[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6335-H6342]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2015, BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns], a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
for the

[[Page H6336]]

purposes of a bipartisan colloquy with the gentlewoman from Michigan 
[Ms. Rivers].
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, in today's House Action Report analysis of 
the bill before us relative to the Veterans Administration, that 
publication says that there is going to be a $2.7 billion cut in 
veterans' programs over the next 5 years.
  Unfortunately, this analysis makes no reference to third-party 
insurers or to this body's agreement to keep the Veterans 
Administration whole relative to third-party insurer dollars. This has 
caused a lot of concern here in the House, as well as out in the 
community.
  Can the gentleman speak to this?
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Michigan 
for this question. I think it is very important.
  As a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and chairman of the 
House Subcommittee on Health, let me answer by saying we in the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs have agreed with the proposal to allow 
the VA to retain $600 million per year, or over a 5-year period it is 
$3 billion, in collections from third parties.
  But we are also aware of the uncertainty among veterans this policy 
creates. We in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs have addressed these 
fears by developing language in the bill that would authorize an 
automatic supplemental appropriations if collections fall short by more 
than $25 million.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, today for the first time in the 15 years that I have 
served in the House, we stand within reach of a balanced budget. The 
question before us is will we finish the job. We stand here within 
reach of a balanced budget because we stand on the shoulders of those 
who went before us, Democrats in 1993, who leaned into this problem at 
great political cost. We paid for it at the ballot box. The deficit was 
ratcheted then at $190 billion and rising. We voted to do something 
about it.
  To frame the context of what we are doing, I pulled from my office 
shelf this afternoon the Economic Report of the President filed by 
George Bush on January 13, 1993, 1 week before Bill Clinton came to 
office. If Members turn to page 69 of that economic report, they will 
see that the Bush administration projected that the deficit for fiscal 
1993 would be $332 billion. The next year, 1994, they said it would be 
$297, the next year $265, the next year $241, and this year, $266 
billion.

                              {time}  1600

  They had another track. They assumed that possibly we could rise to a 
better result if we had higher growth in the economy. And in that case 
they assumed the deficit this year would be $207 billion. Members know 
the results. As Yogi Berra says, you can look it up. It is a matter of 
record.
  We passed that bill with one vote in the House and the skin of its 
teeth in the Senate. Guess what? The deficit came down in fiscal year 
1993 to $255 billion. The next year when we closed the books on fiscal 
1994, it was $203 billion. In 1995, when we closed the books on that 
year, it was $164 billion. And last September 30, 1996, the deficit was 
$107.8 billion. Phenomenal. We cannot deny it.
  We are now looking and confidently expecting a deficit which will be 
this year below $50 billion, probably below $40 billion.
  The question is, will we complete the job? Will we finish what we 
started in 1993 and claim the victory to which we are entitled?
  I address now my side of the aisle. This is our legacy, and today we 
should lay claim to it by voting this bill up and by finishing the job.
  When we started this year, it was not clear at all that we would be 
able to muster the effort, mount the bipartisan kind of cooperation 
that would be necessary to bring together a bipartisan agreement and 
finish the job.
  I want to give credit again to President Clinton because as in 1993, 
again this year he leaned into the problem. He issued a call for us to 
come together, those of us who are on the Committee on the Budget, to 
sit and talk, then to negotiate and finally to hammer out the terms of 
a bipartisan budget agreement.
  And I give full credit to the Republican leadership of the committee 
and of the House, because they responded in earnest and in good faith 
to that call for talks and for negotiations, and they stood firmly with 
the process to the very end. The talks were hard fought, no doubt about 
it. We can sit here and believe that the product that lies before us 
was hammered out, hard wrought. But throughout those negotiations, 
there was civility and cordiality from the beginning to the very end. 
That is why we come here with an agreement that I think we can call a 
bipartisan agreement.
  I noted earlier that when we brought that bipartisan agreement to the 
floor of the House in the form of a budget resolution, in the form that 
we had negotiated it, 133 Democrats, nearly two-to-one, voted in favor 
of it. When the Committee on the Budget then put the resolution out to 
the committees of jurisdiction, nine all together, it picked up a lot 
of extra baggage. From my side that baggage contained some bitter 
pills. It was hard to swallow. We lost more than half of our support 
for this bill.
  I voted for the reconciliation bill, notwithstanding all of those 
contentious provisions that were bitter to swallow for my side of the 
aisle. And when I did it, I said, I am betting on the come. I have seen 
the bipartisan cooperation that we have had in the negotiations so far. 
If it prevails in the conference, I think we can clean out the 
bitterness in this bill and bring back to the House a reconciliation 
bill that a large majority on my side can and should support, because a 
large majority of the things in this will be things that were our 
ideas, our initiatives, things for working families who are our 
constituents and our supporters.
  I stand before my colleagues today to say I think we have reached 
that result. I am not completely pleased with this legislation, of 
course not. But I have rarely had the occasion to vote for the perfect 
bill in the 15 years that I have been in the House. And I think that 
this conference, in this conference we have had far more successes than 
setbacks. We have a bill that is as close to the budget resolution as 
we could possibly make it.
  This is called a deficit reduction bill. Most of the focus has been 
on balancing the budget. But in truth, this is more than just a 
balanced budget, more than just a deficit reduction plan. As I have 
said before and I think it bears saying again, we did not get so 
fixated on the deficit that we forgot that other problems exist in this 
country. Working families need relief. They need help, and we have 
tried to reach out and help them provide health insurance, ensure that 
they have got an educational opportunity, an opportunity for higher 
education.
  We have taken Medicare and dealt with Medicare because it is the 
biggest spike in the budget, fast growing, high spending, we have to 
deal with it. We cannot ignore it. We have reduced the cost by a net of 
$115 billion.
  But we protected the beneficiaries, and Democrats can be proud of 
that because we fought hard for that. We saw that that had to be in 
this final package. We have not only protected beneficiaries, we have 
added $4 billion in preventive care coverage to this final package, 
which is something, too, that we can be proud of.
  There are lots of victories in here. I say to my colleagues on my 
side of the aisle in particular, count the victories. Count the wins 
that we have got in this package. Count the ideas that are our ideas, 
that we should lay ownership to and take credit for in the passage of 
this package.
  I think this bill achieves far more than we as Democrats in the 
minority could ever have hoped to achieve acting by ourselves alone, 
even with the help of the administration. I am pleased with the 
outcome. I am going to vote for it. I urge all of my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Republican Conference, I 
very proudly yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich], chairman of the House Committee on the Budget.

