Senate and
agreed to by a 3-to-1 vote in the Senate. This is to insure that we do
not head to another Government shutdown in a long, dragged-out fight
over appropriation bills. It is also about making sure that we
adequately fund our programs for education, environmental and safety
protection, research and development, and vital programs such as in
agriculture.
We also instruct the House to agree to three Senate sense of the
Senate or sense of the Congress resolutions. Budget resolutions are
about numbers,
[[Page H5726]]
but it is ultimately also about policy. The Senate, through a sense of
Congress, said that we should not be making changes in laws as they
relate to spousal impoverishment and nursing home standards in
Medicaid. I can think of no more fundamental policy that we should
sustain in the Congress than those two basic priorities as we make
modifications in Medicare, in Medicaid.
And we also say, and accept, a resolution from the Senate saying,
that when we deal with changes in Medicare, we should not change the
protections for seniors as it relates to balanced billing. In plain
language, we should not let providers charge more than they are
currently allowed to charge to seniors. Most of our seniors are very
vulnerable, low-income people, and to change the Medicare system so
that we ask higher payments from them, as proposed by the majority, is
simply wrong.
So I urge the House to adopt this motion to instruct.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me first of all suggest that we cannot accept the motion to
instruct for the simple reason that we really do not want to have our
negotiating position dictated to us in a motion to instruct. In simple
language, we do not intend to spend the $5 billion in additional
spending that the Senate has asked for.
{time} 2030
But in all likelihood, we will agree to a somewhat higher level of
spending in an effort to reach agreement with the Senate. We will
probably spend a little bit more money than what we spent when we
passed our House resolution.
Second, however, we do not take, really, exception to the idea of
having Federal nursing home quality standards. We, in fact, adopted
that language in our proposal when we were in the Committee on the
Budget, to make sure that we had the kind of protection for our seniors
that we want as it relates to nursing home quality. We also have a
change in the way in which we do the qualifications for Medicaid.
Let me just say that there are large pieces of this motion to
instruct that we not only agree with, but we have solved in our
resolution; but the idea that we ought to just spend this $5 billion
extra is something we are not prepared to commit to because while we
want to emphasize the programs for the environment, in which we have
full funding of Superfund, and while we want to emphasize the programs
of education, where we have real increases in title I funding, we also,
however, want to make sure that at the end of the day we stay on track
toward a balanced budget, that we are in a position where we are going
to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and wasteful Washington spending.
We believe we have an excellent resolution. We think we probably will
add a little bit more money to it, but this is just too much to be able
to pass tonight here on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Minnesota, I respect
his efforts. Some of them I happen to agree with. But at the end of the
day we need to stay on track, we need to balance the budget, we need to
provide robust funding for education, the environment, a variety of
areas, and to show real compassion.
Furthermore, let me also say, of course, the thrust of our budget
resolution is designed to take power, money, and influence from this
city and put it back into the hands of the American people in every
town and city and village across this country. We intend to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished minority leader.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this
motion to instruct, so that we can rein in some of the excesses of the
Republican budget, and stand up for working families for change.
The fact is, when we talk about the budget, we're not talking about a
bunch of numbers and spreadsheets. We're talking about real people's
lives.
We're talking about the elderly woman in my town of St. Louis,
scraping by on Social Security, counting pennies at the end of the
month--and already hard-pressed to survive the deep Republican cuts in
Medicare.
We're talking about the young couple that is trying desperately to
save for their children's education, and for their own retirement.
We're talking about the families that can no longer care for their
parents and grandparents, but can't afford the $40,000-dollar-a-year
price tag of a nursing home without any help.
It's no secret that I strongly opposed this Republican budget,
because it heaped all the budget cuts on those seniors and families--
carving up Medicare and jacking up the premiums; cutting into education
and college loans; paring back nursing home assistance to lavish more
tax breaks on people who don't need them.
But today, we have a chance to help the seniors, children, and
families who should be the foundation of any budget proposal: To
prevent some of the deep cuts in education, at a time when we need more
education, not less of it; to protect seniors on Medicare from being
overbilled by their health plans and providers, when many of them just
don't have that extra money; To preserve the standards that say your
whole family doesn't have to go bankrupt to put your parents in a
nursing home; and to do more to protect the clean air and clean water
and environmental decency that are central to America's health and
safety.
This bill would tell the Committee on the Budget negotiators that
they have to back away from the House Republicans' radicalism on those
crucial issues, and toward the greater reason and moderation of the
U.S. Senate.
The point of this bill is very simple: America's hard-working
families matter more than any special-interest lobbyist.
