[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 76 (Thursday, June 5, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3501-H3516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 84, CONCURRENT 
               RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1998

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 160, I call up 
the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 84) 
establishing the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for 
fiscal year 1998 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 160, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
June 4, 1997, at page H3358.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. kasich] and the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

[[Page H3502]]

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of engaging the 
chairman in a colloquy.
  This budget resolution contains an intercity passenger rail reserve 
fund, which originated in the other body, whereby if there is a 
reduction in direct spending or an increase in revenues additional 
funding could be provided for intercity passenger rail on a deficit 
neutral basis.
  Is this the chairman's understanding of the intercity passenger rail 
reserve fund?
  Mr. KASICH. Yes, it is.
  Mr. SHUSTER. The chairman is probably also aware the reserve fund in 
the budget resolution links additional funding for intercity passenger 
rail service to the enactment of authorizing legislation for Amtrak. 
The enactment of reforms for Amtrak is absolutely critical to the 
future of intercity rail in this country. Amtrak, as it is currently 
structured, cannot survive into the future.
  My committee produced reform legislation in the last Congress that 
passed this House by a vote of 406 to 4. This legislation relieved 
Amtrak of burdensome statutory mandates, imposed caps on liability 
exposure, and restructured the Amtrak board of directors to make Amtrak 
more streamlined and able to make customer-based business decisions. 
Unfortunately, the other body never considered the legislation, so 2 
years later Amtrak is still subject to onerous statutory requirements 
that prevent it from providing quality service at a reasonable cost.
  In my view, it would be a grave disservice to the American taxpayers 
to provide additional funding for Amtrak if no legislation is enacted. 
That is why I want to be sure that if additional funding is provided to 
Amtrak through the reserve fund it will happen only if the reform 
legislation has been enacted.
  Mr. KASICH. I agree entirely. Additional funding for Amtrak through 
the intercity passenger rail reserve fund established in the resolution 
should only be permitted if reform legislation is enacted. In my role 
as chairman of the House Committee on the Budget I will categorically 
refuse to release funds from the reserve fund for Amtrak if authorizing 
legislation reforming Amtrak has not been enacted into law or if the 
additional funds are not made contingent upon the enactment of such 
reforms.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for his 
support.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  As I read the budget resolution and the conference report, together 
with some additional documents that the Committee on the Budget and the 
administration have issued, there are three separate items concerning 
Superfund. The bipartisan budget agreement establishes a reserve fund 
to provide $200 million per year in mandatory spending for so-called 
orphan share spending for the Superfund program; is that correct?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it 
is my further understanding that in order to obtain the additional 
funding from the reserve fund, the budget resolution requires Congress 
to pass legislation providing for that additional mandatory spending; 
is that correct?
  Mr. KASICH. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. OXLEY. Did the budget negotiators specifically contemplate that 
such legislation would be a comprehensive Superfund reform bill?
  Mr. KASICH. Yes, section 204 of the conference report specifically 
states the additional funds will be available only after the 
authorizing committees report a Superfund reform bill.
  Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman. And did the negotiators also 
specifically contemplate a comprehensive Superfund reform bill when 
they wrote, in the addendum to the budget agreement, that ``Superfund 
appropriations will be at the President's level if policies can be 
worked out?''
  Mr. KASICH. The Superfund appropriations will be at the President's 
level if policies can be worked out.
  Mr. OXLEY. We in the Committee on Commerce interpret that as the need 
for a comprehensive reform bill.
  Finally, the addendum states that the Superfund tax shall not be used 
as a revenue offset. Does that reflect an agreement among the 
negotiators that the Superfund taxes will not be used to pay for tax 
relief?

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. KASICH. The gentleman is correct. Superfund taxes cannot be used 
for tax relief, as specified in section 105 of the conference report.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget resolution in order to balance the budget in 
5 years caps discretionary spending and issues reconciliation 
directives to a number of House and Senate committees. These directives 
simply set forth targets that each committee must meet, but behind 
these reconciliation directives are major policy and procedural 
agreements.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, could we get 
unanimous consent to submit this entire colloquy?
  Mr. SPRATT. I believe in order to be effective, it has to be read 
aloud.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this entire 
colloquy language be put in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A colloquy is not permitted to be entered 
into the Record.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Budget leadership, the 
congressional leadership, and the White House have negotiated in 
earnest over the past 4 months. Our negotiations culminated in a 
document called the Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 1997, which is 
incorporated by reference in the committee report. In issuing 
reconciliation directives, what the resolution seeks is compliance with 
this agreement, and compliance is critical if we are to implement in 
good faith the bipartisan budget agreement of 1997.
  To that end, I would like to engage the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget in a colloquy to confirm his understanding of this 
bipartisan budget agreement and this budget resolution.
  First, does the chairman remain committed to House consideration of 
two separate reconciliation bills, first, the spending bill, second, 
the bill providing for $85 billion in net tax reduction from 1998 to 
2002?
  I raise this question because the House reconciliation directive 
allows either two bills or a single omnibus bill, and on May 19, 1997, 
Chairman Kasich sent me a letter to clarify that provision. In that 
letter the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] stated:

       The procedural obstacles in the Senate may preclude the 
     consideration of two separate reconciliation bills. For that 
     reason, the committee reported budget resolution includes a 
     contingency for the consideration of a single bill. I remain 
     firmly committed to considering and presenting to the 
     President two separate reconciliation bills, as envisioned in 
     the Bipartisan Budget Agreement, and will work in good faith 
     with all parties to achieve that end.

  I understand that the other body has now resolved the major 
procedural problem by granting unanimous consent to waive the so-called 
Byrd rule, a provision that might otherwise have precluded 
consideration of a separate tax reconciliation bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter just referred to.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 1997.
     Hon. John Spratt,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Budget, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Spratt: This letter is a follow-up to my comments 
     at last Friday's mark up on the structure of the 
     reconciliation process.
       As you know, the budget resolution, as reported, 
     establishes a structure for the consideration of two separate 
     reconciliation bills in the House, the first for entitlement 
     reform due on June 12 and the second for tax relief due on 
     June 13.
       The two-bill structure is consistent with the Bipartisan 
     Budget Agreement which noted that ``It is the intention of 
     the Leaders

[[Page H3503]]

     that Congress shall present the revenue reconciliation bill 
     to the President after the spending reduction reconciliation 
     bill. This assumes a good faith effort by all parties to 
     enable such a legislative process to succeed.''
       Unfortunately, procedural obstacles in the Senate may 
     preclude the consideration of two separate reconciliation 
     bills. For that reason, the committee-reported budget 
     resolution includes a contingency for the consideration of a 
     single omnibus bill.
       I remain fully committed to considering and presenting to 
     the President the two separate reconciliation bills, as 
     envisioned in the Bipartisan Budget Agreement, and will work 
     in good faith with all parties to achieve that end.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John R. Kasich,
                                Chairman, Committee on the Budget.

