[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6320-H6335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1345
      CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2015, BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 202, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2015) to provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to section 104(a) of the concurrent resolution 
on the budget for fiscal year 1998.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Solomon). Pursuant to House Resolution 
202, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
July 29, 1997, Volume II.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] each will control 45 
minutes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. McDermott] and ask unanimous consent that he be 
permitted to yield that time to Members on my side in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. This obviously is 
the beginning of a very important debate and the beginning of a very 
exciting 2 days. We bring before the House today and tomorrow the first 
real budget in real terms with real savings starting immediately, for 
the first time adding up to a balanced budget for the first time since 
Neil Armstrong, a great American and fellow Ohioan, walked on the Moon. 
It will also be the first tax cuts to provide jobs and to help families 
for the first time in 16 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I know there are a lot of people out there that still 
think that this is all being done with disappearing ink, but at the end 
of these 2 days and upon the signing of the President of the United 
States, we should have a deal that commences the era that recognizes 
the limits of Government and begins to transfer power, money, and 
influence from this city.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my young protege the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this truly is a great day for America. What an exciting 
thing to be a part of out here. The first time since 1969. I was a 
sophomore in high school, the first time since I was a sophomore in 
high school, 1969, that we are actually going to balance the Federal 
budget. It is about more than words. It is about the hopes and dreams 
of the children in America today and the restoration of their 
opportunity to live the American dream. That is what this is all about 
today.
  In 1995 the American people. And they should get credit for this, 
too, the American people had a mandate. The mandate was get us a 
balanced budget, get the tax burden off our back and restore Medicare 
for our senior citizens. Between today and tomorrow, we are going to 
make good on all three of those points.
  To the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the 
committee on the budget, to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], 
the Speaker, to the folks on the other side of the aisle that were so 
actively involved and

[[Page H6321]]

the rest of the Republican leadership team, and all the Members and my 
colleagues here, this truly is a tribute to what can be done if we work 
in a bipartisan way for the good of the future of this great Nation 
that we live in.
  I think we need to look at why this is happening. It is equally 
important as the fact that it is happening. When we came here in 1995, 
we had a vision for a different America. We had just gone through the 
tax increases of 1993, and the American people rejected those tax 
increases. In 1995, we came here with a new mission. The mission was to 
curtail the growth of Washington spending. Spending had been growing by 
5.2 percent a year before we got here. It has been curtailed to 3.2, a 
40 percent lowering of the growth of Washington spending. That means 
Washington spends less, so they borrow less. When they borrow less, 
there is more money in the private sector, so the interest rates stay 
down and this is where it gets out of Washington and back to America. 
When the interest rates stayed down, people could afford to buy houses 
and cars, and when they bought houses and cars, somebody had to build 
them. So that meant job opportunities. And all of a sudden, the 
opportunity to work hard and live the American dream is back available 
to the American people. It is the right way to go about doing this.
  What a great opportunity we have here today. For our senior citizens, 
they can go to bed tonight resting assured that Medicare has been 
restored for them for at least a decade. That job is done. For the 
people in the work force, tomorrow we will pass the first tax reduction 
in 16 years, 16 long years, and for the first time that tax burden on 
American families, on American workers, it is about to come down. What 
a great 2 days this is going to be.
  Most important of all, for the children in America today, for our 
children and for our grandchildren, for the first time since 1969, the 
people in this Congress are going to do the right thing for the future 
of this country. We are no longer going to continue the practice of 
spending more money than we have. We are going to fulfill the mandate 
of 1995 and balance the budget. For seniors, Medicare has been 
restored. For workers, taxes are coming down, and for their children 
the future is once again secure in this great Nation that we live in.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays] controls the time on the majority side.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the last station on the track. The train leaving 
here will take us to a balanced budget. But I would never let the 
occasion to open up pass without recalling exactly why we are here, 
what brings us to this point where we can say credibly that we are 
within reach of a balanced budget.
  I have to take us back to 1993. George Bush was about to leave 
office. January 13. He filed his Economic Report of the President, and 
in it he predicted that the deficit for that fiscal year would be $332 
billion. That was the deficit that President Clinton found on the 
doorstep awaiting him when he arrived at the White House 1 week later. 
On February 17, he laid on the doorstep of the Congress a plan for 
dealing with that deficit.
  I would take exception with the gentleman from Wisconsin who said 
this is the first time we will begin to stand up to this problem. We 
stood up to it in 1993. We passed that deficit reduction bill by the 
skin of its teeth, and the deficit went down in 1994 to $203 billion, 
in 1995 to $164 billion, last September 30 when we closed the books on 
fiscal year 1996, the deficit was $107.8 billion. Five fiscal years in 
a row, because of that legislation, the deficit has come down.
  This year, according to today's predictions, this year when the books 
are closed on fiscal year 1997, the deficit should be less than $50 
billion; almost certainly it will be. It will probably be less than $40 
billion. We have come from a projected deficit of $332 billion in 1993 
to an actual deficit in 1997 of about $40 billion. That is phenomenal 
progress. It is the reason we are here, the reason we are about to 
claim victory, because of the foundation that has been laid since 1993. 
The deficit has been brought down by 80 percent.
  Nevertheless, when we started this session of Congress with a divided 
government, the House and the Senate held by Republicans, the White 
House held by a Democrat, it was not clear at all that in a divided 
government we could mount this effort to finish the job, balance the 
budget and say we had finally achieved victory. We did it. We are here 
today because the President leaned into the problem, he called the 
Republicans to negotiate, and they responded earnestly, in good faith. 
We sat down to talk, then to negotiate, and finally to hammer out the 
elements of an agreement which took months and months to accomplish.
  That agreement, when it came to the floor in the form of our budget 
resolution, drew big support on this side of the aisle. One hundred 
thirty-three Democrats, if I recall correctly, voted for it. That is a 
margin of nearly 2 to 1.
  But when the budget resolution was put out to the committees of 
jurisdiction, it picked up all kinds of unwanted baggage, 
controversial, contentious things from medical malpractice to multiple 
employer welfare arrangements, things that we not only did not support, 
we had resisted and fought for years. As a consequence, we lost 
traction on this side. A number of Members simply said they would not 
vote for the bill with those things in it.
  I stood here in the well of the House and said I am going to bet on 
the come. I am going to bet we can go back to conference and recapture 
that bipartisan agreement that built the agreement in the first place 
and bring both parties back together behind an agreement, a genuine 
budget agreement that deserves the moniker, deserves to be called a 
bipartisan budget agreement. I can say to my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle today, I think we have succeeded to an extent that I was not 
sure at all when I cast that vote we would succeed.
  There are more successes by far than setbacks as a result of this 
conference. We call this a deficit reduction act but we need to remind 
ourselves that what we have here is more than just a deficit reduction 
bill. What we have hammered out in this bill is a plan to balance the 
budget over 5 years, yes, but it is really more than that. We have not 
been so caught up, so fixated on balancing the budget that we forgot 
that the country has got other problems, too. We are wiping out the 
deficit but we are also doing more than has been done in years to see 
that all Americans have the opportunity to obtain higher education. We 
are taking down the deficit but we are also taking steps to see that 
children in working families have medical insurance. We hope to reach 
at least 5 million of them as a result of this bill. We can all be 
proud of that.
  We are lowering the cost of Medicare and Medicaid because Medicare is 
the biggest spike in the budget, the fastest rise. Yet not only are we 
protecting beneficiaries, we are actually making the program solvent so 
that they do not have to worry about its solvency for 10 years; but we 
are adding $4 billion in preventive care benefits for things like 
annual mammograms, and in time I think they will more than pay for 
themselves.
  There are still provisions in this conference agreement that I do not 
like. I wish they were not there. They will be hard to swallow. No 
doubt there are many on my side who will find many other things in this 
agreement to which to object. But on the whole, I think what we have 
achieved here accomplishes far more than we on our side as Democrats 
could ever have achieved without a bipartisan compromise. I am 
satisfied with the outcome, and I plan to vote for the conference 
agreement today, and I encourage my colleagues, particularly those on 
this side of the aisle, to do the same.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman of the Committee on House 
Oversight, a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and 
chairman of its Subcommittee on Health.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H6322]]

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by complimenting 
everyone.
  We have a portion of the balanced budget bill in front of us, and it 
is amazing what has occurred in a relatively short period of time in 
terms of everyone's reaction to making changes in the Medicare portion 
of the package.
  One of my favorite old songs is a song by Dinah Washington: What a 
Difference a Day Makes. What a difference a year makes, what a 
difference a willingness to sit down and fundamentally address the 
problem makes as well.
  I am very pleased to say that my ranking member, friend, and 
colleague from California [Mr. Stark], and his chief of staff Bill 
Vaughan have been with us on this journey from the beginning, through 
subcommittee, full committee and during conference to make sure that 
although at times they may not have been in agreement with what we were 
talking about doing, they were at least informed. And I cannot help 
that the gentleman's President did not do what he believes he should 
have done during the conference.
  I want to thank not only the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Archer], the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, but the 
members of the subcommittee on Health of the Ways and Means Committee 
who worked long hours to make sure on a bipartisan basis they 
understood not only what needed to be done, but just as importantly 
what could be done, and I think the package we have in front of us 
today, with the able help of the staff headed by Chip Kahn, is the most 
fundamental reform in the history of Medicare.
  I know we have some friends on the other side of the Capitol who are 
disappointed that we did not go farther, but we have to appreciate how 
far we have gone. Oftentimes we judge ourselves by our failures rather 
than our successes.
  Before we started this process we had a Medicare system which was a 
fee for service when someone who was sick. When this measure is signed 
by the President, we will have a Medicare which is a preventive and 
wellness structured Medicare. It will provide choices for seniors that 
are available in the general health area. It provides, as was 
indicated, a preventive package which will be expanded, when science 
tells us to expand it and not politics. It provides opportunities for 
choice over a broad spectrum so that people do not have just one other 
option, they have a number of options, and to help them in those 
choices we have a handsome educational package long overdue.
  So I am here basically not to talk about what is in the bill, but to 
thank all those people who worked with us to put together a Medicare 
package in which no one will be afraid to run on in the next election. 
We will all embrace it and say this is a handsome first step, obviously 
we need to do more, we have a commission built in to do more, but 
before that commission even triggers we are going to sit down and 
continue to build a Medicare Program which is based upon prevention and 
wellness. The seniors deserve nothing less.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  The gentleman from South Carolina has said that the budget deficit 
has been reducing, begun by the Democrats in 1993, and it would be 
balanced within a year or so without this whole exercise. So make no 
mistake, what we are doing here is making cuts in this bill in 
entitlements in order to give tax breaks tomorrow. Today, if today did 
not happen, tomorrow would not and could not happen.
  Now as I see it, this issue of Medicare is the reason I will vote 
against the bill because it is a sugar-coated poison pill, it will 
taste good going down, everybody will say, well, we are saving 
Medicare, but there is no question in my mind that the social insurance 
principles on which Medicare was created are being eroded in this bill. 
Rather than strengthen the program, which everyone says they are doing 
here today, the bill creates a multitiered Medicare Program, one for 
the super rich, one for the rich, and one for the rest of the folks.
  Now in Germany when they did that in their health care program, if 
someone wants to opt out of the system, as this bill will now allow 
seniors to do, they can never come back. But our wisdom in this body 
did not say we will not let people back. We will let them go out, take 
advantage of the system, game it in every way possible, and then when 
the problem comes they can jump back into our system. It creates 
incentives for for-profit health care plans to siphon off America's 
healthy and wealthy seniors and leave the rest of the problem for the 
Federal Government. In my view, that is in the long term not good for 
the country.
  Now also in the area of health care is the reduction in the DISH 
payments. For those listening who do not understand, DISH means 
disproportionate share. It is those hospitals that take care of a 
disproportionate share of people who do not have health care insurance. 
We have 44 million Americans. Not one single one of them is better off 
because of this bill, because they are not getting insurance in it. We 
are taking away the money that the hospitals use to cover those people 
when they show up at the emergency room in a crisis. And my view is 
that the city hospitals and the rural hospitals of this country within 
2 years will all be in serious problems because of the reductions we 
have made in the disproportionate share payments.
  For that reason I think we should not be passing this bill, we do not 
need to make tax breaks tomorrow, the American public is not clamoring 
for tax breaks, especially tax breaks where 50 percent of them go to 
people making $109,000 or more, and yet we rush forward here today to 
make these cuts in Medicare and the service that we provide through the 
disproportionate share payments.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Granger], the former mayor of Fort Worth and a member 
of the Committee on the Budget.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of 
this historic bipartisan agreement to balance the budget.
  This proposal we consider today is more than a blueprint to balancing 
the budget. It is a blueprint to building the future. This budget is 
not about numbers or theories. It is about people, real people with 
real dreams for themselves and for their children, for their parents. 
We owe them, we owe our constituents a budget that balances just like 
they have to balance themselves. We owe our children a nation that is 
debt free, and this balanced budget cuts off the flow of red ink for 
the first time since 1969; that will be 30 years ago.
  We owe our working young parents access to the American dream of more 
jobs and home ownership. This balanced budget will create more than 4 
million new jobs and reduce the cost of a typical new home by more than 
$30,000. We owe our parents and our grandparents a Medicare system that 
takes care of them if they become ill, and this balanced budget will 
protect Medicare and let us keep our commitment to our seniors. And 
finally, we owe the American people something more important and much 
more profound. We owe them our word.
  The balanced budget agreement ends 28 years of promised balanced 
budgets and broken promises. Twenty-seven years, 5 Presidents and 14 
Congresses have not balanced our budget. If we pass this budget today, 
the 105th Congress will be different. Today we can say to the American 
people, promises made, promises kept.
  I urge my colleagues to support this historic agreement to balance 
the budget for our children, our working parents and our seniors. We 
now have a blueprint, so let the building begin.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first I want to concur in the comments that 
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] made a little earlier, 
and that is we need to look first to 1993, to the Deficit Reduction Act 
that was passed under the leadership of President Clinton and the 
Democrats in Congress, for why we are able to reach this point today. I 
am very pleased that the final chapter we are doing in a bipartisan 
manner, the passage of these two bills.
  There are many reasons to support it. We are at last going to have a 
balanced budget, and we are going to protect the priorities that are 
important for the future growth of this Nation.