The House Republicans' dangerous budget policies and Medicare cuts--
already vetoed twice by the President--don't deserve another revival.
And together, we can start to make this a budget that actually works
for working people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote for this motion--to protect
seniors on Medicare, and preserve nursing home standards, and secure
education and the environment. Even these changes won't make the
Republicans' budget perfect, but it will send an important message.
That today, this Congress votes for families, for a change.
Support this motion to instruct.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to, for the one-
billionth time, explain that Medicare continues to go up. We do not
have any cuts in Medicare, we have real increases in Medicare. Student
loans go up dramatically; in fact, nearly a 30-percent increase in
funding for student loans. These are the things we are doing to set
priorities for programs we really believe in, but at the same time get
rid of those programs that do not make sense, that waste money, so
families in fact can have a future.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do rise in opposition to this
motion to instruct conferees. From a procedural standpoint, this is a
little bit like the poker player who, two poker players come to the
table and one says, you put all your cards down on the table and show
me what you have got there and I will decide whether I am going to
raise the ante here or I am going to call you or not.
Let us not do that. Let us not put all our cards down on the table
here. We are going into negotiation next week, a conference committee,
with the Senate. We should not go into it with with all of our cards
out on the table.
Let us leave the procedural stuff aside. I listened to this motion to
instruct being read here tonight. There are four parts of it, but I
want to concentrate on the first one: to agree to the Senate-passed
levels of discretionary spending. Sometimes I think my colleagues over
on this side of the aisle are a little like the moth that goes to the
flame. The flame is more spending, and they just cannot resist it, more
spending, no matter where you find it, no matter where it comes from;
if it is more spending, we have to do it. It does not matter that the
budget resolution that we passed in the House of
[[Page H5727]]
Representatives protects such things as title I, protects such things
as Head Start, gives more money to veterans' health care, gives more
money to Superfund.
But this has $5 million more in budget authority, $4 billion more in
outlays, it is more spending. Let us not worry about where it is, let
us just spend more money. That is all it seems to be that we hear about
over there; not how can we reduce the deficit, how can we get the
budget balanced, how can we save our children's future, but just how
can we spend more money. Quick, we have something over here that is
more money. Let us spend this money. Let us go and advocate spending
these additional dollars.
We are past that. Mr. Speaker, that is passe. That was the past. That
was what we used to do. The time has come to say, where can we reduce
spending, how can we do government more efficiently, how can we reduce
the size of government, how can we send government functions back to
the States and local people. That is what we should be talking about,
not how can we find another $5 billion to spend.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that this motion be defeated.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee
on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, 7 months late and two Government shutdowns
later, this Congress finally got together and passed a bipartisan
continuing resolution or a bipartisan series of appropriation bills
just a few weeks ago. Now the Committee on Appropriations last Thursday
agreed to an allocation of resources which is going to walk away from
that agreement and take us right back to some of the same old arguments
we had all of last year. We should not do that. This vote tonight is a
test.
Some of our friends on the Republican side of the aisle have made it
quite clear through the last year and a half they want to eliminate the
Department of Education, they want to make deep cuts in education, they
want to make deep cuts in our ability to protect the environment, they
want to savage job training, but then we had another set of our
Republican friends who said, oh, no, we are not like that. We are
moderates. We want to protect education, we want to protect job
training, we want to protect health and protect our seniors.
Tonight is the night they can do it, Mr. Speaker. What we are asking
the Members to choose is whether or not they are going to vote for a
budget put together by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], which will
still require major departures from that bipartisan consensus we
reached just a few weeks ago, or whether or not Members are going to
buy a different Republican version, that one being proposed by Senator
Domenici and his allies in the other body.
It seems to me the choice is clear. If Members really are moderates,
if they really do care about solving these problems in a bipartisan
way, rather than putting us in the same old fights all over again, they
will vote for this resolution tonight. This is not a radical left-wing
resolution. We are asking Members to accept the judgment of their
fiscal leader in the other body, from their own party. I do not think
that is asking too much, if Members are really moderate and really do
want to see bills signed, and do not want to see the Government shut
down again.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this motion to instruct. I
would like to correct what was just said.
Mr. Speaker, what we are being asked to do tonight is we are being
asked to support the concept of the deficit going back up again in
fiscal year 1997. I repeat, if we go along with this motion tonight, we
will have the deficit going back up again in 1997. I do not think there
is a single American out there who wants our deficit going back up
again. The Senate bill asks us to spend $5 billion more than the House-
approved plan.
