[Pages H6335-H6342]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

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

[[Page H6336]]

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

{time} 1600

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

[[Page H6337]]

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

[[Page H6338]]

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

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

[[Page H6339]]

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

CHILDREN'S HEALTH

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

Spectrum

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

Medicare

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

Medicaid

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

[[Page H6340]]

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

[[Page H6341]]

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

[[Page H6342]]

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

{time} 1615

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

recorded vote

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

[Roll No. 345]

AYES--346

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

NOES--85

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

NOT VOTING--4

Forbes
Gonzalez
Schiff
Young (AK)

{time} 1643

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

____________________