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the bipartisan budget 
agreement clearly states it is the intention of the leaders that 
Congress shall present the revenue reconciliation bill to the President 
after the spending reduction reconciliation bill. This assumes a good-
faith effort by all parties to enable such a legislative process to 
succeed. I remain committed to House consideration of two separate 
bills, one for spending, another for tax cuts, as I stated in a letter 
to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt]; however, the budget 
resolution does provide for the possibility of a one-bill 
reconciliation process and we consider this an option only if the good-
faith efforts to proceed with two bills proves to be unsuccessful.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask about targets for 
spending and tax cuts. The budget agreement and budget resolution call 
for $85 billion in net tax cuts over the 5-year period 1998 to 2002 to 
be enacted in the second reconciliation bill.
  The first reconciliation bill includes entirely spending items, with 
two small exceptions, the increase in Federal employee retirement 
contributions, as technically a revenue increase, and the 
administration's proposal to tighten compliance with the earned income 
credit is actually scored as generating a small revenue increase as 
well as reduction in outlays.
  Some have suggested that section 310(c) of the Congressional Budget 
Act could allow the first bill to include tax cuts offset by spending 
reductions that are deeper than those specified in the reconciliation 
directive. If so, tax cuts in the first bill, with $85 billion of tax 
cuts in the second bill, could bring net tax reduction to more than the 
$85 billion agreed upon in the first 5 years.
  However one interprets section 310(c), I would maintain that it would 
breach the terms of the budget agreement to include tax cuts in the 
first reconciliation bill or to include tax cuts exceeding $85 billion 
over 5 years in the second bill. This would also breach the revenue 
floor set by this resolution and trigger a point of order.
  Does the chairman agree that the budget agreement calls for $85 
billion in net tax cuts over 5 years and that any greater amount would 
violate the agreement?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, the House majority fully intends to fulfill 
the bipartisan budget agreement by providing $85 billion in net tax 
relief for the next 5 years and 250 in net tax relief over 10 years.
  I would like to point out one possible exception. The text of the 
bipartisan budget agreement when speaking of $16 billion over 5 years 
to increase health care coverage for uninsured children says that the 
money could be used for Medicaid, for a program of cap mandatory grants 
to States or for other possibilities mutually agreeable.
  Equally important, the agreement states that resources will be used 
in the most cost effective manner possible to expand coverage and 
services for low-income and uninsured children. To me, other 
possibilities do not exclude tax incentives or other tax provisions 
that assist in expanding health insurance coverage for our Nation's 
children.
  I would further point out that the gentleman from South Carolina is 
correct that the $85 billion in net tax relief over 5 years and the 
$250 billion in net tax relief over 10 years does not include the 
revenue impact of the earned income tax credit reforms or changes in 
the contribution rates paid by Federal employees into their retirement 
programs.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, with respect to expanding health insurance 
coverage for uninsured children, I would like to note the following: 
First, the budget agreement specifies the $16 billion provided as 
outlay increases and refers to it as funding. Neither term implies a 
tax cut.
  Second, the budget resolution treats the entire $16 billion provided 
as an outlay increase. And third, the phrase ``mutually agreeable'' 
refers to the parties who negotiate the agreement, the White House, the 
congressional leadership, the Committee on the Budget leadership.
  Does the chairman understand the phrase ``mutually agreeable'' to 
mean these parties?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, to me mutually agreeable means that the 
leaders of the Congress and the President must agree on the 
construction of a children's health initiative.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, there is one final issue that bears 
repetition even though you and I have been very clear on the matter.
  The budget agreement and the budget resolution both include funds for 
five Presidential initiatives, $16 billion for children's health care 
coverage, to which we were just referring, $9.7 billion over 5 years to 
restore SSI and Medicaid benefits to legal immigrants already in the 
country who are or may become disabled, $1.5 billion for food stamps, 
$1.5 billion to ease the impact of increasing Medicare premiums on low-
income beneficiaries, and $3 billion for welfare to work.
  In each case, amounts have been allocated to the committees of 
jurisdiction and netted into the reconciliation targets for each 
committee. Although these committees have been given directives and 
targets that would allow them to spend these amounts, the agreement 
specifically provides additional resources solely for the stated 
purposes. The agreement in no way contemplates that this spending can 
be diverted to another program within a committee's jurisdiction or 
that it can be withheld to meet spending reductions that that committee 
is called upon to make.
  This is my view. Is it also the view of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich]?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, in each of the cases, the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] listed the additional resources provided 
for these programs are the only agreed upon purposes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, is it understood that we are evenly dividing 
the time between us?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
time, the total time to discuss the conference report, be equally 
divided between the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and 
myself.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KASICH. So how much time do we have, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. To clarify, the remaining time that the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has and the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has will be added together and split down the 
middle.
  Mr. KASICH. Just like Solomon. How much time would that then give 
each side, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Each side has 24 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are about to vote in this House on a conference 
report that would produce an agreed upon balanced budget, the first 
balanced budget we have seen since 1969. It will have historic levels 
of mandatory savings, approaching $700 billion over the next 10 years. 
It would extend the life of Medicare for 10 years, accompanied with 
structural changes of the program, including an adjustment of the 
reimbursement for managed care in Medicare that would allow rural 
Americans to have as much choice of the kind of health care they would 
like to receive as we get in urban areas.
  Furthermore, it would change the payments to a prospective basis for 
home health care and skilled nursing facilities. It would also include 
in the premium the cost of the shift of home health care but, at the 
same time, allowing our poorest senior citizens to escape that burden.
  But at the end of the day, the $700 billion in mandatory savings has 
never been accomplished before in the history of this House. At the 
same time,

[[Page H3504]]

those areas of spending, called the nondefense discretionary, the 
programs that run the operation of the Federal Government, will grow 
over the next 5 years at one-half percent. They have grown by 6 percent 
over the last 10 years. So we have had a significant reduction in the 
increase of that program, with those programs only growing by one-half 
percent.
  At the same time, Mr. Speaker, of course contained in here is a tax 
cut that would be $135 billion over 5 years that could be used to 
provide a capital gains tax cut to provide incentives for people who 
take risks, a lowering of the cost of the death tax, allowing people 
who spent a lifetime building small businesses to be able to pass on 
what they have earned and worked for for a lifetime to their children 
at a lower rate of taxation by the Government. It would also provide 
for family tax credits, something that we believe would help to provide 
incentives to keep the American family together, to help reinforce the 
purposes of the American family, which is to build a stronger society. 
In addition, there will be tax relief for moms and dads and students 
who have had to spend an enormous amount of money on the cost of 
education.
  Mr. Speaker, this agreement is underlaid by very conservative 
economics. This presumes that the economy will grow over the period of 
the next 5 years by a very conservative estimate of 2.1 percent. That 
presumes at some point the economy will grow faster. It also presumes 
at some point the economy will grow slower.
  To put that in perspective, the Reagan program of the 1980s had a 
projected growth in order to get this budget under control of about 4.4 
percent. This is a far more conservative foundation, only arguing that 
this economy would grow by 2.1 percent.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I believe this agreement has bipartisan 
support and, therefore, will result in bipartisan enforcement. And in 
case any of my colleagues question it, as we know, we had a major fight 
here in the House of Representatives over transportation funding. 
Republicans and Democrats worked together to reject that amendment that 
we thought would begin to unravel this agreement. We were successful in 
being able to defeat that amendment in the U.S. Senate.
  The President of the United States actually lobbied against the 
proposal by Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch to raise cigarette taxes 
to expand certain programs in the Federal agreement, and that was 
defeated.
  I think we will have a commitment on both sides to try to enforce 
this, and I would ask my colleague from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], to 
really work hard diligently with me, as I know he will, in trying to 
enforce this agreement. I have got news for everybody, this is not an 
agreement only to be enforced against the Democrats. It is an agreement 
to be enforced against the Republicans as well.
  We have reached an agreement, honorable people have reached an 
agreement. We have got to do our best to keep that agreement, even at 
times when it is uncomfortable and even at times when particular 
Members of both parties might get very upset about it. I came on this 
floor last night and had four or five chairmen tackle me as I got into 
the well telling me how difficult it was and how we needed to have 
change.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is going to be necessary for us to maintain 
the integrity of this agreement. We need to do it as much as we can on 
a bipartisan basis. And frankly, our job is to call them like we see 
them, to make sure that we keep our word, and that is very, very 
important.

