[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 111 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8386-S8404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           THE BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of the conference report 
accompanying H.R. 2015, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany H.R. 2015, an act to provide 
     for reconciliation pursuant to subsections (b)(1) and (c) of 
     section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 1998.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 1 hour remaining equally 
divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Budget Committee.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if my friend from New Jersey has no 
objection, why don't we just agree that time will expire promptly at 
10:15 so everybody will know the vote will start at 10:15.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will speak for a couple minutes.
  There is a sense of the historical significance of what it is that we 
are about to do. It is not simply the accomplishment of having put in 
place a balanced budget. It goes further than that; that is, to note 
that this agreement has been developed, if I might use the word 
``hammered'' out, by bipartisan cooperation. My friend and colleague, 
the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and I and 
others, of course, labored long and hard to help present the views of 
all of our colleagues into an understanding and a package that would be 
acceptable as a consensus product.
  So we are here at this moment, and within 1 hour it is believed that 
we will have passed this reconciliation bill and will embark upon the 
work of passing the second reconciliation bill which will complete the 
task.
  I think we have set some records here this year, not only because we 
will have achieved a balanced budget, which is the best belief of all 
Members here who will be supporting this, but I took a moment, I say to 
Senator Domenici, to check on where we stand with our appropriations 
bills. There were 9, I believe, that have been completed, and perhaps a 
10th one ready. That is quite fantastic, not yet August and having done 
those.
  I want to say to all of my colleagues, I am proud that we were able 
to get this job done under fairly stringent conditions. We do not have 
as much money as we were accustomed to having in the past, but with 
what we had we made it do very well. We have covered lots of things 
that needed attention, child health care, assurance of the solvency of 
Medicare, an opportunity for kids to get an education, to be investing 
in research in our society, a number of things that are very positive 
outcomes, again, within the context of the resources we had available.
  All Members of both parties deserve to be proud of our 
accomplishment. We have shown America something, that we can work 
together for the common good, and at the same time we can be fiscally 
responsible and we can help prepare for the next century, which is 
around the corner.
  This agreement will lead us, I think, to a positive path as we 
prepare to enter the 21st century, investing in all kinds of good 
things, as I have said, and education, particularly, I think as the 
cornerstone for the development of our society.
  The agreement shows that it is not inconsistent to be both fiscally 
responsible and progressive. There is now broad consensus that we 
simply have to live within our means, but there is also appreciation 
that the future will not simply take care of itself. It takes work. We 
have to prepare for it, investing to make sure that our people are 
ready for it.
  That is what we are doing in this legislation: getting our fiscal 
house in order. We are investing in our children. We are extending the 
educational opportunities for millions of Americans. In short, we are 
getting ready, and our children and grandchildren will reap the rewards 
in decades ahead.
  So, Mr. President, I am proud to be here as this balanced budget 
legislation is approved. We want to see it get to the White House. It 
is a moment in history, and I hope it will be regarded as a very 
positive moment in the record books years from now. I am grateful and 
proud to have been a part of the process.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator, Senator 
Thurmond, has asked me if he might speak as in morning business for 3 
minutes. I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to do that and it 
come out of my time on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thurmond pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
111 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and 
Senate Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will save a few remarks until just 
before the vote. Certainly, if anybody else on our side wants to speak, 
they are welcome. Nobody is bound to speak, but if they would like to, 
we have 15, 20 minutes on our side.
  I would like to make just a few comments about some of the processes 
we have been involved in and thank a few people.
  Mr. President, I do not believe 15 years ago that anybody assumed the 
Budget Act could be used to balance a budget as we are doing it here 
today. The reconciliation instruction and then the reconciliation bill 
are strange-sounding words and a strange-sounding name for a bill. But 
essentially we have, by evolution and development and some changes in 
the law, permitted a budget resolution which does not involve the 
President; it involves just a majority vote in both Houses. We 
permitted it to be used to force the passage of reform legislation or 
tax bills such as the one we have before us.
  I think everybody should recognize a couple of very interesting 
historic evolutions as this process developed. One is the adoption of 
the Byrd rule by the U.S. Congress as part of the law that applies to 
the Senate of the United States. And, obviously, one need not search as 
to where that came from. It came from Senator Robert Byrd.
  Essentially, one of the Parliamentarians has praised it this way, 
that the Byrd rule limits our ability to ride the budget horse into 
passing all kinds of legislation that have little to do with the 
budget.
  I am very pleased to say, and I was able to say to the distinguished 
Senator Byrd yesterday, that when you put a bill together as large as 
this, with as many committees and as many innovative minds, you cannot 
help but try to ride the budget horse beyond what it ought to be used 
for. There were many, many, I would say scores of legislative language 
that violated this rule as this process was evolving and

[[Page S8387]]

these bills were getting developed, because the rule is a tough rule 
and it has great, great impact in that those provisions are stripped 
from the bill if they are subject to a Byrd rule. Then we were able to 
bring down the scope and numbers to a very, very small number that 
remained as of yesterday, and I am very pleased, working together, 
everybody has come up with the conclusion, from what I can tell, that 
whatever Byrd rule language or violation of Byrd rule language is in 
this bill has been thought by almost everyone to be necessary and 
something that we can leave in the bill. I am very pleased with that. I 
must make sure everybody knows that there were many, many more before 
we exerted the power and pressure of the Byrd rule. And I think that 
bodes well in terms of not abusing the process.
  Having said that, Mr. President, again, I yield the floor. If anyone 
else on our side would like to speak, time is available to them. I 
suggest that if no one is speaking, the time be charged equally, and I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 limited tax benefits in reconciliation

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as required by the Line-Item Veto Act, 
the Joint Committee on Taxation has informed the conferees that the 
conference report on H.R. 2015, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, 
contains one limited tax benefit. It can be found in section 5406 and 
concerns the treatment of services performed by certain inmates. As 
required by the Line-Item Veto Act, section 9304 of the conference 
report specifically designates section 5406 as a limited tax benefit 
and as such, it is therefore subject to the President's cancellation 
authority under the Line-Item Veto Act.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today represents an enormous accomplishment 
for me and for the Republican Party. The budget agreement now before us 
is the culmination of years of hard work and concerted effort. I want 
to especially commend Chairmen Domenici and Roth for their hard work 
and diligence. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with Chairman Domenici 
on the Senate Budget Committee and commend him for his extraordinary 
efforts to broker this agreement. My staff affectionately calls him 
``the legislative warrior'' and I agree. He has fought a major battle 
for the Republican Party and the American people this year--a battle to 
balance our Federal budget and to eliminate our Federal deficit.
  Three years ago, as I campaigned across the State of Tennessee, I 
listened to the concerns of the people that I met and I made some 
promises to them. These men and women were concerned about the amount 
of money they were able to bring home after Uncle Sam had taken his 
share. They were outraged by a government that was unable to live 
within its means. They were worried about their retirement and the 
continued existence of Medicare and Social Security.
  I promised the people of Tennessee that we would do something about 
these concerns. I promised them that we would give them tax relief, so 
that they would be able to keep more of what they make and decide for 
themselves how to spend, save, or invest their hard-earned money. I 
promised them that we would pass a balanced budget--the first since 
1969--and eliminate our Federal deficit. And I promised them that we 
would protect, preserve, and strengthen Medicare and Social Security to 
ensure that these programs would still be around for their children and 
their children's children.
  I am proud to be able to return to Tennessee and tell my friends, 
relatives, and neighbors that we have made good on two of these 
promises and have taken the first steps toward fulfilling the third. 
The bills that we will pass over the next couple of days will give 
hard-working Americans the largest tax cut that they have seen in 16 
years--over $90 billion. This tax relief will benefit Americans of all 
ages and in all tax brackets. We have included tax credits for children 
and for education and capital gains and estate relief. Almost 80 
percent of these benefits go to families earning less than $75,000 a 
year.
  Over 43 million parents will owe $500 per child less in taxes. 
Taxpaying students and nearly 5 million parents of kids in college will 
owe $1,500 less per student in taxes as a result of the college tuition 
credit.
  Last year, 2.4 million Tennesseans filed tax returns with the 
Internal Revenue Service. Over the last 16 years, these taxpayers have 
not seen one tax reduction--only increases. As the cost of raising a 
family and sending kids to college has become increasingly expensive, 
the value of the personal exemption has dropped dramatically. In 1948, 
the average American family paid about 3 percent of its total income to 
the Federal Government in taxes. Today, that family is paying closer to 
25 percent.

  The Federal Government claims approximately 19 percent of every 
paycheck that an employee in Knoxville, TN who makes $22,000 a year 
takes home. That $22,000 figure doesn't mean much to her--she sees only 
$17,820--and that's before State and local taxes take their bite. The 
time has certainly come to give these hard-working people some much-
needed tax relief.
  In addition to the $500 per child tax credit and the $1,500 college 
tuition tax credit, the tax package will cut the capital gains tax rate 
from 28 to 20 percent for the highest bracket and from 15 to 10 for the 
lowest. It will raise the exemption for taxable estates and family-
owned businesses and farms. And it will expand the options for 
individual retirement accounts.
  Despite the belief that a capital gains tax cut is only for the rich, 
in 1995, more than 226,000 Tennesseans paid capital gains taxes to the 
tune of $2.65 million. More than half of these--160,786 to be exact--
had incomes of $75,000 or less. And 40,000 of those who paid tax on 
capital gains actually had an income of less than $15,000.
  This budget package will also balance the budget by 2002 and restore 
fiscal responsibility to our Federal Government. For years, Republicans 
have called for a balanced budget and an end to the reckless spending 
for which Washington to famous--or rather infamous. A balanced budget 
will lower interest rates, and generate higher economic growth--
including more jobs and lower inflation. An article in this week's 
Washington Post touted that the ``Deficit Effort Really is `a Big 
Deal'.'' Benjamin Friedman, a Harvard University economist, noted:

       For every dollar that the government doesn't have to 
     borrow, there's an extra 50 cents invested in new plant and 
     equipment by American businesses. And experience shows that 
     investment eventually raises profits, wages and the U.S. 
     standard of living.

  The challenge before us now is to keep the Federal budget in 
balance--and I am committed to ensuring that we do that.
  The third promise was one to protect Medicare and Social Security. We 
have made a first step toward strengthening Medicare by cutting $115 
billion to health care providers and extending the life of the Medicare 
trust fund for 10 years. But I remain deeply disappointed that the 
Senate-passed provisions that would have enacted structural changes in 
the Medicare Program were excluded from this conference agreement. I 
have spoken many times about the need for entitlement reform. And 
unfortunately, this budget does nothing to address it. If we do 
nothing, entitlement spending and interest on the national debt will 
consume all Federal revenues by 2012--leaving not a single dollar for 
important Government priorities like roads, education, national 
defense, and medical research.
  The Medicare trust fund will become insolvent in 10 years. Real, 
structural reforms are absolutely necessary to preserve Medicare for 
our children and our children's children. In 2010, the cash flow of the 
Social Security trust fund turns negative and by 2029, the Social 
Security trust fund will be bankrupt. This must be the next priority of 
the U.S. Senate.
  For years, our focus has been to balance the budget. Today, we have 
achieved that goal. I join with my colleagues to congratulate the 
Congress and the White House on working together, in a bipartisan 
fashion, to bring real fiscal responsibility back to Washington.

[[Page S8388]]

  But we must look ahead to tomorrow and pay close attention to the 
impending fiscal disaster that lies ahead if we do not make some hard 
choices to reform our entitlement spending. Today, 200,000 Americans 
turn 65 every year. By 2011, 1.5 million Americans will turn 65 every 
year. Today, 3.3 workers pay for the benefits that every retiree 
receives from Medicare and Social Security. By 2025, there will be only 
two workers to pay for each beneficiary. It is clear that something 
must be done.
  Mr. President, I am delighted that we have made a considerable 
downpayment on our promises to the American people with this budget 
package and I look forward to the challenges ahead.


        CLARIFICATION OF TWO PROVISIONS IN THE BUDGET AGREEMENT

  MR. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to clarify two items of 
concern in the budget agreement.
  Last year, when Congress passed the welfare reform bill, it granted 
States the authority to deny State and local public benefits to certain 
immigrants. Included in that bill was a provision that exempts 
nonprofit charitable organizations from verifying immigration status.
  The conference report on the budget bill explicitly grants the States 
authority to require immigrants to provide proof of eligibility for 
State and local public benefits. This new provision allows States to 
``require an applicant for State and local public benefits (as defined 
in section 411(c)) to provide proof of eligibility''. Section 411(c) 
refers to the definition of State and local benefits in title IV of the 
welfare bill.
  It is my understanding that this provision does not grant the States 
authority to require charities to conduct immigration verification for 
State and local public benefits. The nonprofit exemption in section 432 
of the welfare bill explains that a nonprofit charity, in providing 
``any State or local public benefit (as defined in Section 411(c)) * * 
* is not required under this title to determine, verify, or otherwise 
require proof of eligibility * * *.'' As Congress has plenary power in 
the immigration arena, it seems that States may not add a requirement 
for charities to verify immigration status without express authority 
from Congress. States were not granted that authority in last year's 
welfare bill, and States are not granted that authority in this budget 
bill.
  Since the clarification of State verification authority is being 
inserted into title IV of the welfare reform law, the nonprofit 
exemption applies. Authority, if any, to require charities to conduct 
immigration verification would have to be found in a distinct, express 
grant of Federal authority outside title IV of the welfare bill.
  I would also like to clarify that under the conference report on the 
budget bill, refugees, asylees, and certain other immigrants currently 
receiving SSI will not lose their eligibility for SSI.
  Section 402 of last year's welfare law instituted a bar on SSI for 
certain qualified aliens. Section 402(a)(2)(A) created an exception to 
this bar for refugees. Refugees can receive SSI benefits for five years 
from the date they are admitted into the United States.
  The conference report on the budget bill modifies these provisions in 
two ways. First, the conference report extends the refugee exception 
from 5 years to 7 years. An additional, separate provision of the 
conference report, section 402(a)(2)(E), creates a new exception to the 
bar on SSI benefits which reinstates SSI benefits for qualified aliens 
receiving benefits on August 22, 1996.
  For refugees, these are two independent sources of SSI eligibility. 
It is my understanding that refugees not receiving SSI benefits on 
August 22, 1996 will qualify for SSI through section 402(a)(2)(A) for a 
period of 7 years. Refugees already receiving SSI benefits on August 
22, 1996 will be eligible to keep those benefits, even after their 7 
years has expired, under section 402(a)(2)(E) without regard to the 7 
year cutoff.
  Thank you for letting me briefly clarify those two points, Mr. 
President.