[[Page H6337]]

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, you wonder about Ronald Reagan and his wife 
Nancy in California. This is his legacy, to balance the budget and cut 
taxes.
  The effort to do this, to shake us out of the status quo, has been 
driven by the energy of a great Republican President like Teddy 
Roosevelt.
  Let me say that there are many, many Members here who are winners. It 
could not have been done without the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt], working very hard, in a bipartisan way, to sell this package. 
The Blue Dogs and my great friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Condit], who came to the floor on a very tough amendment and gave us 
the votes we needed to keep the package together.
  The Republican leadership, I look over at the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hastert] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] who came to this Congress to get this 
done, to balance the budget and cut taxes. Our Speaker, Newt Gingrich, 
who had the will at times to lead when it was difficult. The gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Archer] who has been here for almost all of his adult 
life trying to balance the budget and cut taxes and cut capital gains. 
And there are just so many Members, the members of the Committee on the 
Budget, starting in 1993, Rick May, my staff director, who worked day 
and night, along with the rest of the Committee on the Budget staff. 
They all deserve credit.
  But let me, in a nutshell say to everyone here, starting in the 
period of the Great Depression, my dad was on the WPA. Roosevelt 
decided we needed a lot of solutions. And the American people said, we 
are willing to send some of our power and some of our money and some of 
our influence to the central government. Over the course of the last 40 
or 50 years, when we add up Medicare and Medicaid and civil rights and 
education, so many wonderful things happened over the course of that 
time.
  But let me tell my colleagues where we are today, because everything 
in life really is a balance. Everything in life is really a pendulum. 
What this bill represents today, a balanced budget that is real, the 
savings start today, what this really represents, along with tax cuts 
that give people power, it really represents the dawning of a new era. 
It is an era where we recognize the limits of government, and we begin 
to one more time count on the strength, the innovation, the creativity 
and the pure energy of the American people, all of us, every single boy 
and girl, mom and dad, grandma and grandfather, to begin to heal our 
country. Because what Americans have been saying is, government did a 
good job to get us over a lot of the hurdles and government still has a 
job, but what Americans are saying today is, let me get up to the 
plate, put the bat in my hand, let me heal my family, let me heal my 
neighborhood, let me heal my schoolhouse, let me heal my community and 
let me, working with my neighbors, begin to heal my country on the 
basis of my individual strength, innovation and ingenuity.
  This is not the end of the day, obviously. We face a generational war 
that must be avoided. It is the passing of the baton in a great relay 
race from one generation to another. We, as the baby boomers, and we, 
as those who are nearing the time when we will retire, have a 
responsibility to our children and our grandchildren.
  We have to make sure that we can pass that baton and that is work 
that lies ahead of us. But what is clear in this bill is that we are 
now committing to limiting the power of government and enhancing the 
power of the individual.
  It is a start. It started by giving our senior citizens more choice. 
It is happening by giving our Governors more flexibility to design 
programs to help people that fit their model and their communities. It 
is a program that enhances the power of individuals through medical 
savings accounts. It is a program that puts power in people's pockets 
by reducing the size of Government and letting people keep more of what 
they earn so they can help their family and their community. That is 
what this bill represents.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, I say this to Members on both sides of the 
aisle, the third millennium will not be a time period where we will 
talk about the power of regulators or regulations or lawmakers. The 
third millennium is going to be about the power of the individual, the 
spirit that created this country and drives this country.
  I want to make one final observation to my colleagues. There are many 
of you on both sides of the aisle that have a burning coal deep inside 
of your souls, whether it is in regard to children or whether it is in 
regard to national security or whether it is in regard to helping our 
senior citizens to prosper or standing up for the best education for a 
tool for everybody that breathes inside this country or for America to 
continue to be a bright shining light to the world.
  I have one message for you: Do not ever let your colleagues tell you 
you cannot get there. Do not ever let your staff say, it cannot be 
done, the mountain is too high. If you will maintain integrity, if you 
will build a team, if you will be inclusive, if you will stay honest to 
yourself, I do not care what your dream is, you can get it done through 
this House. The message here today is that people working together with 
a great goal in mind, they can be successful and that this House works.
  Let us support this bill and let us send a strong message across this 
country that we are going to win the future and ignite our country to 
do even better.
  God bless you.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it would be easy to join the 
administration and friends on both sides of the aisle in their acclaim 
for their tax and budget agreements, unfortunately, I don't believe a 
``yes'' vote is in the best long term interest of our country.
  To be sure, the proposals are better than when the process started. 
They are more fair and do less long term damage. In fact, there are 
some elements I strongly favor: the adjustment of capital gains on the 
sale of residential property, certain adjustment inheritance tax on 
farms and small business, spending more money for education and the 
repair of obvious flaws in the welfare legislation passed last year. 
These are all worthy goals that I support.
  In the final analysis there are still three basic problems.
  First, the tax changes are premature. We have not done any of the 
hard work on balancing the budget. The tax changes are scattered and 
political rather than focused and economically driven.
  Second, people most in need, students and working families, don't get 
enough and that which they do receive is not efficiently delivered. For 
example, students around America are clear that there are far better 
ways to provide assistance to make sure that young people get the 
college education they need. The tuition credit for tax deduction is an 
expensive indirect way to help them.
  Third and most fundamentally, the long term structural problems 
remain unaddressed. Our challenges may be harder because we lose 
several years of potential progress while the long term problem gets 
worse. It continues the illusion that budget cuts and entitlement 
reform can be done effortlessly and without pain.
  While acknowledging the good intentions of the crafters of these 
proposals and the progress they have made, they are still at their core 
a short term political adjustment when we need long term fundamental 
change. I will continue my efforts in supporting any reasonable efforts 
to achieve that basic goal.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 2015, the Balanced Budget Act. I am pleased that the conference 
report before the House includes important expanded preventive benefits 
in the Medicare Program, including improved coverage of diabetes 
education and supplies. This is a long-overdue change, one that I have 
worked on for 4 years.
  My daughter Amanda has diabetes. As a family, we know that diabetes 
is the only disease that is managed on a daily basis by the patient. If 
a person with diabetes lacks the education and/or the proper supplies 
to manage their disease, they'll do a poor job. When people do a poor 
job of managing diabetes they end up in the hospital, go blind, suffer 
heart attacks and strokes. Currently, Medicare won't pay for adequate 
coverage of self-management training and the necessary tools to manage 
diabetes, but it will pay for all the avoidable, preventable, costly 
complications of this disease. This legislation makes these important 
changes in Medicare and will improve the quality of life for people 
with diabetes. It is a remarkable achievement.
  My colleague, Mr. Nethercutt of Washington State, also has a daughter 
with diabetes. Earlier this year, Mr. Nethercutt and I introduced H.R. 
58 to improve Medicare coverage of self-management training and blood 
testing strips. H.R. 58, which has the support of over 282 members of 
the House, corrects two critical gaps in Medicare coverage which result 
in