                              {time}  1415

  I know a lot of people in the country, a lot of the American people 
really wonder whether we can get a balanced budget under this 
agreement. The fact is there have been countless politicians who have 
promised it in the past. I think we have got the best opportunity that 
we have had at least during my career, because we have the specifics 
that will drive the policy changes that will begin saving money in the 
area of entitlements from the moment we pass those permanent changes in 
the law that will occur this year. I also believe the American people 
will see these tax cuts. There will in fact be an opportunity to give 
power back to people by putting more money in their pockets.
  In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, it is important for the House, for 
Republicans and Democrats, to keep their word, to deliver a budget that 
the people have asked for in this country, accompanied by a return of 
their power and money, and influence. This is not the end of the day. 
Obviously we have tremendous challenges as it relates to the problems 
of Social Security, where in fact we are going to have to give 
Americans more control over their earnings and their investment 
opportunities. We are going to have to develop a more effective voucher 
program on Medicare, so in fact our seniors can have the same kind of 
choices that their adult children have. And clearly we are going to 
have to talk to the baby boomers about the concept of long-term managed 
care insurance and trying to move Medicaid into the area of help for 
the disabled and the children.
  But we have got a huge challenge as baby boomers begin to retire. The 
Committee on the Budget is going to conduct a series of hearings about 
the coming wave. We will have to move forward with more creative and 
more innovative and more imaginative plans and programs, but this is a 
very big first step. If we can get this done, Mr. Speaker, then I 
believe we communicate to the American people that we are capable of 
handling a myriad of very sensitive programs in a very responsible way, 
gaining the support of the American people that as we move to enact 
more bold initiatives affecting entitlement programs that affect their 
lives, they will have a higher level of confidence that we can get it 
right.
  Furthermore, I do not believe this is the end of the day on the issue 
of tax cuts. I think there will be a lot more to be said about this 
issue, that in fact the Republicans will continue to push for more 
growth-oriented tax cuts, more tax cuts that enforce the American 
family but, bottom line, that reflect the values of rewarding people 
for hard work and investment and risk-taking and at the same time 
create the power in the pockets of the American people. We believe that 
is where the power ought to be.
  For about 40 or 50 years Americans gave up a lot of their power, 
money and influence in the name of justice and progress, and frankly a 
lot of justice and progress was achieved in the United States. But many 
of us have gotten the sense, in fact the vast majority of Americans 
have gotten the sense over the last decade that frankly it is time to 
shrink the Government and let the American people have more power and 
more influence to heal the problems in their neighborhoods, in their 
States, in their communities and in their families. That is going to be 
the watchword, Mr. Speaker.
  But I think we should celebrate today an agreement that will in fact 
bring about that balanced budget in a real way, with tax cuts provided, 
and something that represents a first step toward hope that at the end 
of the day the next generation, in fact, is going to have a beautiful 
America, consisting of the same kind of opportunities that we had as 
young men and young women. At the same time I believe, Mr. Speaker, 
this is the first step toward beginning to deal significantly with 
entitlement programs that really have resulted in less savings, less 
productivity, less wage increases, and have placed a tremendous burden 
on the American family.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the end of the day but it is a very, very 
bright start; really, frankly, more than that first glorious sunrise. 
The sun is above that right now. It has actually risen above the 
mountains, but we have got a way to go before we can ensure to 
everybody that the next generation of Americans are going to have the 
kind of security that we all pray that they will.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
would simply like to say that the gentleman stated as well as possibly 
could be stated the spirit of this agreement. I walked us through a 
tedious colloquy about compliance with different fine points in the 
agreement and important points in the agreement, but the gentleman 
stated it well when he stated that we all have to work together, 
Democrats and Republicans alike, to

[[Page H3505]]

see that this agreement is fulfilled in the form that it is intended as 
we pass a budget resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
[Mrs. Clayton].
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the budget resolution 
agreement. An agreement is a compromise, a settlement, a consensus. An 
agreement does not necessarily provide all that we want but it does 
provide some things we want.
  This agreement is no different from that. It does provide a balanced 
budget in 5 years that is good for the Nation, but it continues to have 
very harsh provisions that allow access to food stamps for hungry 
people only 3 months out of 3 years. That provision will prove to be 
bad for the Nation.
  The agreement provides an additional $16 billion over 5 years which 
will mean health insurance for 5 million children who are currently 
uninsured, and that is good. These additional moneys will help us, 
certainly, to have healthy children.
  But the agreement does not extend health coverage for another 5 
million children that would be left out, Mr. Speaker, and, worse, the 
agreement hurts hospitals in rural communities, although I know that 
the chairman does not think so. The agreement hurts hospitals in rural 
communities that face increases in their Medicaid disproportionate 
share hospital payments. We must work on this issue beyond this 
conference report.
  This agreement is good for education, a national priority. The $35 
billion investment in education tax cuts, the increase of $300 in Pell 
grants and the expansion of Head Start go a long way to feed the minds 
of our American children.
  This agreement is also charitable to this Nation's hard-working 
families. The $500 per child tax credit, the welfare-to-work credit, 
and the establishment of additional empowerment zones and enterprise 
communities are important. Those will go a long way to boost our 
economy. But the agreement is bad for those who want to work and cannot 
find a job.
  I do look forward in the Committee on Agriculture next week to 
passing language governing the $1.5 billion increase in funds to allow 
States to exempt up to 15 percent of their food stamp load. But those 
funds and the $3 million in additional funds for welfare-to-work simply 
will not go far enough. Many who find themselves without work, without 
income, many without the ability to feed their families certainly need 
help. Again, we must continue to work on this issue beyond this 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, indeed there are things we like about this. There are 
many things we do not. We will work, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that 
those who are left out of this compromise be a part of the American 
dream.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement, and I 
want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the 
chairman, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], the 
ranking member, for their ability to bring forward a conference report 
on the budget that carries out the spirit of the bipartisan agreement.
  The key to our ability to balance the budget in 5 years and protect 
the priorities that are important to the American people is the fact 
that we have had Democrats and Republicans working together in a 
bipartisan manner in the best interests of our country. But now it is 
time for the committees to act. That is going to be more difficult.
  Let me say on an optimistic note that yesterday the Committee on Ways 
and Means Subcommittee on Health met on the Medicare provisions and 
voted by unanimous vote on the Medicare provisions providing for $115 
billion of savings. Democrats and Republicans working together, we have 
a good Medicare proposal to include in the budget reconciliation. I 
would urge all the committees to work together in a bipartisan way.
  Let me just say a word of caution. We have already seen in regards to 
legal immigrants that we have not had that type of working together 
between Democrats and Republicans on the committee of jurisdiction. I 
am deeply concerned that we have Democrats and Republicans working 
together to make sure that the revenues stay true to the agreement, 
that we do not have more revenue lost than the $85 billion net over the 
5-year period and $250 billion over the 10-year period. We do not want 
exploding deficits. But unless we have Democrats and Republicans 
working on the bill that come forward in reconciliation to make sure 
that is the case, then I am afraid we will not enjoy the same type of 
bipartisan support that we see here today.
  My word of caution is let us follow the example that we have seen to 
date and work together in a true bipartisan manner on all the 
ingredients of budget reconciliation. If we continue to work together 
as Democrats and Republicans, we will have a good budget reconciliation 
bill that will be in the best interests of the American people.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report 
and in support of the bipartisan agreement to balance the Federal 
budget.
  What a long way we have come since 1995 and 1996, to have an 
agreement that got a majority of both caucuses of the House and of the 
other body to support it. This is a bill which strikes the right 
balance between fiscal responsibility and making those investments 
which are needed to address the challenges facing our Nation, 
especially in the areas of children's health care, education and 
environmental protection.
  But this agreement is only the first step. Now we must write 
reconciliation and appropriation bills to implement it. Our challenge 
is now to remain faithful to the agreement in writing the implementing 
legislation and to act in the same bipartisan good faith that has 
brought us to this point. And, as my colleague from Maryland just 
spoke, we must resist any temptation to undermine the agreement with 
extreme provisions or to fudge the numbers.
  In particular, I would like to talk briefly about the Medicaid 
reconciliation language. I think we need to be very cautious with 
respect to disproportionate share as it affects heavily impacted 
hospitals, including our children's hospitals, and as it relates to 
protecting lower income elderly with the change in home health care to 
part B.
  Overall, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a budget in the right 
direction. It is one where we showed that we could compromise and try 
and reach the goals that both parties seek. I am eager to see it come 
to conclusion, and hopeful that we can all support the reconciliation 
and appropriations bills in the same way we have this outline.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Sherman].
  (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the budget resolution and 
the conference agreement. Like any agreement or compromise, it is 
imperfect, but it does provide some very essential elements. It 
provides that we will balance the budget by the year 2002, and as the 
chairman pointed out, it reaches that conclusion based on conservative 
economic assumptions.
  I believe that a balanced budget will do more to spur business in 
this country than any of the business incentive proposals that may have 
arisen on the Republican side of the aisle, and will do more to help 
the poor than any of the Great Society programs that are popular on 
this side of the aisle.
  It does not mess with the cost of living increases promised to Social 
Security recipients, and leaves the calculation of the CPI in the hands 
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
  Finally, and I want to bring this to the attention of the House, this 
budget agreement is particularly good for the environment, particularly 
when it comes to the acquisition of environmentally important lands. As 
Tony Beilenson's successor, when I found myself on the Committee on the 
Budget, I wanted to focus on an issue that