                         TITLE XI OF H.R. 2015

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, and the distinguished majority leader, on the 
inclusion of a little noticed provision in this conference report. I am 
referring to the National Capital Revitalization Act. This provision 
is, in my view, an important step in cleaning up the District of 
Columbia and making our Nation's Capital City once again the safe and 
beautiful place we all expect it to be.
  Among other important changes, this bill completely overhauls the 
District of Columbia's broken criminal justice system. If implemented 
properly, I am certain that this legislation will result in a criminal 
justice system for the District of Columbia that is fairer for the 
victims of crime, that appropriately punishes criminals, and that 
incarcerates criminals in a secure, appropriate environment.
  I see that my colleagues from Kansas and Florida are on the floor, 
and I would like to commend them for their hard work on this issue, as 
well. They have worked tirelessly to see these provisions included in 
the budget reconciliation conference report.
  Mr. President, I am committed, as I know my colleagues are, to 
ensuring that these provisions are implemented in the most effective 
manner. A number of the provisions in the National Capital 
Revitalization Act, particularly as they relate to, among other things, 
the transfer of District of Columbia corrections functions to the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons and the assumption by the U.S. Parole 
Commission of parole functions of the District government are issues 
within the authorizing jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. I would 
like to ask my colleagues, the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from 
Florida, if this is their understanding, as well.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator from Utah for his kind remarks, 
and note that I agree with his assessment. I look forward to working 
with him and the Judiciary Committee on the important work of ensuring 
effective implementation of the National Capital Revitalization Act.
  Mr. MACK. I also appreciate the comments of the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, and agree with him that the Judiciary Committee 
has jurisdiction over a number of these matters. I share Senator 
Hatch's commitment to a safe and beautiful national capital, and look 
forward to working with him to implement this important act.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their comments, 
and look forward to working with them as implementation of the National 
Capital Revitalization Act goes forward.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I am compelled to vote against H.R. 
2015. This legislation will put us on a track to reduce the deficit. It 
will save us more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. It puts 
binding caps on spending increases, so that a super majority will have 
to vote to increase spending. The bill continues the pay-as-you-go 
provisions of past budget deals, so that any new spending has to be 
offset by other spending reductions. It seeks to make Medicare solvent 
for the next 10 years and creates a National Bipartisan Commission on 
the Future of Medicare to address the long term solvency of Medicare.
  Regrettably, while all of the aforementioned is positive, there are 
significant drawbacks in this bill.
  First and foremost, the legislation raises taxes on tobacco by 15 
cents a pack. When I was elected, I said I would never vote for a tax 
increase and I never have. This is a clear and punitive tax increase on 
tobacco. If we needed this revenue to reduce the deficit, rather than 
raising taxes, we could have cut more wasteful and unnecessary 
spending. We should have done that.
  Second, while the bill puts us on a path to deficit reduction, it 
raises the debt ceiling which allows the Treasury to go $450 billion 
deeper in debt than we already are. I think that being $5 trillion in 
debt is shameful enough. We do not need to raise the debt ceiling.
  Third, Mr. President, this legislation weakens last year's welfare 
law. When I ran for the Senate, I said that I wanted workfare, not 
welfare. Last year, we passed landmark legislation to end the welfare 
system as we know it in the United States. But it became clear soon 
after the bill was signed into law that the President was not committed 
to welfare reform. Just weeks after the bill was signed by the 
President, he went to the Democratic Convention in Chicago and promised 
to undo it next

[[Page S8389]]

year. This bill weakens the work requirements. It builds in more 
flexibility to the work program. In Washington, flexibility is a code 
word for weakening, and that is what we have done to the work 
requirements for food stamp recipients.
  Not only have we weakened the welfare law, but we have restored $11 
billion in welfare benefits for noncitizens. We seemed to have 
forgotten that welfare was and is a failure. Putting more people on 
welfare doesn't help society. But that is what we have done in this 
bill. We have increased the welfare roles, and we have added people who 
are not even American citizens. The very fact that non-citizens are 
receiving welfare is testimony to a system that has gotten out of 
control. Welfare is also prone to great fraud. Why else would we have 
to clarify that a noncitizen who is receiving welfare from the U.S. 
Government must actually be residing in the United States. Can you 
imagine that we would be paying welfare to people who are not even 
living in the United States.
  Mr. President, we have also created a new program regarding welfare. 
We are spending $3 billion to put welfare recipients to work. Welfare 
reform was supposed to save money and now we are spending money to 
reform welfare. Again, this kind of backward logic only seems to work 
in Washington. I am supportive of helping move welfare recipients to 
work--but another Government jobs program is not what we need.
  Mr. President, as I said, there are many good aspects to the bill, 
but it violates the fundamental promises I made to the people of North 
Carolina when I ran for the Senate regarding welfare and taxes. I will 
not break my word to the people that supported me in 1992, and I will 
not vote for this bill.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to support the 
conference reports on the Balanced Budget Act and the Taxpayer Relief 
Act. Together, these bills will bring us to a balanced budget by the 
year 2002, while providing vitally important investments in education, 
in children's health, and in economic development.
  I believe that my job as the Senator from Maryland and the Senator 
for Maryland is to save jobs, save lives, and save communities. I 
believe these bills will help us to do all three.
  These bills address the day-to-day needs of America's families, and 
they keep faith with America's seniors. They open the doors to 
opportunity and give help to those who practice self help.
  Mr. President, I am particularly pleased that the conferees rejected 
the unnecessary and harmful structural changes in the Medicare Program. 
As my colleagues know, I adamantly opposed the means testing of the 
Medicare program, and the change in the age of eligibility for Medicare 
from 65 to 67. Such major changes should not be considered without 
Presidential leadership and a national discussion. I am pleased that 
these changes were not included in the final budget package. I believe 
the commission established by this agreement is a better way of 
addressing the long-term solvency concerns of Medicare.
  There is much good news for senior citizens in the Medicare portions 
of this budget. We have ensured the solvency of the Medicare Program 
for at least the next 10 years. We have provided funds for critical new 
preventive care benefits, by expanding coverage for mammography and 
colerectal screening, and by improving self-management of diseases like 
diabetes. These are investments that will pay off, improving the health 
of Medicare beneficiaries and saving lives.
  Having said that, however, I am disappointed with other cuts that 
these bills make in the Medicare Program. It is disturbing that the 
Federal guarantee of adequate reimbursement rates to nursing homes has 
been abandoned. I believe this will put nursing homes in a budget 
squeeze and will have a negative effect on the quality of care that we 
provide to our most fragile elderly. I am also disappointed with the 
excessive cuts in the reimbursement rates for such key services as home 
oxygen therapy. I believe seniors will be hurt by this change. I hope 
that we will have an opportunity to revisit these issues in the future.
  This legislation also will provide a tremendous investment in the 
health of America's children. The $24 billion provided for health care 
for uninsured children in this bill is the single largest increase for 
children's health efforts in over 30 years.
  Mr. President, there are 10 million uninsured children in this 
country; 1 in 8 of the children in my own State of Maryland have no 
health insurance coverage. It is really shameful that we have allowed 
so many children to be at risk.
  I believe we have to do all we can to ensure that no child goes 
without adequate health care. I wish we could have reached every 
uninsured child with this bill. I pledge to do all I can to work toward 
that goal. While it does not reach 100 percent coverage for our 
children, I do believe that this bill makes tremendous strides in the 
right direction.
  Over 5 million children who currently have no health care will now 
get their immunizations, early screening, and other health care 
services. We have taken a great step in ensuring healthy children who 
are ready to learn and ready to succeed.
  I like this budget package because it also opens the doors to 
education for young people and to people seeking to further their 
education. The $1,500 HOPE scholarship contained in this bill will help 
to make available to every student the first two years of college. The 
tuition tax credit the bill provides for juniors, seniors, and graduate 
students will enable thousands more young people and returning students 
to get the education and skills they'll need to succeed in the 21st 
century.
  The tax provisions of this package will provide much needed tax 
relief for working families, for family-owned businesses and farms, and 
for those who have invested in their homes and communities. This bill 
is good for those who work hard, play by the rules, and pay their 
taxes.
  The child tax credit will provide relief to some 27 million families. 
When the credit is fully phased in, families with children under 17 
years of age will be able to claim a $500 per child credit. We ensure 
that working families who qualify for the earned income tax credit--who 
may not pay income taxes but who do pay payroll taxes--will also 
benefit from the child tax credit. That means we will provide help to 
families with incomes below $30,000--from the firefighters in Baltimore 
County to the watermen on the Chesapeake Bay. They work hard, they 
contribute to our economy and our communities, and they deserve our 
help.
  This bill rewards investment and thrift. It will allow Americans who 
have invested in their communities by the purchase of a home to be able 
to recoup their investment when they sell that home, without being 
subject to onerous capital gains taxes. It ensures that people who have 
built a family farm or a small business with a lifetime of hard work 
can pass that enterprise on to the next generation.
  It encourages savings. The bill's new IRA provisions will reward 
those who practice self help, by increasing access to IRA's, and by 
allowing withdrawals from IRA's for the first-time home buyers and for 
educational purposes.
  Mr. President, this budget package does not provide everything I 
would like, and I do not like every provision of this package. But I 
believe overall, this is an agreement well worth supporting.
  These conference reports finish the job the Congress began in 1993, 
when the President and congressional Democrats passed the deficit 
reduction bill. In 1992, our deficit was $290 billion. This year, it 
will be less than $45 billion. This historic economic plan started us 
on the road to elimination of our deficit. The bills we are passing 
this week will finish the job we began in 1993.
  This is a victory for fiscal responsibility. It is a victory for 
America's families. It keeps faith with our seniors, opens the doors of 
opportunity to those seeking an education, protects children's healthy 
and rewards those who save and who invest. I am proud to support it.


                duopoly and newspaper-tv cross ownership

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I share Senator Hollings' concern that the 
provisions in the reconciliation bill on the duopoly and newspaper-TV 
cross ownership rules which affect television broadcast license 
ownership violate the Byrd rule.

[[Page S8390]]

  The duopoly rule limits the number of television stations a single 
person can own in a market and the newspaper/broadcast cross ownership 
rule makes it difficult for newspapers to own a television station in 
the same market where it publishes a paper to assure that there is not 
a monopoly on information.
  The conference provisions violate the Byrd rule because they make 
substantive changes in policy which have no budgetary effect.
  At a time when the Congress and the American people are concerned 
about the growing concentration in the broadcast industry, this is not 
the time or place to consider these changes.
  The Congress ordered the Federal Communications Commission to review 
the duopoly rule in 1996. The budget agreement should not pre-empt that 
review.
  I join my colleagues in observing that a point of order would lie on 
the broadcast provisions of this bill.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, back in May of this year, the leadership 
and the administration reached a historic agreement. That agreement was 
then supported overwhelmingly by the House and the Senate when the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998 came before 
the two bodies for consideration, putting forth the blueprint by which 
the Federal Government could reach a balanced budget by the year 2002.
  This week the Congress and the administration have reached yet 
another monumental agreement, ensuring passage of the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997 and its companion, the Taxpayer Fairness Act. These two 
bills, together, put forth the spending and revenue changes for the 
next 5 years. And, the passage of these measures and their subsequent 
enactment into law will signify the first balanced budget since 1969. 
For 28 years, the Federal Government has run a deficit and has talked 
about the need to balance the budget. Finally, due to the extraordinary 
leadership of the House and Senate, as well as the incredible amount of 
bipartisanship and cooperation, Americans are witnessing the Federal 
Government take the necessary action to get its fiscal house in order.
  The tax portion of this agreement will provide Americans with the 
first major tax cut in 16 years. This bill provides for a net tax cut 
of more than $90 billion over the next 5 years. This is slightly more 
than the $85 billion agreed upon in the budget agreement of earlier 
this year, and I am delighted that the budget negotiators were able to 
provide a little extra for this country's hard-working families and 
individuals.
  Specifically, this bill is an investment in our children. After years 
of trying to get a child tax credit enacted, the Taxpayer Fairness Act 
will provide families with a $500 per child tax credit for children 
under the age of 17. Over the years I have received many a letter from 
Coloradans who are supportive of this tax credit, and finally, they are 
going to be able to take advantage of it. Imagine what a family of four 
can do with a $1,000 credit. They can use the money to invest in their 
two children's education. They can put the money toward a downpayment 
on a house or simply use the money to ease their financial burdens. 
This child tax credit will mean different things to each of the 
millions of families that is eligible for it. But what it means to me 
is that this Government cares enough about this country's children and 
the hard-working parents struggling to raise their children to offer 
them some much-needed and well-deserved tax relief.
  And the benefits for families and their children do not stop there. 
Once a child is ready to go on to higher education, millions of 
taxpayers will benefit from the tuition tax credit and millions more 
will benefit from the student loan interest deductions.
  Equally important to my home State of Colorado are the benefits from 
capital gains and estate tax relief. I cannot begin to quantify how 
many Coloradans--homeowners, small business owners, farmers, ranchers--
have written or spoken with me over the years urging the Federal 
Government to ease the burden from these taxes, and while I would have 
liked to see these provisions go a little farther, I am pleased about 
the benefits this bill will bring to the many farmers, ranchers, and 
small business owners in my State. Capital gains and estate tax relief, 
in combination with other tax provisions in this bill including IRA 
expansion, will contribute to economic growth and create jobs, thereby 
once again assisting America's families.
  In all, the tax bill represents a major step forward for the economy 
as a whole and for the pocketbooks of taxpayers. Out of every dollar 
earned by an individual today, roughly 25 cents of that goes toward the 
individual's Federal tax burden--this is just the Federal taxes. And, 
today, we are going to do some truly significant by passing a bill 
which will provide major tax cuts, benefiting Americans at every stage 
of life.
  While the accompanying spending bill is more contentious by nature, 
it provides for several important and necessary reforms to our Nation's 
largest entitlement programs. The Medicare Program, which was facing 
certain insolvency within the next 5-year span of the balanced budget 
agreement, is now actuarially sound for the next decade. Most 
importantly, the savings achieved in the program are not unfairly 
achieved on the backs of beneficiaries, but rather through expanded 
choice, competition and a curbing of the rampant fraud and abuse. The 
Department of Health and Human Services cites $23 billion in fraud and 
waste under the current Medicare structure. This bill finally provides 
us with a mechanism to protect those taxpayer dollars.
  Further reforms in Medicaid, the section 8 assisted housing program, 
and improvements to the welfare to work legislation of last year have 
resulted in a historic starting point for meaningful and fair reform. I 
make no bones about my dissatisfaction with certain provisions included 
in the bill, as well as the exclusion of others, and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to address these concerns. However, the 
benefits and the great need for the reforms this legislation 
precipitates have won it my support.
  On a larger scale, this tax bill and the Balanced Budget Act, taken 
together, will finally get the budget balanced. Since first coming to 
Congress in 1987 as a Member of the House of Representatives, I have 
been a proponent of a balanced budget and have supported efforts to 
achieve this goal. And, I am pleased to be here today to be a part of 
this historic moment. I would be completely remiss if I did not 
acknowledge the hard work of the House and Senate leadership, including 
the chairmen and ranking members of the Budget and Ways and Means 
committees. In 10 years in Congress, I have never before witnessed a 
budget bill, and a balanced one at that, which has passed with such 
ease and cooperation. With that, Mr. President, I will vote for these 
two bills, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to offer a few comments on the 
recently negotiated bipartisan budget agreement. The past few months 
have been truly historic. We have seen both parties come to the table 
in good faith and negotiate a budget agreement that puts us on the 
track toward a balanced unified budget. And all of that has been done 
without a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Indeed, as I 
have noted before, I am convinced the presence of such an amendment 
would only have delayed such an agreement, perhaps by a decade or more.
  Mr. President, balancing our budget has been my highest priority as a 
Member of this body. I ran on that issue in 1992, and I am pleased that 
we will enact a budget package that puts us on track to achieve that 
goal.
  As we congratulate ourselves on fashioning this agreement, however, 
we should recall that this agreement would not have been possible 
without the President's deficit reduction package enacted in 1993, a 
package some now estimate will achieve approximately $2 trillion in 
deficit reduction between 1993 and 2002. The heavy lifting needed to 
balance the budget was done in that package, and while this budget 
agreement puts the finishing touches on the work of eliminating the 
deficit, it was that 1993 budget package that made it much easier to 
reach an agreement.
  But Mr. President, though I am pleased we are on track to balancing 
the unified budget, I have mixed feelings with regard to the specifics 
of the tax cutting aspects of the bipartisan