[[Page H6338]]

thousands more emergency room visits, increased hospitalizations, and 
cases of blindness, amputation and stroke. I am pleased to report that 
the conference report includes improved coverage of self-management 
training and blood-testing strips, as well as blood glucose monitors. 
This is a dramatic achievement that will save billions of dollars and 
improve the quality of life for the 16 million Americans with diabetes.
  Numerous studies have clearly demonstrated how improving coverage of 
diabetes education and supplies saves money, and many private sector 
companies are implementing diabetes programs to save precious health 
care dollars. In many ways, the bill before the House today modernizes 
the Medicare Program and brings it in line with changes occurring in 
the private sector.
  I want to thank my colleague on the Commerce Committee, Mr. 
Bilirakis, as well as Mr. Brown and Mr. Thomas for their support of 
making this change. I also want to again thank my colleague from the 
Pacific Northwest, Mr. Nethercutt, who cofounded the Congressional 
Diabetes Caucus with me. Together, as parents of children with 
diabetes, we have proven that there is no place for partisanship in 
tackling this devastating disease. This is a landmark achievement in 
the Medicare Program and I urge all my colleagues to support passage of 
this conference report today.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the spending 
reconciliation bill, which builds upon the past success of deficit 
reduction agreements made by Congress, and outlines a plan to lead to a 
balanced budget by the year 2002. Each of us could and would change the 
priorities and adjust the way we arrange the tax expenditures which we 
will be considering tomorrow, but this agreement includes many 
compromises needed to find common ground.
  Mr. Speaker, it's been a long hard path back from President Reagan's 
1981 river boat gamble, slashing revenues and lavish Pentagon spending. 
Those dark years of annual deficits punctuated by rhetoric and finger 
pointing and constitutional amendments are no substitute for a good 
congressional constitution for the membership. This year the deficit is 
estimated to be less than $40 billion through September 30, 1997, the 
lowest annual deficit since the late 1960's. While a strong economy has 
helped budget numbers, the lower deficit is in large part finally the 
result of major work done by the Democratic majority in Congress in 
1993 working with President Clinton. Ironically, that year we passed a 
deficit reduction package with close to $500 billion in deficit 
reduction, more than double the amount we are talking about today. Not 
one Republican voted for that package, but the improved budget numbers 
we are working with now in 1997 are principally a result of those tough 
choices some made in 1993. The current budget resolution builds upon 
solid framework and stands on the shoulders of the 1993 budget action. 
Most importantly, none of the 1993 measure is being repealed or greatly 
modified in the agreement being offered as a solution today. That 
speaks volumes concerning the validity of that 1993 budget achievement.
  We have made positive progress in the annual deficit, and we must 
continue to make progress without extreme actions. Today's budget 
agreement, hammered out by President Clinton and the Congress, 
demonstrates that we can pursue fiscal balance without creating social 
imbalance. It extends the Medicare trust fund, even while adding 
several preventative benefits such as annual mammograms; protects the 
Medicaid Program; enacts the most significant expansion of health care 
in three decades, and reinstates fair benefits for legal immigrants 
lost in the name of reform in 1996. Without the need of a majority 
vote, each of us no doubt would change this budget. But we must examine 
and judge this budget based on what is possible politically and 
practically today, against the backdrop of 1995-96, when polarization 
and the shutdown of the Federal Government were employed to achieve the 
ends that the Republican majority in Congress sought, those goals were 
wrong. The public, the President, and political system rejected the 
Republican agenda. Today we are acting on an agenda that the public, 
President, and political system will accept, good for our economy and a 
sound fiscal policy path to a balanced budget.
  Certainly one of the most important achievements of this budget 
agreement is the significant expansion of health care coverage for 
children. I have been a longtime advocate of efforts to expand access 
to health insurance for American families. This measure takes a step 
forward by expanding coverage for 5 million of the 10 million uninsured 
children in this Nation. This is the largest expansion of health care 
for children since the enactment of Medicaid in 1965. In fact, the bill 
before us today actually goes beyond the original budget agreement by 
providing an additional $8 billion over a 5-year period from a new 
tobacco tax to assure that the child health care insurance is 
accomplished.
  However, while I am pleased that Congress is acting to secure health 
insurance for children nationwide, I do not believe that the bill 
includes an equitable formula for distributing the funds to States. 
Minnesota has made pioneering efforts in providing health care coverage 
for children, so that it currently has the lowest rate of uninsured 
children in the Nation. However, because the bill's formula is based on 
the number of uninsured children in each State, Minnesota is being 
penalized because it has already worked to expand children's health 
care. Several of my colleagues and I attempted to change the bill so 
that the formula would be based on the number of children in poverty, 
but the budget agreement only allows for partial consideration of the 
poverty rate beginning in the year 2001.