I did something special for tonight, I went and dug out our original
blueprint to a balanced budget that we passed last year. Guess what,
the House-passed plan already has $7 billion more in spending than our
original blueprint, and now we are back here asking for more spending
yet. I thought it was time we got spending in line so we could get to a
balanced budget to preserve this Nation for our children.
It is about time that we recognize that balancing the budget means
more opportunities for our families, more job opportunities for our
families, and more opportunities for them to live the American dream.
That is what this is about. It is about choosing if we are going to
head back off in the wrong direction again, let the deficits go back up
again, start spending more money, watch this thing go back in the
direction that led us down to this $5 trillion debt in the first place.
I, for one, am opposed to that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to strongly encourage the House conferees
to hold the line on spending, stick with the House-passed numbers, and
get us to a balanced budget so we can preserve this Nation for our
children.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs. Carrie Meek.
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. We are in the
same circle of errors that we started the first time on the budget. It
is almost like a pattern of dissent and disgust.
First of all, we keep saying we are going to take care of our
seniors, but that is just a pious platitude around here. They really do
not want to take care of the seniors, because of they wanted to take
care of the seniors, they certainly would keep the nursing home
safeguards where they were, because Members have heard of all kinds of
abuse, we have heard of all the horror stories about what happens to
seniors in nursing homes. If Members do not believe it, come to my
State of Florida, and we can see this abuse happening to these elderly
people.
Do Members know who these people are? They are our parents. They are
our aunts and our uncles who get in a nursing home, and if we do not
straighten our this Medicare situation, where the majority budget is
trying to cut it, now they have a golden boy in the Republican party
budget, he is just as golden as he can be, our champion, and he knows
what he is doing, but he is not treating the seniors right. He is not
treating them right.
What he is doing with this budget, he is going to lower the nursing
home standards. They cannot keep it, and they do not have the money.
They are going to go back to make the same mistakes. Why can we not
keep the protection for senior citizens that we had all along against
these excess charges, billing for things that are not even authorized?
We are going to see that again. Why can we not protect these families,
people who are being ruined as they pay for this care? They are being
ruined. Their whole families are being wiped out. It is spousal
impoverishment. They are making them citizens of poverty, and they have
worked all their lives.
I appeal to the people to let us instruct the conferees in a way that
is sound. It makes sense, and it is something that this Congress should
do. It is not any fly-by-night, it is no way to spend, spend, spend. It
is just like setting your priorities in such a way that you keep senior
citizens well. The seniors of this country are hearing this, so we had
better be sure that we look out for them, Mr. Speaker. Let us pass this
to instruct the conferees.
Mr. Speaker, neither the House version of the budget resolution nor
the Senate version is the correct way for Congress to balance the
budget.
But the Senate version is clearly preferable in the protections it
gives to our elderly citizens and disabled people who are in nursing
homes. These protections are, of course, also important the children
and other relatives of these patients.
The Senate adopted two amendments offered by Senator Kennedy dealing
with nursing home care. One amendment proclaims the sense of Congress
that we retain the current law preventing the impoverishment of spouses
by forcing them to pay for nursing home care. It also retains the
current prohibition on liens on the home of a nursing home patient if
it is being occupied by the patient's spouse or dependent children.
This amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 94 to 6. I am happy to
[[Page H5728]]
learn that the majority's new Medicaid bill complies with this Senate
amendment. So I hope that the House budget conferees will readily agree
to this Senate amendment.
The other amendment offered by Senator Kennedy was adopted by a vote
of 99 to zero. It proclaims that it is the sense of Congress that the
Federal Government should continue to establish and enforce the Federal
standards relating to the quality of care in nursing homes. While the
majority party in the House is apparently willing to accept Federal
standards, they have been unwilling to retain the current law that
there should be Federal enforcement of these standards.
Some Members of the majority may not remember the nursing home
scandals that arose when we left protection of the elderly solely to
the States.
We tried that policy once. It failed. Don't try another experiment
with the elderly. Do not sacrifice them on the ideological altar of
States' rights.
Support the motion to instruct the conferees.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I recommend to my friend, the gentlewoman from Florida,
that she refer to page 177 of the Committee on the Budget of the House
of Representatives, where it has the language that protects our
seniors. I would just recommend to the gentlewoman tonight, before she
goes to sleep, that she gets the book and reads it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr.
Brownback].
(Mr. BROWNBACK asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
{time} 2045
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
motion to instruct conferees. I just make a point at the very outset
that the past speaker from Florida, who I agree with on some things,
and she is a wonderful lady, I particularly agree with her point that
she says we have a golden boy that chairs the Budget Committee. He is a
golden boy because he is doing what is right. It is to balance the
budget. That is what the American people want.