[[Page S8391]]

agreement. As the headline of the editorial in yesterday's Milwaukee 
Journal Sentinel stated, this budget deal is well-intentioned, but 
flawed. I am particularly concerned at what appears to be backsliding 
on our commitment to fiscal prudence and responsible budgeting by 
passing a tax cut before we have eliminated our budget deficit. As the 
editorial stated, ``any balanced budget strategy that also cuts tax 
revenue is inherently risky.''
  The tax-cut package in this agreement has the strong odor of business 
as usual about it, a return to the 1980's when politicians stumbled 
over themselves to promise newer and bigger tax cuts without regard to 
our budget deficit. The result was an explosion of deficits and debt 
which has taken years to contain. Even now, we are still coping with 
the legacy of fiscally irresponsible tax cuts.
  I was the first Member of either body to oppose the tax cut proposals 
of both parties nearly 3 years ago, and I am disappointed to see that 
some of the concerns I expressed then have been realized. Instead of 
remaining focused on how to balance the budget in the near term and how 
to address the fiscal pressures facing the budget in the long term, 
much of the discussion between the negotiators of both parties amounted 
to a tax cut auction, with each side bidding up their own favorite tax 
cuts in an appeal for political credit.
  As I noted almost 3 years ago, a tax cut bidding war will only serve 
to undercut the efforts we have already made and the work which remains 
to get our budget under control. Aside from the fiscal hole tax cuts 
produce, they divert us from the tough and unpleasant task of finding 
needed spending cuts.
  Mr. President, who wouldn't rather talk about cutting taxes than 
cutting programs that people like? Unfortunately, to some extent, this 
is what has happened in the budget agreement, with the result that the 
goal of a balanced budget may be taking a back seat to the more 
politically appealing debate of how to cut taxes.
  The evidence is fairly compelling in this regard, Mr. President, and 
both political parties are at fault. The movement of any tax-cut bill 
while we are still experiencing budget deficits is the most obvious 
sign. Moreover, that tax cut measure has grown over the past few weeks. 
In order to accommodate all their constituencies, negotiators for both 
parties produced a tax cut package even bigger than the plan agreed to 
this spring.
  And, there is reason to believe that in order to accommodate this 
expanded tax-cut package, the budget negotiators resorted to what some 
would describe as accounting gimmicks.
  Mr. President, these signs all indicate a potentially troubling 
trend. The desire of the negotiators for an even larger tax cut was 
such they were willing to resort to cooking the budget books. It is 
fair to conclude the national priority of fiscal prudence and a 
balanced budget are in danger of being pushed aside by politically 
motivated tax-cut proposals.
  Mr. President, let me be clear. I very much want to support a 
significant tax cut, but I won't support one until we balance the 
books. We do a disservice to those who elect us if we help shift the 
focus away from fiscally sound budgeting and instead promote self-
serving but fiscally irresponsible tax cuts.
  At the time we passed the budget resolution, I expressed my concern 
that while the tax cut agreement might be sustainable as part of the 
shorter-term budget resolution, it could become unsustainable in the 
long run, and I am concerned that this is just what happened.
  The tax-cut package which passed the Senate was heavily backloaded 
with an annual cost of $54 billion. The negotiated tax-cut package 
produced by the conferees is even worse, and while accounting gimmicks 
and timing shifts might help achieve technical balance in 2002, they do 
not alleviate the problems we will face when the retiring baby boomer 
generation will put increased pressure on the budget. According to 
analysis done by the tax watchdog group Citizens for Tax Justice, the 
actual annual cost of this tax measure will be $64 billion, even larger 
than the cost of the bill as it left the Senate, and over twice the 
annual cost of the President's proposed tax cut.
  Mr. President, as I noted before, I very much want to support a tax 
cut, but it simply isn't fiscally responsible to enact a tax measure 
with an annual cost of $64 billion before we have balanced our budget.
  Balancing the budget must be our first priority, and this tax measure 
is inconsistent with that goal.
  Having noted my concerns about the tax package, however, let me 
conclude by expressing my support for the reconciliation measure which 
cuts spending. As I noted earlier, the bipartisan package is truly 
historic, and I applaud the work done by the negotiators from both 
parties who helped craft that measure.
  Certainly more needs to be done. The Medicare Program needs to be 
further strengthened and modernized, as does the Medicaid Program. As I 
have stated frequently, one of our highest priorities must be to reform 
our current long-term care system which is largely funded through 
Medicaid. I have introduced legislation which would implement reforms 
in this area, and I very much hope we can begin that absolutely 
critical task soon.
  We also need to continue to cut spending in Federal programs. Though 
we may be on track to achieve balance in the unified budget by 2002, we 
must dedicate ourselves to achieving the next goal of ridding the 
Federal budget of its dependence on the surpluses generated by the 
Social Security trust fund. Those surpluses mask our true budget 
condition, and if we are to ensure retirees will receive the benefits 
to which they are entitled, we need to pursue further spending cuts 
now.
  We must cut spending also to begin to pay down the massive national 
debt, the bulk of which was generated between 1980 and 1992, and which 
continue to require increasingly large interest payments--payments that 
account for a growing portion of our annual budget.
  We must cut spending also so we can enact a fiscally responsible tax 
cut, one whose benefits are distributed equitably to families at all 
income levels.
  Finally, we need to cut spending to ensure Government works more 
efficiently and effectively and to bolster the credibility and national 
confidence in our Government.
  The work of cutting spending and reducing the deficit which was 
accomplished by the 1993 budget package, and to a lesser extent by the 
bipartisan budget plan negotiated this week, must continue. I very much 
hope the bipartisan efforts which led to this year's agreement can 
continue as we pursue those further spending cuts.
  I congratulate the negotiators from both parties for their efforts on 
the reconciliation measure which does the real work, the spending 
reduction measure, and look forward to working with them in taking the 
next steps toward further spending cuts to balance the budget without 
using Social Security trust funds, begin to pay down the national debt, 
fund a fiscally fair and responsible tax cut, and to make Government 
programs more efficient and more effective.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the editorial 
titled ``Budget Deal Well-Intentioned, But Flawed'' from the Wednesday, 
July 30, 1997 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       [From the Milwaukee (WI) Journal Sentinel, July 30, 1997]

                Budget Deal Well-Intentioned, But Flawed

       Americans deserve a tax cut, but even more they deserve 
     relief from the $5 trillion debt that is burdening them with 
     yearly interest payments of more than $200 billion. The 
     budget deal agreed to Monday by Republicans and Democrats 
     won't ease that burden, which is the chief reason this plan 
     isn't as good as it may seem.
       The historic agreement ostensibly would balance the budget 
     for the first time in nearly 30 years and cut taxes 
     significantly for the first time since 1981. Among other 
     things, the measure would grant tax credits for children and 
     reduce the tax on capital gains.
       The measure will be popular, which helps explain why GOP 
     and Democratic leaders were telling each other how 
     cooperative and constructive they were. Why is such 
     cooperation missing, however, in reforming scandalous 
     campaign finance practices by both parties?
       Negotiators deserve credit for writing a blueprint to 
     balance the books in five years.

[[Page S8392]]

     But any balanced-budget strategy that also cuts tax revenue 
     is inherently risky. If spending increases threaten to 
     produce red ink--and they do-- so do tax cuts. Reducing 
     revenue is premature.
       It's true that the health of the national economy makes tax 
     cuts less risky than they would have been three or four years 
     ago. But if history is any guide, the boom won't last 
     forever. The stresses on the economy will become more intense 
     after five years have elapsed, when large numbers of working 
     men and women will retire. Unless more is done to curb the 
     growth of entitlement programs such as Social Security, the 
     deficit--and, thus, the national debt--will begin to soar 
     again.
       Wisely, the negotiators agreed to raise cigarette taxes to 
     help provide health care for poor children. They also 
     abandoned a proposal--it would have made tax-filing even more 
     mind-numbing than it is now--that would have allowed 
     investors to subtract the effects of inflation when 
     calculating their capital gains.
       The package as a whole, however, contains dangers that 
     could have been avoided. The time for tax cuts comes after, 
     not before, the mountain of debt has been reduced to a saner, 
     safer level.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this is a good day for regular people. 
Today, we are putting our differences aside, making smart compromises, 
and getting the peoples' work done. After 3 years of strife, 
partisanship, and government shutdowns, I am glad to see that this 
Congress is finally coming together for the good of the people.
  As I listen to the debate on the historic balanced budget 
reconciliation bill, I can't help but remember the first budget that I 
helped draft as a new Member of the Budget Committee, the 1993 Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act. It was a 5-year deficit reduction plan that 
reduced the deficit from nearly $300 billion in 1993 to about $60 
billion for 1997.
  The 1993 plan had deep spending reductions and ambitious goals for 
reducing the deficit. But it also contained important new investments 
in our economy, our work force, and our children. That plan passed 
without one vote from the other side, which I think is unfortunate. I 
stood on the floor of the Senate and listened to speech after speech 
from my colleagues on the other side claiming the plan would force the 
economy into recession and explode the deficit.
  I am proud to stand here today and say that the exact opposite 
happened. Our economy is strong and growing at a steady rate, and the 
deficit has declined each year since. Balancing the budget is no longer 
an insurmountable goal. The 1993 plan brought us within reach. A lot of 
Members had the courage to make the tough calls back then. Some of them 
are no longer here in the Senate. But the state of the Nation today--
the low deficit and the booming economy--has vindicated the 1993 plan.
  The Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act before us today finishes the 
job. We will balance the budget by 2002; we have protected the solvency 
of the Medicare Program without draconian cuts; we have expanded our 
investment in education; and we have created a new children's health 
insurance program to cover an additional 5 million children who have no 
health security; and we have provided moderate tax relief. This is a 
balanced and fair plan.
  The real winners today are our working families; senior citizens; and 
our children. Not only do they benefit from the largest investment in 
education since 1965; the largest investment in children's health since 
1965; and the fiscal soundness of the Medicare Program, but we all win 
when we reduce the deficit and balance the budget. We are already 
seeing the fiscal and economic dividends from reducing the deficit, and 
this will only continue.
  Let me say now I was deeply concerned when this legislation 
originally passed the Senate. So concerned, in fact, that I had to vote 
no on the Senate bill. The changes in the Medicare Program that were 
included would have seriously altered the program and threatened the 
health care security for millions of senior citizens.
  Immediately following that vote, I began working to ensure that these 
changes were removed from the final conference agreement. I could not 
and would not support anything that would result in more individuals 
being un-insured. Increasing the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 
would have only added to the 47 million Americans with no health 
insurance. The means testing of the part B premium was not just an 
administrative nightmare, but a short-term solution that would have 
only forced higher premiums on all seniors regardless of income. The $5 
copayment for home health care would have fallen disproportionately on 
low-income women. Well over two-thirds of women over 65 earn less than 
$13,000 a year. A $5 copayment for each home health care visit could 
have added hundreds of dollars a year to the cost of health care for 
millions of low-income senior citizens.
  I could not have supported the final agreement if these provisions 
had remained. Because I was committed to a balanced budget, I knew I 
had to work hard to ensure that these provisions were dropped. I spoke 
with the White House, with the conferees, and with many of my 
colleagues and constituents about this, and I am pleased our hard work 
paid off. The final agreement slows the growth of Medicare without 
forcing more seniors into poverty and does not jeopardize the level of 
care that we have guaranteed to our senior citizens.
  I know many families in Washington State who are struggling to pay 
for college or who are worried about the financial burden of a college 
education for their child. Included in today's agreement are real tax 
incentives to help families invest in their child's education and to 
provide relief to today's students who are struggling under a huge 
burden of debt. As I said earlier, families are the winners today. This 
agreement will help those families who are struggling to help their 
child and will keep a college education within reach.
  In 1993, I worked with many of my colleagues in Congress and with the 
Clinton administration in an effort to enact comprehensive health care 
reform that would guarantee health care coverage for all Americans. 
Lack of affordable, quality health insurance coverage was and still is 
a major problem for many individuals. Unfortunately, our plan was too 
ambitious and the American people told us that they wanted smaller, 
targeted reforms. In 1996 we enacted the Health Insurance Portability 
and Accountability Act Kennedy/Kassebaum, which expands health care 
access for workers between jobs and provides protections for those with 
pre-existing conditions. This legislation was an important step in 
improving health care access for all Americans.
  Today's agreement takes another big step by providing $24 billion to 
improve access to health insurance for the 10\1/2\ million children who 
lack any direct access to quality, comprehensive health care. This new 
health insurance program that will improve the quality of life for 
millions of children and families, is the real crown jewel of this 
agreement.
  I have spent a great deal of time and energy pushing for expanded 
health care coverage for children. I have always considered this to be 
one of my top priorities and feel some relief today knowing that we 
have succeeded. In Washington State, we made a similar commitment to 
our children back in 1993, today's agreement will give us the 
opportunity to build on this commitment and reach out to more children.
  While I feel a great sense of accomplishment today, there is one 
group of individuals who will not be celebrating. Despite the fact that 
my family violence option clarification amendment was adopted on three 
separate occasions, the budget conferees chose to once again try and 
sweep domestic violence under the rug. Victims of domestic violence 
were forgotten in this agreement. My amendment, adopted three times by 
the U.S. Senate, would have given States the ability to waive victims 
of domestic violence from the work requirements and time limitations 
called for in the new welfare reform law. It was not a secret way to 
allow women to stay on welfare, as many claim, but rather a way to 
protect victims of domestic violence and help them get out of poverty. 
There is no good reason--no excuse whatsoever--why this provision 
should have been taken out of the agreement. This is perhaps the 
greatest disappointment for me in this whole process.
  I am committed to moving this amendment again and again until my 
colleagues understand how violence and abuse can be life threatening 
barriers to work. I will keep making my colleagues vote on this 
amendment