  While the Republicans did not sufficiently change the children's 
health formula, they have withdrawn several other negative policy 
proposals which were included in this bill when it originally passed 
the House. The pea and shell game that was put forth concerning 
protections for legal immigrants has been corrected; they are now 
conforming to the important commitment of the original budget agreement 
to assist low-income seniors with the Medicare part B premiums; they 
have dropped their proposal to exempt some health plans from State 
solvency requirements and consumer protections; they have deleted 
changes to medical liability laws to cap malpractice damages; and they 
have backtracked on several antiworker provisions, including a 
provision which would have undermined basic employment protections for 
people on welfare.
  The devil of any budget is in the details and President Clinton 
working with our Democrat budget leaders excised most of the devils 
which would have derailed this agreement. The numbers and policy 
recommendations in today's reconciliation bill reflect the fact that 
our country does not need to renege on basic commitments to the 
American family and our constituents in order to reduce the deficit and 
balance the annual budgets. We do not need to create a human deficit in 
the name of deficit reduction. We can invest in our nation's future 
through health care, education, infrastructure, and the environment, 
and still achieve a sound budget. In fact my view is that a human 
deficit would soon lead to a fiscal deficit especially in today's 
global economy.
  This budget agreement serves as a fair outline for an economic agenda 
over the next five years while not perfect. Overall, this budget 
agreement is a very positive step, the product of compromise, which is 
necessary in today's political climate and tomorrow's. The budget 
builds on our past successes in deficit reduction, finishing the job in 
a reasonable, if not an ideal manner. No doubt some adjustments and 
modification will be made as we correct for economic realities and 
attempt to reprioritize in the years ahead. It will be important for us 
to protect an re-examine the priorities important to the American 
people as we work to craft the bills to implement the budget agreement 
over the long term, but I believe this is a worthy product putting in 
place. The public policy knowledge at our disposal with the political 
symmetry of our national government into positive action for today, for 
the benefit of the American families we represent.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, when we gained control of the 
House of Representatives, Republicans made a commitment to cut taxes, 
balance the budget, and save Medicare.
  The spending and tax relief bills we take up this week represent the 
fulfillment of those promises. The Balanced Budget Act we are 
considering today is essential to balancing the Federal budget for the 
first time since 1969.
  Of special interest to my constituents who are senior citizens are 
the provisions relating to Medicare. The Balanced Budget Act will 
restore solvency to Medicare by saving $115 billion over the next 5 
years and implementing structural reforms. These reforms include giving 
new health care choices to seniors, including provider-sponsored 
networks; a demonstration program for medical savings accounts, which 
would permit 390,000 MSA plans; and new benefits, including mammograms 
and Pap smears, screening for prostate and colorectal cancer, and a 
program to help with diabetes management.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of news that really means something to 
people. I am pleased and proud that I can go home during the August 
recess and tell my constituents that their elected Representatives have 
taken responsibility for the fiscal health of this Nation--and for the 
future of their children and grandchildren--by preserving Medicare, 
giving them back more of the hard-earned money, and balancing the 
budget.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the spending reconciliation bill before us 
has a number of important and commendable provisions. At the same time, 
like many compromises, it includes some provisions which I consider 
quite objectionable.
  On the positive side, the bill represents the first major expansion 
of health care in many

[[Page H6339]]

years by establishing a $24 billion program to insure our Nation's 
children. Extending health care to as many as 10 million uninsured 
children has been one of my most important goals, and this bill takes 
the first step in that direction.
  The bill also makes useful and important reforms of the Medicare 
Program that will extend solvency of the Medicare trust fund, while 
expanding new preventative services and adding consumer protections. 
Similarly, new consumer protections have been added to the Medicaid 
Program.
  Unfortunately, despite these commendable provisions, we should not 
delude ourselves that this bill will likely provide a balanced budget, 
in part because it uses $24 billion in phony revenues from sale of the 
public spectrum. These telecommunications provisions will give away the 
public spectrum for pennies on the dollar, and tamper with the public's 
Universal Service Fund that provides affordable telephone service to 
all areas of the country.
  In addition, I have serious problems with some of the Medicare 
provisions, such as medical savings accounts and private fee-for-
service plans, that threaten the long-term viability of Medicare.
  I also have strong objections to the provisions in this bill that 
make unnecessary cuts in our veterans' health programs by as much as 20 
percent. This is undoubtedly the worst place we could choose to balance 
the budget.
  Any bill that is so comprehensive and filled with compromise is bound 
to have both very good and very bad provisions, but as a Member of 
Congress we must choose either yes or no. In this case, Mr. Speaker, I 
believe there are too many important provisions in this bill, 
particularly in improved health care, to turn it down.
  Therefore, I intend to vote yes to this conference report.


                           CHILDREN'S HEALTH

  The most significant achievement in this budget, which I have fought 
hard to achieve, is a $24 billion in new spending for a new health 
insurance program for at least half of the 10 million uninsured 
children in this country.
  These children in the families of working Americans will now have a 
real chance at access to vital health services, such as the 
prescriptions they need when they have an earache or a sore throat, and 
eyeglasses so they can read the blackboard in school.
  There is no better investment that this Congress can make than 
helping children get a jump start on life by giving them access to 
health insurance to give them the opportunity to grow strong and happy.


