H.R. 2015 PUBLIC lAW 105-33 - Social Security Administration PDFs... · H.R. 2015 PUBLIC lAW 105-33 105TH CONGRESS REPORTS, BILLS, DEBATES, AND ACT ... sent the Senate resume consideration

BAlANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997

H.R. 2015

PUBLIC lAW 105-33105TH CONGRESS

REPORTS, BILLS,

DEBATES, AND ACT

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997

Volumes 1-2

HR. 2015

PUBLIC LAW 105-33105TH CONGRESS

REPORTS, BILLS,DEBATES, AND ACT

Social Security Administration

Office of the Deputy Commissioner forLegislation and Congressional Affairs

PREFACE

This 2-volume compilation contains historical documents pertaining to P.L. 105-33,the "Balanced Budget Act of 1997." These books contain congressional debates and achronological compilation of documents pertinent to the legislative history of thepublic law.

Pertinent documents include:

o Differing versions of key billso Committee Reportso Excerpts from the Congressional Recordo The Public Lawo Legislative Bulletins

The books are prepared by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Legislation andCongressional Affairs and are designed to serve as helpful resource tools for thosecharged with interpreting laws administered by the Social Security Administration.

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Volume 1

House Action on H.R. 2015

A. Reported to House

Committee on the Budget reported bill (without amendments) committedto the Whole House--June 24, 1997 (excerpts)

House Report No. 105-149 (to accompany H.R. 2015)--June 23, 1997(excerpts)

B. H.Res. 174, Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2015

Committee on Rules Report on H.Res. 174--House Report No. 105-152--June 25, 1997

House Debate and Passage of H.Res. 174--Congressional Record--June 25, 1997 (excerpts)

C. House Debate on H.R. 2015--Congressional Record--June 25, 1997(excerpts)

D. House-Passed Bill

H.R. 2015 as received in the Senate--June 25, 1997 (excerpts)

II. Senate Action on S. 947/H.R. 2015

A. 5. 947 in the Senate of the United States (As Reported by the SenateCommittee on the Budget With No Written Report)--June 20, 1997(excerpts)

1 of 3

B. Senate Amendments to 5. 947(Excerpts of SSI and Social Security-Related Provisions)

C. Senate debated and passed 5. 947, with amendments

Senate debated and passed H.R. 2015, after striking all after the enactingclause and inserting the text of 5. 947 (subsequently, 5. 947 wasindefmitely postponed)

Congressional Record--June 23, 24, and 25, 1997 (excerpts)

D. Senate-Passed Bill--June 25, 1997 (excerpts)

Volume 2

III. Conference Action

A. Senate insisted on its amendments, requested conference, and appointedconferees--Congressional Record--June 27, 1997

B. House disagreed to the Senate amendments, agreed to conference, andappointed conferees--Congressional Record--July 10, 1997

C. H.Res. 201, Waiving Same Day Consideration of Rule--CongressionalRecord--July 30, 1999

D. Conference Report Filed--July 29, 1997

House Report No. 105-217 (excerpts)

E. H.Res. 202 Approved, Rule Granted Allowing No Amendments toConference Report--Congressional Record--July 30, 1997

F. House Agreed to Conference Report--Congressional Record--July 30,1997 (excerpts)

2 of 3

G. Senate Began Consideration of Conference Report--CongressionalRecord--July 30, 1997 (excerpts)

Senate Agreed to Conference Report--Congressional Record--July 31,1997 (excerpts)

H. House Agreed to H.J.Res. 90, Waiving Enrollment Requirements WithRespect to H.R. 2015--Congressional Record--July 31, 1997

IV. Public Law

A. Public Law 105-33--105th Congress--August 5, 1997 (excerpts)

B. President Clinton's Signing Statement--August 5, 1997

C. President Clinton's Remarks and Special Message on Line Item Veto--August 11, 1997

APPENDIX

A. H.R. 2037, Budget Enforcement Act of 1997(H.R. 2037 Was Incorporated into H.R. 2015)

B. Comparison of Budget Reconciliation Human Resources Items--Conference Status--July 21, 1997 (excerpts)

C. Legislative Bulletin 105-4--June 12, 1997

D. Legislative Bulletin 105-6--August 1, 1997

E. Report on the Enrolled Bill, H.R. 2015

Letter to Franklin Raines, Director, Office of Management and Budget,from John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner of Social Security--July 31,1997

3 of 3

S6786 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 27, 1997

UNANIMOUS-CONSENTAGREEMENT—H.R. 2015

Mr. LOTT. I now ask unanimous con-sent the Senate resume considerationof H.R. 2015, the Balanced Budget Act,and the Senate insist on its amend-ment and request a conference with theHouse on disagreeing votes, and theChair be authorized to appoint con-ferees on the part of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The Chair appointed, from the Com-mittee on the Budget, Mr. DOMENICI,Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. NICKLES, Mr.GRAMM, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. CONRAD,and Mrs. BOXER; from the Committeeon Agriculture. Nutrition, and For-estry, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. HELMS, and Mr.HARKIN; from the Committee on Bank-ing, Housing. and Urban Affairs, Mr.D'AMATO, Mr. SHELBY, and Mr. SAR-BANES; from the Committee on Com-merce, Science, and Transportation.Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. STEVENS, and Mr.HOLLINGS; from the Committee on En-ergy and Natural Resources, Mr.MuRXOSWKI, Mr. CRAIG, and Mr. BUMP-ERS; from the Committee on Finance,Mr. ROTH, Mr. LOTr, and Mr. MOY-NIHAN; from the Committee on Govern-mental Affairs, Mr. THOMPSON, Ms.

June 27, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6787

COLLINS, and Mr. GLENN; from theCommittee on Labor and Human Re-sources, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. COATS, andMr. KENNEDY: and from the Committeeon Veterans' Affairs, Mr. SPECTER, Mr.THURMOND, and Mr. ROCKEFELLER, con-ferees on the part of the Senate.

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ONH.R. 2015, BALANCED BUDGETACT OF 1997Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to take from theSpeaker's table the bill (HR. 2015) toprovide for reconciliation pursuant tosubsections (b) (1) and (c) of section 105of the concurrent resolution on thebudget for fiscal year 1998, with a Sen-ate amendment thereto, disagree to theSenate amendment, and agree to theconference asked by the Senate.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.GILLMOR). Is there objection to the re-quest of the gentleman from Ohio?

There was no objection.MOTION TO INsTRUcT OFFERED BY MR. 5PRATF

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer apreferential motion.

The Clerk read as follows:Mr. SIrr moves that the managers on

the part of the House at the conference onthe disagreeing votes of the two Houses onthe Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2015be instructed as follows:

(1) On the matters pertaining to increasingthe age of eligibility for medicare, reject theprovisions contained in section 5611 of theSenate amendment.

(2) On the matters pertaining to the mini-mum wage, worker protections, and civilrights—

(A) insist on paragraphs (2) and (3), and re-ject the remainder, of section 417(f) of theSocial Security Act, as amended by sections5006 and 9006 of the bill, as passed the House,and

(B) reject the provisions contained in sec-tions 5004 and 9004 of the bill, as passed theHouse.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman from South Carolina [Mr.SPRATr] is recognized for 30 minutes insupport of his motion and the gen-tleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH] is rec-ognized for 30 minutes.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom South Carolina [Mr. SPRATr].

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Briefly, as a matter of introductionto what this motion to instruct per-tains, it is a double-barrel motion. Onthe one hand we say the Senate provi-sions that would raise the age of eligi-bility for Medicare from 65 to 67 werenot part of our bipartisan budgetagreement, were not essential toachieving the objectives we set for our-selves. Indeed we were able to do the$115 billion in Medicare cost reductionover a 5-year period of time with sub-stantial consensus.

This particular portion of the billwas reported by the Committee onWays and Means with a near unanim-ity, with as close to consensus as wecan get in this House. It was unneces-sary to do it and, furthermore, it raisesmore questions than it answers: Whatwill this coverage cost for people from65 to 67; will it be available; how muchlead time should we give people to getready for this unexpected adjustment?

So we would instruct the conferees toreject those Senate provisions.

Second, the House and the Senateboth added other provisions outside thebudget agreement unnecessary to itthat would deny the basic protectionsof one of the fundamental laws of theland, the Federal Fair Labor StandardsAct, to individuals coming off TANF,coming out of welfare into workfare, orparticipating in the welfare to workprogram. We think that is unwarrantedand unnecessary, and we would say tothe conferees excise, take out, thoseprovisions as well and reject them aspart of this bipartisan agreement so itcan truly be called a bipartisan agree-ment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

First of all, these motions to instructare kind of gimmicky, to be truthful.They are just designed for somebody tocome to the House floor, lay out dif-ficult positions that are hard to win ina debate and, basically, they do nothave the force of law.

Now, let me just speak to the threeof them. First of all, the first one is weshould not raise the age of eligibilityfor Medicare recipients from 65 to 67.

0 1115

In the House bill we did not do that.We said it ought to be 65. But let memake it clear to everybody who is inthis Chamber, that if they think thatwhen their children must be put intothe workplace to work day and nightto pay for our benefits, and they thinkthat there is not a fundamental re-structuring of the system in need, thenare we doing injustice to the youngpeople of this country.

The fact is, in Medicare and SocialSecurity and in Medicaid, we are goingto find ourselves in a position wherethe number of young people will be few

H5031in number and the number of peoplegetting benefits, which will be us, aregoing to be great in number.

Mr. Speaker, our young children inthis country deserve a chance, thesame kind of chance our parents gaveto us, and we know that there must befundamental structural changes in themajor entitlement programs becausethese programs are not sustainable. Weput our children in a position that isuntenable and unconscionable if we arenot willing to meet the challenge ofthe baby boomer retirement and whatit does to our children.

Now, I am not so sure that this Houseis capable, along with the Senate, ofdesigning the real solutions that aregoing to be necessary, the structuralchanges that are going to be necessaryin the area of Social Security, in thearea of Medicare and in the area ofMedicaid.

I will say this: I think this House hastaken a large step forward in terms ofdesigning changes in Medicare that arestructural in nature, that are positive,that move us in the right direction.But I would hope that this House willreject in the future the rhetoric of 1995,where some of my colleagues on theother side of the aisle said that wewere trying to damage the senior citi-zens in this country by our Medicarereforms, and they are the Medicare re-forms that they are today accepting.

So for those people who want tostand and demagogue and scare the el-derly, scare the children, we are goingto stand against you, just like we didin 1995 and just like we did in 1996, andfinally had you support our program ona bipartisan basis.

Now in the area of worker protection,the gentleman from Florida [Mr. SHAWlhad a comment on that. In the area ofworker protection, let me just makeone other statement here to my col-leagues on the other side. And I havesome friends on the other side who un-derstand my heart, and there arefriends I have on the other side whorisked a lot for things they believed in.

The bottom line on this is, the Houseis not prepared to move to changingthe retirement date on Medicare thisweek, but we sure as heck better openour mind and open our heart to whatwe are going to need to do long-termfor the future of the next generation.And we will not be stopped by dema-goguery because the young people inthis country will not permit the politi-cians in this House, who are going tobe the beneficiaries of all the benefits,the young people are not going tostand for it; and there are going to bemany of us who get the benefits whoare not going to permit you to dema-gogue this on your own and be able towin the day.

In the area of worker protections, thethird recommendation that my friendfrom South Carolina [Mr. SPRATr] rec-ommends, which is that we do not pro-hibit or we do not discriminate in thearea of sex or health or safety for ourpeople who go to work, who are on wel-fare, the House intends to stand behind

July 10, 1997

H5032that position. We do not support dis-crimination in any form. We sign up tothat.

In the other area regarding theseworkfare nonemployees, we obviouslydo not want to deny them their rightsunder antidiscrimination. But let mejust suggest to all of my colleaguesthat we do not believe that all of theprovisions like unemployment com-pensation ought to apply to workerswho are on welfare, who are out thereworking to pay for the benefits theyget from people who go to work everyday.

Now we have had a struggle trying todefine exactly how all these welfareworkers should be treated, and I thinkwe have made substantial progress inthis House by guaranteeing that therewould not be discrimination, that theseworkers would be in a safe environ-ment, and the House intends to pursuethat position in conference. At the endof the day I believe that we will guar-antee the civil and human rights ofevery American. We are going to standbehind that.

So I am recommending to my sidethat we will accept the motion to in-struct, but what I am troubled about isthis idea that we should reject even thediscussions about structural changes asthey apply to the next generation.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, would thegentleman yield?

Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gen-tleman from California.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe distinguished chairman for yield-ing, and I want to agree with him, par-ticularly as to the Medicare part. Weare supporting the House position, andwe have, and it has been a bipartisanexercise and has not been demagogued.I will talk more about it later.

And I agree that the long range pro-gram is what has not been addressed byeither side, to our shame. We are get-ting to that. But for now, we have thehigh ground in the House and I amhappy it hear that he is going to, be-cause basically all we are asking isthat we stick to the House position.

Mr. KASICH. Reclaiming my time,furthermore I want to compliment myfriend from California for his work inthe health subcommittee with the gen-tleman from California [Mr. THOMAS],the chairman, to try to fashion a bipar-tisan first step in Medicare. Maybe Ishould explain to the gentleman thathe is very well aware of the beatingthat we took for our Medicare reformswhich are now working their way intolaw.

Mr. STARK. If the gentleman wouldcontinue to yield, I think it was 25short. But other than that, I am awareof it.

Mr. KASICH. But let me just suggest,though, that I am very pleased to hearthe gentleman say that he recognizesthat there is a next step. Because if wewalk away from this problem of thebaby boomers retiring, as the gen-tleman knows, we are not going to sur-vive in America as we have known it.


I would like to say to the gentleman,and to the gentleman from South Caro-lina [Mr. SPRArr] and my friend fromthe State of Washington, that the Com-mittee on the Budget intends to pursuea very aggressive examination of thisbig wave, the tidal wave that is com-ing. I expect to have Democrats par-ticipate in the settings that we create,the witnesses that w call in. Becausethe only way we are going to be able todeal with all this is to deal together,without having people standing in thewell yelling and screaming and tryingto scare the elderly in our country.

So we are going to vote for this mo-tion to instruct, but I am very sen..sitive about the idea that we want tolet people know everything is done,taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to thegentleman from California [Mr. THOM-AS].

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding.

The chairman of the Committee onthe Budget is absolutely correct, this isfrankly a theater. I am a little dis-appointed that the minority did not goafter some really important stuff totry to protect in terms of a motion toinstruct. Actually we do not need allthe verbiage that is on the page.

The motion to instruct can be put inbasically four words, that is, supportthe House positions. Now let us look atthe irony. We are wasting time on thefloor of the House of Representatives intalking about a motion to instructwhich says support the House posi-tions."

I am here to tell my colleagues aschairman of the Subcommittee onHealth, I did not work all those longhours to produce a 13 to zero vote, aunanimous support position in the Sub-committee on Health of the Committeeon Ways and Means, to run over to theSenate and fold. I did not work hard tomaintain the subcommittee's positionon a 36 to 3 vote ii the full Committeeon Ways and Means to simply collapsein the face of the Senate. I do think itwould be appropriate, since the Senateapparently feels fairly strongly on thisissue, having voted on the floor of theSenate by better than two to one to in-clude this, that we probably ought tolisten to their arguments.

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KA-SICH], the chairman of the Committeeon the Budget, I think makes the co-gent point, we are going to have to en-gage. Is this the appropriate time? Isthis the appropriate arena? Probablynot.

But my colleagues should watch be-cause this motion to instruct should bea voice vote. There is no reason what-soever to have a recorded vote on a po-sition "support the House positions."So if the Democrats call for a recordedvote, it is a feeble opportunity on theirpart to try to catch someone who be-lieves that we should not engage inthese kinds of tactics so that a cam-paign position, if there is a recordedvote and they do not support this posi-

July10, 1997tion, for them to put out a statementthat the person who did not vote forthis is in favor of increasing eligibilityfor Medicare from 65 to 67, shame onthem.

Can they not come up with a realissue so that we can have a real discus-sion on substance, instead of puttingtogether a package which is 'supportthe House positions." The answer is,you bet we are going to support theHouse position. My challenge to themis to let it go on a voice vote and donot record the vote.

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speak-er, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gen-tleman from California.

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speak-er, I wonder why the gentleman is con-cerned about a recorded vote on some-thing everyone hasjust agreed to.

Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time,all I am saying is if the gentleman didnot understand the point, let us seewhether or not there is a recorded vote.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Let me simply say there is nothingunreal, nothing gimmicky about theage eligibility for Medicare. It is avital issue for millions of Americans.And there is nothing gimmicky, either,about whether or not those coming offwelfare into the work force will havethe protection of the Federal FairLabor Standards Act which has beenthe fundamental law of the land for thebetter part of this century.

Mr. Speaker I yield 2 minutes to thegentleman from New Jersey [Mr.PALLONE].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I justwanted to agree with the gentlemanfrom South Carolina [Mr. SpRArr]. I donot understand how the other side cansay that we are wasting time or this isgimmickry. If they really believe thatthe age eligibility should not be raisedfrom 65 to 67, let us vote on it.

We know that the other body has spe-cifically said in their bill that theywant to raise the age. American people,our seniors, are very concerned aboutthat. We need to take a position onthis. I have to say that I find it abhor-rent that the Congress would even con-sider raising age eligibility for Medi-care. At a time when we are trying tofind solutions concerning our unin-sured populations, raising the age eligi-bility to age 67 will only exacerbate theproblem.

There are 4.5 million people betweenage 50 and 64 that are among the unin-sured, for various reasons, and thesenumbers are growing every day. Someof these seniors lack access to em-ployer-sponsored health benefits, whileothers are unable to afford expensivepremiums and cost-sharing require-ments.

Now we are telling them that theyhave to wait even longer before theybecome eligible for Medicare. We wouldbe breaking our commitment to Ameri-ca's seniors by raising the age eligi-bility. It is not needed to balance the

July 10, 1997budget, nor is it necessary to maintainMedicare short-term solvency.

Some may argue that Social Securityis already raising its age eligibility andthat raising Medicare's would be con-sistent. But I would remind my col-leagues that in Social Security seniorshave the option to retire early and re-ceive some of their benefits, while nosimilar option exists for Medicare.

Raising the age eligibility has hadlittle discussion, no congressionalhearings. I personally see the increasein age eligibility as a back-door ap-proach to letting Medicare wither onthe vine. That is a phrase that theSpeaker, the gentleman from Georgia[Mr. GINGRICH] has often used: and Istrongly oppose that its inclusion be apart of any final budget package. Istrongly urge my colleagues to supportthis motion to instruct.

D 1130

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Califor-nia [Mr. FA2IO].

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speak-er, far from wasting our time on thefloor today, we have accomplishedseemingly two major improvements ina bill that is seriously flawed in manyways.

I hear the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.KASICH] and the gentleman from Cali-fornia [Mr. THOMAS] saying that theyare going to support this motion. Ihope that means that when we go toconference on this package of spendingcuts, we will not entertain the increasein the age to be eligible for Medicare tothe age of 67. It is very clear that inthis country we have a major problemwith many people in their fifties whohave been downsized, let out of theirjob, where their health benefits werereal and decent, and suffer becausethere is no bridge to retirement. Weonly make the gap broader for thosepeople if they are not given at least theage of 65 to look forward to.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is uncon-scionable to say that people who aretransitioning from welfare to work willnot be covered by the same statutesthat protect workers. To have a sexualharassment claim not to be viable, notto be of legal standing simply becausesomeone is transitioning from welfareis unbelievable. I am very pleased theRepublicans have agreed.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Califor-nia [Mr. THOMAS].

Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman has ar-gued the points. None of the pointsthat the gentleman has argued are inthe House package, so I guess the con-cern of the gentleman is that this con-feree and other House conferees, havinggone through the legislative process onthis side, not putting any of that mate-rial in the bill would now somehowthink that it makes sense. Is that theconcern of the gentleman from Califor-nia?

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speak-er, will the gentleman yield?


Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gen-tleman from California.

Mr. FAZIO of California. I am par-ticularly concerned about the versionof this bill that will work a hardship onpeople coming off welfare into work.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaim-ing my time, is he concerned about theconferees not holding the House posi-tion? Is that his concern?

Mr. FAZIO of California. I am con-cerned that this conference is going toengage in some fundamental changesnot only in the Medicare law——

Mr. THOMAS. The question is, andI'll reclaim my time. If the gentlemanwants to answer it, I'll give him an-other chance. If he chooses not to, thatis fine. The question is, does the gen-tleman have confidence in the Houseconferees upholding the House posi-tion? Yes or no.

Mr. FAZIO of California. I am cer-tainly hopeful that if we all vote tomake sure that these onerous provi-sions are not included in the con-ference, that we will follow the posi-tion when we get to conference.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. WAXMAN. Point of order, Mr.Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.GILLMOR). The gentleman will state hispoint.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I cannotunderstand how a gentleman can askanother gentleman a question and notgive him a moment to answer it.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman has not stated a point of order.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, how muchtime is left on both sides?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH] has 17½minutes remaining. The gentlemanfrom South Carolina [Mr. SPRATI'] has25 minutes remaining.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentlewoman from Con-necticut [Ms. DELAURO].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the factis that we are not wasting time at all.There is a serious threat to seniors'health care in this country. There is ahealth care crisis in our country. Toomany Americans do not have access toquality health care that they need.

Quite honestly, Democrats havefought to expand coverage for 10 mil-lion American children who do nothave health care coverage. Yet Repub-licans backed away from their promiseto insure just half of these children.

Now with the specter of moving theage limit from 65 to 67 for seniors withregard to Medicare, we are looking atno coverage of people zero to 67 in thiscountry. We are moving backward interms of providing health care for peo-ple in this country. Instead of trying tofind ways to make sure that seniorshave security of health care coveragein their retirement, it would appearthat the Government is backing awayfrom that promise that they would bethere for them at age 65.

Seniors have worked hard all of theirlives, they paid their dues, they

H5033planned their retirement with theknowledge that they would be able todepend on Medicare when they turned65 years of age to help to pay theirmedical bills.

Let us vote on the motion to in-struct. Let us work to help expandhealth care coverage for seniors.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 11minutes to the gentleman from Califor-nia [Mr. STARK] and ask unanimousconsent that he be allowed to yield por-tions of that time to other Members.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from South Carolina?

There was no objection.Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank

the distinguished ranking member foryielding me this time, and I yield my-self 2hz minutes.

Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Medicareprovisions in this bill are concerned, itis a matter of record that we have hadstrong bipartisan cooperation andagreement in the House. My remarkstoday are designed to amplify the prob-lems in the Senate bill and for what-ever other effect we may have is togive us a stronger hand in dealing withthe Senate in conference, which indeedhas been a tradition of motions to in-struct for many years.

A vote by this House representingthe strong feelings that we have in sup-port of our bill is an aid in negotiatingand to show that we have the supportof the American people. The Senate hasbasically taken a silk purse and turnedit into a sow's ear. We find this morn-ing a poll of the Washington Post thatsays 64 percent of the people oppose ex-tending the wait for Medicare to age 67.

The AARP bulletin, which I now get,Mr. Speaker, says that the Medicaremeasure takes the wrong turn. That isin relationship to the Senate bill. TheSenate also allows doctors to bill pa-tients more, or extra. It allows doctorsto force patients to give up Medicare ifthey want certain specialty care fromthese doctors. It cuts payments to theNation's safety net hospitals by 20 per-cent. It increases home health carecost in the Nation's frailest and sickestby $760 a year.

I hope that the conference committeewill stand firm and fix these provi-sions, and I pledge to work with thegentleman from California [Mr. THOM-AS] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.KASICH] to see that we do prevail overthe Senate, for these provisions will doharm to the Medicare system. Thereare ways in which we can change Medi-care and make it more solvent. I wouldlike to work with them. I believe thatraising the age limit without a plan toprotect the people from 65 to 67 is thewrong way to go, and I think we canwork to fix that in the years ahead.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentlemanfrom California.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentlemanfor yielding. First of all, I want tothank him for the cooperative effort in

H5034producing this House product and wewill continue to make sure that theHouse product survives in conference. Iwill commit to the gentleman that wewill do everything we can to deliverthe product.

It is just a shame that we wind upwith a political charade. If it is a voicevote, I understand the gentleman's andthe others' concern. If it is a recordedvote, it is clear that these are politicalshenanigans.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2'/2minutes to the gentleman from Califor-nia [Mr. WAXMAN].

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thistime.