[[Page H6323]]

  Let me just mention some of the specifics that are in this bill for 
why the Members should support it:
  First, the Medicare, we are providing for 10-year solvency, 
additional solvency of the Medicare system, improving benefits to our 
seniors in preventive health care and access to emergency care. Our 
academic centers will be getting some badly needed relief to make sure 
that we have excellence in health care in this country. Twenty-four 
billion dollars to expand health care for our children.
  This bill acknowledges the special needs of Amtrak and capital 
involvement, and the welfare bill from last year has changed to provide 
more resources for welfare to work and to remove some of the punitive 
aspects against legal immigrants.
  It is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Washington [Ms. Dunn], an elected member of the Republican 
leadership and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, today we take a historic step in reducing the 
size of Federal Government and providing for a balanced budget in 5 
years. We are building a path to the future that restores both hope and 
opportunity for all Americans. Today and for the future we are 
dramatically changing the fiscal direction of our country from a path 
of out of control growth of Government to a path of sustained expansion 
of the economy and job creation.
  Achieving a balanced budget will provide lower interest rates, higher 
productivity, improved purchasing power for all Americans, more exports 
and accelerated long term-growth. It will also, we believe, revive the 
possibility once again for the American dream. Americans can once again 
look toward their children having the chance to do better than they.
  Our balanced budget is about more than just accounting and tidy 
bookkeeping. Budget deficits sap private investment, they drive up 
interest rates and they provide that the service on the national debt 
is a cost to the average taxpayer of $800 in 1 year in taxes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, with this bill we can embark on a new and responsible 
course by balancing our Nation's budget by restoring hope, confidence 
and opportunity. This balanced budget agreement is the first in a 
generation. It represents GOP ideals, and it shows that a Republican 
majority at the helm in Congress can and will deliver on its promises.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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 believe this is a good blueprint to get 
us into balance by 2002. We have to remember of course this is a 
blueprint, there are no guarantees, but we certainly all hope that that 
is the case if it does become law. It is also far better than what we 
saw in the 104th Congress.
  Just for instance, if we look at Medicare and Medicaid, we are 
looking at reductions of $130 billion versus $450 billion that we saw 
in 1995 and 1996 that led to Government shutdowns. So we have come a 
long way; the largest increase in education since the Eisenhower 
administration and starting to address children's health care.
  Now, let me address just a couple of issues very quickly in 
specifics. With respect to disproportionate share for Medicaid, I want 
to thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] the chairman, 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], my colleague from Texas [Mr. 
Archer], and the administration for fixing that program, ensuring that 
States like mine of Texas and 12 other so-called high DISH States are 
treated more fairly under this bill than they were when the bill left 
the House of the other body.
  In addition, as the other gentleman from Maryland just spoke, we are 
finally addressing the needs of the academic medical centers, such as 
those in my district, by carving out and requiring the managed care 
companies to pay into medical education through medical education. This 
is a good compromise. I hope my colleagues will support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to balance the 
Federal budget for the first time since 1969. What a difference 2 years 
makes. In 1995 and 1996, Congress was in stalemate over budgets that 
would gut Medicare, education, and environmental protection. Now after 
the American people rejected that approach, we have before us a 
bipartisan compromise that not only balances the budget, but improves 
and strengthens Medicare and makes necessary investments in the health 
and education of our children. This is the commonsense approach we 
should have been taking all along.
  I especially want to thank the conferees and the administration for 
addressing one issue of special significance to my State of Texas, and 
that issue is fairness in the way cuts are made to the Medicaid 
Disproportionate Share Hospital [DSH] program. When I voted for this 
legislation on June 25, I did so with the commitment of Budget 
Committee Chairman Kasich, Budget Ranking Member Spratt, and the 
administration that they would address this issue in conference. They 
have made good on their word, and I want to thank Mr. Kasich, Mr. 
Spratt, the administration, Ways and Means Chairman Archer, my 
colleagues in the Texas Delegation, and the many others who have worked 
to return some equity to the way Medicaid cuts are carried out.
  Under this agreement, no State will have its total Medicaid funding 
cut by more than 3.5 percent in any 1 year. I want to emphasize that no 
State will lose more money than it would have lost under the original 
House bill. This agreement is much more fair to Texas and the other 12 
so-called high-DSH States that would have had their Medicaid 
disproportionate share funding cut by twice as much as other States, 
while some States had no cuts at all. High-DSH States would have had 
their Medicaid DSH funding cut by 40 percent in the year 2002, and 
Texas would have lost $920 million under the House bill and $1.15 
billion in the even worse Senate bill.
  While not perfect, this agreement is much more equitable. It restores 
Medicaid funds that Texas hospitals desperately need to provide basic 
health care to the poorest patients. This funding is especially 
critical to our public and children's hospitals, which have high 
Medicaid and indigent caseloads.
  I also want to call attention to two provisions in the Medicare 
reform section of this legislation that I and other Members have 
advocated and that would greatly benefit our Nation's health care 
system. These provisions, which are similar to legislation I have 
introduced, will help ensure that senior citizens have real choice 
under Medicare and our Nation continues to invest properly in medical 
education at teaching hospitals.
  The first provision would give senior citizens who choose a managed 
care plan the right to buy supplemental insurance, or Medigap, to pay 
for prescriptions, copayments, and other uncovered services if they 
return to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Many seniors now fear 
that if they choose managed care they may be locked in forever. That is 
because, if they choose later to return to traditional Medicare, they 
may not be able to purchase Medigap. Current law requires insurers to 
sell Medigap policies to seniors only when they first enroll in 
Medicare. The agreement requires insurers to also sell Medigap to 
seniors who, within the first year of enrolling in Medicare managed 
care, decide to switch back to traditional Medicare, ensuring real 
choice in health care for seniors.
  This agreement will also ensure that Medicare managed care plans help 
fund medical education in the same way as fee-for-service Medicare. 
Under current law, the Medicare Program provides extra payments to 
teaching hospitals based on the number of fee-for-service Medicare 
patients served at these hospitals. However, Medicare managed care 
plans are not required to make such a contribution, causing a funding 
shortfall as more senior citizens join managed care plans. This 
agreement includes a provision to carve out graduate medical education 
[GME] amounts from the Average Adjusted Per Capita Cost [AAPCC] payment 
to Medicare managed care plans and direct this funding, approximately 
$5 billion over the next 5 years, to teaching hospitals. This plan does 
not increase Federal spending; rather, it recaptures funds from the 
current Medicare managed care reimbursement formula so that all 
Medicare plans help pay for the cost of graduate medical education.

  This agreement is an important step toward ensuring that our Nation 
continues to support its teaching hospitals in this era of managed 
health care. It will ensure stable, guaranteed funding to train future 
doctors and other health care professionals and conduct vital clinical 
research. This is an essential step toward ensuring that the United 
States continues to have the best health care system in the world.
  Altogether, the Medicare provisions of this legislation will extend 
the solvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for 10 
years, while providing more health care

[[Page H6324]]

choices, consumer protections, and preventive benefits for our Nation's 
senior citizens. This agreement includes $4 billion to provide a 
package of preventive benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, including 
new or expanded coverage for mammography, pap smears, screening for 
prostate and colorectal cancer, diabetes self-management, and the 
diagnosis of osteoporosis. It increases the health insurance options 
available to Medicare beneficiaries beyond the traditional fee-for-
service program to include the various managed care options generally 
available from private plans. And it includes important consumer 
protections for Medicare beneficiaries, including the Medigap 
protection I have already discussed. Other protections include 
provisions banning gag rules that restrict what Medicare managed care 
doctors can tell their patients; requiring managed care plans to have a 
grievance and appeal process to protect patient rights; and 
establishing a ``prudent layperson'' definition of an emergency to 
ensure patients are covered by Medicare when they seek care from 
emergency rooms.
  Mr. Speaker, I also strongly support the important investments 
included in this agreement, especially in the areas of children's 
health and education.
  This agreement makes a $24 billion investment in children's health, 
which will help end the national shame that 10 million children lack 
health insurance and access to basic health services such as 
immunizations and regular checkups. My State of Texas leads the Nation 
in the number of uninsured children--2.6 million Texas children lacked 
health insurance for at least a month over the past 2 years. This 
agreement will go a long way toward helping these children and their 
families. It will help more children get cost-effective preventive 
health care rather than more expensive care when they get sick.
  I also applaud this agreement's investment in education, which is 
absolutely the right priority in our global, information-age economy. 
We must expand access to college because more and better education is 
needed to get ahead and earn a good wage in this economy. Together with 
the tuition tax credits in the tax reconciliation bill, this 
legislation makes the largest investment in higher education since the 
G.I. Bill in 1945. It includes the largest Pell grant increase in two 
decades; boosting the maximum Pell grant from $2,700 to $3,000 and 
expanding the program to more poor independent students.
  This legislation is a bipartisan compromise that, like all 
compromises, requires each of us to accept provisions we may not 
support. But on balance, it is a good bill, a fair and fiscally 
responsible bill that makes necessary investments in our future. I urge 
my colleagues to support the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand today in 
support of H.R. 2015, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, because my wife 
and I have five wonderful, healthy, vibrant children, and this bill is 
all about them and all about their future.