[[Page H3506]]

was not making the biggest headlines but where I thought I could have 
an impact, and I wanted to focus on making funds available for 
parklands acquisition.
  I want to thank the President for making parklands acquisition a 
priority. When the budget agreement came to the Committee on the 
Budget, I put forward an amendment that would specify that $700 million 
of additional funds would be spent to acquire environmentally sensitive 
lands and that those funds would be spent in 1998.

                              {time}  1430

  I want to thank the chairman, who in a bipartisan fashion urged the 
support of that amendment, I want to thank the ranking member who 
prevailed in the conference, who fought to include that amendment in 
the conference report, and I want to urge my colleagues to support the 
conference agreement because it moves us forward. It quadruples the 
funds available, 1997 to 1998, for the acquisition of environmentally 
sensitive lands.
  We need to balance the budget, and we also need to balance the use of 
our lands between economic activity and preservation for posterity. 
This budget moves in that direction.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, how many times have each of us heard from 
the people we represent, ``Why can't you guys just get together in 
Washington and balance the budget?'' I have heard it scores of times. 
Of course, there is nothing easy about getting together to balance the 
budget. That budget reflects innumerable spending priorities. There is 
wide difference of opinion between the parties in terms of some of 
those priorities. That budget contemplates the entire Tax Code of this 
country. Of course there is broad disagreement within this Chamber 
among Members in terms of how the Tax Code ought to be structured.
  So there is nothing easy about getting together to balance the 
budget. But on the other hand, the facts surrounding our tackling this 
task this year have made it, if not now, never.
  Four years ago, nearly $300 billion deficit; this year looking at a 
deficit in the range of $68 billion. We are almost there, just that 
final push required.
  And so I salute the budget chairman in the House, budget chairman in 
the Senate, commitment of majority leadership in the Congress working 
with the President to reach this balanced budget reflecting agreements 
worked out between the parties, between the philosophies, on how to 
bridge the gap and finally get the job done.
  As has been mentioned before, no agreement is perfect. I certainly 
would have written this differently. But on the other hand, I do think 
it is a reasonable balancing of interests, reasonable compromising of 
perspectives, and it leads us to a balanced budget.
  Today is only, in a way, the ratification of the agreement, the 
committing of the promise for a balanced budget plan. The actual doing 
of the plan rests before the respective committees of jurisdiction, 
most particularly the Committee on Ways and Means, as this goes 
forward. It is in this respect the final tale of this bill will be 
told. Will it work, will it hold, or will it fall apart as the 
committees of jurisdiction simply refuse to live within the bounds of 
this agreement?
  We are all going to have to swallow hard, both sides, members of 
every committee of jurisdiction, in abiding by the terms of this 
agreement, but failure to do so would be deeply disappointing to the 
people of this country. For too long they have asked us to work 
together to balance the budget, and we have told them no, we have not 
gotten the job done. Now we can get it done, and I am very pleased to 
urge a yes vote on this agreement.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts].
  (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the balanced 
budget agreement of 1997. With the passage of this agreement today, we 
can move to the task of enacting the balanced budget plan. This 
agreement is a good first step toward the goals of balancing our 
budget, providing permanent tax relief for American families and 
reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe today that the American families deserve a 
break, a tax break, and the balanced budget plan will give American 
families some of the tax relief they deserve. Our congressional leaders 
and the President have come up with a plan which will give Americans 
$135 billion in tax relief over 5 years and $250 billion over 10 years 
in tax relief.
  The tax relief package in this budget ensures that all Americans win. 
With it we can provide relief for families with children with a per 
child tax credit, the opportunity for people to keep their family farms 
and businesses with death tax relief, incentives for job creation and 
economic growth with capital gains tax relief, incentives for savings 
and investment with IRA expansion and relief for families who send 
their kids to college.
  Some on the other side say that is too much. They claim American 
families can actually afford to pay more to Washington. I say they 
cannot. I urge the liberals to join their President in supporting real 
permanent tax relief for the American family by supporting this 
balanced budget agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, not only does this conference report give tax relief, it 
reduces the size and scope of the Federal Government. In current 
dollars Washington will spend less than over the next 5 years in 
nondefense discretionary spending than it has since 1969. That is the 
last time Washington balanced its books.
  The congressional leaders and the Presidents have worked together to 
create a plan which will save the taxpayers $961 billion over the next 
10 years. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this important balanced budget 
agreement.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
resolution. I commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the 
chairman, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], the 
ranking member, for the work they have put into this resolution in 
setting the numbers into order for bringing about a balanced budget in 
2002. That is something that certainly I and most Members of this body, 
both sides of the aisle, have agreed to in principle.
  Two concerns I express today, and it has been gratifying to me to 
hear from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] as well as from the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] the importance of enforcing 
these numbers. It is one thing today to pass this beginning, and that 
is the budget agreement that we have today. The proof of the pudding 
will be in the eating, though, and that is whether or not we actually 
make it to those numbers, and only by enforcing not only discretionary 
spending levels, but also entitlement spending levels and the tax cut 
levels, because if we cut more taxes than we have agreed to in this, 
the deficit will go up and we will not achieve that which we have said 
we intend to do today.
  So I am very glad to hear the spirit in which both sides of the 
aisle, at least on the budget committees, have agreed that we will see 
to it that each bill, the tax bill and the other enforcement bills, 
will stand to the test of whether or not they meet these numbers so 
that we can all celebrate in 2002 by actually getting to that promised 
land of a balanced budget.
  Again, I close by saying I commend the chairman for his work in this 
endeavor, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], other Members 
who have been responsible for getting us to this point. I look forward 
to rolling up my sleeves now through a long hot summer and seeing that 
we actually do that which we say we are doing today.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], a member of the committee.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to rise in support 
of this budget agreement today and to talk about just how important it 
is for the future of this great country that we live in.

[[Page H3507]]