Mr. Speaker, the House has passed abill, the Senate has passed a differentbill. There will be a conference. TheRepublican leaders today have said tous that when they go into conference,they are going to try to hold the Houseposition, but they are going to have tomove toward the Senate to get anagreement. The chairman of the Com-mittee on the Budget said we have gotto be aware that structural changes aregoing to come down the line at somepoint, and he is not for this change thisweek.

The point is that we know what theHouse Republicans were for in Medi-care in the last Congress. They wantedstructural changes that would haveended the Medicare program as weknow it and would have put a lot of el-derly people into the lowest pricedHMO that would survive profitably bydenying them care.

I cannot understand why we are hear-ing that the gentleman from California[Mr. THOMAS] would object to a re-corded vote. If he really thinks it is abad idea to change the age limit, heought to be willing to vote with us toreject that idea when they go into con-ference.

The Senate reconciliation bill con-tains a number of ill-conceived provi-sions relating to Medicare. They in-crease the burdens on beneficiarieswith home health copayments. Theyhave further balanced billing beyondwhat now exists in the law. They havepremiums increase dramatically forhigher income people in a very com-plicated and unworkable way. If youcombine the income testing of the pre-mium along with the MSA option,which is in the House bill, It raises thespecter of fragmenting the risk pool ofthe program. That sounds technical,but the effect on moderate-incomeMedicare beneficiaries who are olderand sicker is not going to be some the-oretical one. It will be real and It willultimately hurt many of them.

The issue before us and the focus isthe Senate voted to change the Medi-care age from 65 to 67. We want to say"no" to that provision. It is irrespon-sible. It is a proposal where there hasbeen no examination of the effects itwill have or who It will hurt, and weknow already we have a problem withmany people waiting for Medicare coy-


erage who have no health insurancecoverage. Let us not widen this gapinto which many people will fall. Weare talking about people who are oftendownsized, which is the euphemism,out of jobs when they are older, butthey are not old enough for Medicare.They are not old enough for Social Se-curity. Under Social Security they atleast can come in and get a reducedbenefit rather than go without any in-come. But if we say to them, you havegot to wait until you are 67 to get anyhealth care coverage and they happento be sick, disabled but not disabledenough to get covered as a disabledperson, they are not going to find ahealth insurance coverage insurer thatwill cover them because of preexistingconditions. We must vote to reject theSenate provisions.

The Senate reconciliation bill contains anumber of ill-conceived provisions relating toMedicare. Burdens on beneficiaries are In-creased with home health copayments, protec-tions against balanced billing are removed insome cases, and premiums are increased dra-matically for higher income people in a verycomplicated and unworkable way.

Combining income-testing the premium,along with the MSA option included in both theHouse and Senate bills, raises the specter offragmenting the risk pool of the program. Thatsounds technical—but the effect on moderate-income Medicare beneficiaries who are olderand sicker is not going to be Some theoreticalone—it will be real, and it will ultimately hurtthem.

But I want to focus particularly on the provi-sion in the Senate bill that raises the age ofeligibility of Medicare from 65 to 67. This is achange that is totally irresponsible. It is beingproposed with no examination of the effects itwill have or who it will hurt.

It is flat out bad policy.We already have a problem in this country

with people who find themselves out of thework force at a time when they are gettingolder, but aren't yet eligible for Medicare. Theyface a truly terrible stuation: frequently theysimply cannot find any sort of affordable insur-ance coverage.

This problem is so serious that we have fre-quently recognized over the last several yearsthat something needs to be done to extendmedical benefits to this population.

Instead, this proposal goes in the oppositedirection: It takes people at the very time theyare most likely to begin to face health prob-lems, at the very time that getting affordableprivate coverage is most difficult—and wedelay their eligibility for Medicare.

A lot of people out of the work force In theirearly sixties aren't wealthy or healthy people:they are people in poorer health, or with somedisability not quite serious enough to qualifythem as disabled, or people that their employ-ers have decided to downsize out and replacewith younger workers. This would add to theirproblems by delaying their e'igibility for healthcoverage.

Unlike Social Security, where people can atleast elect a reduced benefit if they need it be-fore the age when full coverage begins—thereis no partial coverage for health benefits.

Medicare just won't be there.This is a change that we should vigorously

oppose. House conferees should not accept it.

July 10, 1997People who need Medicare, who can't wait

2 more years until they are 67, deserve thesupport of every Member of this House In op-posing this change.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Califor-nia [Mr. THOMAS], chairman of the Sub-committee on Health and the Environ-ment of the Committee on Ways andMeans.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentlemanfor yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased thatthe gentleman from California [Mr.WAXMAN] pretty well laid out the gameplan here. He talked about the struc-tural changes that the Republicansmade in the balanced budget amend-ment in terms of Medicare changes.Most of those frankly are in this bill.They were voted on unanimously insubcommittee. The point that the gen-tleman was making on the structuralage change from 65 to 67 was not in ourprogram. It was not in the plan.

If you are going to offer a motion toinstruct which is not theater, the gen-tleman from California then went on todiscuss the medical savings accountprovision and a number of other provi-sions. If you want a contest, you wantto lock in positions that are important,that are of substance, that should havebeen your motion to instruct. Some-thing of substance would have beenworth this debate.

The gentleman says we should have arecorded vote on the motion to in-struct. The gentleman well knows themotion to instruct carries exactly thesame weight whether it is passed by avoice vote or by a recorded vote. It isobvious in the debate that they want tomake points not included in the mo-tion to instruct.

The motion to instruct is theater,and the recorded vote that will be in-sisted on by my colleagues on the otherside of the aisle is theater as well. Wel-come to the grand theater of the ab-surd.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1½minutes to the gentleman from Ohio[Mr. STRICKLAND].

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker,when the gentleman on the other sideof the aisle says what we are doing aswe try to speak for our constituents isa charade and that this is theater, I amreminded of Shakespeare who says"thou dost protest too much.

We have got a responsibility in thisChamber to speak up for our constitu-ents and that is what we are going todo. We should be expanding health careopportunities for the most vulnerableamong us. the old and the young, andnot reducing those opportunities. Howmany millions of our mothers and fa-thers, grandparents, aunts and uncleswill be without health insurance be-cause of the Senate's action?

0 1145

For many Americans who work withtheir hands in grueling Jobs, I am talk-ing about steel workers, carpenters,machinists, road builders, it is simply

July 10, 1997not physically possible for many ofthese workers to work beyond 65 yearsof age. We cannot afford to let themlanguish without health insurance.

I think of my niece, Beverly, a moth-er who has four children and who worksas a pipefitter. Beverly cannot workbeyond 65 years of age, I think. I amworried about Beverly and all the otherhard-working Americans who couldface the age of 65 and know that theyhave no guarantee of health insurance.That is what we are talking about.That is why it is important.

My colleague can call it absurd, mycolleague can call it theater, but it isimportant business that we are talkingabout today.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself 2½ minutes.

Let me just suggest that I do nothave the Senate proposal in front ofme, but I believe that the people whowould be the most affected by the raisefrom 65 to 67 are us because it is phasedin over a long period of time.

Now I am just going to suggest thatif we think that in order to help thechildren we have to bankrupt mom,that is clearly, that view is clearlyheld by somebody who does not knowmuch about the current system. At thesame time, in order to help mom itdoes not mean we have to bankrupt heradult son.

Now if we want to hear emotional ap-peals about the struggle that peoplehave as they become senior citizens, wehave to be sensitive to it. I think wegot a good bill to do that. But to onlytake into consideration us, the babyboomers who would be primarily af-fected by this, and for me to say that Igot to eat and that my children shouldjust go to work and work 80 hours aweek to pay taxes to support me is un-conscionable.

The simple fact of the matter is thiscountry must avoid a generational war,and it is up to us to have the decency,it is up to us to have the restraint, itis up to us to be the leaders that willprevent a generational war in thiscountry by putting the good of thecountry first and not pitting one agegroup against another. And if it isgoing to happen, we are going to go towar.

And I am going to tell my colleaguesthe young people in this country aregoing to win that war, and we do notneed to have it, we need to avoid it. Wehave enough divisions in our country.We have enough anger and enough ha-tred and enough prejudice in our coun-try without us to be creating it.

I believe it is possible in a sensitiveway to be able to make the structuralchanges in this country that will notbankrupt mom while at the same timegiving her adult children and grand-children a chance, and in order to givethe adult children and the grand-children a chance does not mean thatwe got to dump it all out.

What has happened in our country issimple. The young people, workingyoung people with kids in this country


have been put up against the wall, andmom and dad will be the first ones tosay we ought to restore balance be-tween the generations, and that iswhat Republicans and Democratsought to strive for.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to thedistinguished gentleman from Missouri[Mr. TALENT].

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding this time tome.

Mr. Speaker, I knew from the begin-ning of the session that there would bea series of attempts through the backdoor, if my colleagues will, to substan-tially revise, in fact to gut the workprovisions in the welfare bill that wepassed last year on a bipartisan basis,and that the President signed and thatis working in the United States ofAmerica and reducing welfare case-loads around the country, getting peo-ple off dependency and to work. Andthere have been a series of attempts todo that in committee, on the Senatefloor, and now unfortunately in thismotion to instruct.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the motion to in-struct contains, I think, a good provi-sion telling us that we should not, atthis time anyway, increase the retire-ment age for Medicare from 65 to 67. Isupport that, and I am going to supportthe motion to instruct for that reason.But attached to it is one of those back-door attacks on the work provisions inthe welfare bill.

The whole point of the work provi-sions that we passed last year was torequire work in exchange for welfarebenefits and therefore to make workattractive vis-a-vis welfare, so that wewould encourage people to get workskills and to get off welfare and intowork, and it is working. All around thecountry caseloads are going down, peo-ple are going off of dependency intosufficiency, into self-sufficiency, and itis working because we have decreasedthe attractiveness of welfare vis-a-viswork.

Now there are many people in thisHouse who will not oppose that openly.They will all stand up and say "We arefor welfare reform." But then they in-troduce measures which would havethe effect of gutting that by in effectturning workfare into a vast expansionof the welfare bureaucracy withoutchanging any of the incentives thatlead people to dependency. That is theeffect of the work provisions that wereattached to the Senate bill. Here iswhat they would do, in a nutshell:

Let us suppose somebody goes oncommunity service. They have to workunder the new bill, they cannot get ajob, so they go into community service,they are doing some kind of paperworkjob in a clerk's office; OK.

If the Senate provision prevails, theywill be getting at least a minimumwage plus food stamps, plus Medicaid,plus housing, plus access to 70 otherFederal welfare programs: plus, if theSenate has its way, the right to get theearned income tax credit, the right to

H5035file worker's compensation. FICA taxeswill be deducted. It will be some kindof a super employee status, and theywill be working right next to somebodywho is just getting that same mini-mum wage and is not getting any ofthose other things, and the reason isthey never went on welfare.

So we will take a provision, the pur-pose of which was to make welfare lessattractive than work, and will turn itaround and make it more attractivethan work, exactly the kind of welfarereform, quote, unquote, that was at-tempted in the 1980's and did not workand will not work now.

Mr. Speaker, we are helping for thefirst time poor people and their chil-dren. We are getting them off of wel-fare checks and onto paychecks. It isworking. Let us not turn the clockback on that.

I am going to vote for the motion toinstruct. I like the provision on Medi-care. I think my colleague is right. Ithink we ought to make a statement tothe Senate. Let us work together inconference on these other provisions.The House has reasonable protectionsfor people in community service. We dorequire the payment of the minimumwage. We have protections against sexdiscrimination. We have protections tomake sure they work in a safe environ-ment. But let us not load up the workrequirements to the point that theyare unaffordable to the State and thatthey make actual work unattractivevis-a-vis welfare.

I hope I can work with my colleaguesin achieving that in conference. I thinkthe motion to instruct in that respectis a step in the wrong direction. I amgoing to support it anyway, but let ustalk about it in conference. Let us notgut the work provisions in a welfarebill that is working so well.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1½minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from Maryland [Mr. CARDIN].

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want tothank the gentleman from California[Mr. STARK] for yielding me this time,and really thank the gentleman fromSouth Carolina [Mr. SPRATr] and Mr.STARK for bringing forward this motionto instruct our conferees to support theHouse position.

I would like to talk primarily on theMedicare provisions because we workedlong and hard in this House to bringout a bipartisan bill on Medicare. Theother body, in raising the eligibilityfrom 65 to 67, have brought forward amajor change in policy in Medicarewithout any public hearings on thisside, without really thinking out whatthat policy would mean. We have provi-sions in our bill that set up a commis-sion to look at the long-term solvencyof Medicare, but by increasing the agefrom 65 to 67 we have not thought outhow these individuals are going to re-ceive health benefits.