                                Spectrum

  The telecommunications provisions contained in this conference report 
have merely two flaws: They will gut vital telecommunications policy 
goals that have enjoyed bipartisan support for decades. And they will 
do nothing to achieve a balanced budget.
  The Budget Committee and the leadership of this body have made it 
clear that getting a good score from CBO is more important than good 
policy. But this is not the congressional baseball game. That was 
played last night.
  Today we are not playing a game where good score is the only 
objective--we are trying to do what is best for the American people.
  One only needs to examine a few of the telecommunications provisions 
to answer that question: The bill forces the Government to liquidate a 
valuable natural resource--the public radio spectrum--for pennies on 
the dollar. It requires the auction of frequencies used by the 
Government that experts say will put our country's military operations 
at risk.
  It takes the unprecedented step of tampering with the Nation's 
universal service fund--a dangerous move that will hold affordable 
telephone service hostage to the budget process from this day forward.


                                Medicare

  This bill includes many positive changes for Medicare--tough new 
fraud and abuse provisions; substantial consumer protections for 
Medicare-managed care; and excellent changes in Medigap.
  I also noted that, thanks to efforts by Chairman Biley and Bilirakis, 
the bill includes a number of proposals offered by my Democratic 
colleagues during Commerce Committee markup. However, the bill 
unfortunately includes several proposals that I fear will prove 
dangerous to Medicare.
  Specifically, medical savings accounts and private contracts between 
physicians and certain Medicare beneficiaries, for health services 
outside of Medicare, are dangerous proposals. While this bill includes 
commendable limits on both approaches, I continue to believe they are 
inherent menances to Medicare.
  Also, the conference report includes a remnant of a very misguided 
Senate proposal for so-called private fee-for-service health plans. 
Even with the limits on beneficiary copayments and balance billing 
wisely included in the conference report, this is a perilous idea which 
chips into the foundation of Medicare and could lead to the crumbling 
of that critical foundation, brick by brick.


                                Medicaid

  The conference report includes several vital improvements in the 
Medicaid Program: It provides individuals with a choice of managed care 
programs; it establishes a prudent layperson definition of medical 
emergencies, so that people experiencing chest pains cannot be denied 
payment for emergency room services; it requires Medicaid plans to have 
grievance procedures for people who have been denied services; and it 
provides consumer information on managed care plans.
  I am pleased that payments to community health centers have been 
preserved over the next 6 years. I intend to keep a close watch over 
these payments, so that we do not put these important health centers at 
risk.
  I am concerned, however, by the repeal of the requirement of adequate 
payment to nursing homes, which I believe will threaten important 
protections of seniors.
  Finally, while there was much in this reconciliation process which 
precluded a careful debate on these issues, I do want to express 
appreciation to my colleague and chairman of the committee, Tom Bliley 
and his excellent and hard-working staff for their willingness to work 
with members of the minority and our staff, to hear our concerns, and 
include our staff in important drafting sessions. I commend the 
committee staff for their professionalism and their cooperation. I also 
want to thank the hard efforts of our Democratic staff on this bill, 
and for their many hours of work on this bill.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997. Achieving a balanced budget has been a major 
priority of mine since I first ran for Congress. I am very pleased that 
today we will vote on a measure that will balance the budget for the 
first time in 28 years.
  In addition to balancing the budget, important headway is made with 
this legislation in several areas. The Medicare Trust Fund is preserved 
to the year 2007. The package contains structural reforms and expands 
choices for seniors. The bill includes preventive care benefits for 
mammographies, pap smears, diabetes, prostate, and colorectal cancer 
screening, vaccines and others. Tough, new antifraud measures will 
increase accountability through stiff penalties for those in violation 
of the law. Medical Savings Accounts [MSA's] will allow tax-free annual 
contributions to an individually controlled account and can be used to 
pay for qualified medical expenses. The project will cover 390,000 
seniors and would be combined with a high-deductible insurance policy 
to provide protection against catastrophic injuries or illnesses.
  This bill also increases the freedom and options available to 
beneficiaries. Patients will finally be allowed to privately pay for 
services not offered by Medicare. Additionally, Medicare can no longer 
restrict providers' advice to beneficiaries about medical care or 
treatment. Beneficiaries will also be given a voice via a new toll-free 
number to report fraud and billing irregularities directly to the 
inspector general of Health and Human Services.
  While I am in support of the provisions that will preserve Medicare 
to the year 2007, I also understand the need for continued reform. With 
this legislation, a National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of 
Medicare will address Medicare's long-term solvency crisis and make 
recommendations to Congress on how to preserve the Medicare Program.
  In addition to the Medicare provisions, the Medicaid portion of the 
bill projects savings of $13 billion over 5 years and increases State 
flexibility, allowing States to provide more cost-effective medical 
coverage for low-income persons. The legislation also reforms the 
disproportionate share hospital [DSH] payments through a revised 
formula designed to protect States from excessive reductions.
  There are many positive provisions in this bill in addition to the 
ones I have mentioned. However, there are also a variety of provisions 
that I do not support. For example, I do not support increasing taxes 
and do not believe this increase is the appropriate forum to deal with 
the question of tobacco. I also have concerns about the children's 
health provisions. While I definitely want to see every child receive 
necessary medical attention, I do not believe that the Federal 
Government can or should replace parents in caring for children. I am 
also disappointed States like Texas will not be permitted to use 
nongovernmental personnel in the determination of eligibility for 
certain benefits. As this Congress strives to achieve a fiscally 
responsible government, programs like the Texas Integrated Enrollment 
System need to be given every opportunity to run as efficiently and 
effectively as possible.
  In this bill, there is good and bad legislation. Ultimately, the good 
outweighs the bad. For the first time in 28 years, Congress will bring 
some fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget. Additionally, 
preserving the Medicare Trust Fund is critical to seniors and action is 
necessary immediately. For these primary reasons, I support the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