[[Page S8393]]

until we have succeeded. Those who oppose this amendment need to 
understand that when they vote ``no'' they will be voting against 
victims of domestic violence and abuse.
  Looking back over the past 4 years, I am amazed at the progress we 
have made on reducing the deficit and yet I know that it was not an 
easy task. I always believed we could balance the budget and still 
maintain important investment programs, but it does take a great deal 
of work and many, many tough decisions. As a member of the Senate 
Budget Committee I have had to make those decisions and choices. But, I 
always knew that it could be done. Today's agreement is my proof.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will support the Balance Budget Act of 
1997 which takes us the final step in a process begun in 1993. It 
reflects a considerable bipartisan accomplishment. While I don't agree 
with it in every specific, it gives a significant boost to education, 
provides for the largest investment in health care for children in 30 
years, protects Medicare and Medicaid, and it reaches a balanced budget 
by the year 2002.
  In 1992, the deficit in the federal budget was $290 billion which 
represented 4.7 percent of the gross domestic product. The most recent 
estimate of the deficit for fiscal year 1997 is $67 billion, 
approximately eight-tenths of 1 percent of the gross domestic product. 
Over the 5 years from 1993 to 1998, the deficit has been reduced by 
about $1 trillion from the deficit for those 5 years projected at the 
time. This remarkable progress has come about in large part as a result 
of the deficit reduction package which President Clinton presented in 
1993, and which this Senate passed, without a single Republican vote, 
by a margin of one vote, the Vice President's.
  The economy has responded to the steady reduction of the deficit. The 
economy grew for the first quarter of 1997 at a 5.9 percent rate, with 
an inflation rate of 2.7 percent. The unemployment rate is now 5 
percent, the lowest in 24 years. This compares to an unemployment rate 
in 1992 of 7.5 percent. More than 12 million new jobs have been created 
since President Clinton took office. Now, this bill holds the promise 
of bringing us even closer to finishing the job.
  I opposed this bill when it originally passed the Senate in part 
because it included a provision to increase the eligibility age for 
Medicare, and a second provision to require a $5 per visit copayment 
for home health care. I am pleased that both provision were deleted 
from the legislation by the conference committee.
  I am also pleased that this bill restores benefits for legal 
immigrants who are currently receiving assistance or who become 
disabled and protects the minimum wage and other protections for 
welfare recipients moving from welfare to work.
  Mr. President, this bill will secure the Medicare trust fund for at 
least the next decade, and provides for additional preventive benefits. 
It represents hard work and compromise and demonstrates that when the 
Congress moves in a bipartisan way, much can be accomplished.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I come to the chamber today to support this 
balanced budget. We have worked for many years, making hard choices, 
fighting for our priorities, managing this country's budget process--
all in order to be able to stand in the Chamber as members of both 
political parties in support of a balanced budget.
  It is not the bill I would have written, but there is a large degree 
of foolhardiness in rejecting the good in favor of the perfect. A great 
debt is owed to the chairman and ranking member of the Finance 
Committee and their counterparts on the Budget Committee as well as 
their staffs who have worked with us over the course of these many 
months in crafting this plan.
  And, there is no question in my mind, Mr. President, that this 
legislation is better than the deal the Senate passed last month--a 
plan I opposed because it did not do enough for hard-working American 
families and largely ignored America's children. This legislation 
before us now incorporates many of the provisions I and others on this 
side of the aisle fought to have included.
  For that reason, this is a day of vindication for Americans who 
believe, as Democrats have proven, that it is vital to balance the 
Federal budget and extend health care to children, provide broader 
educational opportunities, ensure the future for our senior citizens 
and safeguard our environment.
  Since 1993, we have moved in this direction. In 1993, when the first 
Democrat in a generation was elected President and Democrats formed the 
majority in both Houses of Congress, we have worked arduously to break 
the spiraling deficits which plagued our Nation for a decade and 
provide a solid economic foundation for our Nation as we move into the 
21st century. And, Mr. President, we've succeeded. We have waited for 
the day when the benefits of our hard work would be as obvious as they 
are today.
  Even the possibility of the legislation before us now--a conceptually 
balanced budget with tax breaks-- is testament to the application of 
Democratic ideals to fiscal policy. In 5 years, we cut the deficit from 
$290 billion to the current level of perhaps less than $50 billion. 
Interest rates are subdued. We are seeing the lowest unemployment and 
inflation rates and the largest drop in poverty rates in a generation. 
Consumer confidence has shown the best improvement since the Eisenhower 
administration and the value of the stock market has doubled since 
1993--the Dow break records every day--and the market itself is 
experiencing the fastest growth since the Second World War.
  We have been successful, because, since the Great Depression, our 
party has stuck by the fundamental belief that sound economic and 
social policy go hand-in-glove, that our Nation is stronger when all 
Americans have equal economic opportunity.
  Thomas Jefferson taught us that ours is a Nation of the common man 
and enshrined this belief in one of our most treasured documents when 
he wrote of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal.
  Andrew Jackson echoed this creed when he restated the party's 
commitment to the humble members of our society--the farmers, mechanics 
and laborers. That commitment, that core set of beliefs, is in fact, 
Mr. President, the essence of the American dream and the foundation of 
what has become the greatest contribution this Nation has provided to 
the world's social economic history--the growth of a vibrant middle 
class. Universal economic opportunity, sound fiscal policy based on 
equitable distribution of benefits and assistance to those most in 
need--those are the fundaments of Democratic economic policy. That is 
the goal of the program we put in place in 1993, and that is the end to 
which our fiscal policies are directed. Franklin Roosevelt reminded us 
of our commitment to expanding opportunity when he said: ``the spirit 
of opportunity is the kind of spirit that has led us as a Nation--not 
as a small group but as a Nation--to meet very great problems.''
  Mr. President, as Democrats, we believe that deficit reduction is a 
means to an end. We believe that tax breaks are a means to an end. But, 
unlike the Republicans, we do not subscribe to the callow notion that 
deficit reduction is an economic policy in and of itself or that tax 
breaks are an end which justify any means. We do not believe that 
cutting vital programs is a courageous or visionary act. We believe 
that courage lies in advancing economic opportunity: this requires 
wisdom, innovation and prescience. It is chilling that this dichotomy 
of political and economic philosophy remains as obviously demarcated 
today as it was 100 years ago. I re-read the cogent description by 
William Jennings Bryan of the two opposing ideas of government: he 
separated the parties into those who ``legislate to make the well-to-do 
prosperous and wait for their prosperity to leak through on those 
below, or those who legislate to make the masses prosperous and 
ensuring that their prosperity will find its way up through every class 
which rests upon them.''
  Mr. President, as a U.S. Senator, I have an obligation to the 
constituents who elected me to represent their interests, to act on 
their behalf and to present their views to this body. At times here, 
there is often a temptation to acquiesce ones core set of beliefs to 
the majority. It is easier to be hidden by the crowd than to stand 
alone and dissent, simpler to obey the tenets of a deal than the core 
of ones belief, more politic to do what is possible than do what is 
right, and more efficient to

[[Page S8394]]

save time by agreeing. But remember the words of Harry Truman, Mr. 
President, when he said that ``whenever you have an efficient 
government, you have a dictatorship.''
  I am pleased that our provocation, our urging, our insistence in 
crafting this compromise that helps working class Americans was 
successful. I cannot turn away from the long history which has shaped 
my essence sense of fairness, my overarching insistence on making 
government work for the common good and the needs of my constituents. 
Mr. President, for that reason, I voted against the tax portion of the 
reconciliation bill as I voted against the spending portion when they 
passed the Senate the first time, and because these bills were 
dramatically improved, I am able to support the conference report 
today.
  Mr. President, I am grateful for the work of the Senator from 
Delaware, Senator Roth who chairs the Finance Committee and my friend 
from New York, Senator Moynihan, who serves as that committee's ranking 
member. They have improved a gravely flawed piece of legislation passed 
by the House of Representatives and the Senate the first time.
  During the course of the initial debate, I attempted to shape the 
legislation so it would do more for more average citizens, but time and 
again we were rebuffed. I said at the time, Mr. President, that before 
I could approve it when it returns from conference, this legislation 
needed significant improvement, especially as regards the treatment of 
children and hard-working American families.
  In the original Senate package, nearly 43 percent of the breaks went 
to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans--those who earn more than 
$120,000. In the original plan, Mr. President, 60 percent of hard-
working poor and middle class Americans got only 12.7 percent of the 
tax breaks, while the richest 1 percent of Americans get 13 percent of 
the benefits. In the original Finance Committee proposal, the poorest 
60 percent got as much as the richest 1 percent. This was a new 
standard of unfairness. This was anathema to the party of Jefferson and 
Jackson and Truman and Roosevelt. I tried to change it; I was 
unsuccessful and I rejected it.

  I am pleased the conference report has a more equitable distribution 
by allowing more working class Americans to take advantage of the 
child-tax credit, for example. By most measures, Mr. President, this 
proposal has moved closer to our ideals and is unquestionably more 
equitable.
  There is no more obvious improvement in this bill, Mr. President, 
from the original Finance Committee plan than the treatment of hard-
working middle class families raising children. During the initial 
debate, I attempted to give more help to the American families on the 
lower end of the economic spectrum--young families with young 
children--who will be doing the most for our country in the future.
  Mr. President, I attempted to correct this basic inequity by offering 
an amendment which would have improved the bill by granting a 
refundable child tax credit to all working families. Most Americans pay 
more in payroll taxes than income taxes. Income taxes have remained 
stable for most Americans in the past 10 years while payroll taxes have 
increased 17 percent.
  My distinguished colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, 
attempted to amend the original plan so families who receive the earned 
income credit would not be penalized. She is a new member of this body, 
Mr. President, but she has already made an enormous contribution. She 
is a young mother and as such speaks with a clear voice on the 
difficulties of raising children today, and Mr. President, because this 
proposal incorporates her vision and my vision, it is a better deal for 
all Americans.
  I am pleased also that this conference report allows Americans to 
off-set the credit against these payroll taxes. Now, it applies to all 
Americans even those receiving the earned income credit. This is in 
distinct contrast with the original Finance Committee plan under which 
nearly 40 percent of America's children were excluded from the tax 
credit. Those 40 percent are the children of working class Americans, 
children of young teachers, police officers, farmers and nurses who 
work hard and are the backbone of this country.
  Now, Mr. President, the Democrat proposal--more measured and fair--
has prevailed. And, more Americans will be afforded a share of the 
great economic success this country has enjoyed since 1993. I could 
tell you that this bill provides a tax break for 5.9 million more 
American families with children than the Senate bill and 7.5 million 
more families than the House bill, but instead of relying dry 
statistical analyses and distributional tables, let me take a moment to 
show you some real people and compare how the different plans affect 
them.
  The Richards family from Sioux Falls, SD, Charlie and Karen and their 
two children, will receive $975 from the child tax credit and both 
their children will be covered by health insurance. Under the House 
plan, the family would have received no child tax break; under the 
Senate plan, $418. This legislation, incorporating my amendment, will 
give them twice as much in the child tax break.
  Under this plan, the Ussinger family from Albuquerque, NM will 
receive $1500 in child tax breaks. The House plan would have given them 
$6 and the original Finance Committee plan would have provided $458. 
This plan, incorporating my amendment, will give the Ussingers three 
times as much.
  The Buckman family from Washington, DC, will now receive $594 in the 
child tax break. Under the House bill, the Buckmans would have gotten 
nothing and the Senate version would have given them only $143. So, 
this plan, incorporating my amendment, will give the Buckmans here in 
our Nation's capital four times as much in child tax breaks.
  All of those children, Mr. President, every one of them, and 5 
million more, will have health insurance thanks to our insistence and 
the leadership of Senator Kennedy that we deliver the largest 
investment in the health of our children since the enactment of 
Medicaid, a generation ago.
  This plan invests an unprecedented $24 billion for uninsured 
children, and since it is funded by a tax on cigarettes, it is, in 
fact, a double health benefit. This plan serves as a financial 
barrier--a powerful disincentive for children to start smoking in the 
first place. It supplements, not supplants, current health care 
coverage. Our plan requires that States maintain their current Medicaid 
eligibility levels of spending to access Federal dollars to ensure that 
this investment is not used to replace public or private money that 
already covers children.
  Mr. President, simply put, this is the embodiment of the Democratic 
principles I mentioned earlier. This victory for America's children and 
middle-income families is a victory for America itself. We will all 
benefit from a healthier generation of children.
  Mr. President, there are some elements of this package about which I 
am unsure. I would have preferred the approach to capital gains 
reduction for which Senator Bumpers and I have fought for a decade--a 
measured, targeted approach instead of the broad-based cut this bill 
contains. I would have rejected the large back-loaded expensive IRA 
provision. But, at the end of the day, we must ask ourselves if this 
legislation meets the basic standards of fairness to which we attest; 
does it help average, hard-working American families? The answer is 
yes. Does it provide assistance for America's children and the young 
families struggling to raise them--those who have as yet not enjoyed 
the fruits of the economic boom? The answer is yes.
  I am pleased to be able to join the majority of our colleagues, Mr. 
President, in supporting this plan.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I strongly support, and will be proud to vote for, 
the Balance Budget Act and the Taxpayer Relief Act. With these two 
bills, Congress has finally kept the promises made to Americans to 
balance the budget and to cut their taxes.
  When I talk to folks back home in Idaho, they always ask the same 
question: When is Congress going to get its act together and balance 
the budget and reduce our taxes?
  These folks aren't asking for much. They just want the Federal 
Government to stop spending so much of their hard earned money and 
leave more at home so they can pay their bills and raise their 
families.