Here we are talking about $5 billion on top of $494 billion that we
are already spending, and we start breaking down the path toward
balancing the budget. This is doing what is right. When you do what is
right, you are a golden boy when you do that, and that is what the
American people want. We need to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this. We are protecting
the seniors, and we are protecting the kids.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Sabo] has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Kasich] has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Payne].
Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct. It is
consistent with our coalition, our blue dog budget that moves to
balancing the budget in a straightforward manner. But this motion also
prohibits cost shifting to seniors under the Medicare program.
The Republican budget resolution would allow many doctors to bill the
Medicare program as much as they wanted and the patient would pay the
difference. What does this mean for patients? Under the current law, if
a patient visits his doctor for a checkup, Medicare would pay about
$50, the price that Medicare has determined to be fair and equitable,
and the doctor could not bill the patient for any extra amount.
Under this Republican plan, Medicare would still pay the $50, but the
doctor could than bill any additional amount, $15, $25, $50 above that
amount that Medicare is already paying. The extra charge then would
have to be paid by our seniors. These extra charges could cost our
seniors as much as $40 billion during the next 6 years, yet they do
nothing to ensure the solvency of the Medicare trust fund.
The current prohibition on balance billing is solid policy for two
reasons. First it has reduced extra charges to our seniors by over $18
billion since 1985 and, secondly, it ensures the fiscal responsibility
of the Medicare program and forces providers to be more efficient. All
of us agree that the Medicare trust fund must be strengthened and that
the program must be made more efficient.
Ledt us reform the Medicare program in a constructive and thoughtful
manner. Repealing balance billing protections for seniors is just bad
policy. It damages the trust fund's health, it potentially damages our
seniors' health, and damages our seniors' pocketbooks. I urge my
colleagues to support this motion to instruct.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the former Governor.
Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I answer to the call of being a moderate. I am someone
who has worked hard here, I think, for adequate funding for education,
for the environment, for housing and other important domestic programs,
and I believe that the Budget Committee and the Appropriation Committee
in this year are acting in good faith to provide funding for these
programs. I believe that our seniors, I believe that our children, I
believe that our education programs, I believe that our environmental
programs are going to be protected by the budgeting which we have this
year.
So I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct. I believe we must
balance the budget. Earlier in this year, as the appropriation process
went forward dealing with the 602(b)'s, 28 of us over here on the
Republican side signed a letter to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] asking them to be
expansive with respect to Labor-HHS-Education bills and the VA-HUD and
Independent Agency bills, and they have responded to that, I think,
differently than last year.
I think we are in a situation now in which we can support the budget
which is going ahead, but we must never forget that ultimately if we
are going to help these children and these families and these senior
citizens, we must balance the budget of the United States of America.
That is what this is all about. We cannot add spending back into it,
but we have to deal with the good faith efforts which have come forward
so far.
I believe that it is unnecessary and unfair to demand that our
conferees accept the entire $5 billion Senate increase for domestic
discretionary spending. This has been laid out very carefully this year
in a way in which we can all manage. So I would urge all of us here
tonight to hold the line on spending, and I would urge all of us to
oppose the motion to instruct conferees.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted 10 seconds so that
my chairman would understand my point.
The Republicans accepted the language concerning Federal protection
in these standards but they did not say that they would enforce them.
So just accepting the language without enforcement leaves a zero.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
Mr. CARDIN. I want to thank my friend from Minnesota for yielding me
this time and thank him for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I support this motion, but let me just give one reason,
one part of the motion that deals with Medicare that I think is
particularly important. The House budget resolution takes away the
protection that our seniors have today, certain seniors, on their
doctor or hospital being able to bill more than Medicare permits. That
will require many seniors to pay a lot more for their health care as a
result of that provision.
Last year the Democrats pointed out to the Republicans in their
budget resolution the mistakes that they were making in Medicare, that
it would cost our seniors more, it would take away their choice, being
done in order to give tax breaks to basically wealthy people. Let us
not make the same mistake again this year.
This motion gives us a chance, one chance, one part dealing with
balance billing, to go along with the wisdom of the other body and to
make sure that our seniors have the protection against
[[Page H5729]]
balance billing. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of this and
vote for the motion that is accompanying the conference report.
We have heard from the Republicans, we have heard from the Democrats.
Let me quote, if I might, from two nonpartisan private commissions that
report to Congress that work for us. These are nonpartisan commissions
that look at the health care system. Both have evaluated the Republican
Medicare proposal.
PPRC has said ``The absence of balance billing limits for services
delivered in private fee-for-service plans and plans associated with
MSA's could leave beneficiaries exposed to substantial out of pocket
liability.''