[[Page H6340]]

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the balanced budget 
agreement. This deal is praised as a bipartisan victory--that we have 
balanced the budget and increased spending for some social programs. 
Nothing is further from the truth.
  This balanced budget deal was achieved primarily by drastic cuts--
$115 billion from Medicare--the major health program for the elderly, 
and $13 billion in savings from Medicaid--the major Federal program 
providing health care for poor people. The budget gets balanced by 
cutting Medicare payments to doctors, hospitals, and other health care 
providers. The budget deal freezes Medicare payments to hospitals at 
the fiscal year 1997 level--even though we all know that the demand and 
costs are rising. And this deal reduces Medicare and Medicaid payments 
for hospitals that serve a disproportionate number of low-income 
patients--the very poor--the uninsured. These include public hospitals 
like Cook County Hospital in Chicago and the University of Chicago 
Hospital in the First Congressional District. And the cuts also hurt 
those whose very breath depends on home oxygen. The budget cuts 
payments for oxygen and oxygen equipment. This budget deal was paid for 
with another deal--generous tax cuts that favor those who are better 
off. Only a quarter of these cuts go to people making less than 
$100,000 a year. Thirty-six percent of these cuts go to the top 1 
percent of income earners.
  With due respect to the President, and my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle--this budget does contain some hard-won provisions--but let's 
not forget they were fought for and won--by poor people, working 
people, and advocates for children and immigrants. This bill does 
include expanded health insurance for poor children. The bill restores 
benefits to legal immigrants who become disabled and it guarantees 
minimum wage and workplace protections to workfare participants. But 5 
million children who need health insurance will not be covered. Legal 
immigrants will not receive food stamps. And our Nation's schools that 
need serious rebuilding so they can move our children into the 21st 
century and get connected to the information superhighway do not have 
the funds they need.
  Last spring, I cast my vote for the Congressional Black Caucus [CBC] 
Budget. I was proud to vote for that budget. That budget both balanced 
and fully funded vital safety net programs like WIC and Head Start. The 
CBC budget protected the constituents of the First Congressional 
District. I represent a district where 20 percent of my constituents 
live in poverty. Thirty-six percent of the children under 18 in my 
district live in poverty. How could I vote for a budget deal like this 
when mothers in my district like Grand Boulevard watch their babies die 
at three times the national average?
  My decision to vote ``no'' on this budget agreement is not a close 
call. I believe it is a disgrace. It is a betrayal of our basic 
democratic ideals.
  Mr. DOYLE. I rise today to support this spending package, H.R. 2015. 
This proposal, combined with the tax package we will consider tomorrow, 
establishes a framework where, for the first time since 1969, our 
Nation will achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002.
  Past efforts in Washington to achieve this type of fiscal balance 
have been met by partisan gridlock and an unwillingness to compromise. 
This left the American people with a budget problem and no solutions, 
with a budget deficit growing larger each year.
  During this most recent effort, however, Members of Congress and the 
President not only listened to our constituents and other affected 
parties, we also listened to each other. The result of this effort is 
the balanced budget proposal we are considering this week.
  H.R. 2015 represents the spending portion of this bipartisan budget 
package, which outlines an intelligent solution to not only bring the 
budget into financial balance, but also to implement other initiatives 
that improve the lives and health of our most vulnerable citizens.
  It is never easy reforming a program, such as Medicare, that so many 
people depend on for essential services. However, if left untouched, by 
the year 2001, the Medicare Program would no longer be able to pay for 
the services it provides to eligible beneficiaries. It is because of 
this financial instability that Congress took action to develop a 
proposal that extends the solvency of the Medicare Program.
  The majority of the reforms included in the bill primarily affect 
health care providers by making changes to reimbursement rates or the 
method Medicare uses to reimburse these providers. This bill also 
expands coverage of preventive care for senior citizens, including 
services related to diabetes, osteoporosis, and certain types of 
cancer, and it includes provisions to further reduce fraud and abuse in 
the program. Additionally, to respond to an increasing use of managed 
care entities in the health care system, the bill institutes important 
consumer protections for Medicare beneficiaries, ensuring that seniors 
who enroll in managed care plans are provided adequate medical 
services.
  This legislation will not only ensure continued access to health care 
services for Pennsylvania's seniors, but it also protects the 
Commonwealth's youngest residents by setting aside $24 billion over 5 
years to provide health coverage for uninsured children. This important 
initiative would provide essential health coverage to as many as 5 
million children who are currently living without health benefits.
  These initiatives will help secure a healthier future for our Nation, 
and, at the same time, ensure that our Nation's financial health 
improves as well. I am pleased to support H.R. 2015, which will balance 
the Federal budget in a manner that is fair and equitable to all 
Americans.
  Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the main intent of 
this bill, namely to restrain entitlement growth and balance the 
Federal budget. That is why I voted for the budget resolution in May as 
well as for this bill when it was approved by the House earlier this 
month. Since that time, however, so much has been added in the form of 
increased spending and increased taxes that I cannot vote for passage 
of the conference committee report.
  As I have said many times, I did not come to Washington to raise 
taxes, whatever the source may be. I know that tobacco companies are an 
inviting target for those who are constantly seeking additional sources 
for governmental revenue. But the issue is not where the money comes 
from. I am no fan of the tobacco industry. In fact, I have voted in the 
Kansas Legislature for increases in the State tobacco tax and, since 
coming to Congress, I have voted against subsidies for the tobacco 
industry. Moreover, I have never accepted a dime of tobacco money in my 
seven campaigns for public office. The issue here is whether the 
Congress should raise taxes with one hand even while it reduces them 
with the other.
  To put it simply, the Federal Government already has too much money. 
It does not need more. Although this tax is ostensibly to fund 
increased health care availability for kids, the House earlier this 
month passed, with my support, a far more responsible version of this 
bill, fully funding the program at the level requested by the President 
without a tax increase.
  Furthermore, the increase in the tobacco tax runs the risk of robbing 
States of Medicaid reimbursement from the tobacco industry. I am told 
that this tax on the tobacco companies is credited against the 
obligations under their agreement with the States' attorneys general. I 
have repeatedly inquired whether the tobacco companies may be able to 
avoid some portion of their obligations under the agreement to 
compensate the States for Medicaid payments. Because no one has been 
able to assure me this is not the case, I am reluctant to risk taking 
this hard-won money away from State Medicaid programs.
  This bill also contains unacceptable increases in Federal spending. 
While purporting to reduce and reform entitlements, it actually creates 
a new entitlement for children's health care, costing $24 billion over 
5 years, a full $8 billion more than even President Clinton requested.
  Finally, the bill reverses the welfare reform approved by Congress 
just 2 years ago. It significantly increases food stamps and other 
welfare spending, sets up yet another Federal jobs program costing $3 
billion over 4 years, and extends SSI and Medicaid eligibility to non-
citizens even while benefits for American citizens are being curtailed.
  There are, of course, many laudable provisions in this bill. 
Reforming of some entitlements and slowing the growth of government 
spending are crucial elements to balancing the budget. But my support 
for these positive elements does not require that I accept every 
destructive provision inserted at the demand of the other body or the 
White House. Unfortunately, what was a good bill when it left the House 
has simply been loaded up with unnecessary taxes and spending. It 
stands in stark contrast to the conference report on the tax portion of 
this balanced budget, which to a great extent remained faithful to our 
pledge of less government and lower taxes. When the House considers the 
conference committee report on the tax bill, I will proudly support it.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on the balanced budget agreement. I would also like to offer my 
praise and congratulations to all of the House and Senate members, as 
well as President Clinton and his administration, who worked so hard to 
reach this momentous agreement. Throughout my tenure in the House of 
Representatives, I have championed balancing the federal budget, and I 
am proud that this often elusive goal has finally been achieved. 
Although this agreement is not exactly as I would have drafted it, nor 
is it likely