Are we expecting the employer-pro-vided health benefits to cover? If so,then we have one of the largest newmandates on the private sector with no

H5036idea how it is going to be funded. Do weexpect our seniors 65 and 66 to pick upthis cost, the extra five 5, 6, $7,000 ayear? Can they afford it recently re-tired? I doubt it. Do we expect our sen-iors to go without any insurance cov-erage, to increase the number of unin-sured?

These are questions that must be an-swered first before we increase the eli-gibility age for Medicare.

I urge my colleagues to support thismotion to make it clear to our con-ferees to maintain the 65-year-old eligi-bility for Medicare. Let us make surethat we protect the solvency of Medi-care as we have in the House provi-sions. I urge my colleagues to supportthe motion.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1

minute to the distinguished gentle-woman from Connecticut [Mrs. KEN-NELLY].

Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr.Speaker, I rise to urge the Members tosupport the motion to instruct the con-ferees to prevent us from prematurelyraising the age from 65 to 67 to qualif'for Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago a youngPresident came to Washington, DC. Hewanted to make sure everybody hadhealth care. We all know what hap-pened. We could not agree on a plan,and so we got no plan.

Last year we began again to move inthat direction. The Kennedy-Kasse-baum, anyone with preexisting condi-tions could get health care.

This year all we talk about is how dowe get more kids covered with healthcare.

Now I look and see, what are wedoing? We only have one area, onegroup of people who have universalhealth care. When someone becomes 65,take a sigh of relief. They have gotMedicare. Why on one hand are we try-ing to cover more people and then, loand behold, on the other side saying,"You that have it, we're going to takeaway, you're going to have to wait 2years longer."

I think this is folly. The bill beforeus provides for a study. We should waitfor that study and not act prematurely.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the distinguished gentlemanfrom Ohio [Mr. KUCINICH].

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise inopposition to the Senate's recent voteto raise Medicare's eligibility age from65 to 67. Millions of seniors know theyare being pushed toward an early re-tirement. If this provision were accept-ed today, 4 million seniors would nolonger be eligible for Medicare and200,000 would have no insurance at all.This ill-advised change will create gapsin health care coverage, gaps whichcould be covered only by expensive pri-vate insurance, which would furtherjeopardize seniors' retirement securityor force seniors to forgo needed healthcare. The number of uninsured seniorswould soon rise to almost 2 million.

Ultimately American families will becalled upon to sacrifice the health of


their parents or grandparents. That iswhere the real intragenerational finan-cial challenge will be faced, in familybudgets. Such hasty changes in Medi-care will reduce public confidence in aprogram which has provided solidhealth care ad security for tens ofmillions of Americans. We should pro-tect Medicare, not weaken it with aproposal to increase the Medicare eligi-ble age.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-self the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.GILLMOR). The gentleman from Califor-nia is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I close bysuggesting that I air pleased that mycolleagues will be supporting this mo-tion to instruct on a bipartisan basis.Send a strong message to the Senateabout our feelings.

But I want to warn my colleaguesabout the future. Any attempt to makeMedicare a two-income-level plan, in-deed to make it a welfare plan, couldput the seniors in the same fate as sec-ond class Americans that we will be de-bating in the next 10 or 20 minutes, be-cause once we allow any Medicarebeneficiaries to become in any waysuggested that they are welfare bene-ficiaries, we will see by the attitudethat this House directs toward themwhat could be the sad fate of seniors.

0 1200

So think about it. We must keepMedicare as a broad program in whichall seniors participate, and as wechange it, and we must do that, wemust make sure that it does not be-come a two-class program, becauseMembers will see the dangers in the fu-ture debate on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distin-guished chair of the Committee on theBudget and the ranking member andthe chairman of the subcommittee fortheir courtesy.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent to allocate 12 min-utes, 6 minutes to the gentleman fromMissouri [Mr. CLAY] and 6 minutes tothe gentleman from Michigan [Mr.LEvIN], and ask that they be able to al-locate and yield portions of their timeto other Members.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.GILLMOR). Is there objection to the re-quest of the gentleman from SouthCarolina?

There was no objection.Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-

self 2 minutes.Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this

motion. The Republican gentlemanfrom California said that this motion isunnecessary because it is supportingthe House position. That is untrue. TheHouse-passed version of the budget rec-onciliation bill is destined to make sec-ond-class citizens out of those goingfrom welfare to work. It establishes aclass of workers who will be denied pro-tections against age, sex, and racialdiscrimination.

The welfare workers will in fact bedoing the same jobs as that performed

July 10, 1997

by other workers. The House bill deniesthese workers the enforcement and re-medial protections of the Fair LaborStandards Act. What have poor peopledone to deserve such cynical treatmentby the Republican majority?

The pending motion instructs theconferees to reject the outrageous at-tack on people trying to escape theravages of poverty and welfare. It alsoinstructs the conferees to recognizethat workfare recipients are worthy ofthe same dignity and equal protectionafforded other workers.

The motion instructs conferees to ac-cept the House language concerningsexual harassment and occupationalhealth provisions. It instructs them toreject the sham grievance procedureunder which victims of sexual harass-ment can only seek redress from thevery agencies that employ them. Mr.Speaker, this is contrary to what thegentleman from Missouri on the otherside said. It is a sham procedure. Thereis no protection for them.

The House grievance procedure alsofails to provide any means by whichwelfare workers may effectively refuseto work in dangerous and hazardousconditions. Under the House bill, theseworkers can be forced to work in toxicwaste sites.

Mr. Speaker, the pending motion isvery simple: Preserve the promise wehave made regarding Medicare eligi-bility, protect workfare participantslike we protect other workers, andmake sure these protections are backedup by credible due process and effectiveremedies for redress.


Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-self such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman fromCalifornia asked why we wanted a re-corded vote. The reason is becausethere are several parts of this motionto instruct. One of them relates toMedicare and the age parameters, butanother part relates to whether peoplewho move from welfare to work shouldbe treated as first-class citizens andshould be covered by FLSA.

When Members vote, whoever does,for this motion to instruct, they are es-sentially saying, we reject the Houseposition that takes people who aremoving from welfare to work out fromunder the minimum wage and otherprotections of FLSA. That is whatMembers are doing when they vote, ifthey do, for the motion to instruct.

We want everybody on record on thisbecause it is very important. Contraryto what the other gentleman from Mis-souri said, this is an effort to imple-ment the welfare bill. This is to makesure, as people move from welfare towork, who are workers, that they betreated as workers and not as second-class citizens.

The history of this is the following,quickly: The original Committee onWays and Means proposal in the Housewould exempt all of the people who areunder TANF from protection of mini-mum wage and other protections,

July 10, 1997health and safety and others, under theFair Labor Standards Act. We pro-tested.

So then what was finally done was tosay even if they would be classified asemployees, they would still not be con-sidered as protected under the FairLabor Standards Act, but let us be surethey have minimum wage and, unlikethe original House Republican pro-posal, we will not allow the State todeduct medical care, child care, orhousing assistance. But they still donot have the protections under Federallaw if they are not paid the minimumwage. They still do not have protec-tions against sexual harassment.

Let me just ask, as someone movesfrom welfare to work, as they should,why should they not have protectionagainst sexual harassment? No, this isnot a question of making welfare lessattractive. This is an issue of treatingpeople who move from welfare to workas workers. It is carrying out the basicpremise of welfare reform, and that isthe dignity and integrity of work. Thatis what this is all about.

We won only part of this fight in thecommittee. We want to win the rest ofthis fight today on the floor of theHouse in the motion to instruct. Letthere be no mistake about it, that isour purpose, to implement welfare re-form. The excuse was States would notbe able to implement the participationrequirements if we put people underFLSA. But Members put them, the ma-jority, under some form of minimumwage, which would be the main barrierto States, and everybody acknowledgesthey are going to be able to meet theseparticipation requirements in the nextseveral years.

Then the argument was, well, we aregoing to create bookwork. My answerto that is, Mr. Speaker, I do not wantto create unnecessary bookwork, but Iwant to make sure that people whomove from welfare to work, which Ivery much favor, are treated, as is thepromise of welfare reform, as first-class citizens of the United States ofAmerica.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for themotion to instruct on this record roll-call.


Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5minutes to the gentleman from Florida[Mr. SI-lAw].

Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentlemanfor yielding me this time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I guess we should startout the argument in this particularphase of where we are today as "beenthere, done that." As a minority party,we have been there, we have done that.Now I think it is a question of whetheror not we are going to record a vote. Ofcourse we are going to record a vote.We have been there, we have done that,too.

What do we do? We try to get thisthing couched in a way that couldcause some embarrassment to the ma-jority. We have been there, we have


done that. So let us get rid of the ques-tion of whether or not they are actingunfairly, because we have been thereand we have done that.

I would like to take a close look atthe motion that is before us. The firstitem talks about, oh, we are not goingto raise the retirement age as far as re-ceiving Medicare until age 67. The firstgeneration that is going to have towait until the age of 67 are those bornin 1960, so let us not talk about seniorcitizens, because we are not. They aretotally unaffected. Even people in myage category are unaffected by whatthe Senate is going to do.

Are we going to support the Houseposition? Of course we are. So we getby that one.

Then I want to go down to the thirdone. The third one reads that the mo-tion insists on the House provisionsthat prohibits sex discrimination in allwork activities and assures health andsafety protection for all participants.Are we going to support the House po-sition? Of course we are. We wrote it.We negotiated it.

I might tell my Democrat friendsthat they had input in it, and we re-ceived some of their input, and to-gether we wrote some of these provi-sions. Are they going to support that?Of course they are. Are we going tosupport that? Of course we are, becausewe put it in the bill.

But let us take a look at the secondprovision in the motion to instruct.That says that the motion rejects lan-guage in the House bill that treats cer-tain TANF participants as nonemploy-ees, therefore denying them protectionunder the Federal antidiscriminationlaws: the Fair Labor Standards Act,OSHA, and other workers' protection.

Let us take a close look at that. Letus look at existing law, the welfare billthat was signed into law by the Presi-dent on August 22, 1996. That has a pro-vision, a nondiscrimination provision,including, and I am reading directlyfrom the legislation right now, 'Thefollowing provisions of law shall applyto any program or activity which re-ceives funds provided under this part."

Now what applies? We heard some-body talk about discrimination onrace. We heard another Speaker saythey can discriminate on age. Let ussee what is in the law right now thatwe do not change, that we simply makethis a part of.

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975,that applies to the people receivingthese benefits. Section 504 of the Reha-bilitation Act of 1973, that applies topeople receiving benefits and having towork for their benefits under this bill.The Americans with Disabilities Act of1990, it applies. We do not take thataway. Title VI of the Civil Rights Actof 1964, that applies. It is in the bill.Read the law. Read the law for onceand quit posturing.

Then what we do is that we go backand we add to those antidiscriminationprovisions. We have a provision as tohealth and safety. We have another

H5037provision as to sex discrimination. Iam reading right from it. It says, "Inaddition to the protections providedunder the provisions of law specified insection" so and so, "an individual maynot be discriminated against with re-gard to participation in work activitiesby reason of gender." That is in here.Read it. That is in the House bill.

I think it is important that we lookand see how far we have come. We havetaken the provisions and the safetyprovisions that are presently in the ex-isting welfare bill and we build uponthem. We build upon them, to be surethat workers have more rights.

Now, the question is, is there a rem-edy? Yes, we provide in here that theStates have to set up a remedy. Now,with regard to the Civil Rights Act andother Federal laws that Ijust made ref-erence to, their remedy is just as it al-ways has been and it is for any worker,whether it be through the courts or acomplaint to the Federal Government.But we set up a provision that requiresthe States to set up a remedy with re-gard to some of these other provisionsif people are discriminated against.

Mr. Speaker, these are importantthings to realize. I would like to pointto one other provision that was some-thing that was very, very heavily sup-ported by the Democrats. That is a pro-vision that could be, could be seen asdiscrimination. We cannot displace anexisting worker with somebody who ison welfare. That is something that Ithink Members want in the bill. Is thatdiscrimination? Yes, I would say thatis discrimination. If we cannot fill thatposition and let somebody go becauseyou are going to fill it with somebodycoming off of welfare, that is, but Ithink my Democrat friends would in-sist upon that, and it makes sense. Wewent along with it. So I think what wehave to do, and I would say here inclosing that I have no problem with themotion to instruct. Is it a political doc-ument? Of course it is. Does it haveany effect of law? Does it bind the ne-gotiators? No, it does not. Does it doany harm? No, it does not. Am I goingto vote for it? Of course I am going tovote for it. There is nothing in herethat is inconsistent with my respon-sibility as a conferee, and I intend tosupport it.