And PROPAC said ``PROPAC is concerned that beneficiaries who choose
the Medicare Plus fee-for-service option will be subjected to
unanticipated out-of-pocket liabilities.'' But then the commission goes
on and says ``The Commission is also concerned about provider behavior
resulting from these arrangements: Some providers may decide not to see
those with traditional Medicare coverage by limiting their practice to
patients who can pay high charges. This phenomenon could limit access
of Medicare beneficiaries, particularly those with low incomes.''
The provision that is in the House budget resolution will lead to
different levels of care for our seniors. Those that are wealthy will
have one system. Those that have limited income, most of our seniors,
are going to be denied full access and are going to be asked to pay
more with less choice.
That is not what we want. Our seniors already have the highest out-
of-pocket health care cost of any group of Americans. The Republican
budget resolution will add to that cost.
The Senate, the other body, at least recognized on balance billing
that we must maintain a provision that has been in the Medicare system
for a long time, that protects against extra billings by doctors and
hospitals that our seniors just cannot afford. I urge my colleagues to
support the motion that is accompanying the conference report.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct the facts stated on the other
side. They are simply not accurate when they say that we will charge
seniors more.
The fact is on Medicare, we are going to have spending go up from
$196 to $284 billion. That is a 45-percent increase. On a per-person
basis, it is going to go up to 34 percent, from $5,200 to $7,000.
I really believe in our proposal. The bottom line is very simple. We
do not increase copayments, we do not increase the deductible, we do
not increase the premium, and we say that under the fee-for-service
system, you cannot have balance billing.
Furthermore, we allow individuals to have choice. If people do not
want the traditional fee-for-service, they can have choice, or a whole
host of different programs. Under those different programs, they may
get eye care, they may get dental care, they may have a rebate in their
copayment, their deductible, they may even have their MediGap paid for.
The bottom line is when they are in their fee-for-service system,
they get what they get now. If they get into private care and choose
to, if they get into it and they do not like the plan, they can leave.
They have 24 months, each and every month, to leave. So we give them
choice, we do not increase copayment, the deductible or the premium. It
stays the same. It seems to me like a very good plan. Plus we add 45
percent more to the spending on Medicare, from $196 to $284 billion.
We do the same thing with Medicaid. That goes up 46 percent, from $95
to $140 billion. That is a significant increase in spending. Only in
this place when you spend more is it called a cut.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 2\3/4\ minutes
remaining, the gentleman from Minnesota has 50 seconds remaining and
has the right to close the debate.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the chairman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct our
conferees for three very simple policy reasons, and for three
additional personal reasons.
The major differences are these. Our plan of the new majority brings
the deficit down. To change course, to embrace this big spending the
other side is so enthralled with, would drive the deficit up.
Second, our plan is real. The President and the guardians of the old
order would need huge, unspecified cuts to finally deal with the
deficit and eventually achieve balance.
And, third, our plan begins to control the explosive growth in
entitlements, saving those programs by controlling the growth, not by
cuts but by growth control.
Mr. Speaker, I said there are also three personal reasons and I wear
them here on my lapel, Nicole, Hannah, and John Micah, my 3 children. I
will not leave them saddled with a debt. It is immoral. Reject this
motion. Embrace our budget. Embrace our future.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, to close the debate, it is really kind of simple. We
have a real budget that uses real numbers. It lowers the deficit and it
balances the budget by 2002.
The alternative, the President's budget. It got barely a majority of
support of the people on the other side of the aisle. Why? Because it
does not lower the deficit. It uses smoke and mirrors. In fact in the
last year it has a tax increase.
Every time we pull the Democrats, and not all the Democrats, but we
pull the people on the other side that like Washington, we pull them to
the drinking fountain, they take a little drink and they buy into less
spending, it is only about 24 hours later when they are trying to
figure out how to get us to spend more.
We have a good plan, it has got the right priorities, it lowers the
deficit, it protects our children and it also transfers power, money
and influence from this city. The fundamental difference between
Democrats and Republicans today is that we want to give people power
back in their communities, in their villages, in their towns across
this country, and the Washington spenders and liberals believe that
people at home cannot get it right.
Well, as Republicans, we are going to fight, and it is going to be a
long road but at the end of the day we are going to pry people's power
and money and influence out of Washington bureaucrats and put it back
into the hands of Americans across this great country and trust that
they will get it right at the end of the day to solve local problems
with local solutions and to protect their children.