                              {time}  1415

  After almost three decades of deficit spending, finally we see an end 
to this generation spending the resources that belong to future 
generations, to our children and to our grandchildren. Finally, we have 
taken the first step toward reducing our Nation's terrible debt.
  Am I 100 percent in agreement with every provision in this bill? Of 
course not. No, not one Member of this body, Democrat or Republican, is 
in 100 percent agreement with every provision of this bill. But I am in 
100 percent agreement with the fact that we have scored a major victory 
for our kids and for our grandkids.
  We have gone from increasing taxes in 1993 $265 billion to reducing 
taxes by over $90 billion in this legislation. We have scored a major 
victory for the next generation of Americans. We have taken the first 
step toward passing on to them an America that is not crippled by debt 
or deficits, but liberated by a responsible government that lives 
within its means.
  Vote today for America's kids. Vote today for America's future. Vote 
``yes.'' I encourage a yes vote, in favor of the Balanced Budget Act.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. President, nice going; White House staff, 
nice going; the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], well done; 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], we have a good balanced budget 
agreement here.
  The most important thing is that it is balanced not just in terms of 
dollars and cents, but in terms of priorities: A $900 billion reduction 
in deficit spending over the next 10 years, but the highest increase in 
higher education since the GI bill of 1945, the largest increase in 
children's health protection since Medicaid in 1965, more than 30 years 
ago.
  We have got a $500-per-child tax credit for 27 million families. We 
have got entitlement reform. We have got a lot of the brownfields and 
empowerment zones tax initiatives, $3 billion for welfare to work 
initiatives. The fact is that speaking as a Democrat, the White House 
got what it wanted, which is our priorities--better education and 
health care for our children, tax fairness for middle class families, 
and an end to the legacy of debt we have been deferring to our 
children.
  This bill deserves to be supported. It is a fiscally responsible 
bill, it is a bill that emphasizes our priorities. It is a bill that on 
both sides of the aisle we should vote for.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Stark].
  (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am having a little trouble. I guess I am 
the only person here who does not have both arms broken from patting 
myself on the back. I am having a little trouble understanding this 
bill.
  Before I explain it, I want to take this opportunity to thank the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, the gentleman from California [Mr. Bill Thomas] for his open and 
fair manner in handling the Medicare portion of this bill, which, as 
the House originally wrote it, was quite good; but the Senate gooped it 
up and the White House caved to the Senate, so we do not have a very 
good Medicare bill.
  But the fact is we have a lousy bill. We would have been better if we 
had stayed home. Look, the budget is going to balance next year without 
a bill. In this bill, it takes 5 years to balance. After it balances, 
we get deficits again. If we had no budget bill, we would balance and 
get surpluses. So I say to the Members, great job. They just stretch 
out the time and then give us more deficits.
  Medicare, it is going to go to 2007. Hot dog. If we did not have a 
tax bill, we would have the money to take Medicare to 2022. So these 
geniuses have just cut 15 years off the salvation of Medicare. Good job 
again.
  What about children's insurance? Super job. They are going to spend 
$2,500 bucks a kid to insure 2 million more kids, and if Members had 
let it alone and used that same money to put them into Medicaid, they 
would have had 5 million kids insured, so I thank the geniuses for the 
3 million kids who are going to walk around without any health 
insurance due to this budget.
  Here is the perfect example of government run amok. They have fixed 
everything. The Senate bill adds the Kyl amendment and others, which 
will, for the first time, allow doctors to charge Medicare 
beneficiaries an unlimited amount of money and basically kick them out 
of Medicare.
  My heavens, how awful, to suddenly find that we are going to have 
Medicare live up to the Speaker's intention of withering on the vine 
because it is going to be a two-class system. Medicare beneficiaries 
will be able to be charged unlimited amounts for the rich. This is the 
country club health care relief act to end them all. Medicare costs are 
going to go up $1.5 billion to try out a medical savings account, which 
will only, again, help the wealthy and the healthy.
  So as we go along, we have the right-to-life group who wanted to have 
this Medicare amendment that Senator Kyl put in there, and it is 
useless. We were going to cut $100 million out of poor inner-city 
hospitals; save it, as we like to say. Where are we now? We are going 
to save $600 million out of inner-city hospitals, $500 million bucks 
more out of the poorest hospitals in every one of the Members' 
districts, those hospitals that help the needy and the indigent.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a lousy bill. Vote ``no.'' Go home and know you 
are going to be better off for not having a bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup], a new Member

[[Page H6325]]

to Congress and a very important member to the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be here today. Before 
I comment on this balanced budget, I want to thank all of the people 
who have come before me that have kept the hope alive and the belief 
alive that it was possible to balance the budget, to cut taxes, to save 
Medicare, and to meet the emerging needs of our communities.
  They were often ridiculed. They sat through years of where we raised 
taxes, where we spent more money, and they kept the hope alive for 
Americans that it was possible to change that course. They inspired me, 
and they inspired my community that this was a possibility. So for 
them, I thank them for the leadership and the lonely days they spent in 
this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill says I love you to our children. For me, it is 
my six children: David, Katie, Joshua, Kevin, Erin, and Mark. For all 
the other parents who have children that believe that we should 
restrain our spending and pass on better opportunities to our children, 
that is what we are doing today when we vote for this bill.
  It is a pleasure to be here. It is an honor to be a part of this. I 
think more than the numbers, more than what it does to interest rates, 
more than what it does to stop the bleed of red ink, it also helps to 
reestablish the faith and the trust that the American people have that 
this system of Government can address its needs, can come to an 
agreement, and can reflect what they have believed in so long. That is 
that we should balance our budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the basic principle of the Democratic Party 
has been economic growth with equity. The 1993 Deficit Reduction Act 
was instrumental in promoting economic growth. Despite the overall 
growth, there were pressures on middle-income families, so this bill 
includes a child credit and also an educational tax credit and 
deduction. I support both bills.
  Let me say a word about the piece that I worked most on, the human 
resource piece. I supported the Welfare Reform Act. People on welfare 
should move from welfare to work. But when the President signed the 
bill he pointed out several inequities. One related to legal 
immigrants. He promised to work to provide benefits to elderly and 
disabled legal immigrants who should not have been penalized in the 
first place. I joined in that promise. Today we are keeping that 
promise. It is a much better bill in that respect than when it left the 
House.
  The President also promised to work for a welfare to work provision. 
We have kept that promise. There was an effort, though, in this House 
to penalize people who move from welfare to work, to treat them as 
second-class citizens, to withdraw them from the protections of Federal 
law in terms of wages, in terms of safety on the job.
  We have today, in this bill, repelled that effort. People who work 
are to be treated as first-class citizens, without discrimination. We 
have also repelled the effort to withdraw from mostly elderly women the 
protections of maintenance of effort under SSI in terms of payments 
from the State. This is a bill that is a step in the right direction. I 
urge broad support for it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt]), a new member of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the Committee on Science.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Speaker.
  One of the many good reasons to vote for this bill, this legislation, 
is its impact on diabetes. This particular bill has a component, a 
prevention component relative to diabetes that will improve the health 
of all Americans with diabetes. There is also a special section 
entitled ``Special diabetes programs for children with Type 1 
diabetes.'' There is a funding for special diabetes program for 
Indians.
  Diabetes is a very serious disease. The gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Furse) and I are chairmen of the Diabetes Caucus. We have had great 
support in this body for the cause of diabetes and curing it. I am 
delighted to be involved in supporting this bill along with my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, in order to complete the colloquy, I yield 
30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse]).
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, like my co-chair, the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], I want to see that this budget contains 
good news for 16 million Americans, 16 million Americans who suffer 
from diabetes, including my own beloved daughter, Amanda. Thanks to my 
good friends, the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. Bilirakis], Mr. Brown, 
and the 87 members of the Diabetes Caucus, we have put together a 
strong, bipartisan effort that will truly make a difference to the 
lives of people with diabetes.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], who is 
the chairman of our committee, and all the diabetes organizations who 
worked so hard on this.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], a senior Member of Congress and the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on 
Commerce.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been an honor for me to work with the gentleman, 
members of the budget conference and Committee on Commerce and 
Committee on Ways and Means members on historic legislation which will 
balance our Nation's budget for the first time, the first time since 
Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon, and at the same time reduce taxes, 
save Medicare and Medicaid, provide education and other family 
incentives and opportunities, and guarantees $24 billion to provide 
better health care for children.
  In recent years many have said that we could not balance the budget 
and also reduce taxes. We have done that and more.
  Regarding Medicare, we have saved the program for the next 10 years 
without hurting beneficiaries in any way. In fact, this legislation 
contains many worthwhile changes which greatly benefit the elderly. Our 
legislation gives seniors a choice of coverage through the new Medicare 
Plus Program, provides consumer protections, addresses fraud and abuse, 
and adds additional preventive health benefits. It also creates a 
commission to make recommendations on how Medicare could be preserved 
for future generations.
  Regarding Medicaid, this legislation allows States to provide better 
and more cost-effective medical coverage for low-income people by 
giving States more flexibility. Under the children's grants, States 
will receive funds to initiate and expand health coverage and services 
to uninsured low-income children.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, must be judged on its merits, must be judged 
on its benefits to our constituents today, and to their future, and to 
the Nation and its future.
  This legislation would not have been possible, Mr. Speaker, without 
the great work of staffers Howard Cohen, Eric Berger, Patti DeLoache, 
Ed Grossman, and others, many others, that put in many hours over the 
past several months, and I want them to know how much I and all 
Americans appreciate their efforts.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Chicago, IL [Mr. Gutierrez].
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing the word ``balance'' a lot 
today. We applaud ourselves as we balance the budget. It is an 
important accomplishment, a difficult accomplishment to balance our 
budget. But I am afraid our Nation is losing its balance in a lot of 
other areas, like keeping our promises to our veterans who are facing 
cuts in this budget, like protecting our seniors who face an uncertain 
future because of this budget, like acknowledging the contribution of 
immigrants who are still targets for blame and discrimination in this 
budget, and like the simple idea of tax fairness that the wealthiest in 
our Nation should contribute a little more to our Treasury.
  Our budget might be balanced, at least until the tax cuts explode 
again

[[Page H6326]]