  A lot of people forget that it was back in the late 1980's that we 
had Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and they promised the people that we were 
going to get to a balanced budget, and they went along for about a 
year, and then they gave up on that promise up and deficits went up, 
and then they made a new promise. It was Gramm-Rudman-Hollings of 1987, 
and they went along for about a year, and then they gave up on that 
promise and they missed their targets.
  A lot of folks forget that we are in the third year of a 7-year plan 
to balance the Federal budget. For 3 years now the Republican Party 
after the takeover in 1994 has been talking about getting to a balanced 
budget by 2002, and we are in the third year. First 2 years are in the 
bank. They are done, and we are not only on track, we are ahead of 
schedule, and we are now passing our third budget resolution, I am 
happy to say, with support from both sides of the aisle. In a 
bipartisan way, working together, we have come to see how good this can 
be for the future of the country.
  Because, see, our theory was this. The theory was if the Government 
borrowed less money out of the private sector; that is, we controlled 
the growth of Government spending, the deficit came down; Government 
borrowed less money out of the private sector, that meant there would 
be more money available in the private sector. With more money 
available, the interest rates would stay down, and if the interest 
rates stayed down, we expected then that people would buy more houses 
and cars and other things because the interest rates were low, and when 
they bought houses and cars, other people would go to work building 
those houses and cars, and that would mean the welfare rolls would come 
down and those folks would start paying taxes in what worked better 
than anyone ever imagined. There are job opportunities, unemployment is 
down. The deficit, in fact, is $100 billion below what we projected 
just 2 short years ago.
  And under this budget resolution that we are working with today, we 
are on track to balance by the year 2000. Medicare is restored for a 
decade. The American people get to keep more of their own money, and I 
think this is real significant.
  I talked to some friends back in Janesville, Wisconsin, and they may 
not understand what CBO and OMB and all of these numbers really mean, 
but I said to them they have got one headed off to college, would a 
college tax tuition credit help? They said it sure will. And there are 
2 kids that are still home in their house; they get $1,000 for those 2 
kids, $500 per child. Do they understand the meaning of the $500 per 
child and the college tax credit, and they sure understood those 
things. To a family earning 40 or $50,000 a year, keeping $2,500 more 
in their pockets, in their home, instead of sending it out here to 
Washington, they understood that real well, and that is the 
significance of this budget agreement. We are not only balancing the 
budget, but we are letting the American people keep more of their own 
money.
  And the picture gets even brighter. In this budget resolution we may 
even hit a balanced budget by the year 2000, and think what that means 
for the future of this great Nation.
  So the chairman, congratulations on the great work, and as always to 
the people on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Filner].
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kindness. He 
knows I rise in opposition to this budget resolution. The remarks from 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] about how well we are doing 
economically and what path we are on, I wish someone from that side had 
said such kind words back in 1993 when we passed the legislation that 
led us onto that path.
  Yes, there are some good things in this budget deal, but this budget 
is a bad deal for the residents of my city of San Diego, and it is a 
bad deal for America.
  Yes, it is a balanced budget, but it is balanced on the backs of our 
Nation's veterans, children, the elderly, and working families. It is a 
bad deal that puts a deep freeze on funding for our Nation's veterans, 
and I speak here as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. It 
cuts real dollars from the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. Speaker, if this is such a good deal, why are so many veterans 
organizations opposed to it: Paralyzed Veterans of American, AmVets, 
Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, Military 
Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Vets of 
America?
  These organizations know that this deal reneges on the promise 
America has made to our veterans. It cuts pensions for the neediest of 
veterans, freezes funding for veterans hospitals for the next 5 years 
and permanently cuts compensation for service-connected disabled 
veterans.
  What happened to the promise that America made with our Nation's 
veterans? That promise has been forgotten in this deal.
  The budget agreement compromises these promises to the past, it 
ignores our commitments to the future. It underfunds the Nation's 
infrastructure needs by billions of dollars and dramatically cuts 
investments in our Nation's future workers. Head Start, summer jobs, 
and education funding overall are cut while billions of dollars in 
corporate welfare are kept safe and sound. It makes the transition from 
welfare to work more difficult, and half of the Nation's 10 million 
uninsured children remain uninsured in this budget while lavish tax 
cuts are doled out to those making over a half million a year.
  Americans deserve a better deal, a real balanced budget through kept 
promises, shared sacrifices, and necessary investments in the future. 
Today's budget resolution fails that test.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Granger].
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, today we are taking an important step 
toward making the balanced budget agreement a reality. While approval 
of the conference agreement is just one step toward a balanced budget, 
this agreement is a giant step for America's future.
  The last time we balanced the budget was 1969, the year my first 
child was born. I proudly watched that young man walk down the aisle to 
receive his Doctor of Jurisprudence just 3 weeks ago. That means my 
oldest child has not seen a balanced budget from this Federal 
Government since the day he was born.

                              {time}  1445

  My twins, a son and daughter, have never seen a balanced budget in 
their lifetimes.
  Our children do not remember a balanced budget, so they do not know 
what difference it will make in their lives; but they are not alone, 
because millions of Americans have forgotten what it is like for the 
Federal Government to treat their money responsibly.
  Today I would like to take a moment just to remind us. I have had a 
lot of different jobs in my life, and each position has taught me why 
this opportunity to finally produce a balanced budget is really 
important. I was the mayor of Fort Worth, TX, and as the mayor I 
learned that local communities need more power and less mandates from 
Washington. A balanced budget we will consider today will return power, 
money, and decisions back to families and communities.
  I also founded two insurance companies, and as a small businesswoman 
I discovered that new jobs and opportunities can only be created with a 
growing economy. By forcing the Government to balance its books, a 
balanced budget will yield more than 4 million new jobs over 10 years 
and raise incomes by 16 percent. And this balanced budget includes a 
capital gains tax cut to unleash a rising tide of new jobs, higher 
incomes, and raised hopes. The capital gains tax reduction of this 
balanced budget will make the American dream a reality for millions of 
people.
  I also was a public school teacher. I taught for 9 years, and I know 
there is nothing more important than education. By eliminating the 
deficit, a balanced budget will lower the cost of a student loan by 
nearly $9,000. A college education will be more affordable to young men 
and women across the United States.
  But my most important job convinced me the most critical reason why a 
balanced budget is so important, and that is my role as the mother of 
three

[[Page H3508]]