Vote against the motion to instruct.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct simply says, let us adopt some
simple basic protections for the seniors and vulnerable in our society
as it relates to health care. As it relates to the investments we make
in domestic discretionary spending, we simply say, accept the Domenici
amendment which Bob Dole voted for. You can do it. You can do it within
the context of a balanced budget which we agree that we need to
achieve. But let us do it in a fair fashion. Let us move in the
direction and not closing down Government again. Just simply accept the
proposal offered by the Senate Budget chairman, a very Republican
person, the last I heard, supported by Bob Dole.
Let us be reasonable. Let us move on a course that gets the session
ended. Let us not vote to close down the Government again.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Sabo motion to
instruct conferees on the budget resolution. The motion instructs the
conferees to agree to the Senate levels for nondefense discretionary
spending. Let me explain why this is important.
As we know, the President and the Republican leadership have both
proposed plans that the Congressional Budget Office says would reach
balance in 2002. Clearly, the President's budget illustrates that a
balanced budget does not necessitate extreme and excessive cuts in
programs of vital importance to millions of Americans.
The House budget resolution is worse than the Senate, making it
harder to finance important domestic priorities in education and
training, the environment, science and technology, and law enforcement.
The allocations to the appropriations subcommittees reflected in the
House budget resolution have created the same basic conflict
[[Page H5730]]
that led to two Government shutdowns and 13 continuing resolution in
the battle over 1996 spending. Why would we knowingly do this again?
Specifically, the House allocations are $19 billion less than the
President's request for nondefense programs, while at the same time
adding nearly $13 billion above the Pentagon's request in funding for
defense and military construction programs.
For example, the allocation to the Labor-HHS--Education Subcommittee
is $6.7 billion below the President's request and $2.5 billion below
the levels necessary to sustain the 1996 program level. This allocation
would likely result in significant cuts to such programs as Title I
Education for the Disadvantaged, Pell Grant college scholarships, and
the Summer Youth Employment Program.
The chairman of the Budget Committee in the other body clearly
recognized that we were once again engaging in a train wreck scenario.
Rather than push this to the brink again this year, he wisely proposed
to add $5 billion to the Senate domestic discretionary spending level
to make whole the allocation to the appropriations subcommittees
necessary to avoid unnecessary vetoes and further gridlock.
Although the Sabo motion would not even meet the President half way
on priorities, it would allow funding at a freeze level for most
program, funding at current services level for some priority programs,
and allow modest investments in a very limited number of priority
domestic investments such as biomedical research.
The Sabo motion does not fully address the fundamental differences
between the Republican leadership and the President with regard to
budget priorities. For example, the budget resolution would still
assume a cut of $61 billion from the President proposed spending level
for education and training. Nonetheless, the Sabo motion would allow us
to get through the 1997 spending bills with a much higher level of
bipartisan support. In the short and long run, this would be a good
thing for the American people.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this is a classic example of the
thinking that we sometimes hear from across the aisle. Instead of
focusing on the policy goal, they focus on the bureaucratic program.
Instead of measuring results, they measure resources and effort
expended.
Over the past year and a half the Science Committee has witnessed a
growing dispute about global climate change. There is perhaps even
greater dispute about whether Mission to Planet Earth is the right way
to study climate change. But there is 100-percent dispute--nobody
agrees--that the original baselined Earth observing system is the most
cost-effective way to collect the data required for Mission to Planet
Earth.
Only the gentlewoman from Texas--plus a few contractors and
bureaucrats--seem to think that we should do this project the old and
expensive way.
Several weeks ago the Space Subcommittee heard testimony from
multiple witnesses that using small satellites to collect Earth science
data would be cheaper and easier than the larger satellites currently
planned for the Earth observing system. We have also heard testimony
that the new commercial remote sensing industry should be able to save
us a great deal of money in collecting and distributing data.
So it seems clear that we can achieve the scientific goals of this
program much more cheaply than is currently projected. But only if we
allow budgetary necessity to be the mother of programmatic invention
and reform.
Now it's no secret that I'm not a huge fan of this program, or of the
scientific theories it may help to test. But that's not what's at issue
here. The issue is whether we do this research affordably, within the
context of a balanced budget, or whether we try to do it unaffordably,
and break the budget and probably fail to do the science.
So why would anyone want to hang on to the old ways of doing things
when that's not only more expensive, but in fact not as good? If we
followed that logic--the logic of the gentlewoman from Texas--then
Houston wouldn't be the hometown of the largest personal computer
company in the world because we would all still use giant mainframe
computers instead of PC's, we wouldn't have the benefits of using the
new technology, and, of course, none of those jobs would exist in
Houston.