in the future. But we are creating a lot of new deficits. Deficits of 
keeping our promises. Deficits of fairness. Deficits of equity. 
Deficits of caring. These are the deficits I cannot support today, and 
that is why I will cast my vote against this budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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 intend to vote for this bill, not 
because it is a perfect bill. Not because I agree with all that is in 
it. There is much that I do not agree with, but there is much more I do 
agree with. I think balancing our budget is important for our country. 
Some of the things I do agree is that we have made more provisions for 
education. We have made scholarships for those families who are going 
to college. We have made provisions to give tax relief for families 
with children. Also importantly, we have made provisions not to take 
away the working rights for mothers and those who are on welfare to 
make sure that they have the same opportunities as others in there.
  Yes, there are things in this bill you wish were not in there. But 
there is also tax relief for farmers and small businesses which they 
critically need in my area and also tax relief for education. On 
balance it may not be perfect, but I think it is good for America. I 
intend to vote for it and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Archer], chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chief 
architect of this historic budget agreement between the White House and 
Congress.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  The conference agreement that we vote on today is a bridge, a bridge 
that reaches across to unite generations today and tomorrow. It saves 
Medicare for this generation of seniors, and it balances the budget so 
that we can save the next generation from the crushing burden of debt. 
It says that Washington has to change its ways so the American people 
will not have to change theirs. It tells the American people that 
Congress does not live by special rules. We will no longer spend more 
than we take in. The American people understand this.
  They know they have to balance their family budgets each month. And 
so should we. Last year my 12th grandchild was born. When I went to 
visit him as a little premature baby, and I am happy to say he survived 
and he is home with his parents and doing well, I could not help but 
think that his pro rata share of the interest on the national debt 
during his lifetime would be $189,000, if he was an average income 
earner. That is unconscionable for our generation to leave to the 
coming generations. Today we do something about it. I say to Archer 
Hadley, my little grandson, this is for you.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight two 
portions of this conference report that lead me to support it today. 
The first is getting us to a balanced budget. The amount of interest 
that we are paying annually right now on the Federal deficit more than 
exceeds the total amount of income tax payments paid by every 
individual west of the Mississippi.
  We need to get the budget balanced and then attack the deficit. This 
spending plan is accompanied by tax cuts that are paid for while we 
will still balance the budget. The White House succeeded in keeping 
those tax cuts affordable. That is terribly important.
  Second, this budget agreement constitutes a massive reallocation of 
our resources into education. To encourage more of our high school 
seniors, more community college students, more university students to 
be the best they can be in school and to succeed in obtaining well-
paying jobs for themselves and their families. Most importantly it will 
send another strong message to adults throughout our country to engage 
in a lifetime of learning, to go back to school supported by their 
employers or supporting themselves, to further their jobs skills, to 
broaden their job skills, to sharpen their job skills to prepare for 
the 21st century.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2015, the Balanced 
Budget Act, which will balance the budget within 5 years while at the 
same time protecting our Nation's commitment to our seniors, investing 
in health care coverage for children, expanding educational 
opportunities for students, and restoring fairness for thousands of 
legal immigrants.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee I want to first 
commend my ranking member, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] for his hard work and dedication throughout these long 
negotiations. Without his leadership and his commitment to working with 
both the administration and the Republican negotiators, this agreement 
would not have been possible. Our Nation owes a debt of gratitude for 
all that he has done over the past 6 months.
  H.R. 2015, the spending portion of the reconciliation package, is 
truly a historic bill--historic not only for what it does, but also for 
what it represents. This bill demonstrates a commitment by both parties 
to the principle that we should not be spending beyond our means; that 
we must not saddle our children and grandchildren with debt; and that 
we should balance the budget while protecting our Nation's spending 
priorities. Furthermore, this bill is an example of what bipartisan 
cooperation can accomplish. If we set aside the rhetoric and work 
together toward a common goal, we can find areas of agreement and 
compromises on those areas of disagreement. The result is truly a win 
for the American people. I hope the spirit of cooperation, embodied in 
this Balanced Budget Act, will continue when we return from our August 
recess and as we sit down to tackle other critical issues such as 
campaign finance reform.
  Specifically, H.R. 2015 includes much needed entitlement reforms 
which would balance the budget in the near term and lay the groundwork 
for long-term reforms as the baby-boomers approach retirement.
  The majority of the savings in this package are designed to preserve 
and strengthen the Medicare Program by extending the solvency of the 
trust fund for at least 10 years. The bill will expand choices for 
Medicare beneficiaries and protect low-income beneficiaries from 
premium increases. The Balanced Budget Act also invests $4 billion in 
preventive benefits to fight breast cancer, diabetes, and colon cancer 
through annual tests and screenings.
  Additionally, the bill implements tough new antifraud provisions, 
many of which are identical to those I introduced earlier this year in 
the Medicare Anti-Fraud Act, H.R. 1761. With recent revelations over 
the amount of fraud and abuse in the current system, I believe these 
initiatives, such as requiring certain providers to post a surety bond, 
are essential to restoring the integrity of the program.
  Furthermore, with respect to Medicare, this bill will establish a 
bipartisan commission to make recommendations on a comprehensive 
approach to preserve Medicare as the baby-boomers approach retirement. 
Clearly, we must take steps to address the pending demographic changes 
in the program and I hope Congress will approach the recommendations of 
the commission, due in March 1999, with the same bipartisan cooperation 
that has prevailed throughout these budget negotiations.
  In addition to protecting Medicare for our Nation's seniors, this 
agreement will expand health coverage to as many as 5 million of our 
Nation's uninsured children. This unprecedented investment in 
children's health care, the largest expansion of coverage since the 
enactment of Medicaid in 1965, will give States flexibility in 
determining how best to accomplish this important goal while 
guaranteeing that these moneys will be spent solely for this purpose.
  On many issues, this conference agreement represents a great 
improvement over the House-passed version, which I supported but with 
numerous reservations. For example, I believe this final agreement 
offers adequate protections to workfare participants, guaranteeing that 
they will be treated fairly as workers. This conference agreement also 
restores protections for both disability and health benefits to 350,000 
legal immigrants who would be denied these benefits as result of the 
welfare reform law of last year. All of these provisions ensure that as 
we move forward with our plan to balance the budget we are guaranteeing 
an element of basic fairness for all Americans.
  Finally, amid all of the celebrations over what this bill will do, I 
would raise one word of caution. Just last week, this House rejected an 
attempt to include tough budget enforcement provisions which I 
supported that would ensure that we meet our deficit targets and reach 
the goal of balancing the budget by the year 2002. If we are not 
willing to enact such enforcement provisions, then we must be even more 
diligent in future years to ensure that the projections in this bill 
translate into reality. Only when the budget is certifiably balanced 
will we truly be able to celebrate.
  Mr. Speaker, I again commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
for their

[[Page H6327]]

hard work throughout this process and urge all of my colleagues to 
support this historic legislation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Portman], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to step back a moment and 
think about what a victory this is for the American people. For the 
first time in more than a generation we are actually going to balance 
the budget. We are going to stop spending more than we take in every 
year, an immoral practice that leaves the bill for the next generation.
  There has been a lot of discussion about how we got here. I think it 
really is a tribute to the persistence, to the energy of a lot of 
Members. One is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. He brought his 
first balanced budget bill to the floor in 1989, before I got here. He 
got about 30 votes. The next year he got about 64 votes. The next year 
he got about 80 votes, then about 100 votes and so on. Today, this 
afternoon on this floor, I think we will have a bipartisan majority of 
about 250 votes.
  I want to commend him and commend all the Members who have worked 
long and hard to get us to where we are today. It is not legislation 
that every Member here supports, and all of us would like to see it a 
little different. But it is a significant step because we are, in fact, 
doing what we have just talked about for the past couple of decades and 
that is actually balancing the budget for the next generation. I want 
to pay tribute to them and to this House this afternoon.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, Justice Brandeis once said that the best 
disinfectant was sunshine. I guess my litmus test is how does this 
several-hundred-page bill treat children. Is it fair to children? As I 
go through the bill and read through how it treats children, I come out 
with a resounding yes, it shines on children.
  We have moved from a $15 billion children's health initiative to now, 
finally, a $24 billion health initiative for 5 million children that 
were not previously covered. We have education spending at the highest 
level in 30 years since the Great Society. We now have disability SSI 
payments for children that were not eligible before, the most 
vulnerable children in our society. And we have the largest increase in 
the history of the Pell grant program to get parents who cannot afford 
to send their children to college into college and come out without a 
huge debt.
  This is positive for small children, positive for small businesses 
and small farmers and positive for smaller, smarter government.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to vote for this bill, as I indicated 
earlier. There is much in it that I would like to support. I was one of 
the original sponsors of the child tax credit, for instance, with Vice 
President Gore some 5 years ago. I certainly supported the education 
tax credits. I support what we are trying to do for health care for 
kids. But there are a number of fundamental tests which this bill 
fails.
  The most important test to me is whether or not it provides most of 
the tax relief to middle-income families. The fact is it does not. As 
this chart will show, the wealthiest 5 percent of people in this 
country, those who make over $112,000 a year, will get six times as 
much tax relief as the 60 percent of all Americans who make less than 
$36,000 a year. I do not describe that as being fair.
  In fact, the wealthiest 1 percent, who make more than $250,000 a 
year, will get more in tax relief than the 80 percent of American 
people who make less than $60,000. That is simply not fair.
  Secondly, if we take a look at what happens with the wealthiest 1 
percent, the wealthiest 1 percent will get $16,000 on average for a tax 
cut. The poorest 20 percent who make on average $8,000 will actually 
have a tax increase of $39. That does not shrink the gap between the 
wealthy and the poor in this country. It makes it worse. I do not think 
this Congress should do that. I think it can do better.
  Third, I do not think that we ought to fail the test of whether or 
not this package provides the needed investments that we need to make 
the economy grow over the next 10 or 15 years. The fact is, when 
Members of this House say that this is going to balance the budget, 
that promise is built upon the promise that we are going to cut Social 
Security Administration by some 25 percent. Does anybody really believe 
that we are going to extend the waiting time for getting the Social 
Security check from 3 months to a year? Is this Congress really going 
to do that?
  This chart will demonstrate that it is built on the promise that we 
are going to cut health appropriations by 16 percent over the next 5 
years. The bill which is scheduled to come to the floor next will raise 
the spending for the National Institutes of Health by 6 percent. Yet 
this Congress is going to pretend that we are going to cut that 
spending by 16 percent over the next 5 years. I do not think this 
Congress will and I do not think the American people would want us to.
  Are we really going to cut veterans? Are we really going to cut 
veterans health care by 20 percent over the next 5 years? Just last 
week this House voted to restore money to the veterans health care 
budget. Are we really going to tell people we are going to balance the 
budget by cutting veterans health care 20 percent? Come on. We ought to 
know better than that. Are we really going to see a Congress cut 
agriculture programs by another 23 percent? Agriculture programs have 
already been cut more than any other part of the budget. I would like 
to see the Members from rural districts who vote for this budget today, 
who are going to vote to cut agriculture budgets by 23 percent over the 
next 5 years. It simply is not going to happen.
  Last week on the House floor this House refused to cut the science 
budget by 3 percent, and yet it is promising in the budget before us 
today that we are going to cut science by 18 percent over the next 5 
years. Who is kidding whom? Do Members really believe these are 
anything but false promises? I do not. I have seen this Congress since 
1982 break its promises on deficit reduction. I do not want to see them 
break more. That is what we will be doing if we vote for this bill. I 
urge Members to vote ``no.''
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hobson], a member of the Committee on the Budget and 
Committee on Appropriations and also a major participant in this 
historic agreement between the White House and Congress.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, today the House takes another step toward 
making budget history. As we consider the conference report on the 
Balanced Budget Act, we are closing in on the most significant 
legislative accomplishment this body has enacted in a generation and 
its benefits are going to be felt for many generations to come.
  The Balanced Budget Act is an expression of the responsibility of 
this Congress feels to the American people, not only to those who are 
living today but to those Americans who will inherit our country 
tomorrow such as my grandchildren. This budget slows all the growth of 
Federal Government spending to just 3 percent for the next 5 years. 
That is a savings of $289 billion. In doing this, we are controlling 
the runaway growth that threatens to put our country further in debt.
  The Balanced Budget Act also saves Medicare from bankruptcy and 
expands health care options for seniors. Millions of seniors have been 
spared crushing poverty with Medicare and I want this program to be 
there for my children and grandchildren as well. Out-of-control 
entitlement programs are being reined in and States are being given 
more freedom from Federal bureaucrats so they can generate their own 
innovative solutions to solving their citizens' problems.

                              {time}  1445

  In a separate bill that is part of the overall budget agreement, we 
are providing the first tax relief American families have seen since 
the mid 1980's. Families will get tax relief to help with the cost of 
raising kids and sending them to college; and small business owners, 
especially farmers like those in Ohio's 7th District, will get estate 
tax and capital gains relief.
  This budget has been assembled by working together across the aisles.