0 1215

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from Califor-nia [Mr. MILLER].

(Mr. MILLER of California asked andwas given permission to revise and ex-tend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr.Speaker, it is an interesting refutationwe just heard. What we heard is thatwith respect to people who are strug-gling to get off of welfare, the Repub-licans are prepared to take care of olddisabled people. We thought they woulddo that anyway.

But the fact of the matter is for theworkers under this legislation thatthey have sent to conference, those

H5038workers who are struggling to get offof welfare, who have taken the direc-tion of this Congress, they are second-class citizens with respect to the pro-tections that other workers receive.That is a matter of the law in the billthat we have sent to the conferencecommittee.

That is true with respect to sexualharassment. That is true with respectto the minimum wage. That is truewith respect to worker protectionsunder OSHA. We have to ask ourselves,why is it the Republicans are so hellbent, so hell bent on punishing workingpeople?

Earlier we saw that they wanted todeny them the minimum wage. Thenthey wrote a tax bill that showered thebenefits onto the wealthy. Now we see,to balance the budget, they have de-cided that people who go on welfareshould not be given the same benefitsas other people they are workingalongside of in the workplace.

It simply is not fair. It is inequity,and it is simply un-American with re-spect to the treatment of working peo-ple. Working people deserve better andthat is why we are going to ask for avote on the motion to instruct.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30seconds to the gentleman from Florida[Mr. SHAw].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would liketo read directly from the House bill.Health and safety standards, that isOSHA, established under Federal andState law otherwise applicable toworking conditions of employees shallbe equally applicable to working condi-tions of participants engaged in a workactivity.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-self the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend fromFlorida, look, there is a reference tohealth and safety that was put in afterwe protested. But there is no Federalprotection of that right.

Why should people be treated as sec-ond class citizens as they move fromwelfare to work? Why should they nothave the same protections as otherpeople, the full dignity and integrity ofwork? In the list he read earlier, thereis no protection against sexual harass-ment or against employment discrimi-nation. So they are trying in a sense tofinesse the issue on the majority side.

We have been able to move this alongbut not to the point where people whowork are first class citizens whetherthey are on welfare or not.

Our basic premise is this: People whowork, surely those who move from wel-fare to work, as I believe they should,and I supported the welfare bill, shouldhave the same protections as all otheremployees. If they are employees underFLSA, they are employees. And youhave been trying to cut this in pieces.

What we are saying is, let us keep itwhole. That is what people in thiscountry deserve. That is the intent ofthe law.

This motion to instruct says, followFLSA as it applies to all employees.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3minutes to the gentleman from Michi-gan [Mr. BONIOR].

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the Re-publican tax-and-spend bills that weare debating here this afternoon helpthe biggest and reward the richest andthe biggest corporations, and they pun-ish Americas working families. Mycolleagues across the aisle know it, andthe American people know it.

This Republican spending bill turnshardworking Americans into, as mycolleagues have just said on the floor,second class citizens. This bill containsprovisions that permit and even en-courage employers to deny basic rightsand protections to hardworking Ameri-cans doing an honest day's work, provi-sions that say that it is OK to denysome Americans safe working condi-tions, provisions that say that it is OKto deny some Americans their rightunder the Family and Medical LeaveAct, denying them the right to choosetheir jobs, making sure that they donot have to deal with the choice be-tween the job that they need and thefamily they love, provisions that saythat it is OK to deny some Americansprotection from sexual harassment.

This bill says that some Americansare less than equal, that they do notdeserve the same rights as other Amer-icans, that it is OK to create a subclassof citizens. That is not just a slipperyslope, it is ajagged cliff.

If all Americans do not share thesame rights, then none of us havethem. Think about a mother who isworking to support her children. Thisspending bill permits, it even encour-ages her boss to ignore the most basicsafety rule. It allows him to sexuallyharass her without fear of punishment.Who would put their sister, theirdaughter, their mother in such a de-meaning, compromising situationwithout any recourse? The Republicanswant to write this into law.

This Republican spending bill doesvery little to protect childrens health.Every day in America 3300 childrenlose their health insurance. In the bi-partisan budget agreement, Repub-licans promised to cover half of Ameri-cas 10 million uninsured children. Thisbill abandons that promise. It aban-dons these children. Under this bill,only about 500000 children will gethealth care, and even that figure is indispute.

To make matters worse, this billshortchanges funding for children'shospitals. This Republican spendingbill is an attack against the Americanprinciples of fairness and opportunity.This Republican spending bill is an at-tack on our rights. This Republicanspending bill is an attack againstAmerican working families, as is thebill that we will discuss in a littlewhile that deals with the tax reconcili-ation, helping the rich at the expenseof working Americans.

I urge my colleagues to vote for themotion to instruct so we do not have tohave a subclass of American citizens

July 10, 1997and so that we can ensure that our citi-zens are protected in health care.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Geor-gia [Mr. LINDER].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thetime. This whole discussion has sort ofan Alice in Wonderland quality aboutit. We are talking as though hardworking American citizens are beingdenied basic rights of employment.

These are welfare recipients. Theseare people who have been on welfare for2 years and did not get a job after 2years, as the welfare reform requires.So they are doing 20 hours a week ofpublic service. They are getting $8.50 to$9 an hour in cash and noncash welfarebenefits without working for it, andthey are providing 20 hours a week ofpublic service because they did not getajob as the law requires.

Now they want to require, in addi-tion, they get minimum wages on topof that. For that, they get all the pro-tections of the Fair Labor StandardsAct, so they could possibly maybe getunemployment benefits, too, when theyquit the job. and all the other benefitsthat accrue to people who go out andwork for a living, find a job and sup-port their family the way the rest ofAmerica does.

It is dishonest, it seems to me, or atleast misleading to try and convinceAmerica that these are hardworkingpeople just trying to raise their fami-lies when in fact they are welfare re-cipients, getting $8.50 to $9 an hour inbenefits from the taxpayers already,who now want to be paid for publicservice because they refuse to go towork.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reservethe balance of my time.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yieldthe balance of my time to the gen-tleman from Florida [Mr. SHAw].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, as we cometo the closure of the debate on this, Iwould like to not only compliment thechairman of the Committee on theBudget, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.KASICH], but also the gentleman fromSouth Carolina who, together with theRepublicans and his Democrats, soughtout a lot of middle ground in workingthis process through to bring the Housebill to the floor.

The provisions complained of in themotion to instruct are harmless. It ac-cepts the House provision in the firstand the last provision within the mo-tion to instruct. The second provisionis written in such a way, I think, tomislead people that the House provi-sion was blind to the protections thatworkers would have.

I would encourage all Members onthis side of the aisle to go ahead andsupport the motion. It does no harm tothe House position. I think, as a mat-ter of fact, my interpretation of it is invery strong support of the House posi-tion, and that is where the confereesshould start out and hopefully end upon a lot of these provisions.

July 10, 1997I do want to make it very clear, how-

ever, to Members listening to the de-bate that what we are talking aboutwhen we talk about some of thesethings that might be missing such asunemployment compensation FICA,some of these other provisions that arethe only benefits that these people arenot receiving, when they go into theprivate sector, they will receive fullbenefits.

There is no discrimination againstpeople when they become employeeswhen coming off of welfare. As a mat-ter of fact, we do everything we can toget them out there in a permanent jobin the private sector where they re-ceive all the benefits.

This is not a question of class war-fare, class distinction, or taking awaythe rights of the American workers.They are fully protected as they shouldbe protected. We are talking onlyabout the provision when they aredoing public service jobs so that theydo not lose their benefits. That is whatis important.

Mr. SPRATF. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself the balance of my time.

We bring this motion to instruct con-ferees because we are in the minority.This is a way we have, one of the fewdevices we have to register our viewson things that are important.

There is no question about it. Medi-care age eligibility is fundamentallyimportant. We want to register theHouse position on that.

Second, it is fundamentally impor-tant to us also to say that everybody,every American, because of his statusas an American, is entitled to the fun-damental protection of the laws of theland, which is what the Federal LaborStandards Act is.

The simple way to accomplish that isto say that you are a worker within thedefinition of the Federal Fair LaborStandards Act, except to the extentthat this protection does not apply.That is what we are seeking here, togive them the broad protection of thelaw that has been the law of the landfor more than 50 years. I was pleased tohear that my colleagues, the other sideof the aisle, will be supporting this mo-tion to instruct, and I assure the Chairthat when the time comes we will beasking for a record vote because this isa matter of importance, both of theseissues, on which we want to registerthe views of the House as we go intothis conference.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in sup-port of this motion, but I bring a somewhat dif-ferent perspective to this debate. I find myselfin agreement with much of what has beensaid by my Republican colleagues about theneed to deal with both of these issues. I agreewith the substance of both proposals ad-dressed in this motion.

A gradual increase in the eligibility age forMedicare must be part of a serious effort toreform entitlement programs to preserve themfor future generations. I think most of us rec-ognize that the budget agreement is a veryhumble first step in dealing with the long-termneeds of the major entitlements. Bringing the


eligibility age of Medicare in line with SocialSecurity is a fair and reasonabte reform thatwould have a tremendous tong-term benefit forthe Medicare Program. However, I do agreethat it is reasonable for this issue to be con-sidered in the context of overall Medicare re-form where we can consider the various rami-fications of this change on retirees, employers,the health system, and so forth.

With regard to the second provision, I amconcemed that a well-intentioned effort to pro-tect welfare recipients will harm the very peo-ple that we are trying to protect. Many Stateshave insfituted community service and workexperience programs as a safety net for wel-fare recipients who do not have the skilI orexperience to obtain private sector employ-ment before they lose eligibiflty for cash as-sistance. Community service jobs often pro-vide experience for these individuals then tobe hired by private employers. If we apply alllabor laws to community service programs,many States who sincerely want to help wel-fare recipients will find it too cumbersome andcomplex to operate a community service pro-gram, leaving welfare recipients with nosource of income when they lose eligibility forcash assistance. States that rely on nonprofitorganizations to provide community servicejobs for welfare recipients will have a hardtime continuing these programs because veryfew nonprofit organizations are willing to ac-cept the legal obligations and liabilities associ-ated with being classified as an employer. I

don't believe that any of us want to eliminatethis portion of the welfare safety net, but thatwill be the consequence if we do not take ac-tion on this issue.

However, I support this motion because I

question the ability to adequately deal withthese issues within budget reconciliation.These are very controversial and comptex is-sues that should be reviewed and debated ontheir own merits. I believe that both of theseissues would receive strong support in Con-gress if they were considered separately.

As someone who is very interested in takingconstructive action on both of these matters, Iam concerned that the politically charged con-text of the budget agreement will prevent a se-rious discussion of these issues. Allowingthese matters to be consumed by the rhetoricin the budget debate will make it much moredifficult to make any real progress on eitherissue. For this reason, I would encourage allMembers who want to deal with these issuesin a constructive manner instead of allowingthem to be exploited for political purposes tovote for this motion.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.GILLMOR). Without objection, the pre-vious question is ordered on the motionto instruct.

There was no objection.The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

question is on the motion to instructoffered by the gentleman from SouthCarolina [Mr. SPRATTI.

The question was taken; and theSpeaker pro tempore announced thatthe ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. SPRATF. Mr. Speaker, I objectto the vote on the ground that aquorum is not present and make thepoint of order that a quorum is notpresent.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evi-dently a quorum is not present.

H5039The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-

sent Members.The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were—yeas 414, nays 14,not voting 6, as follows:

YEAS—414

AbercrombieAckerman

DellumsDeutsch

Hydelnglis

Aderholt Diaz-Balart IstookJackson (IL)Allen

AndrewsDickeyDicks Jackson-Lee

(TX)Bachus Dixon JeffersonBaesler JenkinsBaker Dooley JohnBaldacci Doolittle Johnson (CT)

Doyle Johnson (WI)BallengerBarcia Dreier Johnson, E. B.