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
the Nation's science programs and the international space station. Over
the past several years, the Boeing Co. and its employees in my home
state of Washington have been working to help design and build the
international space station. Currently, the space station is on
schedule and on budget. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the space station
holds great promise in the research of cancer and cell development,
human physiology, biotechnology, fluid physics, combustion science,
materials science, telecommunications, and new pharmaceutical products.
With all these great promises in mind, I applaud the efforts of the
Boeing space station employees for helping to advance our country's
leadership in space technology. I look forward to witnessing the
success of this technology and urge my colleagues to support the space
station for countless generations to come.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I have some very serious concerns about the
legislation before the House today, H.R. 3322, the Omnibus Civilian
Science Authorization Act of 1996. This bill cuts NASA's Mission to
Planet Earth [MTPE] Program by $261 million from the fiscal year 1996
estimated funding level and $373,700,000 from the President's fiscal
year 1997 request.
Mission to Planet Earth is NASA's long-term, coordinated research
effort to study the Earth as a global environmental system. This
program will expand our knowledge of the Earth and its environment, the
solar system, and the universe through observations from space. The end
product of Mission to Planet Earth will be the ability to develop and
implement environmental policies based on a better understanding of how
our environment works.
There are many reasons that global environmental change is important
to our society. A single climate change event can cause global effects.
For example, one major climate event, El Nino in the Pacific Ocean, has
been occurring for hundreds of years on a fairly regular basis. When it
does occur, it has a tremendous effect on weather patterns, causing
floods and droughts in different parts of the world. Many researchers
believe that the 1993 Mississippi and 1995 California floods were
caused by El Nino. In the last decade, the pattern of El Nino
occurrences has increased tremendously, though we have not yet learned
why.
The U.S. Government estimates that natural disasters cost the United
States an average of about $1 billion each week. Improving our ability
to understand, predict, and respond to these events could allow us to
find ways of reducing these costs and the loss to human life.
By using satellites and other tools to study the Earth, NASA hopes to
expand our understanding of how natural processes affect us, and how we
might be affecting them. Such studies will yield improved weather
forecasts, tools for managing agriculture and forests, information for
fishermen and coastal planners, and, eventually, an ability to predict
how the climate will change in the future.
I would also like to make it clear that Mission to Planet Earth has
always enjoyed bipartisan support. The largest budget element for
Mission to Planet Earth is the Earth observing system [EOS], which will
make two dozen different measurements over at least 15 years to provide
the first long-term, integrated observations of the global environment.
The program is estimated to cost approximately $7.6 billion through the
year 2000, and has already been reduced by 60 percent since its
original approval by Congress in 1990.
This project was originally designed during the Reagan administration
to study the full range of issues associated with changes in the global
environment. President Bush formally proposed the build EOS in 1990 and
Congress approved a new start for the program later that year. Since
1990, EOS has undergone three restructuring efforts, designed to focus
objectives and approaches and reduce the overall program budget.
NASA has worked hard to reduce the costs of its programs, and I think
those efforts should be commended. I support full funding for Mission
to Planet Earth, and hope that my colleagues will join me in meeting
the administration's funding request. In the long run, the knowledge we
gain through this program may save a great deal of money and a great
many lives. In my opinion, that is a fairly significant return on
investment.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to share my views on the
Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act. I would like to state my
support for NASA's space station. NASA has played a vital role in
America's development, both in the advancement of scientific
innovations and the implementation of technological breakthroughs.
Often times, technology that is produced from these breakthroughs
becomes integrated into our Nation's industrial sector. The United
States receives a direct dual benefit from the space program, both in
the fields of scientific discovery and commercial technological
transformation. I envision great things in America's future scientific
discovery. The space station will be the heart of our Nation's great
innovative zeal.
I would also like to express my support for title IV of the bill
which authorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to
implement its National Weather Service Program [NWS].
The NWS furnishes the entire United States with forecasts and other
weather information. This past year we experienced unusually severe
weather conditions and the NWS readily provided protection for our
everyday lives.
If the NWS does not receive sufficient funds, the agency would simply
amount to a
[[Page H5731]]
data collection center. I am pleased to see that the bill increases
funding for the NWS by $19.8 million from fiscal year 1996.
Nevertheless, the American people could still stand to lose out on the
crucial services offered by the NWS. To that end, I support the various
amendments which would bolster the NWS's ability to execute its
responsibilities in a sound manner.
I support Mr. Brown and Mr. Wamp's amendment which would increase the
authorization for the National Weather Service. Additionally, I support
Mr. Cramer's amendment which modifies the agency, which, for example,
would require the Department of Commerce to notify Congress on its
decision to close, consolidate, or relocate any field office.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to encourage the House members to
vote for H.R. 3322, Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act. It is a
good bill that authorizes vital programs and includes helpful language
that effects the whole country.