[[Page H6328]]

 This spirit of cooperation demonstrates that Congress and the 
administration can work together, as they should, to solve the 
problems. That same spirit of agreement, of putting the American people 
first, will be seen again in this conference committee and I am proud 
to be a part of it.
  I urge all Members to join me in balancing the budget, saving 
Medicare and continuing the extraordinary spirit of cooperation. 
Support the conference report, and congratulations to the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and all the members of the committee, and 
especially our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine 
[Mr. Baldacci].
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member from South 
Carolina for yielding me this time.
  This balanced budget agreement is an historic opportunity and the 
first time since 1969 that we will have an opportunity to do this. I 
would like to commend the administration, President Clinton and Vice 
President Gore, and those in Congress that supported the agreement that 
enabled us to be at this particular point, that voted for a document in 
1993 which took a deficit at $290 billion and brought it down to less 
than $10 billion today.
  It was the work that was done by the Members of Congress and the 
administration that got us to this point. And the point that we are at 
today is an opportunity to make an investment. The document we are 
voting on today allows us to make an investment in education. Young 
people, 36,000 families in Maine, do not have the opportunity to go on 
to higher education because of the cost, the financial burden. That 
education presents the future to them. That is that bridge to the 21st 
century.
  The 100,000 families that are on the earned income tax credits will 
get a tax break because we will reward work. We will not reward not 
working. And with small businesses, family businesses and agriculture, 
they are going to get a break, and this is what this represents today.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], who is a very important member of the 
Committee on the Budget and also on the Committee on Science.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  We talk about the balanced budget and this agreement and what it 
means in terms of dollars and cents and percentages and so forth, but 
in many respects this agreement is about generational fairness.
  I represent an awful lot of farmers, and some of the greatest wisdom 
I have ever heard has come from some of my farm families. Back in farm 
country they know one of the great parts of the American dream is to 
pay off the mortgage and leave our kids the farm. But what we have been 
doing here in this government for the past 40 years is, in effect, we 
have been selling off the farm and leaving our kids the mortgage. We 
all know deep down in our bones that there is something morally wrong 
with that.
  An old farmer told me a couple of years ago, and perhaps the best way 
I have ever heard it put, he said the problem is not that we are not 
sending enough money into Washington. He said the problem is that 
Congress spends it faster than we can send it in, and that has really 
been true. And every time we have raised taxes the deficit has actually 
gone up.
  Balancing the budget, saving Medicare and allowing families to keep 
more of what they earn is not just some accounting exercise. Balancing 
the budget is about preserving the American dream for our kids. Saving 
Medicare is about keeping our commitment to our parents. And tax relief 
for families is about making it easier for those families to pay for 
their kids' education and save for their future.
  This is a glorious day for America. It is an historic day, and I am 
glad to be a part of this Congress and this Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to myself to point out 
to the last gentleman that every time we raise taxes the deficit does 
not go up. In 1993 we raised taxes and the deficit came down.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, [Mr. 
Waxman].
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, there are some very good things in this 
bill. The restoration of benefits for immigrants and the child health 
provisions are two of the most important.
  But let us not forget we essentially are talking about a flawed bill 
that the administration tried to make better. Making a bad bill better 
doesn't make it good.
  In the area of Medicare, and I want to talk about some points that I 
find most troubling. We have raised the premium as a result of this 
legislation. But we have not guaranteed help for low-income people. We 
have made some changes in the Medicare Programs, such as MSAs and a 
fee-for-service option and private contracts with doctors, which I 
think may undermine the Medicare program, which has a broad-based risk 
pool. We may well see healthier and wealthier seniors leave that risk 
pool and opt for private insurance coverage.
  In Medicaid, we repeal the requirement to pay nursing homes and 
hospitals an amount adequate to meet their costs for decent quality 
care. Let me underscore that. We do not have to pay them what is 
adequate to provide decent quality care. And we have made cuts in the 
support for hospitals and health care centers which serve as the safety 
net for the poor.
  Now, why are we making all of these cuts in areas where it really 
does not make sense from a policy point of view? We cannot divorce this 
bill from the tax bill. We are doing it so we can give tax breaks to 
many people in the upper income bracket. What I am afraid we will see, 
and I expect we will see as a result of these tax cuts, will be greater 
pressure on domestic social spending. Particularly greater pressure on 
the Medicare Program as the baby boom generation ages. I think that we 
are going to run the risk of going right back into the huge deficits we 
have seen in the past.
  I congratulate the administration on doing as good a job as they 
could under the circumstances. For me, it is just not good enough.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Shaw], a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, and the architect 
of the most important legislation to pass this Congress, the welfare 
reform bill.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the gentleman from Missouri in a 
colloquy. Members may be aware of the ongoing debate in this budget 
legislation over whether workfare participants are employees, but they 
might benefit by some background on this issue, including a 
clarification of the intent of last year's welfare reform law.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, last year's welfare reform bill was about, 
in part, getting welfare recipients into work. One of the most 
effective ways to do that is through community service and community 
work experience programs which we generally know as workfare.
  Since the 1960's Federal welfare laws have allowed States to place 
recipients in workfare which requires recipients to work in exchange 
for their welfare benefits. The workfare program created under the 1988 
Family Support Act specified public and private sector workfare 
recipients' hours and compensation, and included specific health and 
safety, nondiscrimination and other protections for workfare 
participants, but did not treat the workfare participants as employees.
  I would ask the chairman if that is his understanding, the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Human Resources with jurisdiction over welfare 
reform.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
absolutely correct. That is my understanding.
  The 1996 welfare reform law specified that States can continue to 
operate effective workfare programs, and community service and work 
experience workfare are among the work activities States may count as 
work. Unlike prior law, that act did not spell out the compensation or 
other rules for workfare positions, because it was assumed that 
previous distinction in

[[Page H6329]]

statutes and case law between workfare and employment would continue to 
be recognized.
  However, in May of this year the Department of Labor issued an 
outrageous guide to ``How Workplace Laws Affect Welfare Recipients'' in 
which it indirectly claimed that most if not all participants in 
workfare programs under the welfare law would be considered employees 
under the law.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would ask the gentleman if it was the intention of the authors of the 
1996 welfare reform law that workfare participants be considered 
employees, and thus covered under at least 25 labor laws, including 
prevailing wages, unemployment compensation, and social security taxes 
and benefits, none of which previously applied to workfare?
  Mr. SHAW. I say to the gentleman, absolutely not. In fact, section 
417 of the 1996 welfare reform law specifically provides that, and I 
quote, ``No officer or employee of the Federal Government may regulate 
the conduct of States under this part or enforce any provision of this 
part, except to the extent expressly provided in this part.'' So the 
Department of Labor is usurping congressional authority.
  Further, when proposals were put forth in Congress which attempted to 
treat workfare participants as employees, they were defeated. For 
example, an amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Becerra] requiring that workfare participants be covered by labor laws 
was defeated right here in this Chamber.
  The bottom line is that the legislative history is very clear. 
Congress did not intend for the Department of Labor to ruin the welfare 
reform law by outlawing work. The Clinton Administration has thrown 
down the gauntlet, first by issuing an outrageous ruling and then by 
refusing to go along with our efforts to correct this unwarranted 
attack on welfare reform. Congress will react in an appropriate fashion 
before this session is over to make sure that families can receive the 
training and experience they need to leave welfare for work and to 
support themselves.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, the same Republicans who said 
the only way this Congress could balance the budget was by amending the 
Constitution stand here today to take credit for something that they 
said could never be done without that.
  The same Republicans who spent 5 years attacking our President as a 
taxer and spender have embraced his plan to balance the budget. That is 
the truth of the matter.
  Democrats took this balanced budget bill and made it ours; and now, 
as the long-distance race to a balanced budget plan passes the 
grandstand, the Republicans want to join us for the last victory lap.
  The President and congressional Democrats said their top priority was 
to put college within the grasp of working families, and here is what 
we got: A $1,500-a-year grant for the first 2 years of college, a 
lifelong learning tax credit, an increase in scholarships for low-
income and middle-class families.
  The President and congressional Democrats said that every kid in 
America deserves health care when they need it, not just when they can 
afford it. This bill does that.
  The President and congressional Democrats said that Medicare should 
cover preventive health services, such as screening for prostate cancer 
and mammography. This bill does that.
  The President and congressional Democrats said that a balanced budget 
and tax legislation should help those who need it most, not the richest 
of the rich. This bill does that.
  We have scored a major victory for a balanced budget, for fair tax 
cuts, for our kids, for our future. The winners? Not Republicans and 
not Democrats. This time, the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to put aside their concerns, both sides have 
many, and to follow through on the work we began in 1993, to honor our 
colleagues whose courage made it possible for the rest of us to be here 
today to take credit for finishing the job.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley], one of the senior Members of Congress, the 
chairman of the very powerful Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Thirty years ago the Federal Government's budget was in balance. 
Thirty years ago families kept more of their hard-earned money. Thirty 
years ago Government programs were by and large helpful, not hopeless. 
How far we have fallen in three decades.
  We now face nearly $6 trillion in debt, crushing tax burdens and 
uncontrolled spending. The programs we throw taxpayer dollars at often 
do not help the people they were supposed to help, and every day there 
are more rules and regulations to limit our freedom as Americans.

                              {time}  1500

  But today is different, because today we are saying enough is enough. 
Although we may not like certain parts of this package, it is the whole 
that counts. And the whole is the first balanced Federal budget in 
nearly three decades.
  But this budget does more than achieve balance in 2002. Among the 
budget's many provisions are a number of notable achievements crafted 
by the Committee on Commerce. We preserve Medicare for the next 
generation of beneficiaries and give seniors more choices than ever 
before. We make long overdue reforms to the Medicaid program, making it 
more flexible for States and more effective for recipients.
  We chart a new course in American health care away from Washington-
knows-best control and toward greater innovation by establishing a 
block grant to provide coverage and services for poor, uninsured 
children. And we strengthen America's prohibition on the use of Federal 
funds for abortions, making clear that our efforts today are on behalf 
of all children, born and unborn. Most of all, this budget is an 
important step in our quest to make the Federal Government serve the 
American people and not the other way around.
  After this budget is passed and signed into law, our work will not be 
finished. We have a duty to remain vigilant against wasteful Government 
spending. We need to reallocate existing resources to make sure the 
taxpayers get a dollar's worth of value for every dollar spent. And we 
need to prepare now for the budgetary needs of the baby-boom 
generation.
  I am proud of the first steps we have taken in this balanced budget 
plan, and I look forward to building on this achievement in the months 
and years to come.
  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 am very pleased to rise in support of 
this budget agreement. The very first year I ran for Congress, I talked 
about the need to abolish our Federal deficits. Putting our Nation's 
fiscal house in order has been my highest priority throughout my 
career. At long last, it appears we are going to accomplish that goal.
  The efforts of President Clinton and Congress have resulted in 5 
consecutive years of declining deficits and the lowest deficit this 
year since the Carter administration. The agreement builds on this 
tremendous achievement and continues this glidepath to a balanced 
budget. While I will personally wait until the budget is balanced, in 
fact, instead of projections before I pop the champagne cork, this is a 
tremendous step for the future of our country.
  Two years ago, those of us in the coalition set out to prove it is 
possible to balance the budget while protecting education, health care 
and other important priorities. This agreement is a vindication of that 
effort. This reconciliation bill reflects the influence of Blue Dog 
budgets in many areas. The savings levels and the policies for Medicare 
and Medicaid and other programs are quite close to the savings levels 
and policies proposed in our budget that have bipartisan support.
  There are many important features of this reconciliation bill in 
addition to the promise of a balanced budget. The changes to payments 
to health care plans in underserved areas and the provisions allowing 
health care providers