[[Page H6341]]

to precisely mirror the priorities of any one member of Congress, it is 
nonetheless a good budget which will provide significant benefits to 
every American. In addition, I applaud the remarkable spirit of 
bipartisanship which has generally characterized the long and 
complicated path that led us to this point.
  Of particular importance to myself and my constituents are the 
provisions of this budget regarding health care and education. I am 
pleased that more meaningful education tax credits than ever before 
will be available to American parents struggling to send their children 
to college. In addition, the increase in Pell Grant funding will enable 
more students to receive critical financial assistance as they pursue 
their education. Congress has demonstrated through this agreement its 
dedication to educating the youth of this nation, and I hope this will 
prove to be the beginning of a lasting bipartisan effort to help 
families of every income level afford higher education for their 
children.
  I also believe that this budget agreement represents a victory for 
rural health care. As a member of the Rural Health Care Coalition and 
its co-chair for the last three years, one of my foremost priorities 
has been to restore equity to the AAPCC, which determines how Medicare 
reimburses health plans. This bill enacts an adequate minimum floor 
and, most importantly, a 50/50 blend over six years, which will provide 
rural seniors with increased health care options. In addition, this 
agreement establishes a limited-service hospital model that will allow 
rural hospitals to remain financially viable. We have also taken steps 
in regard to rural referral centers, including permitting them to be 
reclassified for the purposes of disproportionate share hospital 
payments. All of these provisions were included in H.R. 1189, the Rural 
Health Care Improvement Act of 1997, which I co-authored. These, 
combined with numerous other valuable provisions, represent a 
significant step forward for our rural residents.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I am proud that this Congress will have the honor 
of reaching an agreement to balance the federal budget for the first 
time in decades, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of it. It 
is a victory for our children and grandchildren and a monumental 
achievement for us all.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2015, the 
Budget Reconciliation Spending Act Conference Report.
  I am no stranger to the tough, courageous decisions that must be made 
to balance our budget. In 1993, when faced with a record $290 billion 
deficit, Democrats, including myself, stood tall and--without a single 
Republican vote--passed the original ``Balanced Budget Plan,'' which 
has reduced the deficit almost 90 percent. As a result of the 1993 
budget, the deficit has been reduced every year for five years in a row 
for the first time since Harry Truman was in the White House. In fact, 
many economists project that the 1993 Budget Plan will balance the 
budget next year if no other plan is passed.
  While the Majority Leader prefers to credit the free-spending 
economic policy of President Reagan, the Congressional Budget Office 
projects that--without the 1993 Budget Plan--we would be facing a 
deficit of $319 billion right now, and a whopping $519 billion by the 
year 2002.
  Instead, today our deficit stands at $30 billion--it's lowest point 
in three decades, and we are on the threshold of balancing the budget. 
All that remains is to take the final step. Unfortunately, this plan is 
a step in the wrong direction.
  Mr. Speaker, this spending plan would achieve most of its saving 
through deep cuts to two programs--Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, the 
$115 billion being stripped from Medicare is, by far, the single 
largest cut in the plan.
  Unlike many, I am not consoled by the fact that other, more 
devastating provisions have been eliminated from the plan. Until 
recently, this budget included proposals to means-test Medicare, raise 
the eligibility age, and set a dangerous precedent by requiring 
copayments from seniors for benefits that have always been fully paid 
for by Medicare. While these plans may have been tabled for now, H.R. 
2015 would create a commission that will undoubtedly revisit these 
issues again in the coming years.
  Dropping a few irresponsible, misguided attacks on the Medicare 
Program has not blinded me to the fact that this budget raises seniors 
Part B premiums $275 a year by 2002. Abandoning plans to raise the 
Medicare eligibility age does not hide the fact that this scheme 
attempts to privatize Medicare.
  It is ironic that on the 32d anniversary of the creation of Medicare, 
we are considering legislation that would dismantle the program. Simply 
put, Medicare works. It is one of the most successful programs in 
American history, guaranteeing health care coverage for every American 
in their golden years. And it works for one very simple reason--
everyone pays into Medicare, and everyone enjoys the benefits, 
regardless of income.
  Instead, provisions in this budget will destroy the universality of 
Medicare by allowing some Americans to opt out of the program. These 
provisions create Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) and private fee-for-
service plans that will give the healthiest and wealthiest 
beneficiaries the option to abandon the traditional Medicare system, 
leaving behind low-income and chronically ill seniors. Once the healthy 
and wealthy seniors have left the system, health care costs will 
skyrocket, quality of care will deteriorate, and Medicare will--as 
Speaker Gingrich predicted--``wither on the vine.''
  Other spending cuts that will undermine Social Security and Medicare 
are much more direct. This budget cuts 61 percent of the total 
administrative funding from Social Security, Veterans Benefits, and 
Medicare, crippling their ability to run these vital and important 
programs. I am told it currently takes between six months to a year to 
process a Social Security claim. These cuts would bring that already 
slow pace to a virtual stand-still, inconveniencing thousands of 