children. By reforming entitlements and providing a child tax credit, 
this balanced budget will make sure that America looks toward the 
future. It will make my sons and daughter, and your children, have the 
same kind of opportunities that people in this Congress have had.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to oversell this budget 
agreement. There is certainly much to criticize in the agreement. Some 
of the previous speakers have dwelt on these shortcomings, but I would 
like to begin my remarks by pointing out some of the positive qualities 
of this agreement.
  First and foremost, it is bipartisan. There are many Democrats and 
there are many Republicans who will not vote for this agreement. But 
conversely, the majority in both Caucuses will no doubt be supporting 
the agreement, and it will pass by a substantial margin in this body.
  That is important because we need a budget agreement that will 
survive the next election, whoever may be the majority in this body, 
and bipartisanship is critical if we are going to make some of the 
tough decisions and expect to make them stick for the length of time 
necessary to reach our goal; namely, eliminating the deficit.
  Second, this budget agreement does rely on realistic economic 
assumptions, forecasts about what the economy will do, forecasts about 
the demands that will be placed upon the Federal Government for 
programs that are already well-established. It is critical that we have 
realistic assumptions, because altogether too often this country has 
based its so-called budget agreements on phoney assumptions, smoke and 
mirrors, and what we have seen is an unraveling of what was supposed to 
have been dramatic corrective action.
  Third, this budget agreement does contain reforms and limitations on 
spending and on programs. This is not easy. There are many who are 
affected by these cutbacks in programs, and I think that we owe an 
explanation to these folks. Yet at the same time, we know that we 
cannot have long-term solvency in Federal operations without making 
some tough decisions. Yet, we must make these decisions in such a way 
that we know that in the outyears we can live with them. We will not 
see a future administration repudiate the agreement.
  So these are positive attributes that I wish to emphasize, and at a 
later point I am sure we will have a chance to revisit some of the 
downside considerations.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time. I would also like to congratulate the chairman and the ranking 
committee member for the work that they have done on this process, 
because I think what they have really enabled us to do is that they 
have taken away the debate about the size of Government, at least for 
the next 2 to 4 years; they have enabled us to develop a path to 
getting to a surplus budget.
  We can start the discussion on how to pay down the debt. But they are 
also going to liberate all of the authorizing committees to really 
focus on solving the problems facing this country within the context 
and the framework of this budget, so that we can take a look at how 
more effectively and more efficiently we can address and solve the 
problems facing this country.
  Specifically, the other committee that I serve on, the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, we can now go back and take a look at the 
760 education programs that we have, the 40 different agencies that are 
working on educating our kids, the $100 billion that we spend each and 
every year and say, how can we improve education in America? In meeting 
with our ranking member, the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], we 
have already agreed that we can go forward and we can eliminate the 100 
programs that have not been funded over the last number of years.
  We know that we can work on consolidating programs. I expect that we 
are going to be able to work together on focusing on how to get parents 
more involved in the education process of our children, how we can get 
more dollars to the classroom.
  We can take a look at why are we losing 30 to 40 cents of every 
dollar we spend in education, why are we losing it in the bureaucracy, 
so that we can definitely have more effective plans to deliver safe 
schools, so that we can move control back to the local level.
  We can answer the question of why a local school may only get 6 
percent of their dollars from Washington, but 40 to 50 percent of their 
paperwork, so that we can focus on developing an emphasis on basic 
academics in the classroom.
  Education needs a major focus. We now have the framework to get that 
done. I thank the ranking member and the chairman for giving us this 
opportunity.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I would just say to my colleagues, I am amazed at this debate. I 
think of how far we have come. As far as the press is concerned, there 
is no story here, because Republicans and Democrats are not fighting 
like little kids. When Republicans and Democrats get together and help 
save this country for future generations, no story here.
  Mr. Speaker, I think of this Chamber in 1989, when the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich] introduced an amendment to start to balance our 
budget, get our country's financial house in order. Each year he took 
on that effort. It is the culmination, since 1989, what we are seeing 
today with the work on a bipartisan basis, with the help of the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and others. I just first 
want to congratulate him for what he has done over these many years, 
with such good nature and freshness.
  We are going to get our country's financial house in order and 
balance the Federal budget, and I think we are going to do it in less 
than 5 years with this agreement. We are going to save our trust funds 
for not just future generations, but for present generations, because 
Medicare is running out of money as we speak. Our plan will save it for 
the next 10 years. We are going to transform this caretaking society 
into a caring society. We are not just ending welfare and moving 
mothers into work, we are ending corporate welfare, we are ending 
welfare for farmers as well in this budget agreement.
  We are moving from a caretaking society to a caring society, and in 
the process we are moving the power and the money and the influence 
back home where it belongs.
  This agreement is not everything everyone wants it to be, but it does 
the basic things that both sides felt were important. We want it to 
slow the growth of entitlements and save our trust funds and we are 
doing that. We wanted tax cuts, meaningful tax cuts in particular 
areas, and we are doing that.
  The other side in particular, and the President of the United States 
wanted some priorities for domestic spending, education, health care, 
and we are doing that.
  So hats off to both sides of the aisle. Congratulations, in my 
judgment, on a job well done. Our work is cut out for us in the next 
few years to make sure we all live up to it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for time, I will 
close for our side.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the last lap in a long race. I came here in 
1983, and we were just beginning to recognize and struggle with the 
long-term implications of the deficit then. There was Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings, there was a budget summit in 1990, there was a Deficit 
Reduction Act in 1993. And in every one of those cases, which I 
supported deficit reduction, the best that we could say, the best that 
we could reach for was a partial effort. We did not even pretend in any 
of those cases to have a solution in the short term for the deficit we 
face down the road.
  Today we are able to say credibly to the country and to our 
colleagues in the Congress, we are within reach of a balanced budget. 
Within the next 5 years, we can get it done, because today in truth we 
stand on the shoulders of those who came before us and acted before us 
in 1990. It cost us some of the people who supported what we did then. 
The results were largely

[[Page H3509]]

eclipsed by a recession, but it was significant. Among other things, we 
put on the statute book to this country two rules: the pay-go rule, 
which essentially says, if we want to expand or liberalize 
entitlements, we either have to pay for it or identify commensurate 
spending cuts elsewhere in another entitlement program; and the 
discretionary spending caps, which have worked. They have not been 
breached since 1991.
  In 1993 we came back, because in 1990 the budget summit had not 
really yielded measurable significant results. We laid out a 5-year 
plan to cut the deficit, we hoped, by half; we barely claimed we would 
do that much. We extended the discretionary spending caps for 5 years, 
we reduced entitlement spending, and we were brazen enough, brave 
enough, some would say, to raise taxes.
  The result was not, as some predicted, a disaster in the economy. The 
economy took note of what we did, the financial markets were pleased, 
revenues began picking up, interest rates started down, the inflation 
rates stabilized; and guess what? The revenues of the Federal 
Government began to pick up again. We restored the revenue basis of 
this Government.
  For example, corporate income taxes have risen by $71 billion between 
1992 and 1996, up more than 70 percent, and that is part of the reason, 
at the end of the last fiscal year, fiscal year 1996, the deficit was 
$107.8 billion, down 65 percent from the deficit predicted in 1993 when 
President Bush left office. That is substantial progress, and that is 
why I say we have come several laps, and we are not at the last lap. We 
are really talking about an effort today that is only partially the 
same size as the two previous efforts in 1990, and particularly in 
1993.
  Because we are within reach, and because we did this in a bipartisan 
way, this is as much a budget agreement as a balanced budget agreement. 
We have set this goal realistically and conservatively, and I think 
credibly before us, and I think we will achieve it if the economy does 
not go south on us. But at the same time, we have recognized that the 
country has other problems and the Government has other pressing 
priorities than just balancing the budget. And we do not make a lot of 
room for these other priorities, but we do recognize, for example, that 
middle income American families are struggling with the way and whether 
or not they can pay for their children's education. We are going to 
bring them more tax relief in the bill that we are authorizing in this 
budget resolution and anything that has been done in the last 20 to 25 
years.
  A couple of years ago we tried to enact universal health care, and we 
bit off more than we could chew. We have decided to back up and take it 
step by step, incrementally. We did Kennedy-Kassebaum last year. This 
year in this bill we set aside $16 billion over the next 5 years in 
order to implement measures so that America's children, mostly in 
working families who do not enjoy the benefit and security of health 
insurance coverage, can have health insurance coverage, another 
incremental step toward providing health insurance coverage by 
Americans who need it.

                              {time}  1500

  We went back to welfare reform. We took some of the hard and harsh 
edges off, particularly as they impact legal immigrants in this 
country. We did some things that needed to be done and could not have 
been done unless we did it in a bipartisan way. I am proud of the fact 
that these accomplishments can be accounted for by this agreement.
  A lot of people, some commentators, some editorial writers, have 
said, can all of this be done? Can you really go after these ends and 
other policy goals and at the same time balance the budget? What about 
this $25 billion a year in extra revenues that you added at the last 
minute to make this agreement possible?
  In truth if we look, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] said, at 
the underlying economic assumptions, the economic forecast that 
underlies this budget, most of the premises are very basic and very 
conservative. For example, in no year over the next 5 years do we 
assume growth exceeding 2.3 percent. Compared to what is happening now, 
that is a very conservative assumption.
  This agreement has not come easily. We have been at work at it for 
the last 4 months, long days, late nights, weekends, some bitter 
dissension. But I will say this: Throughout all of the negotiation, we 
have maintained a spirit of common purpose, cordiality, and civility 
which will serve us well now that we go into the implementation phase.
  The gentleman from Ohio was correct to anticipate that there will be 
struggles, there will be problems as we deal with the authorizing 
committee and the Committee on Appropriations and try to bring them to 
fruition in the form it is conceived in this budget resolution. That is 
the big challenge before us. But if we maintain that same spirit of 
civility, cordiality, and common purpose, we can do it. We can put them 
to bed. We can carry it out as intended, and we can balance the budget 
in 5 fiscal years.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from Senator Roth, 
chairman of the Finance Committee, and the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. 
Archer], the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, with respect 
to the tax bill.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, June 4, 1997.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Senate Budget Committee, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John R. Kasich,
     Chairman, House Budget Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Pete and John: Our Committees will soon begin marking 
     up tax legislation to meet the reconciliation directives of 
     the 1998 Budget Resolution. We will meet the Resolution's 
     instructions of reducing revenues by $85 billion over the 
     five year period 1998-2002 and by no more than $20.5 billion 
     in 2002.
       Furthermore, we can assure you that, consistent with the 
     May 15, 1997 letter from the Speaker of the House and the 
     Majority Leader of the Senate to the President which stated, 
     ``It was agreed that the net tax cut shall be $85 billion 
     through 2002 and not more than $250 billion through 2007,'' 
     the ten year net revenue loss in the tax reconciliation bill 
     will not exceed $250 billion.
           Sincerely,
     William V. Roth,
       Chairman, Finance Committee.
     Bill Archer,
       Chairman, Ways and Means Committee.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the next speaker is my dear friend, the gentleman from 
Ohio, Mr. Dave Hobson. He has been of enormous help to me through this 
program, really since 1993. I have personally been working on this 
since 1989. But the gentleman came on the committee, along with my dear 
friend, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Chris Shays and the 
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Bob Franks, and they were all 
particularly special, particularly my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, 
Mr. Dave Hobson, who would take my calls at 1:30 in the morning. I 
would wake him up, try to get his advice in certain areas. We had a lot 
of struggles and we have developed some very deep friendships on this 
committee as a result of this effort.
  I want to suggest to the people here in the House and to the Speaker 
that what is remarkable about this debate is I thought that this was 
going to be like game one against Utah, where we would have to sink a 
basketball at the buzzer, and in that famous pose of Michael Jordan at 
the end, he just gave him that hand. We thought it would be a buzzer-
beater to balance the budget. What we are seeing happening is a sea 
change in the attitude of the House of Representatives. Frankly, it is 
a sea change we are seeing in the Congress. It is one to embrace, it is 
one to be joyful about, it is one to celebrate, rather than the 
fighting, the dynamics of this whole debate of change to an era of less 
government and more power back to the people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hobson] is recognized for 3 minutes.