[[Page H6330]]

to form provider sponsored organizations will expand access to health 
care for seniors, particularly in rural areas. The formula for DSH 
payments to States is improved substantially over the bill originally 
passed by the House.
  The education and children's health initiatives are important 
investments in our future. The funding for local programs to move 
welfare recipients to work will help make welfare reform a success. 
Although the budget enforcement provisions fall far short of what I 
believe is necessary, there are some important improvements in the area 
of budget enforcement that closes some of the loopholes in the current 
budget process.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support this agreement.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is our pleasure to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the House majority 
whip and a senior member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Shays] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation that finally 
balances our Federal budget. It is about time. I have waited my entire 
adult life for it. Some Members of the Democrat minority just still do 
not get it. Indeed, if they were in charge, we would not be cutting 
taxes or cutting spending at all. If the Democrats still ran Congress, 
this deal would have contained more Government spending and tax 
increases instead of tax cuts.
  We need to look at the big picture, and the big picture shows how we 
are moving toward smaller, smarter government and greater freedom for 
our citizens. We have to give President Clinton some credit. He has 
rejected the left wing of his own party and publicly embraced 
conservative common-sense values of lower taxes and smaller government.
  But this budget is only a first step. We still have a lot of work to 
do. We need to come up with a long-term plan to fix entitlements. If we 
do not, our children's future might be miserable.
  We still need to reform spending. The Federal Government today is not 
as small or as smart as it could be. We still have too many stupid, 
harmful, and counterproductive Federal regulations. The Federal 
bureaucracy is still too big and still spends too much money.
  But this legislation is a very, very good start. It will balance the 
budget by the year 2002 or even sooner. It will slow the growth of 
spending for some entitlements and for some discretionary programs. But 
this is a compromise with the President, who wants to spend more money. 
He has consistently and persistently fought for more Federal spending 
programs.
  This legislation reflects the President's desire to spend more money. 
We have tried our best, and for the moment our best is only good 
enough. But this budget is not the end of the line. It is simply 
another landmark on the road to fiscal responsibility. Next year is 
another budget and more tax cuts.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
  (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is an important step 
toward improving the health of our Nation's senior citizens by 
providing Medicare coverage for colorectal cancer screening. For the 
first time, America's seniors will have access through Medicare to 
preventive screening for colorectal cancer, the second most deadly 
cancer disease next to lung cancer. Preventive screening has been 
proven to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer, yet, a large 
majority of America's senior population has never been screened.
  I am very glad to see that this legislation establishes an expedited 
process to assure Medicare coverage for all colorectal cancer screening 
procedures that are currently available and can help reduce the 
incidence and mortality rate of this disease. The fecal occult blood 
test, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy are covered by Medicare upon 
enactment of the legislation, and the barium examination will undergo 
an expedited review by the Department of Health and Human Services 
[HHS]. A determination regarding Medicare coverage for the barium 
examination will be made within 90 days.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the HHS in conducting this review and 
determination to adopt the same approach to evaluating colorectal 
cancer screening procedures as the American Cancer Society [ACS]. The 
objective of the ACS was to maximize the number of people who get 
screened for colorectal cancer. In explaining its colorectal cancer 
screening guidelines, the ACS emphasized that four currently used 
colorectal cancer screening procedures are cost-effective alternatives 
for colorectal cancer screening, whose widespread use will result in 
fewer deaths from colorectal cancer. The barium examination was among 
the screening options recommended by the ACS.
  The approach taken by the ACS clearly reflects the ultimate goal of 
colorectal cancer screening legislation--to provide a basis for as many 
Medicare patients as possible to be screened. It is appropriate, 
therefore, for HHS to adopt the same approach in evaluating Medicare 
coverage of the barium examination. I am confident that, on the basis 
of this review, HHS will determine that the barium examination is a 
highly effective colorectal cancer screening procedure, and that the 
addition of the barium examination to colorectal cancer screening under 
Medicare would increase screening, save lives, and save money.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Solomon). The Chair will make note of 
the time remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 16 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has 
11 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Washington (McDermott) has 
1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], a 9-year member of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services and chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Financial Institutions.
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, when I first heard of this Balanced Budget Act, I kind 
of drew a breath and said, this sounds too good to be true. But, in 
fact, it was true. Apparently, we can work together here in the 
Congress for the good of the people, without a lot of partisan 
bickering. And I am very grateful for that. I support it.
  We must understand that, on the whole, this is a very good package. 
Not to say that we agree with everything, but we must understand that 
the Balanced Budget Act and the Tax Relief Act are joint efforts to put 
our fiscal house in order, and they must be linked together. We must 
remain mindful not to cut spending to the extent that we may endanger 
programs that are vital to our elderly and to children in order to 
provide for tax cuts. I do not believe we have done that here.
  For years, I have been advocating a save-and-invest-in-America 
program, and I will vote on this bill today and the taxpayers bill 
tomorrow. However, we cannot ask American people to save and invest 
unless we force the Government to live within its own means.
  However, I must say that this is a good bill, but some of the savings 
do concern me. The impact of these decisions on New Jersey and the 
outyears is particularly worrisome in connection with the Medicare 
payments. But I have been assured by the responsible members of the 
committee that we will continue to monitor the changes in the 
disproportionate share hospital payments on transfer payments to 
hospitals.
  New Jersey is in a unique position, and I have been assured that we 
will be treated equitably in making those transfer payment 
arrangements.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support in H.R. 2015, the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997. In fact, this sounds too good to be true. 
Apparently, we can work together for the good of the people without all 
the partisan sniping and bickering.
  For the first time in a generation, we are on the verge of crafting a 
balanced budget. The Congress and the President have come together to 
agree on this long held goal to put our children's future on a strong 
fiscal footing.
  On the whole, it is a good package. That is not to say that I agree 
with everything. We must understand that both the Balanced Budget Act 
and the Taxpayers Relief Act are joint efforts to put our fiscal house 
in order. Both must be linked together. We must remain mindful not to 
cut spending to the extent that we may endanger programs that are vital 
to our elderly and children in order to provide tax cuts.

[[Page H6331]]

  For years, I have been advocating a save and invest in America 
program and the Taxpayers Relief Act, which I will vote for tomorrow, 
includes many key provisions. However, we cannot ask the American 
people to save and invest until we force this government to live within 
its own means.
  We have a responsibility to our children and the future. Perpetual 
deficits threaten to straddle our children with crushing debt that 
could lead to low paying jobs, economic stagnation, and possibly a 
lower standard of living.
  The need for a balanced budget has never been greater. The national 
debt is increasing by close to $9,500 per second. In 1996, Americans 
paid $900 in taxes per person to service interest on the debt. In 
fiscal year 1997 we will have spent $248 billion on interest on the 
debt, that is 15 percent of all Federal spending. That is money not 
spent on our children, on education, or health care. It is money that 
goes into the fiscal black hole created by our continued indebtedness.
  Our Nation is on the verge of tremendous generational change. The 
baby-boom generation will, in the next decades, begin to retire. With 
this great influx, the next generation will be asked to carry on the 
responsibility of ensuring that their parents are cared for by a system 
that is fair and equitable. It is our responsibility, in this Congress, 
to ensure the viability of worthy Federal programs and to create a 
strong and vibrant economy in which our children and grandchildren can 
thrive, succeed, and enjoy the promise of what America has to offer. 
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is the first step in this process.
  In order to avoid this calamity, the Balanced Budget Act will require 
everyone in the United States to share some of the sacrifice associated 
with reducing the size of the Federal Government and reforming 
spending. This act attempts to reduce spending in the most equitable 
manner possible.
  Significant savings will come from Medicare and Medicaid. The Federal 
health care programs for the elderly and low-income respectively will 
be asked to spend over $128 billion less than current CBO projections.
  Without question, this area of savings raises the most concern, and I 
must state my healthy skepticism about how much can, or should, be 
accomplished in the near-term.
  Some of the aspects of this act will receive criticism for concerned 
groups. Clearly, strong action must be taken to ensure that our elderly 
will be able to receive necessary medical treatment through the 
Medicare Program, and that Medicare will be there for many hard-working 
families who will become eligible in the next 10 or 20 years.
  The Balanced Budget Act will keep the Medicare trust fund solvent for 
at least the next 6 years. Most of these savings come from reducing 
payments to hospitals and health care providers. I applaud the 
establishment of a special commission to study how to make Medicare 
solvent well into the future and secure for when the baby-boom 
generation begins to retire. I have long supported a commission and 
believe that it will offer Congress intelligent and balanced 
information.
  The provision in this act that greatly concerns me is the issue of 
medical savings accounts. The bill allows for a pilot program of 
390,000 accounts to be set up. Mr. Chairman, medical savings accounts 
are a bad idea for America.
  We must not let our drive to make Medicare solvent lead to us to 
destroy the best elements of that program by moving elderly Americans 
into dubious health plans like MSA's. We can not lose sight of the 
quality of care that Medicare provides. MSA's are riddled with 
problems. There exists the danger of fraud and abuse of poorly informed 
seniors. MSA's could result in a lowering of the quality of care of our 
elderly, an increase in Medicare premiums for the elderly, and an 
undermining of the system as a whole, because the healthy seniors will 
be removed from the system along with the more financially secure 
thereby eroding Medicare as an universal system.
  I would like to highlight some of my concerns in this budget dealing 
with the hospitals of New Jersey. I have been concerned about the 
changes in the disproportionate share hospital [DSH] payments to 
hospitals in New Jersey.
  I have been assured that no one State will take a much greater hit 
than any other State--that a formula has been worked out that takes an 
even approach in this formula calculation. We must work to ensure that 
New Jersey and other States do not shoulder an unfair amount of burden.
  Also, I have been concerned over changes in the different hospital 
payments for a transfer versus a discharge. While I understand that a 
compromise has been reached where the new definition change will only 
apply in a limited capacity, I am further heartened that this will not 
be implemented until after October 1998, and that the Commerce 
Committee is open to holding hearings and looking further into this 
definition change. I pledge to work with the Commerce Committee to deal 
equitably with New Jersey's unique status.
  One last issue of concern I had affecting our hospitals is over 
Medicare. I am glad we were able to work out a compromise which would 
phase in adjustments to the prospective payment system for the first 2 
years. By allowing a phase in, the various hospitals affected would be 
able to adjust accordingly. We must continue to work with this Nation's 
hospitals so that all people receive the care they need.
  In reforming the health care system, we must make sure that we 
maintain the quality of care to those who need it, maintain access to 
care, and that all changes are fair and equitable. We must ensure that 
those who have the least do not give up the most. As I have said, 
``let's not be a penny wise and a pound foolish.''
  The Balanced Budget Act should be applauded for other important 
reasons. This act expands health care coverage to millions of children 
across the Nation. This is possibly the best investment we have made in 
a generation.
  I am very pleased about the increase in the cigarette tax and the use 
of that money to provide for the expansion of children's health care. 
This was one of my top legislative priorities this year and 
demonstrates the best in public policy.
  I must compliment the conferees for including parity treatment of 
mental health coverage. Mental and physical health care for our 
children are inseparable. Healthy bodies means healthy minds and vice 
versa. Parity treatment of mental health coverage demonstrates our 
wisdom and compassion. Our children are the most important resource we 
have.
  Indeed, if the truest judgment of a society is the way they treat 
their children, then we have taken a major step to secure that our 
generation believes that our children should be cared for in the most 
comprehensive and compassionate manner.
  The Balanced Budget Act is the strongest statement this Congress can 
make on the direction we intend to take in the future. We must remember 
that this is the first time we will have balanced the budget in over a 
generation. It is important for us to stay focused on maintaining a 
balance and running surpluses.
  We must avoid the temptation of declaring victory and leaving. We 
must continue to balance budgets in the future. We must reform the 
entitlement programs to prepare them for the retirement of the baby 
boom generation. We must be prepared to enforce our agreement in the 
future. There is much hard work and many tough decisions to make in the 
future.
  The Balanced Budget Act sets forth our priorities. We still protect 
the programs that provide care for the elderly, the poor, and the 
young. We will create a new program to protect our children who 
currently have no health coverage. And we will balance the Federal 
budget and put our fiscal house in order for the future. It also 
demonstrates what this body can do when it agrees on a goal and is 
determined to reach an agreement. This Act shows us the result of 
bipartisan action. Let us use this as a lesson for future action.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Price].
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today 
is a truly bipartisan achievement, a vast improvement on the budget 
bill approved in this Chamber a month ago, one that we can vote for 
with great confidence. I want to applaud colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle who have brought us to this day.
  This agreement includes $24 billion for our Nation's children. Five 
million American children who are not now covered will have health 
insurance protection because of this agreement.
  The agreement also protects our veterans, ensuring that any 
shortfalls in medical care collections do not translate into less 
health care for those who have fought for our country.
  Finally, this agreement protects the elderly of this country. It 
expands Medicare coverage for diagnostic and preventive health care 
services. It extends the life of the Medicare trust fund for another 10 
years. And it establishes a commission to ensure the long-term solvency 
of the trust fund so our Nation's senior citizens are not continually 
put at the mercy of budget negotiators.
  I want to thank my colleagues, whose tenacity enabled us to reach a 
solid bipartisan budget agreement, and I urge all my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], a new Member in the class of 1994, a sophomore 
now, and a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Connecticut,