This bill has provisions to update the language of the Unitary Wind
Tunnel Act of 1949 which originally declared that the NASA
Administrator and the Secretary of Defense should jointly develop a
plan for construction of ``wind tunnel facilities for the solution of
research, development, and evaluation problems in aeronautics at
educational institutions within the continental limits of the United
States for training and research in aeronautics, and to revise the
uncompleted portions of the unitary plan from time to time to accord
with changes in national defense requirements and scientific and
technical advances.''
The field of aeronautics has received many advances since this act
was last amended in 1958--almost four decades ago. Unfortunately, as we
heard from expert testimony before the Science Committee, the wind
tunnel facilities in this Nation are showing their age. The European
countries, in a consortium, recently opened a new transonic wind tunnel
which is technologically superior to any in the United States. This
will have a direct effect on improving the competitiveness of European
aircraft in the global market.
Mr. Chairman, the aerospace industry is the second largest exporting
industry in this country, second only to agriculture. While just a few
short years ago, the U.S. aerospace industry accounted for around 70
percent of the global market, recent reports show that we may have
dropped below 50 percent. This loss of market share costs us billions
of dollars in our trade deficit and each percentage point of global
aerospace market lost by our domestic companies translates into about
44,000 Americans losing their jobs.
A study conducted by the National Research Council [NRC] in 1992
identified that our current wind tunnel facilities are inadequate for
maintaining aeronautical superiority into the next century.
In 1994, NASA was directed by Congress to conduct a study of the
needs and requirements of a national wind tunnel complex.
NASA currently is in the process of concluding this study of the
technical, business, and related issues concerning the feasibility of
developing the national wind tunnel complex. I fully support and
encourage NASA to complete this study process, to assure that America's
national security and international competitive interests in civil and
military aeronautics will be sustained over the long term.
I am disappointed that President Clinton has chosen not to build the
facility and provided no funding for construction.
In my view, the NWTC study takes on added importance at this time, in
light of continuing budgetary pressures on NASA and other agencies
engaged in aeronautics research and test activities, including the
Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration. Congress
should also consider economic conditions in the aviation manufacturing
sector of America's national industrial base constraining large-scale
capital investment in research and test facilities along with the need
to effectively integrate the NWTC with existing NASA, DOD, and FAA
aeronautical research and test facilities and activities.
With this background, I believe that the integrated planning and
organizational framework envisioned in the Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act
of 1949, as amended, is a suitable and appropriate vehicle for the
planning, development, and operation of aeronautics research and test
facilities and activities in subsonic, transonic, supersonic, and
hypersonic flight regimes, since all regimes influence performance,
cost, and competition for civil aviation directly undertaken in whole
or in part by NASA.
Congress has already made it very clear that before the first spade
of dirt can be turned, there must be an agreement in place which
includes substantial financial participation from both the private
aerospace industry and the Department of Defense as they will be the
primary users and beneficiaries of the project.
Any decision by the Congress to move beyond the phase 1 study is
contingent upon NASA executing a memorandum of agreement with both the
Department of Defense of the U.S. aviation industry, both commercial
and military, regarding cost shares for construction and utilization of
the complex.
With regard to the NWTC study, in light of the budgetary pressures,
general economic conditions impacting the U.S. aviation industry and
other factors noted above, I would hope that NASA will place special
emphasis on the development and operation of additional wind tunnels at
existing NASA and DOD research and test facilities.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
the conferees offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 187,
nays 205, not voting 42, as follows:
[Roll No. 209]
YEAS--187
Abercrombie
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Morella
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Riggs
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weller
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NAYS--205
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
[[Page H5732]]
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--42
Ackerman
Barton
Becerra
Buyer
Chabot
Costello
Davis
de la Garza
Dunn
Engel
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Foglietta
Gibbons
Gutknecht
Hayes
Houghton
Jefferson
Kennedy (MA)
King
Lincoln
McCarthy
McDade
Meehan
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Murtha
Nadler
Payne (NJ)
Peterson (FL)
Quillen
Quinn
Richardson
Ros-Lehtinen
Shuster
Stark
Studds
Taylor (NC)
Vucanovich
Wilson
Yates
{time} 2118
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Ackerman for, with Mr. King against.
Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to instruct was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Goodlatte). Without objection, the
Chair appoints the following conferees: from the Committee on the
Budget, for consideration of the House concurrent resolution and the
Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Messrs.
Kasich, Hobson, Walker, Kolbe, Shays, Herger, Sabo, Stenholm, Ms.
Slaughter, and Mr. Coyne.
There was no objection.
____________________