Duncan JonesBarrett (NE)Barrett (wI) Dunn KanjorskiBartlett Edwards KapturBass Ehlers Kasich

Emerson KellyBecerra Engel Kennedy (MA)Bentsen English Kennedy (RI)BereuterBerman

EnsignEshoo

KennellyKildee

Etheridge KilpatrickBerryEvans Kim

Bilirakis Everett Kind (WI)Ewing King (NY)Bishopparr Kingstonattah Kleczka

Blumenauer awell KlinkBlunt azio KIugBoehlert Filner KnollenbergBoehner Flake KucinichBonilla oglietta LaaiceBonior foley LaHoodBono forbes LampsonBorski Iord Lantos

LargentBoucher prank (MA) Latham

pranks (NJ) LaTouretteBoydBrady relinghuysen LazioBrown (CA) Irost LeachBrown (Ft) Iurse LevinBrown (OH) Gallegly Lewis (CA)

Ganske Lewis (GA)BryantLewis (KY)Bunning

Burr Gekas LinderGephardt LipinskiBuyer

Callahan Gibbons LivingstonCalvert Gilchrest LoBiondo

Gillmor LofgrenCampCanady Gilman LoweyCannon Gonzalez Lucas

Goode LutherCappsCardinCarson

GoodlatteGoodling

Maloney (CT)Maloney (NY)

Castle Gordon MantonGoss Manzullo

Chambliss Graham MartinezChenoweth Granger MascaraChristensen Green Matsui

Greenwood McCarthy (MO)ClayClaytonClement

GutierrezGutknechtHall (OH)

McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryClyburn

Coble Hall (TX) McDadeCoburn Hamilton McDermottCollins Hansen McGovernCombest Harman McHale

Hastert McHughConditHastings (EL) MclnnlsConyers

CookCookseyCostello

Hastings (wA)HayworthHefley

McintoshMcintyreMcKeon

Cox Hefner McKinneyHerger McNultyCoyne

Cramer Hill MeehanMeek

Hilliard MenendezCubin Hinchey Metcalf

Hinojosa MicaHobson Millender-

Danner Hoekstra McDonaldHolden Miller (CA)(FL)

Davis Hooley Miller (Ft)Davis (VA) Horn MingeDeal Hostettler Mink

Houghton MoakleyDeGette Hoyer MolinariDelahunt Hulshof MollohanDeLauro Hunter Moran (KS)

Hutchinson Moran (VA)

H5040Morella Rivers StokesMurtha Rodriguez StricklandMyrick Roemer StumpNadler Rogan StupakNeal Rogers SununuNethercutt Ros-Lehtinen TalentNeumann Rothman TannerNey Roukema TauscherNorthup Roybal-Allard TauzinNorwood Royce Taylor (MS)Nussle Rush Taylor (NC)Oberstar Ryun ThomasObey Sabo ThompsonOlver Salmon ThornberryOrtiz Sanchez ThuneOwens Sanders ThurmanOxley Sandlin TiahrtPackard Sawyer TierneyPallone Saxton TorresPappas Schaefer, Dan TownsParker Schaffer. Bob TraficantPascrell Schumer TurnerPastor Scott UptonPaul Sensenbrenner VelazquezPaxon Serrano VentoPayne Sessions ViscloskyPease Shaw WalshPelosi Sherman WampPeterson (MN) Shimkus WatersPeterson (PA) Shuster WatkinsPetri Sisisky Watt (NC)Pickering Skeen Watts (OK)Pickett Skelton WaxmanPitts Smith (Ml) Weldon (FL)Pombo Smith (NJ) Weldon (PA)Pomeroy Smith (OR) WellerPortman Smith (TX) WexlerPoshard Smith. Adam WeygandPrice (NC) Smith, Linda WhitePryce (OH) Snowbarger WhitfieldQuinn Snyder WickerRadanovich Solomon WiseRahall Souder WolfRamstad Spence WoolseyRangel Spratt WynnRedmond Stabenow YatesRegula Stark Young (AK)Reyes Stearns Young (FL)Riley Stenholm

NAYS—14Barr Johnson, Sam SanfordBarton Kolbe ScarboroughCampbell Porter ShadeggEhrlich Riggs ShaysFowler Rohrabacher

NOT VOTING—6Armey Markey SkaggsBurton Schiff Slaughter

0 1248Messrs. ROHRABACHER, PORTER,

SHAYS, RIGGS, BARR of Georgia,BARTON of Texas, and Mrs. FOWLERchanged their vote from yea" to"nay".

Ms. DEGETT'E and Mr. BLUNTchanged their vote from "nay" toyea."So the motion to instruct was agreed

to.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without

objection, the Chair appoints the fol-lowing conferees:

For consideration of the House bill,and the Senate amendment, and modi-fications committed to conference:Messrs. KASICH, HOBSON, ARMEY,DELAY, HASTERT, SPRATF, BONIOR, andFAzZO of California.

As additional conferees from theCommittee on Agriculture, for consid-eration of title I of the House bill, andtitle I of the Senate amendment, andmodifications committed to con-ference: Messrs. SMITh of Oregon,GOODLArrE, and STENHOLM.


As additional conferees from theCommittee on Banking and FinancialServices, for consideration of title II ofthe House bill, and title II of the Sen-ate amendment, and modificationscommitted to conference: Messrs.LEACH, LAZIO of New York, and GON-ZALEZ.

As additional conferees from theCommittee on Commerce, for consider-ation of subtitles A-C of title III of theHouse bill, and title IV of the Senateamendment, and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. BLILEY,DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado, and DIN-GELL.

As additional conferees from theCommittee on Commerce, for consider-ation of subtitle ID of title III of theHouse bill, and subtitle A of title III ofthe Senate amendment, and modifica-tions committed to conference: Messrs.BLILEY, TAUZIN, and DINGELL.

As additional conferees from theCommittee on Commerce, for consider-ation of subtitles E and F of title III,titles IV and X of the House bill, anddivisions 1 and 2 of title V of the Sen-ate amendment, and modificationscommitted to conference: Messrs. BLI-LEY, BILIRAKIS, and DINGELL.

As additional conferees from theCommittee on Education and theWorkiorce, for consideration of sub-title A of title V and subtitle A of titleIX of the House bill, and chapter 2 ofdivision 3 of title V of the Senateamendment, and modifications com-mitted to conference: Messrs. GooD-LING, TALENT, and CLAY.

As additional conferees from theCommittee on Education and theWorkiorce, for consideration of sub-titles B and C of title V of the Housebill, and title VII of the Senate amend-ment, and modifrcations committed toconference: Messrs. GOODLING, MCKE0N,and KILDEE.

As additional conferees from theCommittee on Education and theWorkiorce, for consideration of sub-title D of title V of the House bill, andchapter 7 of division 4 of title V of theSenate amendment, and modificationscommitted to conference: Messrs.GOODLING, FAWELL, and PAYNE.

As additional conferees from theCommittee on Government Reform andOversight, for consideration of title VIof the House bill, and subtitle A of titleVI of the Senate amendment, andmodifications committed to con-ference: Messrs. BURTON of Indiana,MICA, and WAXMAN.

As additional conferees from theCommittee on Transporation and Infra-structure, for consideration of title VIIof the House bill, and subtitle B of titleIII and subtitle B of title VI of the Sen-ate amendment, and modificationscommitted to conference: Messrs. Si-iu-STER, GILCHREST, OBERSTAR.

As additional conferees from theCommittee on Veterans' Affairs, forconsideration of title VIII of the Housebill, and title VIII of the Senateamendment, and modifications com-mitted to conference: Messrs. STuMp,SMITH of New Jersey, and EVANS.

July10, 199?

As additional conferees from theCommittee on Ways and Means, forconsideration of subtitle A of title Vand title IX of the House bill, and divi-sions 3 and 4 of title V of the Senateamendment, and modifications com-mitted to conference: Messrs. ARCHER,SI-LAW, CAMP, RA1.GEL, and LEVIN.

As additional conferees from theCommittee on Ways and Means, forconsideration of titles IV and X of theHouse bill, and division 1 of title V ofthe Senate amendment, and modifica-tions committed to conference: Messrs.ARCHER, THOMAS, and SmRx.

There was no objection.

WAIVING REQUIREMENT OFCLAUSE 4(b) OF RULE XI WITHRESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OFCERTAIN RESOLUTIONS RE-PORTED FROM COMMITTEE ONRULESMr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direc-

tion of the Committee on Rules, I callup House Resolution 201 and ask for itsimmediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-lows:

H. RE5. 201Resolved, That the requirement of clause

4(b) of rule XI for a two-thirds vote to con-sider a report from the Committee on Ruleson the same day it is presented to the Houseis waived with respect to the following meas-ures:

(1) Any resolution reported before August3, 1997, providing for consideration or dis-position of the bill (H.R. 2015) to provide forreconciliation pursuant to subsections (b) (1)and (c) of section 105 of the concurrent reso-lution on the budget for fiscal year 1998, anamendment thereto, a conference reportthereon, or an amendment reported in dis-agreement from a conference thereon.

(2) Any resolution reported after July 30,1997. and before August 3, 1997. providing forconsideration or disposition of the bill (H.R.2014) to provide for reconciliation pursuantto subsections (b) (2) and (d) of section 105 ofthe concurrent resolution on the budget forfiscal year 1998. an amendment thereto, aconference report thereon, or an amendmentreported in disagreement from a conferencethereon.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. GIB-BONS). The gentleman from Georgia[Mr. LINDER] is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for thepurpose of debate only, I yield the cus-tomary 30 minutes to the gentlemanfrom Massachusetts [Mr. MOAKLEY],pending which I yield myself such timeas I may consume. During consider-ation of this resolution, all time yield-ed is for the purpose of debate only.


Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 201waives clause 4(b) of rule XI, requiringa two-thirds vote to consider a rule onthe same day as it is reported from theCommittee on Rules, providing for con-sideration of specified measures.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 201applies to rules for the conference re-port on H.R. 2015, the Balanced BudgetAct of 1997, an amendment thereto, aconference report thereon, or anamendment reported in disagreementfrom a conference thereon reported be-fore August 3, 1997.

0 1030In addition, the resolution also ap-

plies to rules for the conference reporton H.R. 2014, the Taxpayer Relief Actof 1997, an amendment thereto, a con-ference report thereon, or an amend-ment reported in disagreement from aconference thereon reported after July30, 1997, and before August 3, 1997.

As Members are aware, House rulesrequire a two-thirds vote to consider arule on the same day it is reportedfrom the Committee on Rules. In orderto expedite consideration of this his-toric spending and tax cut packagethat will balance the budget, the Com-mittee on Rules granted a rule thatwill waive the two-thirds vote require-ment for another rule on the spendingcut portion of the budget agreementfor Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, andSaturday. The rule would further waivethe two-thirds vote requirement for arule on the tax component for Thurs-day, Friday, and Saturday.

Mr. Speaker, the House wants to seethe spending cuts conference report onthe floor today and the tax cut con-ference report on the floor tomorrow.We have waited since 1969 for legisla-tion that will bring our Federal budgetinto balance, and this resolution willhelp assure that we achieve this goal.The authority granted by this resolu-tion will allow us the flexibility to getthe important job done before the Au-gust district work period and respondto any changes the other body maymake to the legislation through theByrd rule.

Mr. Speaker, this rule allows us toconsider a budget that is a victory forAmerican families and smaller govern-ment. It is a budget that will providethis Nation with its first balancedbudget in 30 years.

For decades, Congress proved that itcould not restrain itself from spendingmore money than the Treasury col-lected in revenues. Past Congresses ac-tually managed to spend all revenuesand then some.

A new majority arrived in Congressin January 1995 that understand thatthe solution to our budget woes wouldbe found in controlling spending. Whenthe new Congress arrived, the deficitwas $164 billion. In fiscal year 1996, itdropped to $107 billion. It will be ap-proximately $67 billion by the end offiscal year 1997. There was a report re-cently that the revenue estimates com-ing in August may make it even lessthan that.

H6303There was a chronic growth of Gov-

ernment for decades, but we have beenreducing the size of Government con-stantly. We all know that these signifi-cant achievements would have been ab-solutely unthinkable only 3 years ago.

With the help of this rule, we will ful-fill our promise to the American peopleto balance the budget by cuttingwasteful Government spending, pre-serve, protect, and strengthen Medi-care, and produce real tax relief formiddle-class families.

House Resolution 202 was favorablyreported out of the Committee onRules yesterday. I urge my colleaguesto support the resolution so that wemay proceed with debate and consider-ation of a historic budget that has lessGovernment, less taxes, and more free-dom for Americans to spend theirmoney how they see fit.


Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thankmy colleague, the gentleman fromGeorgia [Mr. LINDER], for yielding methe customary half hour; and I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who thoughtthe bipartisanship on the budget wastoo good to be true was right. Despiteagreements with the White House, de-spite compromises on the part of myRepublican colleagues, despite somevery hard work by Democrats and Re-publicans, the Republican leadershiphas decided to throw bipartisanshipright out the window.

The Republican leadership has de-cided to ram the budget bills throughthe House with this martial law rule.The Republican leadership, Mr. Speak-er, has decided that the many, manydays of hard work that went into thesebills are not worth giving Membersenough time to read them.

The rule we are considering todaygives Members hardly any time to readthe budget before they vote on it.These bills contain some $94 billion oftax cuts and $115 billion in Medicarecuts, $13 billion in Medicaid cuts, $L8billion in housing cuts. Some peoplesay they are great bills, and I for onewant to be able to vote for them.

But, Mr. Speaker, I need to knowwhat is in the bills. I want to vote fortax cuts, but I want to know which taxcuts are in the bill. I want to vote forsome of these spending measures, but,again, I want to know what spendingmeasures are in this bill, and this rulecertainly does not give me or anyoneelse in the House that opportunity. Ifthis rule passes, the Republican leader-ship can bring up the spending and taxparts of the reconciliation bills imme-diately.

Mr. Speaker, the ink is not even dryyet. Mr. Speaker, 1,000 pages weredropped at my door at 3:30 this morn-ing to read. It is impossible. Membershave not even had that opportunity tosee this bill. There is nobody, nobodyin this House that has read this bill.

This is one of the most importantbills we are going to be asked to vote

July 30, 1997

H6304on this year, and I think the member-ship should at least have 10 hours tolook at this matter in order that theycan arm themselves and find out ex-actly what is in this bill. I think thatsomething this important, this big,should be read as completely as pos-sible before any vote is cast.

So I ask that my colleagues join mein defeating the previous question sowe can guarantee that Members haveat least 10 hours to read this bill. Mr.Speaker, this is not a dilatory tactic. Iwant to get out of here as soon as any-body else, but I want to be sure thatmy vote on this bill is as a result ofbeing well-informed.

Nobody is well-informed on this bill.The only information we in the Con-gress have, most of us in the Congresshave, is what we read in the papers thismorning and yesterday or watched onTV. Mr. Speaker, that is not enough.So I urge my colleagues to oppose thisrule. And, as I say, Members should atleast have the chance to read this billbefore we vote on it.


Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am justshocked that this is the first time thishas ever happened. I have been here 5years, and it never happened beforewhen the Democrats were in charge.We will try to make that better for thegentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.MOAKLEY].

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as hemay consume to the gentleman fromIowa [Mr. GANSKE].

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I appre-ciate the comments made by my col-.league from Massachusetts [Mr. MOAK-LEY]. There is a pile of paper there. Iam in support of this rule and I thinkwe should move on with the votestoday. I will support the tax cuttingbill and the balanced budget bill.

As a member of the Committee onCommerce, I have been heavily in-volved in the Medicare portions; and,so, I feel like I have a pretty firm graspof what is in that bill. I also have madean extra effort to figure out what is inthe tax cutting bill; and on the basis ofthat knowledge, I feel that I am well-informed and can make a good decisionon whether to support these bills.

Let me explain to my colleagues whyI am supporting these bills, because Iam one of the Republicans who votedagainst the balanced budget bill earlierthis month. The reason that I did thatwas because I am concerned about howwell the economy is going to do. Justlike everyone else in this body, I ampraying that the economy continues todo well. I was also concerned that weshould do a little bit more with reduc-ing spending rather than having morespending in the bill.

However, these two bills that we aretalking about have to do with keepingpromises. On the tax cutting side of thebill, I made promises before I went toCongress to fulfill a $500 per child taxcredit. And we are doing that.

On the Medicare side, we are makingsome significant improvements in Med-


icare. For instance, in my home Stateof Iowa, a health care plan would getpaid in some of my rural countiesabout $250 per month to provide serv-ices for senior citizens; whereas inother parts of the country, we are look-ing at $750 per month payment to ahealth plan. That means senior citizensin those areas can get pharmaceuticalsand eyeglasses and hearing aids, evenmembership in health fitness clubs.Yet, we in Iowa who are paying thesame taxes do not get those benefits.This bill will move toward an equali-zation of that funding formula. Tiat isonly fair, and it is very important.\

The medical savings accounts. I\amvery much in favor of medical savingsaccounts as an option. I believe thatsenior citizens will take advantage ofthis. It is not more for the rich and thehealthy. There are just as many incen-tives for those who have illnesses topick medical savings account.

Fraud. We are tightening up thehome health care area with the pro-spective payment system. In the cur-rent Medicare system, we have maybe20 percent fraud in that program. Inthe current Medicare system of thebill, in the bill that we are going to bevoting on, we are going to tighten upthat and reduce that fraud in that com-ponent.

In patient protections, I have workedvery hard working with the chairmanof all of the committees on both sidesof the aisle to get some important pa-tient protections in there. I have writ-ten a bill, the Patient Right to KnowAct, which would ban gag clauses,clauses that HMO's put into their con-tracts that prevent physicians fromtelling patients all of their treatmentoptions. And guess what? In this bill,we have a ban on those gag clauses.That bill is cosponsored by 286 Mem-bers of this body in a bipartisan man-ner and is endorsed by over 200 organi-zations, and it is in the bill. And wehave a lay person's definition of anemergency, so that if you have crush-ing chest pain and you go to the emer-gency room because you are worriedabout having a heart attack, you can-not have your coverage denied if theyfind out that you have an intestinal in-fection instead.

So there are many important thingsin this. So we have a funding formulafairness correction. We have medicalsavings accounts. We are addressingfraud. We have got good consumer andpatient protection in the Medicare por-tion of this bill.

On the tax side, it is promises made,promises kept. We promised middle-class taxpayers a $500 per child taxcredit, and we are delivering on that.There are many things in this bill thatwill be important for small businesses,for farmers.

I represent a lot of farmers. We aregoing to have 3-year income averagingfor farmers. That is important becausesome years the crops do not come in,you have bad weather, or whatever, soyou have highs and lows. And a 3-year

July 30, 1997

income averaging will even that out forthem.

We have capital gains tax reduction.People say, well, capital gains reduc-tion is for the rich. I tell my col-leagues, according to a 1993 IRS study,something like 70 percent of all capitalgains that are filed with the IRS arefiled by people who earn less than$75,000. That is not the rich. Capitalgains reductions will help those whoare selling homes, et cetera.

We have in this bill a movement to-wards 100 percent deductibility foryour health insurance. A bill we passedlast year over a period of time wouldincrease out to 80 percent. But in thisbill, we are increasing that over a pe-riod of time to 100 percent deductibil-ity for the self-employed. That putsthem on an even par with people whoare receiving their health insurancethrough a major employer, like Gen-eral Motors. That is only fair, also.

Finally, we have in this a commis-sion to look at the long term implica-tions of what we need to do for Medi-care reform. We, in this bill, are mak-ing Medicare solvent for about the next10 years. But we have got my genera-tion, the baby boomers, coming downthe road; and in about 15 years, thebaby boomers start to retire and we aregoing to need to look at pensions andhealth care entitlements.

So we are setting up a commissionthat is supposed to report back to Con-gress and the administration in about18 months, and then Congress will lookat those recommendations and willneed to act on that. So I do not thinkthat we are abrogating our responsibil-ity in that area, also.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would just closeby saying I support this rule. For all ofmy colleagues who voted against thebalanced budget, I think that theyshould support the tax bill that we aregoing to be voting on in the next fewdays and the balanced budget bill.

There are lots and lots of good thingsin both of these bills. They have beenworked on in a bipartisan fashion withthe administration and with Membersof the opposite aisle. They are goodfirst steps toward financial solvency,balancing the budget, saving Medicare,and providing tax relief for workingfamilies.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield5 minutes to the gentleman from Vir-ginia [Mr. MORAN].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speak-er, I rise to oppose this rule, but I wantto make it clear that I support thisbill. I think we will find that manyMembers, at least on the Democraticside of the aisle, will vote against therule even though they do support thebill itself.

Now why would we vote against therule if we support the bill itself?

0 1045We have a responsibility to learn as

much as we can about what we are vot-ing on. There are a thousand pages inthis bill. None of us will have read it.

July 30, 1997What we have to do is to take on faithwhat is contained in the bill. None ofus would read all of the bill, even if wewent by regular order and had an en-tire day. But what we would do is tolook at those components of the billthat we have worked on personally,that we understand fully, and that wecan advise our colleagues on. We do nothave that ability when a thousand-pagebill is presented at 3:30 in the morningand then the next morning we have tovote on it. That is what is going tohappen today. I think our constituentsexpect more from us. They expect us tobe better informed.

Why are we going to support the bill?What are we taking on faith? Well, thisbill would accomplish 10-year deficitsavings of $900 billion. Think of howimportant this bill is. Nine hundredbillion dollars in reduced spending overthe next 10 years. It would accomplishthe first balanced budget since 1969.

It has $24 billion in block grants forchildren's health covering 5 millioncurrently uninsured children. This isthe largest expansion of children'shealth we have done in more than 30years since Medicaid was enacted in1965.

It increases taxes on cigarettes in thespending part of this bill, a very con-troversial issue, although one which Ihappen to support.

It restores SSI and Medicaid benefitsto legal immigrants. It spends $3 bil-lion in grants for welfare to work. Itincreases spending on food stamps by$1.5 billion for people who otherwisewould have fallen through the cracks.

It cuts Medicare by $115 billion in 5years, reducing payments to hospitalsand doctors so that we can keep theMedicare trust fund solvent, but weneed to know the particulars of that.

It cuts $4.8 billion from Federal em-ployees' retirement plans, a very con-troversial issue, particularly in an areasuch as I represent where we havemany Federal employees that are goingto be paying half a percent more fortheir retirement plan. I would like tosee the full legislative language onthat.

It cuts $1.8 billion in student loansand $1.8 billion in housing over 5 years.

These are very controversial, veryimportant issues. As we understandthem, the decisions that were madewere understandable compromises invirtually every case. But again we arehaving to take this on faith. I do thinkthat the country would have been bet-ter served had this rule given the Mem-bers of this body a customary full day,as we normally have. There is a reasonfor that rule, so that if one is inter-ested in an issue, they can take 24hours and make sure that they knowwhat they are voting on. We could bestaying in Friday, we could have a fullday, and we would have the oppor-tunity to be knowledgeably voting onas important a bill as this body hasconsidered for a very long time. Wewould be able to be much more respon-sible with respect to our vote which iswhat our constituents expect of us.


We have gotten into a pattern ofwaiving these rules. We ought to un-derstand there is a reason for theserules, there is a reason why theyshould be followed, and I think we needto oppose this rule, although from ev-erything we can learn that we havebeen told by others that were in the ne-gotiations, a handful of people thatwere actually part of the negotiations,this is a bill we can and we should sup-port and I would urge support for thebalanced budget agreement itself.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume. Iam entertained by the crocodile tearsthat I hear about the length of timenot to read the bill when everybodyknows they would not have read it any-way. I believe it was in 1984 whenSpeaker Wright brought a $1.3 trillionbudget to the floor with 1 hour noticeand even the Committee on Rules didnot see it.

Let me tell my colleagues what is inthis bill. A significant part of the prob-lem with large Government programshas been the Soviet-style administra-tion of them, the central commandeconomy that decides on high what adoctor should earn, what a hospitalvisit should pay for. And over time,these all become absolutely rife withfraud. We just learned 2 weeks ago thatan audit of the Health Care FinancingAdministration shows that about $23billion a year is wasted in fraud, over-payment, and misuse. The records arein such disarray that we do not evenknow at the Federal level who is over-paid and how to recover it, and indeedwe discovered in that audit that manypeople were writing checks or signingchecks for the Health Care FinancingAdministration of the Federal Govern-ment without the legal authority to doso. This bill begins to crack down onthat fraud. That $23 billion per yearover 5 years is exactly how much weare reducing the rate of growth in theincrease in spending of Medicare and itis taken out by just fraud and abuse.

We heard last week that in admin-istering home health care across thiscountry, roughly 40 percent could befraud. As much as 40 percent is goingto people who are not in homes, beingtreated for home health care, not un-able to leave their homes. Going to theprospective payment system is going toeliminate the incentive to do that. Weare going to change the way we deliverthese services so that we have less in-centive to cheat and more incentive tosave.