[[Page S8395]]

  Now, when these two bills become law, I can go home I can look them 
in the eye and say. ``We heard you and we took action.''
  I am proud to be a member of the Congress that had the discipline and 
the courage to balance the budget and cut taxes. This is a historic 
time in Congress. We have stopped the out of control spending frenzy in 
Washington, DC and have reestablished fiscal responsibility to the 
Federal Government.
  We balance the budget by 2002, the first time in nearly 30 years. I 
was in high school when the budget was last balanced. My daughter just 
graduated from high school. An entire generation of budget deficit. We 
must stop accumulating debt for our children and their children to pay. 
With a national debt of more than $5 trillion its time we balanced the 
budget.
  We also provide the first tax cut in 16 years--$96 billion over the 
next 5 years. We didn't balance the budget by raising their taxes. We 
let folks keep more of what they earn.
  Three-quarters of the tax cuts from this bill go to those making less 
than $75,000 a year. Taxes for a family with two kids making $30,000 a 
year will see their taxes cut 50 percent. In a State like Idaho, where 
the median household income is about $20,000, this is significant 
relief to those who deserve and need it most.
  This tax cut empowers American families with choices which allow them 
to better plan their future and the future of their children. This tax 
cut bill provides a permanent $500 per child tax credit for families 
with children under the age of 17. Families can spend and invest this 
money in ways they think best, and families will do that better than 
government ever will.
  We also encourage the education of future generations. This bill 
creates HOPE scholarship tax credits for families already paying for 
higher education. We create tax free education investment accounts so 
families can save for future education expenses. Families can also make 
penalty-free withdrawals from existing IRA's for educational purposes. 
We've brought the dream of affording college to more American families.
  We also reward the financial success of current generations, not 
penalize it, by reducing capital gains taxes from 28 percent to 20 
percent. We increase the death tax exemption from the current $600,000 
to $1,000,000 over the next 10 years. We allow families not to pay tax 
on money they receive from the sale of their homes. We raise the death 
tax exemption on small businesses and farms up to $1.3 million 
effective January 1, 1998. No longer will we tax out of existence 
businesses that have been in families for generations by forcing the 
heirs to sell the business just to pay the estate taxes.
  Last week an Idaho couple, Chuck and Sarah Johnson, came in to see me 
about the death tax and the threat it poses to their families' future. 
The Johnsons, who own and operate a dairy farm in Meridian, ID, told me 
that unless Congress changes the current confiscatory estate tax laws 
on small businesses they will not be able to pass on their lives' work 
to their sons.
  The Johnsons' assets, like most family businesses, are in the land 
and equipment used to run the operation. They don't have nonproductive 
cash laying around to pay taxes. Small business is the economic life 
blood of Idaho and the nation, and this legislation recognizes and 
rewards families like the Johnsons for their hard work.
  I am proud to vote in favor of the Balanced Budget Act and the 
Taxpayer Relief Act. In 1992, when I submitted my name for election to 
the U.S. Senate, I promised to expand tax credits for parents with 
children, to cut capital gains taxes, to reduce death taxes, to expand 
individual retirement accounts to pay for education expenses. With 
passage of these bills the Congress has accomplished these important 
goals.
  Promises made, promises kept; taxes cut and the budget balanced.


                  colorectal cancer screening benefits

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to commend the conferees for 
the provisions of this legislation that establish new preventive care 
benefits within the Medicare Program. There has been some criticism of 
these provisions by those who do not see the wisdom of adding new 
Medicare benefits at a time when we are cutting over $110 billion from 
the program. However, at a time when we are forced to reduce program 
spending, our goal should be to make the overall program as cost-
effective as possible. These new preventive benefits, particularly 
colorectal cancer screening, are both medically wise and economically 
smart. I am proud to have the opportunity to be in the Senate at a time 
when we enact these new benefits into law.
  I am pleased that the conference report provides that the 
determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services [HHS] 
regarding the coverage of the barium examination as a colorectal cancer 
screening provision will be made by January 1, 1998 or within 90 days 
of enactment, whichever is earlier. Given the recent recommendations of 
the American Cancer Society and reports by the Agency for Health Care 
Policy and Research and other groups, I see no reason that HHS cannot 
meet this deadline. Medicare coverage of colorectal cancer screening 
takes effect on January 1, 1998. This deadline assures that the 
determination on Medicare coverage of the barium examination and other 
screening procedures will be made as the program goes into effect.
  I also note that the conference report incorporates language from the 
Senate provision directing the Secretary of HHS to consult with 
appropriate organizations in making the determination with regard to 
coverage of the barium examination and other new screening technology. 
The American Cancer Society is one of the organizations that HHS should 
consult with because that group, more than any other, represents the 
interests of cancer patients and their families. The new ACS 
guidelines, which I understand are based upon the results of a 2-year 
study by a panel of 16 experts on colorectal cancer, should be of great 
assistance to HHS in establishing the best possible colorectal cancer 
screening program for Medicare recipients.
  Mr. President, this budget agreement represents a major 
accomplishment for our Government, our economy, and our Nation as a 
whole. It also represents a major step forward for elderly Americans 
across this country. These new preventive benefits will help our senior 
citizens and save thousands of lives. I am glad to have had the 
opportunity to work on this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I submit the following views in dissent 
to the provisions contained in title III, Communications and Spectrum 
Allocation Provisions of the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1997. As a 
subconferee on title III, I stand in opposition to the provisions 
adopted by the subconference, and ultimately, the Congress. These 
provisions are a classic example of the charade that is being 
perpetuated on the American public under the guise of balancing the 
budget. The administration and the congressional leadership have 
devised a plan that turns sound communications policy on its head.
  The final product actually represents the first time the 
Administration and Budget Committees admit that their original 
assessments on spectrum auctions were unrealistic. Their admission is 
reflected in the fact that, also for the first time, universal service 
funds will be used to make up the shortfall in the auctions in order to 
balance the budget. Unfortunately, the price that we will pay for their 
recognizing the error of their ways, will result in higher phone rates 
for rural America.
  Title III contains dramatic changes to long-standing communications 
policy. There were many policy changes made that I do not support and 
deserve greater discussion. But for purposes of this statement, I will 
only discuss the following three issues:
  First, for the first time, the U.S. budget will be balanced by 
raiding the universal service fund. This is one of the most blatant 
budget gimmicks to plug a shortfall as I have ever seen. The bill 
language as provided to the Budget Committee actually had a blank line 
for the dollar amount to be filled in at some later point. In the end, 
the universal service plug was $3 billion. It is not quite clear how 
the language will actually work--if it works at all. It clearly imposes 
a financial burden on the telephone companies in an effort to float an 
interest free loan

[[Page S8396]]

to the Government. In essence, we are asking small telephone companies 
to make do without the financial support they rely on every month and 
may force these companies to raise rates.
  Second, the deal struck by the administration and the congressional 
leadership requires the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] to 
auction broadcast licenses. This is a fundamental change to our long-
held policy that broadcasters are licensed to serve the public 
interest. The Congress and the FCC impose special public interest 
obligations on broadcasters and that is why broadcasters were exempted 
from auctions under the original auction authority. But now we need 
money to pay the bills and so the conference has selectively targeted a 
group of pending broadcast licenses to be assigned by competitive 
bidding, not by comparative hearings. These applicants had no notice 
and no opportunity to challenge this change in policy. All of the 
pending applicants sought these licenses with the expectancy of 
comparative hearings. Now we have budget folks coming in here and 
telling us that budget policy is more important than communications 
policy.
  Along these same lines, the deal eliminates the FCC's ability to use 
lotteries as an assignment process, except in the case of assigning 
public broadcast licenses. Here, we preserved the FCC's authority to 
use comparative hearings to assign these licenses. I urge the FCC to 
develop appropriate criteria to assign these licenses. The local 
communities deserve the right to have qualified public broadcast 
licensees. Public broadcasting is too important to leave to random 
chance.
  Third, the last point I want to make relates to the change made to 
the local ownership rules under the guise of increasing the pool of 
bidders for the analog auction. The deal waives the FCC's rules on 
duopoly and newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership for the purpose of 
allowing these parties to bid on the analog return spectrum in 2001. 
Subsection 3003(D) of the reconciliation conference report violates 
Section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Budget Act, also known as the ``Byrd 
Rule.''
  These provisions are in violation of the Byrd Rule because: First, 
the inclusion of these provisions has no revenue impact as indicated by 
CBO letter dated July 14, 1997; Second these provisions fail to qualify 
as a necessary term and condition for the purposes of conducting the 
auction; third these provisions selectively benefit one competitor over 
another by maintaining other ownership limitations; and fourth these 
provisions represent substantive policy changes to the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, and can be achieved by the free-standing 
pieces of legislation already introduced in the House and Senate.
  Here, subsection 3003(D) is applicable only in cities with 
populations greater than 400,000 as measured by the 1990 decennial 
census. For purposes of determining cities with populations in excess 
of 400,000, the FCC should refer to the April 1, 1990 Decennial Census, 
as referenced in PPL-27 Table 3, Resident Population for Cities with 
Population Greater than 100,000 Sorted by Population Rank. The FCC 
should take note that this is the first time the Congress has directed 
the FCC to issue a blanket waiver of these two rules and established a 
statutory threshold that relief is only permissible in these specified 
markets; and furthermore, the relief is only justified when there is an 
increase in the number of broadcast outlets in the large markets.
  The legislative history supports this position. The House provision 
established a blanket waiver of these provisions for all markets. The 
final provision provides for relief only in cities with populations 
greater than 400,000. In contrast to the general review of the duopoly 
rule required under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Congress 
here has spoken clearly that media concentration is not warranted at 
this time, particularly in cities with populations less than 400,000, 
and should only be allowed when there is a possible increase in the 
number of broadcast outlets. Here that increase in the number of 
broadcast outlets is anticipated at the end of the digital TV 
transition when the FCC will auction off the returned analog spectrum.
  It is important to note that repeal of these two rules represents a 
drastic change in policy. For years, the policy has been to preserve 
diversity and sources of information. In particular, a merger between a 
daily newspaper and a broadcast station will reduce the independent 
sources of news in the community. The budget deal's elimination of the 
newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule exacerbates the growing recent 
problem of media concentration because even in large metropolitan areas 
there is often only one major daily newspaper. In such a community, 
that newspaper may be the only major source of non-broadcast local news 
and information. With a city's only newspaper aligned with major 
broadcast stations, a great deal of power and influence is held by a 
few individuals at the expense of the needs of the community.
  For example, the October 23, 1995, edition of Electronic Media 
reports examples of newspaper/broadcast cross ownership situations 
where critical information for the community was stifled because of the 
lack of independence by the news outlets. For example, during a 
particularly contentious strike at the major newspaper in Detroit, the 
cross-owned tv and radio stations were forbidden to air stories about 
the strike. In addition, a broadcast story about cheating by automotive 
repair shops was canceled because of potential loss of advertising 
revenues at the cross-owned newspaper. A company that owns a broadcast 
station and a newspaper would likely combine its news departments in 
order to achieve economies of scale. The problem though is not an 
economic one, but one of information and diversity of views. Such 
combinations reduce the diversity of sources of local news and public 
affairs in that community.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1997.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     Ranking Democrat, Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
         Transportation, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: As you requested, I am pleased to provide you 
     with additional information regarding CBO's estimates of the 
     receipts from auctioning licenses to use the spectrum that is 
     currently allocated for broadcasting analog television 
     signals. As you indicated in your letter, CBO estimated that 
     the analog spectrum provisions in the House-passed version of 
     the reconciliation bill would increase receipts by $500 
     million more than those in the Senate-passed version of the 
     bill.
       The difference between these two estimates is attributable 
     to language included in the Senate-passed version of the bill 
     that would direct the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
     to extend analog broadcast licenses beyond 2006 under certain 
     conditions. Both versions would provide for the extension of 
     analog broadcast licenses under certain circumstances but 
     under the Senate version such an extension would be more 
     likely. CBO believes that the possibility of any extension of 
     the existing licenses would make the returned analog spectrum 
     less desirable to potential bidders because they would be 
     uncertain as to when they would be able to use the spectrum. 
     As a result, we have discounted our estimates of auction 
     receipts to reflect the probability of such an extension.
       The provisions in the House version of the bill waiving the 
     duopoly and cross-ownership rules for newspapers and 
     broadcast stations did not contribute to the difference 
     between the cost estimates of the two versions of the bill.
       If you wish further details, we will be pleased to provide 
     them. The CBO staff contacts are Rachel Forward, David Moore, 
     and Perry Beider.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
     Director.
                                  ____

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
           Transportation,
                                     Washington, DC, July 9, 1997.
     Hon. June O'Neill,
     Director, Congressional Budget Office, Ford House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Director O'Neill: In its June 27, 1997 cost estimate 
     of H.R. 2015, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored 
     the revenues generated from the auction of returned analog 
     spectrum at $3.2 billion. (See CBO June 27, 1997 Cost 
     Estimate at Table 5.) However, in its July 2, 1997 cost 
     estimate of S. 947, CBO scored the revenues generated from 
     the auction of returned analog spectrum at $2.7 billion. (See 
     CBO July 2, 1997 Cost Estimate at Table 4.)
       My understanding is that the $500 million difference in the 
     CBO scores results from the

[[Page S8397]]

     discretion granted to the Federal Communications Commission 
     (FCC) to extend a license beyond 2006. Is my understanding 
     correct? Therefore, based on that assumption, is it not the 
     case that the House provisions waiving the duopoly and 
     newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules do not have a 
     revenue impact on the House score given by CBO?
       Due to the fact that the Reconciliation Conference will 
     begin tomorrow, I would appreciate a response by noon 
     tomorrow. Thank you in advance for your assistance with this 
     matter.
       With kindest regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                               Ernest F. Hollings,
                                                 Ranking Democrat.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, when the budget agreement was announced in 
May, I expressed a great deal of skepticism about whether it would 
provide adequate tax relief to hard-working American families, whether 
Medicare's solvency would be assured, and whether the savings necessary 
to achieve a balanced federal budget would really be obtained.
  After reviewing the two bills that are before the Senate today--bills 
intended to implement the budget agreement--I must still conclude that 
they are, by themselves, inadequate. Too little tax relief is provided 
to Americans--with or without children--who go to work every day, play 
by the rules, and struggle to make ends meet. Too little is invested in 
creating jobs and making our country more competitive.
  The legislation does extend Medicare solvency, but only for a decade. 
It is disappointing, to say the least, that President Clinton failed to 
step up to the plate and fight for the significant reforms that an 
overwhelming, bipartisan majority of the Senate supported to put 
Medicare on a more stable footing for our children and grandchildren in 
the decades to come.
  Nevertheless, Mr. President, the bills represent steps in the right 
direction. They provide at least some tax relief to millions of 
families who are trying to do right by their children, to young 
Americans who are striving to get a higher education and make our 
communities better and more productive places for us to live, and for 
seniors who need relief from capital gains or estate taxes to make ends 
meet in their retirement years.
  They will extend Medicare solvency, while expanding the health-care 
choices available to seniors. There are tough, new antifraud provisions 
designed to weed out and punish those who would steal Medicare dollars 
from older Americans. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will be able 
to save money tax-free to pay for health care in new medical savings 
accounts, and seniors will no longer be denied the right to purchase 
health services from a doctor of their choosing.
  In addition to Medicare reform, the bill reforms Medicaid, and 
achieves savings in the Student Loan Program, Federal retirement, and 
housing. It raises money from the auctioning of broadcast spectrum. In 
all, the legislation achieves about $130 billion in savings over a 5-
year period.
  Should we have done more? Yes. While many people will benefit from 
the tax-relief bill, many others will be left out. But with President 
Clinton opposed to a broader tax-relief package, and without the votes 
to pass a bill over his objection, it is clear that a more far-reaching 
measure has no chance of passage in the near term. So we are faced with 
the choice of either providing at least a limited amount of tax relief 
this year, or denying relief to everyone.
  For me, that is an easy choice. We ought to do what we can now and 
keep fighting for more. This is by no means the end of the fight. Just 
as the tax relief provided to small businesses last year was not the 
end of the road, this is not the end, either. It is one more step in 
the direction of providing the tax relief that the American people so 
badly need and deserve.
  The amendment I offered to the budget agreement back in May makes 
clear that the door is open for additional tax relief next year, and I 
intend to be back fighting for more. And in any event, interim tax 
relief, which really adds a great deal of complexity to the Tax Code, 
is no substitute for permanent structural reforms that will move us 
toward a fairer, flatter tax that will provide relief for everyone.
  Mr. President, the cornerstone of the tax bill before the Senate 
today is the $500-per-child tax credit that Senators Grams, Coats, 
Hutchinson, Nickles, and I introduced on the day Congress reconvened 
this year. It is an idea that many of us have pursued for a number of 
years, and it has been a top goal of the Republican Congress since 
1994. With the idea finally on the verge of becoming law, others are 
now claiming credit. As President Kennedy put it, ``victory has a 
thousand fathers.'' So be it.
  Mr. President, just think what $500 per child will mean to a married 
couple with two children and an income of $35,000 a year. That family 
will see a 40 percent reduction in its tax bill. Think what that will 
mean in terms of helping to pay for child care, health or dental care, 
clothes, or a trip to summer camp. Obviously, $500 is no panacea--
anyone who has raised a child knows how expensive a proposition that 
can be--but it will help.
  Think what a single mom in the inner city could do with an extra $500 
per child. It might help provide after-school care to keep a son or 
daughter off the streets, safe, and out of trouble. Maybe it would help 
her send her child to a better, safer school, or just put food on the 
table.
  We are talking here about letting hard-working, tax-paying families 
keep more of what they earn to do what they know is best for themselves 
and their children. We put our faith and trust in families.
  We also create new opportunities in this bill for people to save for 
their retirement in enhanced individual retirement accounts. Nonworking 
spouses will be able to save a full $2,000 annually in an IRA 
regardless of the working spouses' access to a pension plan. Penalty-
free early withdrawals would be allowed for first-time home purchases 
to make the dream of home ownership a reality for more Americans. For 
those trying to sell their homes, we provide a meaningful capital-gains 
exclusion.
  This legislation provides significant new incentives to help people 
save for a college education. And what better way to ensure that the 
next generation is prepared to lead us to a brighter future than to 
ensure greater access to higher learning: new opportunities to save 
tax-free in education savings accounts, an extension of the tax 
exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance, and a $2,500-
per-year student-loan interest deduction.
  Mr. President, the family and education credits are probably the most 
popular parts of this tax-relief package, but there are other important 
provisions included as well.
  I know that not as many people are concerned about capital-gains and 
estate-tax relief compared to the education tax credits in particular, 
but I would suggest that unless good paying jobs are available for 
young people when they graduate, education tax credits will amount to 
little more than empty promises. We need to do more, and that is why 
the capital-gains and estate-tax provisions are in this bill.
  Three decades ago, the Nation's bipartisan leadership joined together 
in calling for a deep reduction in the capital-gains tax rate. In fact, 
it was President John F. Kennedy who recommended a plan that would have 
taxed only 30 percent of long-term gains. In other words, President 
Kennedy would have excluded 70 percent of gains--a far greater 
reduction than is contained here.
  There was a reason that he called for a significant cut in the 
capital-gains tax. ``The present tax treatment of capital gains and 
losses is both inequitable and a barrier to economic growth,'' the 
President said. ``The tax on capital gains directly affects investment 
decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital from static to more 
dynamic situations, the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures 
in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth 
of the economy.''
  In other words, if we are concerned about whether new jobs are being 
created, whether new technology is developed, whether workers have the 
tools they need to do a more efficient job, we should support measures 
that reduce the cost of capital to facilitate the achievement of all of 
these things. Remember, for every employee, there was an employer who 
took risks, made investments, and created jobs. But that employer 
needed capital to start.
  President Kennedy recognized that. He recognized that our country is