[[Page H6332]]

Mr. Shays, for yielding to me and thank my colleague from North 
Carolina, Mr. Price, for his thoughts on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is difficult at times for a career politician to go 
do this, but I would ask all of us to leave the spin cycle in the 
laundry room. The fact is historians and the American people will judge 
us on how we arrived at this important date with this important piece 
of legislation.
  What we can truly say today, Mr. Speaker, is that this is not a 
victory of party. Quite the contrary, it is a victory for our country. 
Because we put aside some partisan differences, we tried to reach 
accommodation on some deeply held beliefs, and such is the essence of 
our Democratic lifestyle and the principles we embrace.
  It is interesting for me personally, Mr. Speaker, as I reflect back 
to the summer of 1969, to the year of the miracle Mets and man on the 
Moon, the summer before the sixth grade for me, and the last time the 
American people had a balanced budget. How important it is that, in 
waiting a quarter century or more, an entire generation, in effect, we 
now have the chance to embrace a balanced budget. How important it is, 
too, that we have taken a new look at how we administer the different 
rules in Washington, DC, how we are now willing to transfer money, 
power, and influence out of the hands of Washington bureaucrats and 
back closer to home so that people on the front lines can make 
decisions, so that parents are free to save, spend, and invest for 
their children as they see fit.
  And how pleased I am, Mr. Speaker, that we join in a bipartisan 
fashion to preserve and strengthen Medicare through the next decade. 
For my parents, who, so youthful in 1969, turned 65 this year; we owe 
it to my parents and other parents to make sure that Medicare is 
preserved. This budget agreement does just that. We can do no less and 
also establishing a framework for the future as the baby boomers begin 
to retire.
  I thank my colleagues for joining together. I urge passage of this 
important legislation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays] for yielding me the time. I also thank him for appointing 
me to the Committee on Ways and Means. I am actually on the Committee 
on the Budget and delighted to be so.
  Let me talk just for a minute about some things because I know that, 
among the general public and amongst some of our colleagues, there is a 
certain amount of cynicism in terms of whether this budget agreement is 
real, whether we will actually balance the budget, whether we really 
will have the discipline to follow through to make the tough choices as 
we go forward.
  I think those are legitimate questions. But I think Benjamin Franklin 
may have said it best when he said, ``I know no lamp by which to see 
the future than that of the past.''
  I would like to remind Members of what we said just 2 years ago when 
we passed our budget resolution, the blueprint, our 7-year plan to 
balance the budget. We said in fiscal year 1997 we would spend no more 
than $1,624 billion in fiscal year 1997. That is the year we are in. 
Two years ago we said we would spend $1,624 billion. This year we 
actually are going to spend in fiscal year 1997 $1,621 billion.

                              {time}  1515

  At a time revenues have increased by over $100 billion, we are 
spending less than we said we were going to spend just 2 years ago.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget deal helps America's working families. It 
cuts their taxes, it gives health insurance to millions of children, it 
offers scholarships to students, and extends the life of the Medicare 
trust fund for another decade. So it is for these and other good 
provisions in this bill that I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Rangel], and my colleagues on this side of the aisle who worked on this 
bill.
  This deal also promises to keep the budget in balance. I say keep the 
budget in balance because we already balanced it with our 1993 deficit 
reduction package. That plan dropped the deficit from nearly $300 
billion then to roughly $40 billion deficit this year, and it is still 
falling.
  So we made tough choices in 1993. Some of my Republican colleagues 
have criticized that plan as a tax increase. What they do not say is 
that the people whose taxes went up in 1993 were the richest 1 percent 
in America. What they do not say is that we cut spending. And what they 
do not say is that we gave a tax cut to 20 million working families. I 
think what galls them the most is that our plan back in 1993 has 
worked. The economy has boomed, the deficit has disappeared.
  Today's budget deal builds on the great success of that plan. The 
Children's Defense Fund told the Washington Post that $24 billion for 
children's health insurance is an initiative that will do extraordinary 
good for millions of children. Families USA called it the most 
significant advance in health care coverage since Medicaid and Medicare 
programs were enacted 32 years ago.
  This budget deal does other good things, too. It provides a $500-per-
child tax credit to working families. It provides thousands of dollars 
in tax credits for students to pursue their education after high 
school. It protects wages, pensions, health care, and it gives tax 
relief to millions of American homeowners.
  But let me caution here. While I support these measures for working 
families, my Republican colleagues have exacted a heavy, heavy price 
for them. In addition to rewarding the richest Americans with a huge 
cut in the capital gains tax rate, they are rolling back the corporate 
minimum tax. That is a $19 billion giveaway to America's richest 
corporations. It is an outrage, it has no place in this deal, and I and 
others will be fighting it in the future. Because we will be watching 
to make sure that the tax breaks now going to the wealthy do not end up 
costing working families in the future.
  But as I vote for this budget deal, I think of its immediate impact 
on the lives of those working families. I think of that young police 
officer's family not scrimping so much thanks to the new child tax 
credit. I think of all the children who are going to get health 
insurance for the first time, 5 million of them, with the $24 billion 
program. I think of all the young students who will now be able to 
afford community college, acquiring the skills to land them jobs where 
they can support their families. And I think of those people who have 
lost their jobs, who will be able to go back to their community 
colleges to learn the skills to support their families.
  When I vote yes on this budget deal, I am going to vote for them and 
I am going to vote for America's working families.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I heard the colloquy between the gentleman 
from Florida and the gentleman from Missouri, and I just want the 
record to be clear. They are attempting to write a bill through a 
colloquy and you cannot do that. The reference to 1988 is very 
mistaken. It was a very different bill. It was not a broad welfare-to-
work bill as we are now implementing.
  I worked hard on the 1993 legislation, and no one can get up here and 
simply give their gloss on it and expect that to become law. But most 
importantly, the effort in this House by the majority to exclude people 
who would be classified as employees under FLSA and other Federal laws 
from those protections was specifically rejected in the conference 
committee. It is not in this bill. No colloquy can erase that. People 
who move from welfare to work have the dignity of the protection of 
Federal law if they are employees.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding me 
this time.

[[Page H6333]]

  Mr. Speaker, again we see where there are genuine differences 
honestly held and where there may be other measures that have yet to be 
taken to address problems that people on both sides of the aisle have. 
But again I come down to speak on behalf of this legislation because of 
the many positive effects we will see, not only, although goodness 
knows it is important enough to balance the budget for the first time 
in a generation, not only because we preserve and protect Medicare for 
the next decade and set up the framework with a bipartisan commission 
to look at the very serious questions that confront us when the baby 
boomers start to retire, but also because of the second part of this 
agreement which we will come to tomorrow, the first meaningful tax cuts 
for working Americans in 16 long years.
  Again, it is part of the difference in philosophy, where we honestly 
believe that working Americans deserve the chance to hold onto more of 
their hard earned money and send less of it here to Washington, and 
these two measures fit together like hand in glove. Today we deal with 
spending, tomorrow with tax cuts. The bottom line is a better future 
for the American Nation.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, as many of us have recognized, this agreement 
and this legislation have multifaceted advantages, and of course there 
is always a downside. I would like to emphasize one of what I think is 
the most positive attributes of the legislation, and that is its 
recognition of health care needs of Americans.
  First and foremost, we are now attempting to assist States in 
providing coverage to children who do not have health care insurance. 
Second, we are addressing the imbalance that exists between rural 
health care financing and urban. Altogether too long, Mr. Speaker, the 
rural portions of our country have been denied the chance to 
participate in managed care because of highly discriminatory regional 
reimbursement rate structures.
  Third, tomorrow we will take up legislation that addresses the tax 
deductibility of premiums for health insurance by self-employed 
individuals. These features together, I submit, are important reasons 
for supporting this legislation.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I include for the Record an editorial from the Washington Post 
yesterday entitled ``Budget Week,'' as follows:

                              Budget Week

       As a country, we seem about to enter a week of self-
     congratulatory rhetoric in which the president and 
     congressional Republicans will celebrate the balanced-budget 
     agreement they appear to have reached and that Congress may 
     finally pass as it leaves town for its summer vacation.
       The president will say, not without cause, that he was 
     successful in taking some of the rougher edges off the 
     initial Republican proposal. He will argue that the final 
     product balances the budget without doing violence to the 
     values of the Democratic Party, finishes the job of deficit 
     eradication that he began in drawing up in his first budget 
     in 1993, provides a steady platform from which to head into 
     the future and proves that, when there's a willingness to 
     compromise, the political system can work.
       The Republicans, for their part, will say that while 
     they've had some tough times lately, and while they lost some 
     battles to the president, they basically won the war. 
     Glossing over the history of the 1980s, they will claim it is 
     they who have always wanted a balanced budget. With greater 
     cause, they will say it is they who have been the party of 
     tax cuts and smaller government. If those are now both 
     parties' goals, they win, even if the president, in coming 
     their way on the issues, has partly shouldered them off 
     center stage.
       But in our view those are the wrong standards by which to 
     judge this deal. They are mostly short-term and political, as 
     is the deal itself. It will be no surprise to readers of this 
     page that we apply a different lens.
       (1) The balanced budget, assuming one is achieved, will owe 
     as much to the continuing strength of the economy as to any 
     policy changes Congress will vote this week. You could 
     argue--we would--that the strong economy derives in part from 
     some of the policy changes for which the president 
     successfully fought in 1993. The fact is that this budget 
     would actually undo some of the most important of those 
     changes. In terms of fiscal discipline, it is less the 
     advance its sponsors claim that a retreat from high ground 
     that the president himself once occupied over Republican 
     objections.
       (2) The distinctive element in the deal remains the tax 
     cut, for which the rest is mostly cover and a gloss. The 
     long-term effect of the tax cut will be to add, regressively, 
     to a deficit that the deal will at best only temporarily 
     erase. The president played a double role in this, first 
     agreeing to the cut, then working to make it a little more 
     palatable around the edges. But the basic structure is still 
     wrong. The children's credit, which will be the costliest 
     provision in the early years, is mostly a political sop for 
     which neither party has been able to think up a convincing 
     economic justification. In the later years this will be 
     overtaken by large, late-blooming tax cuts mainly for the 
     highest-income households in the country. They will begin to 
     drain the Treasury in earnest about the time the baby boomers 
     retire. There is no economic or social justification for most 
     of them either.
       (3) Meanwhile, even though these are the most propitious of 
     economic times and possibly political times as well in that 
     the next president election is three years off, the plan, by 
     mutual agreement, does next to nothing about the real fiscal 
     problem--the one that will come with the boomers' 
     retirement--that everyone acknowledges but wants to defer. 
     Let the next folks do it. The tax cuts would compound this 
     problem. The Senate proposed some first steps to cut longer-
     term Medicare costs, like asking higher-income beneficiaries 
     to pay a slightly higher share of program costs. They dropped 
     it from the final bill. This is a bill that, in the name of 
     solving the nation's fiscal problem, systematically avoids 
     and in some respects worsens that problem. The wrapping is 
     great; the gift is dross.
       The bill has some good features. Medicare will be a tidier 
     program as a result of its passage. The number of children in 
     the country lacking health insurance could be reduced (though 
     that could end up an empty initiative, also). But most of the 
     things that are good about the bill are good only in that the 
     alternatives were worse. The legislation reverses some of the 
     worst features of last year's welfare bill and of the 
     original budget bill that the Republicans put forward this 
     year. But the welfare bill should never have been signed, and 
     likewise the first draft of this year's budget bill is a 
     pretty poor standard on the strength of which to measure 
     victories.
       We assume that Congress will pass this package; the 
     president and the Republican leadership are both invested in 
     it. By now a lot of other people have larger or small 
     investments in it as well. But this is a lost opportunity 
     that, on balance and in the long run, will likely do a fairly 
     large amount of harm--the tax cuts--for relatively little 
     good.

