[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.

                          ____________________