[[Page S8398]]

stronger and more prosperous when our people are united in support of a 
common goal--and alternatively, that we are weaker and more vulnerable 
when Americans are divided among lines of race, gender, and income.
  While some politicians may employ divisive class warfare to their 
political advantage today, President Kennedy simply put good policy 
ahead of good politics. And I am with him.
  The capital-gains reductions in this bill will help keep the economy 
on track, producing new jobs and new opportunities for all Americans to 
get ahead. It will free up resources locked up in old technology and 
old investments, and make them available to update equipment and 
factories, and put Americans in a more competitive position in the 
global marketplace.
  The estate-tax reductions, too, will help create new jobs. According 
to the Heritage Foundation, outright repeal would create as many as 
150,000 new jobs a year. But this bill does not repeal the death tax. 
It effectively adjusts the tax for inflation over a 9-year period, and 
that is all it does. While it provides an additional exemption for 
family owned businesses and farms, the rules are so complex that I 
predict few, if any, will actually benefit from them.
  There is something unseemly, though, about a tax that forces grieving 
families to visit the funeral home and the tax collector at the same 
time. There is something wrong with a tax that takes more than half of 
whatever someone has managed to acquire over his or her lifetime with 
after-tax dollars. The death tax ought to be repealed outright, and I 
intend to continue to fight for that objective.
  Mr. President, what a difference a Republican majority in Congress 
has made. In 1993, President Clinton and the Democrat-controlled 
Congress passed the largest tax increase in history, increased spending 
and left a budget in deficit for as far as the eye could see.
  This week, Congress will send to the President a budget that aims for 
balance, limits government spending, extends the solvency of Medicare, 
and provides badly needed tax relief to millions of Americans. It is 
safe to say that none of these things could have been achieved without 
a Republican majority.
  These bills will not accomplish everything we set out to do, but with 
President Clinton in office, it is unlikely that we can do much more 
right now.
  I intend to support these bills as steps in the right direction, but 
I intend to keep pushing next year for the kinds of entitlement reforms 
that will protect the next generation, and expand on the tax relief 
that today's generation needs and deserves.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my views on this 
historic moment as we offer the American people a balanced budget for 
the first time in almost 30 years. Mr. President, this agreement is 
truly a remarkable accomplishment for both President Clinton and 
Members of Congress, and it is a well-deserved victory for the American 
people. This means less debt for our children's generation, lower 
interest rates for families seeking to buy a car or a home, and a more 
vibrant economy for businesses to expand and create jobs.
  This moment must not be viewed in isolation because, in many 
respects, the victory we claim today stands on the shoulders of the 
progress we have made to reduce the deficit over the past few years.
  Let's give credit where credit is due. In 1990, President Bush put 
this country above his party and above his own political ambitions by 
endorsing a plan that lowered the deficit by $500 billion. It was 
wildly unpopular in his own party because it raised taxes on affluent 
Americans. But it was the right thing to do. President Bush's efforts 
on behalf of his country should be remembered and commended.
  When President Clinton came into office, he, too, stepped up to the 
challenge of combating the deficit. He proposed a far-reaching economic 
plan in 1993--more appropriately called the balanced budget plan of 
1993--and it was enacted into law without a single Republican vote.
  President Clinton's balanced budget plan, which I supported, has 
reduced the deficit by more than 75 percent from $290 billion in 1992 
to an estimated $67 billion this year. That $67 billion represents less 
than 1 percent of gross domestic product in 1997, the best we've seen 
since Harry Truman's presidency. We have now seen four consecutive 
years of deficit reduction, something that has not occurred since 
before the Civil War.
  And our economy is only getting stronger as a result of what we did 
in 1993. The unemployment rate is at 5 percent, representing the lowest 
level in 24 years. There have been 12.5 million new jobs created in 
these past 4\1/2\ years of the Clinton administration. That's more than 
any prior administration. Home ownership has increased from 63.7 to 
65.4 percent--the highest percentage on record. Median family income is 
up $1,600 since 1993, representing the fastest growth since the Johnson 
administration. And the stock market continues to break records, 
growing from 3,200 to 8,000, the fastest growth rate since World War 
II. The list goes on and on.
  Clearly, Mr. President, we no longer hear the voices that predicted 
that President Clinton's plan in 1993 would not balance the budget, but 
instead would cause a recession, raise interest rates, and put American 
families out of work. Those voices of opposition have been drowned out 
by our overwhelming record of successes.
  And without this tremendous record of progress, we could never have 
what we have today--the first time in a generation that our government 
will not run a deficit.
  The underlying bill represents the first tax cut in 16 years. It 
provides much-needed tax relief for working American families. The 1981 
and 1986 tax cuts, which I voted against and which set the Reagan 
economic program in motion, blew a hole in the deficit and left us with 
an astronomical national debt. By contrast, this bill promotes fiscal 
responsibility, sustains balance, and is the most progressive economic 
package since the Lyndon Johnson package in the 1960's.
  Mr. President, I am particularly pleased with the child tax credit 
included in this budget agreement. Because of the efforts of President 
Clinton and a number of my colleagues in Congress, the child tax credit 
will be expanded to cover 7.5 million more children from lower income 
working families than would have been covered under the congressional 
leadership's original plan. In my State alone, upwards of 692,000 
families will be eligible for this credit--almost 80 percent of 
families in my State.
  We succeeded in making this credit largely refundable against income 
and payroll taxes, benefiting 27 million families with 45 million 
children. Clearly, Mr. President, this is great news for the millions 
of families in America who, although they work very hard, still 
struggle just to make ends meet.
  Mr. President, this bill clearly reflects our commitment to expanding 
educational opportunity, as it is the largest investment in higher 
education since the GI bill in 1945.
  There are few issues more critical to American families than 
education. I think we can all agree that unless we tap and nurture the 
talents and energies of all our people, we won't be able to meet the 
challenges of the 21st century. This budget agreement recognizes this 
by providing American families with more than $35 billion in tax relief 
for education.
  The bill before us today provides increased funding for Head Start, 
provides the largest Pell grant increase in two decades, includes 
community service loan forgiveness, and allows students to deduct the 
interest on their college loans. Further, this bill includes a $1,500 
HOPE scholarship credit for the first 2 years of college, and provides 
a credit for the second 2 years of college and for life-long learning, 
as well. For Connecticut, this package means that as many as 149,000 
students will benefit--85,000 more Connecticut students than under the 
Republican proposal.
  This bill also provides targeted tax relief to middle class 
investors, small businesses and family farms.
  It reduces the capital gains tax rate in a way that encourages longer 
term investments and in a way that provides relief to a growing 
percentage of middle-class Americans reporting capital gains income on 
their tax return. And

[[Page S8399]]

we provide measured relief without indexing these gains for inflation, 
a provision originally contained in the congressional leadership's 
proposal, which surely would have threatened to throw our budget out of 
balance.
  Further, if you've worked to own a home, and that home has increased 
in value, we exempt up to half a million dollars of that increase from 
capital gains taxes. This provision allows homeowners to reap the 
rewards of home ownership, and encourage more people to buy homes. This 
part of the tax package is particularly meaningful to homeowners in my 
State of Connecticut who were hurt disproportionately during the 
recession of 1991.
  And, if you're a farmer of a small business owner, we exempt the 
first $1.3 million of the value of your estate from taxation, so you 
can pass on the fruits of your labor to your children.
  Clearly, Mr. President, the bill before us today, makes a difference 
to small investors, small businesses, and hard-working Americans. It is 
reasonable and responsible, and recognizes the value of providing 
measured relief to American families, small businesses, and family 
farms. But fundamentally, this bill isn't about statistics. It's about 
meeting vital family needs and providing additional resources to meet 
the many challenges our working families face. This bill strengthens 
families and puts working families first.
  And yet, the underlying bill is not a perfect bill. In the midst of 
providing tax relief that is fair and equitable, I believe it is 
imperative that we not lose sight of our obligation to enact 
legislation that is fiscally responsible. We should be enacting 
legislation that will allow us to maintain the fiscal discipline we 
have worked so hard to achieve in recent years, dating back to the wise 
decisions we made in 1993.
  That is way I offered an amendment during the budget reconciliation 
negotiations which demanded we adhere to our budget agreement in which 
we agreed to a net tax cut of $85 billion through 2002, and not more 
than $250 billion through 2007. And that is why, today, I have serious 
concerns about Joint Committee on Taxation reports estimating that 
these tax cuts will cost $95 billion through 2002 and upwards of $275 
billion by 2007.
  Nevertheless, this bill takes several steps to ensure that the cost 
of the tax cuts will not spiral in later years. Most significantly, it 
drops the proposal to index capital gains. In addition, it puts income 
limits on individual retirement accounts.
  Mr. President, we must be committed to preserving the integrity of 
the balanced budget agreement. The American people will not be served 
by a budget that reaches balance briefly in 2002 and then veers back 
out of balance afterward.
  Mr. President, on the whole, this agreement is more fair and more 
disciplined than any in recent history. The bill before us today does 
more for working families, more for small businesses, and more for 
family farms. We have stimulated jobs and growth, and encouraged 
investment, and most importantly, we have put America's families and 
their children first. I am proud of these accomplishments, Mr. 
President, and, let us not forget that we did it all while balancing 
the budget, benefiting Americans today and in the future.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to discuss an issue that 
relates to Medicare's diabetes self-management benefit.
  As my colleagues know, the reforms we have under consideration 
include a provision which would extend Medicare coverage of blood 
glucose monitors and testing strips to type II diabetics. This seems to 
make abundant good sense.
  The provision would also reduce the national payment limit for 
testing strips used by diabetics by 10 percent beginning in 1998.
  I have some concern about these policies especially since the 
incidence of diabetes is growing and people are being afflicted at 
earlier ages. For example, it is an epidemic among Indians.
  It could also impact diabetic patients. This 10 percent reduction in 
payment for diabetes test strips could prove harmful to many durable 
medical equipment [DME] suppliers.
  I call to my colleagues attention, a study that is currently being 
conducted for the Health Care Financing Administration by AFYA to 
consider the reasonableness of Medicare payments for approximately 100 
specific DME items, including diabetic test strips.
  Once that study is completed, Congress may want to revisit this 
issue.
  By itself, the 10 percent reduction may cause some DME suppliers, 
particularly the smaller operations, to sustain financial losses such 
that they no longer supply test strips. Also, some suppliers may stop 
taking assignment of diabetic test strips because they cannot afford to 
furnish Medicare products under the reduced pricing scheme. This could, 
in turn, lead to a situation whereby the Medicare diabetic patient will 
pay the difference and may have to pay the full amount up front and 
wait for Medicare to reimburse the reduced share.
  Finally, another issue which I think is worth mentioning relates to 
home oxygen. I have received many calls and letters from constituents 
who oppose a reduction in the monthly payment amount for home oxygen. 
This bill reduces reimbursements for home oxygen by 25 percent in 1998 
and then an additional 5 percent in 1999.
  I would hope that my colleagues would take these matters under 
consideration, and that they join me at some future point in giving 
these matters further consideration.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the impending passage of this balanced 
budget agreement is a historic moment for our nation. This legislation 
represents a real victory for all Americans. Children, students, 
families and senior citizens will all benefit from our actions today. 
This budget not only puts us on a financially responsible path but also 
protects the Federal social safety net.
  This legislation is built on consensus, and no plan built on 
compromise can make everyone happy. There are certain provisions that I 
wish were in this bill and there are other provisions that I feel could 
have been changed. Overall, though this budget package provides 
benefits that will strengthen our economy, reduce the tax burden on 
individuals and families, and eliminate spiraling deficits.
  The measure provides tax relief to families and children, with a 
permanent $500 per child tax credit under the age of 17. The bill 
creates incentives for savings and investment with expanded individual 
retirement accounts, reducing capital gains and increased deductions 
for small business. But most importantly, this legislation furthers our 
efforts to provide health care and education for all children.
  This conference report will establish a new $24 billion health care 
coverage program for as many as 5 million uninsured children. I would 
like to express my special appreciation to Senator Roth and Senator 
Lott for including in the children's health initiative a provision that 
will allow States, like Vermont, whose Medicaid coverage for children 
already extends beyond 200 percent of poverty, to cover children with 
incomes 50 percentage points higher than their Medicaid cutoff. I feel 
this section will give these pioneering States the necessary 
flexibility and resources to continue moving forward toward the goal of 
ensuring that all children have access to quality health care.
  With $35 billion in education tax incentives, the bill will ease the 
burden on students and families paying for higher education. These tax 
incentives will help families save for college, pay tuition costs while 
students are in college, and repay funds borrowed to pay for college. 
The bill's education tax incentives are not limited to college 
expenses. The bill has a life-long education tax credit to help workers 
who want to brush-up on their job skills or learn new employment 
skills.
  In addition, the children's tax credit in this bill will result in 
meaningful savings for families. For a family with two children, this 
bill will result in a 1999 tax bill that's $1,000 less than they would 
have otherwise owed.
  This agreement also recognizes the critical relationship between 
education and our national economic well-being. In a day and age beset 
by downsizing, when job skills are constantly becoming outmoded by 
technological advances and break-throughs in learning, education will 
be a lifetime endeavor. I am happy that the bill recognizes this, and 
makes lifetime learning more easily affordable. Aid to education is not