  Mr. Speaker, we hear people here talking about this whole issue as 
though it was a long-term fix, but in fact if my colleagues read this 
editorial, it says the strong economy derives in part from the policy 
changes which were made in 1993 by the Democrats, by the Budget Deficit 
Reduction Act that we passed.
  But more important this editorial has a warning in it. It says the 
distinctive element in this deal remains the tax cut, for which the 
rest is mostly cover and a gloss. The long-term effect of the tax cut 
will be to add regressively to a deficit that the deal will at best 
only temporarily erase. The late-blooming tax cuts, mainly for the 
highest income households in the country, will begin to drain the 
Treasury in earnest about the time the baby boomers retire. There are 
no economic or social justifications for most of these cuts.
  My concern is we are going to touch down with a balanced budget in 
2002 like a 747 doing a touch-and-go landing in learning to fly the 
plane. The budget deficits will take off at precisely the time the 
budget will have to face the problems of baby boomers. People will be 
caught between their kids going to college and their parents in nursing 
homes, and there will be no money in the Treasury to deal with their 
problems because we are taking away the essence of the social safety 
net in this country.
  That is why people ought to vote against this. It is making a long-
term problem for ourselves for short-term political gains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Solomon). The time of the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. McDermott] has expired.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address some of the things that 
we have heard from our side of the aisle today and from both sides of 
the aisle, some of the concerns that somehow this is not real. I would 
like to just bring some of the facts to light here. I have heard, for 
example, that discretionary spending, the part of spending that we 
actually control out here, is going up under this plan. Let me give my 
colleagues the facts. Nondefense discretionary spending is going from

[[Page H6334]]

$281 billion a year to $288 billion a year 5 years later. That is less 
than a one-half of 1 percent increase each year. If we take inflation 
into account, that is a decrease in nondefense discretionary spending 
by about 1.5 percent per year. Yes, this is real, yes, it does what it 
is supposed to do, putting our financial house back in order, yes, it 
restores this Nation so our children can have hope of living the 
American dream.
  I want to give another number. Total discretionary spending, again 
the part of the budget that we have the most control over. Total 
discretionary spending is going from $549 billion this year to $561 
billion 5 years later, again less than one-half of 1 percent spending 
increase.
  How about the overall spending increase? Overall spending increase is 
going from $1,621 billion to $1,889 billion. That is an increase of 
about 3 percent a year, roughly the rate of inflation. Yes, this is 
real, yes, it does what it is supposed to do. Our seniors can count on 
Medicare, our working families can count on additional tax reductions, 
and our children can count on us for a change, the first time since 
1969, to do the right thing for this great Nation that we live in.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Latham], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to obviously stand here in support 
of the Balanced Budget Act and the provisions as far as the taxes. But 
one thing that is very, very important to the State of Iowa and all 
rural parts of this country is the reimbursement changes that are made 
in Medicare. In my congressional district, our reimbursement averages 
about $311 per person per month. In some of the urban parts of the 
country, it is $750 per person per month. In those areas, seniors have 
the option in their health care for eyeglasses, hearing aids, 
prescription drugs, even memberships at health clubs. We have none of 
that available. In this act we finally address the inequity between 
rural and urban parts of this country with the base now going to $367. 
It is extremely positive. I want to thank the committee and all the 
people who worked so very hard on this to address this real problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the Balanced Budget Act as it 
comes before this body for a vote. Although this bill includes some 
items that I support and others that I would have preferred to have 
been left out, we should all recognize the bill as a product of 
bipartisan compromise and achievement. I am especially proud of the 
work this House and the Senate have done to increase Medicare choices 
for seniors.
  Bring equity to seniors from rural areas, like northwest Iowa, has 
been a priority of mine since I've been in Congress. I want to ensure 
that seniors in rural northwest Iowa are going to enjoy Medicare 
benefits not just in the next couple of years, but for the next 
generation and beyond.
  The majority party of this Congress has repeatedly vowed to bring 
choices to seniors as part of Medicare reform. One of those choices 
that has been denied up until now has been managed care for rural 
seniors. However, fulfilling a commitment made in the budget resolution 
earlier this spring, this Balanced Budget Act makes substantial reforms 
of the way the Medicare Program pays managed care plans.
  Iowa seniors have paid into the Medicare System and have every right 
to expect efficient health care coverage. Unfortunately, the current 
Medicare System has always comparatively overcompensated urban areas in 
regard to the Medicare reimbursement rate at the expense of rural 
States like Iowa. By efficiently utilizing our health services in the 
past, the current Medicare law punishes Iowa seniors through low 
reimbursement rates. Some urban areas receive 2\1/2\ times the 
reimbursement rate per person than rural areas like northwest Iowa do.
  The budget agreement will immediately establish a payment floor of 
$367 per month per beneficiary, which represents a tremendous increase 
for some Iowa seniors who are currently allowed $250 per month. The 
Balanced Budget Act also includes a 50/50 local/national blended 
payment rate for health plans beyond 1998. This blend will gradually 
bring the reimbursement rate for rural areas more in line with the rate 
of increase in urban areas, a goal of fundamental fairness.
  Bringing fairness and equity to the Medicare System has always been 
my agenda, along with Members from both sides of the aisle from rural 
parts of the country. Iowa Medicare beneficiaries deserve the same 
options and benefits as any other seniors in the country. I am proud to 
say that the Balanced Budget Act increases choices for Iowa seniors, 
and brings equity to the Medicare Reimbursement System.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this 
Balanced Budget Act because this bill does good things for children's 
health, welfare mothers, and for rebuilding our schools.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my wholehearted support for the 
bipartisan balanced budget agreement that the President and the 
Congress have agreed on implementing.
  This historic agreement will result in the first balanced budget 
agreement in a generation, with a net savings of $900 billion over 10 
years.
  The President's economic plan has cut the deficit more than 75 
percent from $290 billion in 1992 to $67 billion or lower by the close 
of this year. This agreement will finish the job by balancing the 
budget in 2002 and puts the budget in surplus at least through 2007.
  This agreement will mean an unprecedented $24 billion for children's 
health care, a $500 per child tax credit for approximately 27 million 
families, a $1,500 HOPE Scholarship for the first 2 years of college 
and a 20 percent tuition tax credit for college juniors, seniors, 
graduate students, and working Americans pursuing lifelong learning.
  As first balance budget since 1969, I know that the American public 
has waited long for a recognition that a budget that is not in balance 
hurts the economy, and robs our children of their future. More 
important than the agreement are the incentives to ensure that 
regardless of who has political control the agreement will be adhered 
to by both parties.
  The important domestic priorities that we have agreed should be met 
are accomplished under this agreement. It allows people to move from 
welfare to work and treats legal immigrants fairly. There will be $3 
billion to help States and local communities move people from welfare 
to work, along with $12 billion to restore both disability and health 
benefits for 350,000 legal immigrants in 2002 who are currently 
receiving assistance or become disabled.

  This balanced budget agreement is a victory for middle-class parents 
trying to pay for their children's college and for working people 
trying to upgrade their skills.
  We know the level of computer literacy and skills currently held by 
20 percent of American workers, which is well below the 60 percent that 
will be required by the year 2000. Our Nation's workers will need 
opportunities to train for and acquire new skills to adapt to the new 
economic realities of the next century.
  By crafting this agreement we will allow workers and their families 
to find greater freedom through job mobility and higher wages through 
acquisition of skills that are marketable.
  Along with creating opportunity for current workers we must also 
maintain our support for youth summer jobs programs for future workers.
  In 1997, Houston Works Summer Youth Program plans to serve 6,500 
young people between the ages of 14 and 21, with a projected budget of 
$8.9 million. This funding would only allow 3 percent of those who 
would qualify to be included in the program. The potential number of 
applications for this important jobs program is 43,000 young people 
which reflects the total number of disadvantaged youth in the area 
served by Houston Works. Nationwide, there are 4 million youths who 
would qualify for this summer jobs program if funds were available.
  Last year Houston Works provided 5,177 jobs to youth ages 14 through 
21 years, with a budget of $6.5 million.
  This program has made a significant difference in the lives and 
fortunes of Houston's young people who were fortunate enough to have 
their application accepted.
  This balanced budget agreement will also aid the environment through 
a new tax cut plan to clean up and redevelop Brownfields. The 3-year 
Brownfield tax incentive will reduce the cost of cleaning up thousands 
of contaminated abandoned sites in economically distressed areas by 
permitting clean-up costs to be deducted immediately for tax purposes.
  I along with many of my colleagues have worked hard to find solutions 
to this country's budget deficit and are pleased to see this type of 
bipartisan progress.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, may I take this 
opportunity

[[Page H6335]]

to thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], my leader, for 
his good work in the conference, the conference report that as a 
Democrat I am proud to stand here today and support, although I agree 
with many of my colleagues that we should have had more time to study 
the language as written. But this legislation really contains many 
Democratic priorities. To begin with, it balances the budget without a 
constitutional amendment and continues the direction made and begun in 
1993 by that very, very difficult budget vote.

                              {time}  1530

  But that is only the beginning. The bill also includes the largest 
investment in our Nation's history since Medicaid, $24 billion. This 
funding will help States provide health coverage for millions of 
uninsured children, and I really hope I can believe what I heard, that 
this coverage will be as good as State and Federal workers have.
  Furthermore, the legislation restores Federal aid for thousands of 
legal immigrants and provides $3 billion to help people make that 
transition so important from welfare to work.
  These and other changes make good on the pledge that many of us made, 
led by the President, to fix the problems in the recent welfare bill, 
and I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] for his hard work in 
this area.
  And, finally, the bill will enhance Medicare's coverage for 
preventive care including, annual mammograms. The legislation also does 
spend $1.5 billion to help more low income Medicare beneficiaries pay 
for that all important part B premium.
  I also want to applaud the majority for agreeing with Democrats to 
drop earlier provisions on reducing employment protections for welfare 
workers and on reducing State supplemented SSI payments for 2.8 million 
elderly.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill balances the budget while protecting democratic 
principles. This is a goal that many of us have been fighting for for a 
long time. I urge support for this conference report.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, a long battle began in 1989 when a fairly young Member 
of this House, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], offered an 
amendment to balance the Federal budget to get our country's financial 
house in order. There were 30 Members who supported him in that long 
march. In 1990, 106 Members supported him. In 1991, 114 Members 
supported him. He did not offer an amendment in 1992, but in 1993, 135 
Members supported John Kasich in his effort to get our country's 
financial house in order. In 1994, 165 Members supported him in his 
effort to get our country's financial house in order, and then with the 
election of 1994 we had the dynamic class of 73 Republican freshmen who 
came in and helped this man and helped this Congress get our country's 
financial house in order. In 1995, 235 Members voted to get our 
country's financial house in order, and the President vetoed that 
effort. In 1996, 216 voted for that, and the President vetoed it.
  Today we are at a historic point. We are at a point where this 
Democrat President and this Republican Congress have come together to 
get our country's financial house in order and balance the Federal 
budget.
  The President wanted more spending in certain areas, and this 
Republican Congress wanted tax cuts and changes to entitlements to slow 
the runaway costs of entitlements. This has been an effort of both 
sides, and this is an effort that needs to be supported.

                          ____________________