[[Page H3510]]

  (Mr. HOBSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, this is an exciting day for this Chamber and 
this country. This plan that we are going to approve today is one more 
example of our Congress keeping its promises to the people of this 
country. We said we would balance the budget and save Medicare, and we 
are. We said we would cut taxes, and we are. These are the things that 
this Congress came to Washington to do, and we are making good on our 
promises to the American people by passing this conference report 
today. The House and Senate worked closely on this budget, and the 
administration is also on board. Frankly, this is the way we should be 
doing legislation. This is the way people want us to do legislation, by 
people coming together, putting aside our partisan differences, and 
passing legislation that is good for the country as a whole, both today 
and tomorrow.
  I just had my fourth grandchild, and I know a lot of times other 
people's grandchildren are not the most exciting things to hear about, 
but they are to them. But frankly, without this balanced budget plan, 
my grandchild will face a very tough future. Without this balanced 
budget, Government is going to go on spending and go on racking up more 
debt and mortgaging her future.
  But we are going to put a stop to that right now. Like every American 
family and business, the Federal Government is now going to have to 
live within this budget, with less Government spending. We will see 
more job creation, more money for investment, and more private sector 
growth.
  This budget also preserves one of our most important programs, 
Medicare. Millions of Americans have been spared crushing poverty 
because Medicare was there to share the cost of health care for 
seniors. But without some reform, this 30-year-old program was going to 
go out of date and Medicare would be doomed. This budget prevents 
medicare bankruptcy and also gives seniors new health care options. As 
a new senior myself, I do not mind that much. As a grandfather, I am 
interested in making sure my grandchildren get the benefit from 
Medicare also when it comes their time.
  The Earth is not going to shake when we pass this conference report 
and the heavens will not part, as nice as the weather is outside. But 
in 20 or 30 years we just might hear people talking in such terms when 
they recollect the importance, frankly, of what we are going to do here 
in a few minutes. It is just one more example of this Congress doing 
what it said it would do to make our country a better place for 
everyone to live in.
  I urge the passage of this conference report, and I want to thank 
both my chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], my special 
friend; our staff, who has done a great job; all the members of the 
Committee on the Budget; and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] and his staff.
  This has been one of the few times in recent memory when we have had 
a true bipartisan agreement, an agreement with ourselves and the 
President, and frankly, one we can all be very proud of, not only now 
but in the future. So let us all go out and pass this conference 
report, and move forward so all of our children and grandchildren are 
going to have the future we want them to have.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, veterans health care needs are critically 
important to the VA Committee. We will maintain a close watch on the 
impact of this year's budget development on veterans health care 
concerns. The administration's budget was a package flawed from the 
beginning. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the 
President's proposal did not balance. The administration also 
predicated a substantial portion of their veterans health care budget 
on an untested and risky legislative proposal allowing VA to retain and 
use third-party receipts.
  I want to make that clear--it was an administration proposal that 
recommended a switch from fully appropriated funding of veterans health 
care to the use of third-party receipts. I have always supported using 
third-party receipts as a supplement, not a substitute, for veterans 
health care funding. Our committee believed that reliance upon keeping 
insurance receipts as part of the budget this year was premature. 
However, the budget agreement ignored our concerns, so we're going to 
do what we can to make this proposal work.
  According to an analysis which came to light after the agreement was 
announced, there is a $2.2 billion difference between proposed 
discretionary spending, mainly in VA health care, and what had been 
proposed in the President's budget for veterans.
  Approximately $1.1 billion is due to use of the CBO baseline 
projections for discretionary veterans spending--a technical estimating 
difference.
  The other $1.1 billion issue to agreements made by the negotiators to 
protect spending for certain priorities of the President.
  During budget negotiations, the administration asked that spending 
for certain programs--not including veterans health care--be protected 
from future reductions. For instance, in 1998, the President insisted 
that of about $258 billion in projected spending for nondefense 
discretionary spending, approximately $127 billion be protected for 
categories such as international affairs, natural resources and 
environment, transportation, and education, training, employment and 
social services. The Budget Agreement includes $33.6 billion in funding 
over 5 years for the President's domestic initiatives such as 
assistance to immigrants, nutrition assistance, welfare to work, 
children's health, Federal land acquisition, environmental reserve, and 
an offset for low-income Medicare premiums.
  Under the agreement, total spending for veterans benefits and 
services would rise very slightly over the next 5 years, from $40.5 
billion in 1998 to $42.6 billion in 2002, a 5-percent total increase 
over this period--compared with almost a 13-percent increase in overall 
Federal spending authority over the same period.
  Spending for discretionary programs, mainly veterans health care, 
would remain at between $18 and $19 billion, while spending for 
mandatory benefits, mainly veterans compensation and pension benefits, 
would increase from $23.3 to $24.6 billion.
  Ultimately, I support the budget agreement as one that is good for 
the country. This is a package that at least permits the advancement of 
the critically important third-party receipts issue. The bottom line is 
that discretionary spending levels were largely dictated by the 
President's negotiators, who worked overtime to protect his priorities. 
Since this budget--unlike the President's--actually eliminates the 
deficit in 2002, the rest of the discretionary categories, including 
veterans, had to pay the price for these decisions. However, the 
Appropriations Committee still has the flexibility within the 
discretionary caps to change the VA spending levels. thus, it is just 
as important as ever to work with the Appropriations Committee to see 
that veterans health care and other needs are met, and I intend to work 
to that end.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I know of no other group who loves our 
country more than our Nation's veterans. They have answered our 
country's call, proudly worn our Nation's uniform and gone into harm's 
way when asked to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe most veterans support a balanced Federal 
budget which is fair and honest. This should come as no surprise to 
anyone. Again and again veterans have signaled their willingness to do 
their fair share to achieve this important goal. While veterans are 
clearly willing to do their fair share, our Federal budget should not 
be balanced on the backs of those men and women who have served our 
country honorably and well.
  For many, their military service meant great hardship and sacrifice. 
Our Nation's veterans should not be asked to bear an unfair burden in 
balancing the budget--but that is exactly what is being asked of 
America's veterans today.
  Earlier this year, the House Committee on Veterans Affairs considered 
the budget proposed for veterans. At that time, our committee expressed 
strong reservations about the budget proposed for veterans health care. 
That proposal called for a 5-year freeze in appropriations for veterans 
health care. To offset the devastating impact of this freeze, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs was to be given the opportunity to 
retain receipts it was able to collect from third-parties, such as 
insurance companies, for care which VA provided to some veterans.
  After careful consideration and deliberation, our committee 
concluded, ``in our view, there is too much uncertainty about the 
reliability of VA's projected third-party collections to hinge the 
provision of health care on these projections.'' Mr. Speaker, my view 
remains unchanged.
  The budget plan before us jeopardizes the ability of VA to provide 
health care to veterans who have honorably served our Nation. Our 
Nation has a moral obligation to meet the health care needs of these 
veterans. Indeed, we have a special obligation to those veterans who 
have a service-connected disability and those veterans who otherwise 
would not receive the health care they need.
  Many veterans' service organizations understandably have decided to 
oppose the budget resolution before us. I understand the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, the American Legion,