beneficiaries who rely these services for their sole source of income, 
and emergency health care needs. Clearly, this budget is not concerned 
about the health and welfare of America's veterans and senior citizens.
  But seniors and vets aren't the only ones who bear the brunt of these 
spending cuts--hospitals that serve the neediest children and families 
will also take an enormous hit. The $13.6 billion in Medicaid cuts that 
this budget calls for would come primarily from disproportionate share 
hospital payments (DSH). These cuts would hurt only those hospitals 
that serve the sickest and neediest among us. In addition, the multi-
level cuts contained in this bill make it impossible for struggling, 
nonprofit hospitals to shift the burden of the cuts and will eventually 
force them to close their doors. Those hospitals that are able to 
remain open would face the same burdensome cuts in funding, while being 
expected to absorb the patients formerly served by the closed 
hospitals.
  The obvious result of this plan would be a sharp decline in the 
quality of care, inevitable job losses, and the closing of many 
hospitals in my district. Since nearly 15 percent of my region's 
economy depends directly on providing health care, these cuts would 
have a ripple effect that would be felt in every sector of the local 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, the Third District of Pennsylvania is home to over 
101,000 senior citizens, making it the 20th oldest district in America. 
Well over half of all hospital admissions in my district are dependent 
entirely on either Medicare or Medicaid. Clearly, substantial cuts to 
these important programs would have a profound impact on the hospitals' 
ability to provide quality care to my constituents.
  Few, if any, districts in the nation will be hit as hard as mine by 
these devastating cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. The absence of ill-
considered provisions into Medicare that would completely gut these 
important programs does nothing to soften the crushing blow this budget 
will deliver to the sick, the needy, and the elderly in my district.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a budget that 
takes money from the pockets of senior citizens, turns its back on the 
uninsured, and threatens to undermine the integrity of the Medicare 
Program. For that reason, I must oppose this budget.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report on this legislation to balance the federal budget by 2002. Let 
me stress that I am committed to balancing the federal budget, but I 
cannot vote for this compromise budget package.
  I believe my ten-year voting record speaks to my commitment to 
balance the budget. In fact, last week I was one of 81 members who 
voted for the Budget Enforcement Act. Clearly, this was not a very 
popular vote, but it demonstrated my dedication to balancing the 
budget. Similarly, I have cosponsored and voted for Constitutional 
amendments designed to impose a balanced federal budget. I understand 
the benefits to the economy, my constituents and their families' 
futures of a balanced federal budget and debt reduction. I believe we 
need to balance the budget as soon as possible, and I disagree with too 
many elements of this compromise to be able to support it today.
  In my opinion, there are several major shortcomings in the budget 
deal just finalized by Congressional leaders and the White House. 
Specifically the deal allows spending increases for existing non-
defense discretionary programs--and the creation of new programs--which 
were required to ensure President Clinton's support and signature. 
These spending increases will lead to an expansion of the federal 
bureaucracy and an expected increase in the deficit until 2001, when it 
finally will begin to drop. While the spending increases are promised 
in the short run, the spending cuts that are required to bring the 
budget into balance are what we call ``back loaded,'' meaning that they 
will not be made until near the final years of the agreement.

[[Page H6342]]

  Finally, the new tobacco taxes are unacceptable to the overwhelming 
majority of my constituents. Under this agreement, tobacco will be hit 
with a complicated new tax scheme which among other things will mandate 
an additional 10 cents per pack tax in 2000 and another 5 cent one in 
2002. As you can see, an additional 15 cents a pack will be levied by 
this budget deal. I believe that this is an unfair attack on a legal 
product, one that would hurt nearly 45,000 tobacco farmers in North 
Carolina (including over 4,000 in the 10th district alone), and more 
than 31,000 workers in related industries in my district and the state. 
Moreover, this excise tax is regressive, hitting hardest those who can 
least afford this tax increase.
  In sum, although I could not vote for the compromise balanced budget 
package, I will continue to work to balance the federal budget. 
However, we can and must do so without all the unnecessary spending, 
unfair taxes and budget tricks included in this particular package. In 
fact, estimates show that we could balance the federal budget in just a 
few short years if we hold down spending. Why wait until 2002, if we 
don't have to?

                              {time}  1615

  The SPEAKER. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on 
the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 346, 
noes 85, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 345]

                               AYES--346

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

                                NOES--85

     Baesler
     Ballenger
     Barton
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Bryant
     Burr
     Clay
     Coble
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Largent
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Mica
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pombo
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Stark
     Stokes
     Taylor (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Forbes
     Gonzalez
     Schiff
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1643

  Mr. CUMMINGS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________