[[Page S8400]]

limited to tax incentives; the tax incentives are supplemented by 
meaningful spending increases for scholarship grants and literacy 
programs. Throughout my years in the Congress, first on the Education 
and Labor Committee in the House, and now as chairman of the Senate 
Labor and Human Resources Committee, I have worked to make education 
more readily affordable and more easily accessible. This bill 
represents an important step in that direction.
  During my tenure in Congress I have tried hard to put our fiscal 
house in order while protecting programs that are important to the 
nation. I am pleased to cast my vote in favor of this agreement, which 
I believe does just that. Today, this body is taking a giant step 
closer to insure the future economic security of our children and the 
next generation.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
the historic legislation we are considering today, which will have 
profound effects throughout our Nation as we near the first balanced 
Federal budget since 1969. As a longtime supporter of the balanced 
budget constitutional amendment and the line-item veto, I am 
particularly pleased to have this opportunity to reflect on the 
significance of this occasion.
  I think the 5-year glide path to a balanced budget is very important 
for America. I think the two big priorities for America today are 
education and health care. I like what is being done here and in the 
tax reconciliation bill we will be considering, but I remain a little 
worried about our seniors. We might have to make some modifications for 
their benefit in the future after we see how some of these changes are 
implemented. I will be keeping a close eye on this issue as I travel in 
Pennsylvania's 67 counties, where we have more than 2 million senior 
citizens.
  From the beginning, I have said that a balanced budget could only 
become reality with support from the center. There is now a feeling 
around Congress that the American people are sick of all the bickering 
and they have asked us for action on the issues that mean the most to 
them, chief among them balancing our Nation's budget. Since 1995, I 
have worked with the Chafee-Breaux centrist coalition to try to 
reconcile the differences between the two parties on the major 
entitlement and tax issues which we needed to address if we were going 
to achieve a balanced budget. I was proud of my association with this 
group of 22 Senators, which got 46 votes for its substitute budget 
resolution in 1996 and showed that there was bipartisan support for a 
centrist-oriented plan.
  The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 represents what I have been saying 
for several years, that the budget can be balanced without leaving a 
bad taste in the minds of the public toward Republicans. It can be done 
without appearing insensitive toward the poor, elderly, children, and 
without appearing unconcerned with education, health care, and the 
environment. The budget agreement reflected in this legislation 
represents the traditional Republican objective of balancing spending 
and revenues and reflects my approach of moderation within fiscal 
conservatism, or what has been termed compassionate conservatism.
  I would not further that this legislation reflects my preference for 
cutting with a scalpel, not a meat ax. As chairman and ranking member 
of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations 
Subcommittee, in the past 2 years Senator Harkin and I have succeeded 
in terminating 126 programs totaling $1.4 billion using this scalpel 
approach. The patience that has been demonstrated by our Budget 
Committee chairman, Senator Pete Domenici and the other key budget 
negotiators reflects their action to achieve the level of savings 
needed to bring the budget into balance.
  Throughout the budget process, I have sought to work with my 
colleagues to protect programs and funding which was particularly 
important to groups of Americans least able to fend for themselves. In 
particular, I am pleased to note that the Conference Report includes 
the $1.5 billion in Medicare premium subsidies which are essential for 
the estimated 3.2 million American seniors who earn in the area of 
$9,000 to $12,000 annually. I initiated an effort with several of my 
Republican colleagues to restore these funds when they were initially 
left out of this bill as reported out of the Finance Committee. After 
five of us wrote Majority Leader Trent Lott to urge that the funds be 
restored to the bill, the leadership accepted our request and added the 
$1.5 billion. Once the funds were restored, however, I still had some 
concerns about the allocation of these funds and whether the subsidies 
would continue as long as the premium increases. During Senate floor 
consideration of the bill, I was pleased to offer an amendment 
cosponsored by Senator Rockefeller, Santorum, Snowe, Collins, and 
Campbell to make the premium subsidies permanent as is the premium 
increase. Although a majority of Senators voted with us, the amendment 
only received 52 of the 60 votes needed to meet certain Budget Act 
procedural requirements and thus failed to be accepted.

  Among the reforms I supported in the Medicare Program is the expanded 
array of choices from which beneficiaries can obtain coverage. These 
new Medicare Plus plans will include traditional fee-for-service, 
provider sponsored organizations, medical savings accounts, private 
plan/health maintenance organizations, and preferred provider 
organizations. Beneficiaries will be given the freedom to choose the 
option which best meets their health care needs. I have also supported 
the addition of $4 billion in preventive health services to the 
Medicare benefit package, such as coverage of annual screening for 
breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer, bone density screening, and 
diabetes self-management services that would include nutrition therapy 
and blood testing strips.
  This legislation is designed to protect the solvency of Medicare for 
10 more years. I view this program as part of our social contract with 
our senior and believe that we must keep our noses to the grindstone to 
develop a means of permanently protecting Medicare so that it remains 
available to provide adequate health care for future generations of 
American seniors.
  Another group of Americans I have sought to help in the budget 
process are children who do not have access to adequate health care. I 
am quite pleased that the $24 billion child health program included in 
this legislation has the potential to cover over 5 million children of 
the working poor who currently lack health insurance. My Healthy 
Children's Pilot Program Act of 1997 [S. 435] was the first Republican 
bill introduced in the 105th Congress which sought to bridge this 
glaring gap in the Nation's health care system. Although I believe that 
we could have provided such coverage through a discretionary spending 
program that relied on the States to implement creative new programs, I 
fully support the program established under the Balanced Budget Act, 
which will direct $24 billion over 5 years to States for the purpose of 
providing health care to children in low income families who earn too 
much for Medicaid, but too little to be able to purchase health 
insurance. One specific concern of mine as Congress crafted this 
legislation centered around ensuring that Pennsylvania's vanguard 
Caring and BlueCHIP children's health programs were protected rather 
than superseded by a new Federal bureaucracy. I am pleased to see that 
this bill specifically grandfathers Pennsylvania's programs, 
recognizing them as examples of success and innovation.
  During consideration of the Senate version of this legislation, there 
were several provisions I could not support and I am pleased that the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 does not contain them. In particular, these 
were the provisions to extend the Medicare age of eligibility from 65 
to 67, to impose new copayments on Medicare beneficiaries receiving 
home health services, and to means-test Medicare premiums. As the final 
compromise legislation demonstrates, it is possible to reach the goal 
of a balanced budget while also protecting access to quality health 
care, affordability, and choice in the Medicare program. This bill will 
also begin what I hope is a bipartisan process to address the long term 
implications of the baby boom generation for the Medicare program by 
establishing a

[[Page S8401]]

Medicare Commission which will report to Congress with recommendations 
on how to ensure Medicare program solvency well into the 21st Century.
  Another issue which I have worked on is preserving funding for 
Pennsylvania under the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital 
Program, which reimburses States for their payments to hospitals for 
medical treatment for low income Americans. Of particular importance to 
Pennsylvania were the proposed restrictions on the use of funds by 
States to reimburse Institutes of Mental Disease [IMD's]. While we were 
able to convince Chairman Roth to delay the restrictions by 1 year 
during Senate floor consideration of the bill, I continue to be 
troubled that this legislation unfairly penalizes Pennsylvania by 
limiting its ability to spend Federal resources on IMD's. I have worked 
with Gov. Tom Ridge and Senator Rick Santorum to seek modifications to 
these legislative provisions and would note that Pennsylvania faced 
losses of as much as $1.7 billion under an early draft of the Medicaid 
reform proposal and will instead face reductions in the area of $131 
million. I am not satisfied with the proposed reforms in this program 
and, since the IMD restrictions do not go into effect until fiscal year 
2000, I will work closely with Governor Ridge and Senator Santorum to 
see what we can do to ensure that Pennsylvania receives its fair share 
of Medicaid DSH funds in the outyears.

  In closing, I would note that as with any comprehensive reform 
legislation, it will take some time to determine what, if any, 
modifications will be needed to ensure that we protect seniors, 
children, and others who rely on the Federal and State programs that 
constitute our social safety net. However, on the whole, this is a good 
piece of legislation which moves us toward the goal of balancing the 
Federal budget by 2002.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, the balanced budget agreement before us is 
an historic document. The agreement puts us on the path to a balanced 
budget in 2002, the first balanced budget since 1969.
  The agreement contains significant changes for Medicare, Medicaid, 
and welfare. The Children's Health Insurance Initiative is also a 
momentous move toward ensuring all children in this country will not 
want for lack of health care.
  This was my first year as a new member of the Senate Finance 
Committee. The committee spent many hours debating and considering the 
myriad of issues involved in developing the Medicare and other health 
areas of this budget bill. These issues were complex, the debate long, 
and decisions very difficult to make. As with any far-reaching 
legislation, no one, including myself, agrees with every provision 
included.


                   New Medicare Choices and Benefits

  New choices are provided for Medicare beneficiaries to choose how 
they would like to receive their health care. These choices include: 
continuing the traditional fee-for-service Medicare; provider sponsored 
organizations which are similar to HMO's, except they are operated by 
medical providers rather than insurance companies; private fee-for-
service; preferred provider organizations which allow beneficiaries to 
choose doctors outside their HMO network; continuing current private 
plan HMO's that generally provide more benefits, including prescription 
drug coverage, than traditional Medicare, at a lower cost. A medical 
savings account combined with a $6,000 high-deductible policy option 
will be tested as a demonstration project limited to 390,000 
participants. This $6,000 deductible is nearly three times as high as 
the maximum deductible allowed in last year's health care reform law. I 
supported the Senate version which would have limited the demonstration 
to 100,000 participants, and established a cap on out-of-pocket 
expenses of $3,000, which were not accepted in the final budget 
agreement. With the bill's high deductible, there is serious concern 
regarding whether any but the most affluent Medicare beneficiaries will 
be able to choose this option, and if they do, what the impact of the 
loss of those generally healthier and younger beneficiaries will be on 
the traditional Medicare fee-for-service option expenses.

  Medicare beneficiaries' future health will be improved with the 
inclusion of new preventive health care services. These new services 
include mammography, PAP smears, diabetes, prostate and colorectal 
screening, bone density measurement, and vaccines.


                  medicare fraud and abuse prevention

  This budget bill also builds on efforts to reduce Medicare fraud and 
abuse efforts included in last year's Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act. A new toll-free telephone number is established to 
allow Medicare beneficiaries to report fraud and billing irregularities 
directly to the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human 
Services. It is hoped the toll-free hotline will encourage 
beneficiaries to be even more diligent in reviewing their Medicare 
bills, and reporting any discrepancies. Additionally, Medicare 
beneficiaries will be given the right to request an itemized billing 
statement for their Medicare services.
  Suppliers of durable medical equipment must provide information as to 
persons with an ownership or control interest in the company. These 
suppliers, and home health agencies, comprehensive outpatient 
rehabilitation facilities and rehabilitation agencies are all required 
to post a surety bond of $50,000. These are efforts to ensure only 
legitimate Medicare providers are certified, and to reduce the 
incidences of fraud and abuse in these services.
  The Secretary of Health and Human Services will be able to refuse to 
enter into, or renew a Medicare agreement with a provider, either an 
individual or an entity, who has been convicted of a felony under 
Federal or State law for an offense which would be inconsistent with 
the best interests of Medicare beneficiaries. If a provider has been 
mandatorily excluded from participating in Federal and State health 
care programs because of a conviction involving Medicare or Medicaid 
program-related crimes, patient abuse, or felonies related to health 
care fraud or controlled substances, the exclusion shall be for a 
period of 10 years if the provider has been convicted on only one 
occasion, and permanently excluded if the provider has been convicted 
on two or more occasions. Its the old three strikes and you are out 
reapplied.


                       long-term medicare reforms

  As a member of the senate Finance Committee, I supported efforts that 
would have begun to make long-term Medicare reforms. I am disappointed 
none of these proposals were included in this final budget.
  Over the past 2 years, the rapidly rising costs of the Medicare 
program, and its future solvency, have been major concerns. The 1997 
Medicare Trustees Report concluded the Medicare part A trust fund, 
providing hospital service coverage, is likely to become insolvent as 
early as 2001. This balanced budget does buy us approximately 10 more 
years of trust fund solvency. But unless we promptly address the 
solvency of Medicare, we will still face a medical and fiscal crisis as 
the baby boomers retire, and begin to rely upon Medicare.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Medicare costs in 1997 
will be $212 billion. In 2007, the costs are estimated to total over 
$467 billion--well over a 100 percent increase.
  In the year 2011 alone, the year the baby boom generation begins to 
reach 65 years of age, more than two and a half million individuals 
will become Medicare eligible. Medicare cannot come close to covering 
these future retirees, as well as those already retired, unless changes 
are made. This is the harsh reality we should have dealt with in this 
budget.
  I firmly believe a reduction in Medicare benefits for eligible 
beneficiaries should not occur. Yet, to ensure these health care 
benefits continue, changes must be made elsewhere in the Medicare 
program.
  Raising the Medicare eligibility age to coincide with the Social 
Security eligibility age, and increasing the costs of the Medicare Part 
B--the physician and outpatient services coverage--monthly premium of 
the most affluent 4 percent of all Medicare recipients are two ways to 
ensure our Medicare program remains solvent past 2001--and that 
benefits are not reduced for all older Americans.
  In fact, in 1983, during the Reagan administration, similar age 
eligibility requirement changes were made for Social Security 
beneficiaries to help prolong the solvency of that program as well.

[[Page S8402]]

  The Senate bill would have increased the age of eligibility for 
Medicare from 65 years to 67 years of age. Yet this shift would have 
taken place during a span of 25 years--from 2003 to 2027--and would not 
have affected anyone who is currently receiving Medicare benefits.
  One of the major criticisms of the Medicare age increase proposal was 
that it could leave many seniors without adequate health care coverage 
if they choose to retire earlier. Currently, if an individual wants to 
retire earlier than the Social Security retirement age of 65 years, the 
individual takes a reduction in his or her Social Security benefit. We 
could allow early retirees, who are Social Security eligible, to buy in 
to Medicare coverage earlier. This may, however, require higher costs 
for such beneficiaries, until they reached the age of full eligibility 
for Social Security and Medicare benefits.