[[Page H3511]]

Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and the 
Disabled American Veterans are among the major veterans organizations 
to speak out in opposition to this budget resolution.
  I believe their opposition is easily understood. Freezing 
appropriations for veterans health care and making VA health care 
delivery dependent on third-party collections clearly jeopardizes the 
health care benefits our veterans have earned. This policy simply asks 
too much of veterans who have already answered this Nation's call. Our 
veterans are right to oppose this budget resolution.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent 
Resolution 84, the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution that outlines the 
parameters under which this Congress will balance the Federal budget 
and reduce the deficit to zero by the year 2002. This is a truly 
historic achievement that proves that when we work in a bipartisan 
fashion, we can achieve our goals of a smaller Government, lower 
spending, lower taxes, and a balanced budget that our constituents 
elected us to achieve. There is no such thing as a perfect agreement, 
but this plan is the best agreement we could develop, and is a 
tremendous step forward not only for the Congress, but more 
importantly, for the American people. This agreement demonstrates that 
by working in a bipartisan fashion, we have the capacity to govern and 
to compromise--and to listen to the voice of our constituents, which 
has clearly called for fiscal restraint.
  Though our constituents have become increasingly cynical about 
Government, this agreement will help restore confidence in the 
institutions and processes of government, and it represents a triumph 
of the political system and a fulfillment of the voters' 1996 command 
to Congress to solve our budget problems in a bipartisan fashion. 
Passing the first balanced budget since man walked on the Moon, for all 
its faults, is a solid and constructive beginning.
  We need to look no further than the States to find evidence of 
precedent for this balanced budget accord. In almost every State where 
a balanced budget requirement exists, their economies are rated 
``excellent'' or ``very good''. The States have set the trend for this, 
and it is time the Federal Government began to operate in a similar 
manner and live within its means.
  Our constituents will benefit unlike at any time in recent history if 
we truly place ourselves on a path to a balanced budget. The economic 
impact that the balanced budget agreement will have manifests itself to 
the typical family by lowering interest rates by up to 2 percent, 
raising investment returns, lowering credit card and car loan rates, 
reducing mortgage payments, lowering consumer product costs, and 
creating more jobs.
  In March, when the budget talks seemed to be breaking down, I 
introduced a balanced budget outline that showed that we could achieve 
a balanced budget essentially by splitting the difference between the 
President's 1998 budget and the 1997 Republican budget plan. I am 
pleased that this budget agreement reflects many of the goals and 
principles I outlined by using budget principles like a deficit 
reduction glidepath to zero with the deficit declining each year, 
reforming entitlement programs that preserve and protect Medicare and 
Medicaid, using Congressional Budget Office economic estimates, 
assumptions and scoring; introducing no new taxes; and forwarding tax 
cuts that are affordable and permanent--I forwarded a net tax cut of 
$77 billion; the agreement is for a net $85 billion tax cut.
  Though we have a good starting point, we must remain steadfast in our 
desire to ensure that this budget agreement translates into a budget 
that does not inflate the deficit or tax cuts, and does not undermine 
the carefully crafted plan before us. I am concerned that we are 
including tax cuts without the assurance of a balanced budget, and am 
also concerned that stronger budget enforcement mechanisms were not 
included to ensure that the budget reaches balance by 2002. Though this 
legislation continues ``pay-go'' budget rules and discretionary 
spending caps, there are a number of other additional enforcement 
mechanisms that should have been included that would assure us that 
spending and revenue fulfill their estimates in the agreement so that 
deficit targets will be met and the budget can finally be balanced.
  Congress must not rest on the initial success of this agreement, but 
must move forward--using the same framework used to reach this accord--
to better address the long-term concerns of further entitlement and 
budget reform. We have some time to prepare, but we must begin that 
work soon. I am proud to have played a part in facilitating this 
agreement and to have the opportunity to see that it is properly 
implemented, that important Federal priorities continue to be met, and 
that the budget reconciliation process includes additional budget 
enforcement mechanisms that will place us, more firmly than ever, on a 
course to a balanced budget by 2002.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
conference report. Although there are other reasons to oppose this 
budget agreement, I did want to highlight the progress that the 
conferees have made in regard to the provision of funds for the 
acquisition of lands for our national system of parks, refuges, 
forests, and public lands.
  In recent years the administration has failed to request, and the 
Congress has failed to appropriate, adequate funding for Federal and 
State land acquisition for conservation and recreation. Despite a 
growing backlog of needs and willing sellers who desire that their 
lands be used for public purposes, the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
Act has not been used as intended for conservation purposes. Oil and 
gas revenues from offshore leasing, which are by law dedicated to the 
fund, have been coming at a rate of $900 million annually, accumulating 
to total of over $12 billion in the current fiscal year. Yet the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 1997 for the National Park Service, Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management was 
only $179 million. The popular State Grant Program, which has been used 
to build recreation facilities across the country, has been zeroed out 
entirely.
  Land acquisition is a vital part of our efforts to safeguard public 
health and enhance the environmental assets of the Nation. Many 
municipal drinking systems depend on pristine watersheds for clean 
water which can be protected by acquisition of forested lands. Threats 
to fish and wildlife species can be mitigated by acquiring prime refuge 
habitat. Acquisition for park enhancement can contribute to growth of 
the recreation industry, which already provides many more land-
dependent jobs than logging, grazing, and mining. Tens of millions of 
fishermen and hunters depend on access to clean public waters and 
productive public lands.
  The conference report has responded to these needs by including the 
President's budget requests for land acquisition, State assistance, and 
Everglades restoration as protected domestic discretionary priorities. 
The Interior Appropriations Subcommittee deserves a greater section 
602(b) allocation of funds than it has received in the past, for these 
and other important priorities.
  In addition, the budget agreement includes $700 million over and 
above the President's requests for priority land acquisition. I applaud 
Chairman Kasich for this commitment of resources. This offers a much 
more sensible alternative to the complicated asset and land exchanges 
that have been proposed by the administration to acquire the Headwaters 
Redwood Forest in California and to protect Yellowstone National Park 
ecosystem by eliminating the threat of pollution from the New World 
mine. We have seen extraordinary success in Alaska with over 500,000 
acres of land acquisition and conservation easements acquired by using 
funds provided through the Exxon Valdez settlement trust. The resources 
provided by the budget agreement can and should be used to duplicate 
that success across the country. This is a good step forward toward 
better utilization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the 
future.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Congressional 
Record a table displaying the policy assumptions in the reconciliation 
instructions set forth in the conference report accompanying House 
Concurrent Resolution 84.

[[Page H3512]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN97.012



[[Page H3513]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN97.013



[[Page H3514]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN97.014



[[Page H3515]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN97.015



[[Page H3516]]

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 327, 
nays 97, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 166]

                               YEAS--327

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--97

     Barton
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Engel
     Evans
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Klug
     Kucinich
     Largent
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Markey
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pombo
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weygand
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Andrews
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Farr
     Goode
     Jefferson
     Lantos
     Pickering
     Schiff
     Turner

                              {time}  1529

  The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote:

       Mr. Turner for, with Mr. Jefferson against.

  Messrs. CRAPO, MOAKLEY, and COYNE changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. STUMP, MARTINEZ, and SKELTON changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________