[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.
____________________