  This final budget bill has bought us some time to deal responsibly 
with preserving Medicare. A national bipartisan commission will be 
established to recommend long-term Medicare reforms to ensure this 
vital health care program can meet the challenge of providing coverage 
for the baby boom generations. When this commission reports its 
recommendations, Congress must act upon its reform recommendations 
immediately. And it would be irresponsible of Congress not to make the 
tough, often unpopular, decisions that are going to be necessary to 
preserve this vital program. The sooner these reforms are made, the 
sooner we can ensure future Medicare beneficiaries will not face a 
reduction in covered medical services, and that Medicare survives into 
the 21st century.


                           CHILD HEALTH CARE

  This budget agreement is also a pivotal effort to address the needs 
of the 10 million uninsured children in this country. An unprecedented 
$24 billion will be flowing to States to provide health care to these 
children. This new child health program will be paid for, in part, by a 
10-cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax for the years 2000 and 
2001, and another 5-cent-per-pack increase in 2002, for a total of 15 
cents. Although I would have preferred the full 20-cent increase in the 
cigarette tax that the Senate included in its version of the budget 
bill, this increase will still provide a substantial increase in the 
number of children receiving health care coverage.
  I am, however, concerned with these final child health provisions. 
The Senate child health proposal would have ensured children had a 
comprehensive benefits package. Children's health care coverage would 
have specifically included such services as vision and hearing, 
prescription drugs, and mental health care. Instead, States will decide 
what benefits to offer.
  The importance of a comprehensive benefit package, tailored to the 
specific health care needs of children, is key to ensuring that these 
new health care funds are used as to benefit children. This final bill 
provides States a number of options to determine a benefits package.
  As a former Governor, I understand the desires of State Governors who 
want freedom to determine how to use the Federal child health funds. 
However, the goal, first and foremost, is to provide children 
throughout this country the health care services they need. Given the 
amount of Federal child health funds going out to the States, and the 
creativity shown in the past by some States in skirting restrictions 
placed on Federal funding, I am concerned some of these vital funds 
could find their way to other areas.
  Such a diversion of funds occurred several years ago, when Congress 
appropriated money for the States to begin receiving Medicaid DSH--
disproportionate share hospital--Federal funds. This money was to help 
hospitals providing care to the poorest and most vulnerable people 
cover their increased expenses. Some States' money found its way into 
State road construction budgets among other uses. Congress had to step 
in and take corrective action.
  This budget bill will allow States to use 10 percent of the child 
health initiative funds for noncoverage purposes, which are defined as 
administration and health care outreach. That 10 percent is $2.4 
billion of the total Child Health Care Initiative--and that is 
significant money. Congress must ensure States use all of the child 
health funds for the purpose for which they are intended--to provide 
the children of this country comprehensive health care coverage period.


                               conclusion

  As historic as this balanced budget may be, it marks a first step 
toward what must be done to assure the millions of Americans who are 
current and future Medicare beneficiaries that their health care 
benefits will continue. There is much work yet to be done to honor the 
commitment this country has made to Medicare to assure not only that 
these health care services continue, but the quality and scope of care 
are sustained, and the rampant fraud and abuse of the program is 
brought to a halt. Necessary reforms are required. The sooner they are 
implemented, the sooner Medicare can be assured of continuing into the 
21st century. We are taking a major step toward this goal today, but 
many steps are yet to be taken.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the impending passage of this balanced 
budget agreement is a historic moment of our Nation. The vote that my 
colleagues and I are making in support of this balanced budget 
agreement is a vote that each American should take pride in. This 
legislation represents a real victory for all Americans. Children, 
students, senior citizens, and families will all benefit from our 
actions today. This conference report will put this country on a 
financially responsible path while also taking the necessary steps to 
protect Medicare and provide health care coverage to our Nation's 
uninsured children.
  This legislation is built on consensus, and no plan built on 
compromise can make everyone happy. There are certain provisions that I 
wish were in this bill and there are other provisions that I feel could 
have been changed. However, it is more important that we move the 
process forward instead of shutting down the system. Overall, though 
this budget package provides benefits that will strengthen our economy, 
reduce the tax burden on individuals and families and eliminate 
spiraling deficits.
  The measure provides tax relief to families by providing a permanent 
$500-per-child tax credit for children under the age of 17. The bill 
creates incentives for savings and investment with expanded individual 
retirement accounts, reducing capital gains and increased deductions 
for small business. The legislation provides for estate tax relief 
which will affect many residents of my home state of Vermont. The bill 
will impose roughly $297 billion in savings over the next 5 years and 
$900 billion over the next 10 years while still protecting programs 
that are vital to the interest of all Americans. But most importantly, 
this legislation furthers our efforts to provide health care and 
education for children.
  Mr. President, there is no resource more precious than the children 
who are right now playing in the school yards from Vermont to 
California. I worked closely with my colleagues Senator Hatch, Senator 
Kennedy, Senator Chafee, and Senator Rockefeller to develop legislation 
that would provide health care coverage for our Nation's uninsured 
children. This conference report will establish a new $24 billion 
health care coverage program for as many as 5 million uninsured 
children. The establishment of this coverage is not the end but only 
the beginning to ensure that every child born in this country will have 
a healthy start in order for them to fulfill their own personal 
American dream.
  I would like to express my special appreciation to Senator Roth and 
Senator Lott for including in the Children's Health Initiative a 
provision that will allow States like Vermont whose Medicaid coverage 
for children already extends beyond 200 percent of poverty to cover 
children with incomes 50 percentage points higher than their Medicaid 
cutoff. I feel this section will give these pioneering States the 
necessary flexibility and resources to continue moving forward toward 
the goal of ensuring that all children have access to quality health 
care. In addition, the children's tax credit in this bill will result 
in meaningful savings for families. For a family with two children, 
this bill will result in a 1999 tax bill that's $1,000 less than they 
would have otherwise owed.

[[Page S8403]]

  The children's tax credits in this bill will result in meaningful 
savings for families with children. For a family with two children, 
this bill will result in a 1999 tax bill that's $1,000 less than they 
would have otherwise owed. In addition, the bill recognizes the 
critical relationship between education and our national economic well-
being. With $39 billion in education tax incentives, the bill will ease 
the burden on families paying for higher education. These tax 
incentives will help families save for college, pay tuition costs while 
students are in college, and repay funds borrowed to pay for college. 
And the bill's education tax incentives are not limited to college 
expenses. The bill has a life-long education tax credit to help workers 
who want to brush up on their job skills or learn new employment 
skills.
  This agreement also recognizes the critical relationship between 
education and our national economic well-being. In a day and age beset 
by downsizing, when job skills are constantly becoming outmoded by 
technological advances and breakthrough in learning, education will be 
a lifetime endeavor. I am happy that the bill recognizes this, and 
makes lifetime learning more easily affordable. Aid to education is not 
limited to tax incentives; the tax incentives are supplemented by 
meaningful spending increases for scholarship grants and literacy 
programs. Throughout my years in the Congress, first on the Education 
and Labor Committee in the House of Representatives, and now as 
chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, I have 
worked to make education more readily affordable and more easily 
accessible. This bill represents important steps in that direction.
  During my tenure in Congress, I have tried hard to put our fiscal 
house in order while protecting programs that are important to the 
Nation. I am pleased to cast my vote in favor of this agreement, which 
I believe does just that. This plan finally puts four walls and a roof 
on a foundation toward a balanced budget that this Congress has been 
building over the last 15 years. Today, this body is taking giant steps 
closer to ensure the future economic security of our children and the 
next generation.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, a little over two weeks ago, I sat down 
with several Albuquerque families who are working hard to pay the 
bills, put food on the table, and give their children a good home. 
Among those gathered at the meeting, there was Carol Howell, who is 
struggling with the help of her husband to make ends meet and raise 
four children. And there was Jan Usinger, a divorced mother with a 
Masters degree in French, working three jobs to build a decent life for 
her three children.
  Each of the families I met were perfect examples of who should reap 
the benefits of any tax relief package produced by Congress. And yet, 
what brought us together that day was the sad fact that none of these 
families would be able to claim the highly-touted $500 per child tax 
credit in the bill passed by the Senate --not because they earned too 
much money, but because they earned too little. In the eyes of some in 
Congress, these families were not rich enough to deserve the full child 
tax credit. Some even argued that to give hard-working families making 
about $25,000 a year a tax break was like giving them welfare.
  I'm pleased to say that in the heated debate that took place in 
Washington over who should be allowed to claim the child tax credit, 
these families finally won--and they won big. Jan Usinger, who would 
have seen only $6 in tax relief from the child credit under the House 
bill, will now get a tax break of $1,500 in the final bill negotiated 
between the President and Congress. That's no small change when you 
consider the cost of clothing, school supplies and child care.
  The final tax relief compromise enacted last week is a significant 
victory for the Usingers, and for the millions of working and middle-
income families like them across the country. Some of the more helpful 
provisions in the bill will help offset the cost of raising children, 
make college more affordable, and even help adults go back to school 
for more training. There is also a $24 billion set-aside to provide 
health insurance to more children from working families now unable to 
afford it.
  The child tax credit tops the list of provisions New Mexico families 
will find most helpful. This new child credit will be available to 
families earning between $15,000 and $30,000, as well as those making 
between $30,000 to $150,000 a year. The size of the credit will vary 
according to the number of children and parents in the family, along 
with other factors.
  Best of all, the credit can be used to reduce a family's total 
federal tax burden--whether it's income taxes or federal payroll taxes. 
This is a key change from earlier versions of the bill, and it will 
make a big difference for the nearly three-quarters of lower-income 
working Americans who pay more payroll taxes than income taxes. 
Furthermore, employers will be instructed to make adjustments on 
withholding forms so that families can see the benefit of this credit 
as soon as possible.
  While the economic benefits of a college-educated workforce have 
increased tremendously over recent years, the financial obstacles have 
increased even faster. To help make higher education more accessible, 
the tax bill now includes a $1,500 tax credit for the first two years 
of college, and a credit of up to $1,000 for students after their first 
two years of college. Together, these credits would cover nearly all 
the costs of the average public college in the U.S. Workers can also 
receive up to $5,250 in employer-provided training each year, without 
having to count the benefit as taxable income. At a time when workers 
must continually update their skills, this break will help them get the 
training they need to make it in today's job market.
  Finally, a major source of economic anxiety for working families is 
the cost of medical care. Almost 150,000 New Mexico children are 
without health insurance, and many of them come from working families 
who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford 
health insurance for their children. The provision setting aside $24 
billion for expanding children's health insurance was designed with 
these working families in mind. It will provide states like New Mexico 
the resources to cover these children, giving them access to everything 
from routine checkups and antibiotics to emergency medical care. This 
provision will help more kids develop into healthy adults, and it will 
do so without imposing unworkable new federal mandates.
  It's important to note that this tax relief would not be possible or 
responsible, were we not on the brink of balancing the federal budget. 
In 1992, our nation ran a whopping $290 billion budget deficit, which 
has been shaved down to an estimated $45 billion this year. I think it 
is fair to say that if our country had not tightened its belt in the 
1993 budget package to achieve this deficit reduction, interest rates 
would probably be higher, unemployment higher, and our economic growth 
slower. Now the people who helped sacrifice to get us to the point 
where we are today--like the 70 percent of New Mexicans earning under 
$30,000 a year--are getting some deserved tax relief.
  This tax deal is not perfect, and it certainly hasn't done much to 
make the tax code any simpler. But this final compromise does deliver 
where it matters. It provides relief not just to upper-income families 
but to the many new, young families in New Mexico who are working hard 
to deliver a decent quality of life to their children and to provide 
the educational opportunities and health care support that will lay a 
strong foundation for their success. In the end, this bill helps us 
invest in all of our children--and for this reason I think we have 
actually achieved something worthwhile this week in Washington.
  Mr. President, I do need to make references as well about certain 
provisions in this tax bill which are very good for small businesses in 
New Mexico as well as around the nation.
  First, the bill reinstates the home office business deduction, which 
I know is a very important issue for many self-employed people in our 
state and many other small business owners.
  This legislation also includes an important provision phasing in an 
increase in the self-employed health insurance deduction. The 
percentage of the deduction in 1997 is now at 40%, but it rises to 100% 
by the year 2007.
  Also, many businesses benefit by investing in continuing education 
programs for their employees, and this tax

[[Page S8404]]

bill extends for three more years the tax exclusion for employer-
provided educational assistance.
  It also provides an enhanced deduction which businesses can claim for 
the donation of computers and technology to schools.
  Also, very importantly, a provision has been included that I have 
been working with a number of Senators over the last year. This 
provision builds on a small business initiative included in the 1993 
budget plan. The original legislation stated that gains from stock held 
more than five years in publicly traded firms with assets less than $50 
million would be taxed after the sale of stock at 50% of the capital 
gains tax rate. The new provision allows this gain to be rolled over 
into other small businesses of the same size on a fully tax-deferred 
basis.
  This will hopefully keep more capital in the small business sector. 
Overcoming venture capital deficiencies in New Mexico is one of the 
major hurdles that our state constantly faces. Hopefully, this 
provision will do some good for our state.
  Furthermore, small businesses with average gross receipts of less 
than $5 million will be exempt from the corporate alternative minimum 
tax. This covers a great majority of New Mexico companies.
  Also in the estate tax area, owners of qualified family owned 
businesses and farms will be able to exclude--starting next year--up to 
$1.3 million of their estate from inheritance tax. This is a very big 
provision--particularly as the general estate tax will be incrementally 
increased from $600,000 to $1 million by the year 2006. This family-
owned estate tax relief puts the entire exclusion in place next year. 
The requirements are that the family owned business or farm must be at 
least 50% of the estate and heirs must participate in the business for 
10 years after descendent's death. This provision will help a great 
number of small firms, farms, and ranches pass on to their heirs 
estates which often have a vast majority of their value tied up in the 
business. The failure to provide this exclusion in the past has 
unfortunately forced some families to liquidate businesses after the 
principal owner died.
  Also on the farm front, farmers who often face years of boom and bust 
are provided the option of 3-year income averaging for the next two 
years. I suppose we are going to see if this provides relief to farmers 
and consider whether to extend this option in the years that follow.
  Finally, the tax deal also includes extension of the research and 
experimentation credit for another year as well as it extends the 
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) through June, 1998. This 
provision is particularly important to our state's jewelry firms that 
import some of their stones and materials from lesser-developed 
countries.
  These are some of the items that I feel that small businesses should 
know about. If you download the actual bill from the World Wide Web, 
Mr. President (the address is http://speakernews.house.gov/
taxfull.htm), you'll be printing 304 pages. My staff had to do this, in 
fact. Hopefully, by highlighting these items, some small businesses 
won't be completely dependent on H&R Block and the various computer tax 
packages that sort out this material.
  I recognize that if the standard of living is going to increase for 
citizens of this state, small business is going to be the primary 
engine in that effort. In any case, I am happy to report and restate 
that I think we have actually achieved something worthwhile this week 
in Washington.

                          ____________________