The ability to provide not the $500child tax credit to low-income workingfamilies, that only goes to people whohave actual obligations to the FederalGovernment, but by changing the wayin which we provide the formula for theearned income credit, after havinglearned that 21 percent of the moneybeing spent in the earned income creditis fraudulent; by changing the for-mulas, the administration and theWhite House has decided that they canfind ways to save $4.5 billion in that

H6305program and use that to enhance theirearned income credit for low-incomeworking people to replace what the$500-per-child tax credit does for higherearning families. By changing themodel, the structure of the delivery ofthese services from the large Federalcommand-style bureaucracies, so wellknown by the Soviet Union that weseem to have adopted here, and gettingout the fraud and abuse, we are con-fident that we can save hundreds of bil-lions of dollars over time and providebetter services with the money we arespending.


Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield3 minutes to the gentleman from Indi-ana [Mr. ROEMER].

Mr. ROEMER. I thank the gentlemanfrom Massachusetts for yielding methis time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with hesitationand reservation about the rule, butwith strong support for the underlyingbill.

Mr. Speaker, this certainly is historyin the making, and we do not use thatterm lightly when we bring both thetax cut and the spending bill beforethis body. This bill will receive mystrong support both on the tax and thespending side because it helps smallchildren, it helps small businesses andsmall farmers and it helps make Gov-ernment smaller and smarter. It doesthat by structurally balancing thebudget and balancing the budget withthe right priorities. Structurally bal-ancing the budget so we borrow $900billion less but we also create new pro-grams for children, new programs foreducation, restructure Medicare to ex-tend its solvency by a decade to helpour senior citizens. It is the right val-ues to balance the budget and the rightvalues on people. So I will stronglysupport this.

What does the $900 billion mean forus? That spending side of $900 billion inless borrowing is almost a tax cut byitself. That helps the American peopleby hopefully lowering their paymentson mortgages and interest rates andhelps the economy.

The other part, what about the taxcut part? What about the spending parton children's initiatives? I have to say,Mr. Speaker, that this bill for kids' ini-tiatives for health came out of thisbody with $16 billion. It is now beforethis body with $24 billion, the largestexpenditure on children's health since1965 with the creation of Medicaid; thelargest program for uninsured childrenin 32 years. I strongly support that.

I strongly support what this does forPell grants. The largest increase inPell grants in the history of the Pellgrant program. We will spend more innew innovative ways to reform andmodify education than the Great Soci-ety in the 1960's. This is a bill thathelps our small farmers and small busi-nesses, balances the budget, borrowsless money, creates smaller and smart-er Government, and I hope it receivesbipartisan support.

H6306Mr. UNDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to

thank the gentleman from Indiana forhis comments with respect to his com-ments on the Pell grants and fundingfor education. We are going to, withoutreducing any of the amounts of thenumbers of students available forthem, save $1.7 billion in improving theway they are administered, and that isa real savings that governments oughtto look to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to thegentleman from Minnesota [Mr.RAMSTAD].

(Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. RAMSTAD. I thank my distin-guished colleague for yielding me thistime.

It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, what wecan do, the President and the Congress,when we work together in a bipartisan,pragmatic way for this country. Thatis why we are here today on an historicthreshold, and I rise in strong supportof the legislation before us today, Mr.Speaker, which will balance the budgetand expand health care choices for theseniors of our country while preservingand protecting Medicare.

Not only do we save Medicare frombankruptcy but we build a strong foun-dation so that Medicare can be pre-served for the next generation. We giveseniors the increased health care cov-erage where they need it most, Mr.Speaker, before they become ill, by in-creasing the amount of preventive carecovered by Medicare.

There are a few specific reforms Iwould like to highlight. One is the re-forms we make to the AAPCC reim-bursement formula. That reform, very,very important to cost-effective Stateslike Minnesota that have historicallydelivered health care in a cost effectiveway. What we do by changing the reim-bursement formula is expand choicesfor seniors in States like Minnesota,those that have been efficient in theircosts and in their quality. This is amajor reform, Mr. Speaker, in the Med-icare managed care reimbursement for-mula. It will mean more equity forStates like Minnesota and more healthcare options for Medicare beneficiariesin our State and others like ours.

Incorporating a bill that I introducedearlier this year, this legislation beforeus today will establish a payment floorand will blend the formula to bringfairness and equity to beneficiaries liv-ing in rural and efficient providerStates like Minnesota.

The bill also includes an importantnew study of ways to provide healthcare to seniors to let them stay intheir homes longer, to let them liveindependently longer by extending for 2years the community nursing organiza-tion demonstration project. I think,Mr. Speaker, this reform will prove tobe one of the most important reformsever in Medicare. These very importantcommunity nursing organizationsallow seniors to stay in their homes, tomake their choice of staying in their


homes as long as possible and at thesame time saving Medicare dollars.This CNO, community nursing organi-zation demonstration project, is vitalto seniors in Minnesota and all overthe country who have enrolled in thisproject.

I am also pleased that this bill in-cludes a provision to help certain hos-pitals that have merged with nursinghomes meet necessary requirements tomaintain appropriate geographicalclassification. This means a great dealto a hospital in Hutchinson, Min-nesota. I am glad we were able to makethis necessary change in the bill.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I thank theconferees for making all the necessarychanges to Medicare to save this abso-lutely vital system for the seniors ofour country.

From extending the life of the Medi-care trust fund, to ensuring qualitycare as a major tenet of the centers ofexcellence program, I commend theconferees for their hard work on behalfof current and future Medicare bene-ficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support thisimportant legislation to preserve andprotect Medicare and urge all my col-leagues to support it as well and tocontinue working in a bipartisan, prag-matic way for the betterment of Amer-ica.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield3 minutes to the gentleman from NewJersey [Mr. PALLONE].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise inopposition to this rule, and I want tostress that it is not because of the un-derlying bill.

I feel very strongly that this spend-ing bill does include a major programto cover uninsured children in thiscountry and I am pleased with the factthat we have managed, I believe asDemocrats, and particularly the Presi-dent, in pushing the Republicans to-wards inclusion of a $24 billion packagethat will insure the majority of the Na-tion's uninsured children.

0 1100

But it is for that very reason, be-cause this bill is so important, that Ithink it is very unfair and wrong topresent this bill at this time withouthaving the opportunity to review thespecifics of the measure. The bill, asmy colleagues can see, is about a footthick. I understand it was filed ataround 3 o'clock in the morning. I havenot had the opportunity to review allof the provisions in the bill. We did re-ceive a summary of the bill this morn-ing, but I think it is fair to say that asummary is not adequate.

Let mejust give my colleagues an ex-ample on the kids' health initiative,which is such an important initiativeand which I support wholeheartedly,but there are a number of things thatwe still do not know.

For example, many of us, includingmyself, on our Democratic Health CareTask Force were concerned about thebenefits package. We knew we wanted

July 30, 1997to have the $24 billion, and we wantedto insure the majority of the kids. Butwe were concerned about whether thebenefits package would be adequate,and language was put in and was nego-tiated in the last 24 hours on that,which I hope provides an adequate ben-efits package, but without reviewingthe specifics of the bill myself and myother colleagues, we will not knowwhether it is completely adequate.

Similarly, we were concerned tomake sure that the money was going tobe spent so that States had to actuallyinsure kids and not whittle it away oruse it for other purposes. I understandin the summary we received this morn-ing that 15 percent of the funds can beused for purposes other than to insurekids. Well, I would like to know the de-tails of that and how specifically that15 percent is set aside. We do not knowthat, and until we analyze it we willnot know it.

And in addition to that, again on thekids' health care initiative, we wereconcerned, many of us on the Demo-cratic side, to make sure that Stateshad to keep providing the same level offunds, if not more funds, than they hadin the past for kids' health care. Wewanted to make sure the maintenanceof effort, if my colleagues will, was inthere. And we are not actually clearabout the language for that as well.

So I want to join my colleague, theranking member of the Committee onRules, in saying, "Yes, we think this isa good bill, and we probably will votefor it, but it's not fair not to have thedetails, and there is no reason why wecouldn't wait in this Congress another24 hours so that everyone, includingour staff, had the opportunity to re-view the details in something that is soimportant to this Congress and to theAmerican people."

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield4 minutes to the gentleman from Or-egon [Mr. DEFA2IO].

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding this time tome.

This is not just an esoteric proce-dural debate. I was insulted when thegentleman on the other said, 'Well, sowhat if we're bringing up this bill de-livered, one copy, to the Democraticside at 3:30 in the morning. Theywouldn't have read it any way." Well,I was here a few years ago, and I readthe catastrophic care bill before itcame to the floor of the House. I wasone of the few Democrats to voteagainst it, and a whole heck of a lot ofpeople had to change their votes a yearlater because they cast their vote for abad bill.

This bill is a bad bill. I will not yieldto the gentleman. This bill is a badbill. But we are not going to be allowedtime to read it. If we split this upamong the 200 or so Democrats here,we would have a hard time gettingthrough it in the time allotted.

We are going to vote on this billwithin the next three hours. Do mycolleagues know why? Because it is


going to make prime time news. That Massachusetts [Mr. MOAKLEY] theis why we are going to vote on it. ranking member, for yielding me this

This is an Alice in Wonderland budg- time, and I can tell my colleagues, hay-et process. We are going to get to the ing been chairman of the Committeebalanced budget by first increasing the on Rules in my State legislature indeficit with retroactive tax cuts. It is Rhode Island, I know martial law whenslanted very much toward the wealthy I see it, I know a bad rule when I see it,people and the largest corporations in and this is a terrible rule. When weAmerica. Then maybe later, we have consider the monumental bill that weheard this before, these cuts will go in have before us, that does so many hugeplace. things to this country, to think that

Do my colleagues know what the we are going to have a debate about itcuts are? A one-third cut in Social Se- for less than an hour and a half to mecurity Administration. If someone has isjust outrageous.to wait 3 months now to get their First of all, think about this budget.claim processed, under this bill they This budget is not going to be balancedwill be waiting 6 months, 9 months or when we consider that we are going toa year to get their claim processed. A front-load the tax cuts to the tune of20 percent cut in veterans and cuts in $95 billion, and we are going to call onother vital programs. the spending cuts to be done in future

This is not a good path to the bal- congresses, spending cuts like theanced budget. In fact, it is no path former gentleman from Oregon men-whatsoever. tioned, up to one-third of the Social

This is stranger and stranger. We Security Administration spending cuts.have stepped through the looking I can tell my colleagues now thisglass, it is getting more and more bi- Congress is not going to keep thezarre. This is no kind of a legislative promise to cut Social Security admin-process. No one on the floor can come istrative costs by 23 percent. Veteransto the floor today and say they have benefits and services; it is going to cutread this bill, they understand it and 19 percent. Justice Department; it isthey are voting for it in good faith. going to be cut 18 percent.That would be a lie. Now just tell me that the next Con-

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 gress is going to make these cuts? I canminutes to the gentleman from Califor- guarantee that the tax cuts are notnia rMr. RADANOVICH]. going to be tampered with. The tax

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, cuts are going to be locked in, and wewhat a difference 4 years makes. It was are not going to make the necessarya mere 4 years ago that a Democratic cuts on the spending side because thisCongress, led by a Democratic Presi- Congress, because it will be listening todent, passed the largest tax increase in the people, will not make those cuts.American history. Today a Republican This is bad for Medicare. It cuts $115Congress will pass a budget that will be billion out of Medicare. Remember, webalanced by the year 2002. This Repub- shut the Government down 2 years agolican-led balanced budget will provide because of cuts that rivaled this fortax relief for families. It provides $24 Medicare, yet no one is going to thinkbillion to States for children's health, twice about cutting $115 billion out ofit provides $3 billion for welfare to Medicare. Furthermore, they putwork programs, and it saves Medicare 190,000 senior citizens in medical say-for 10 years. ings accounts. Anybody who knows

Yes, what a difference 4 years makes. this knows this is the beginning of theTomorrow a Republican Congress end of Medicare because they are going

will pass the first tax relief package for to take the healthiest and wealthiestworking Americans in 16 years. This of our senior citizens and they areRepublican-led package provides $94 going to take them out of the Medicarebillion in tax relief over the next 5 system, thereby ruining the system be-years. It allows for a $500 per child tax cause all they are going to leave arecredit, reduces the top rate of capital the people who cannot pay and who aregains from 28 to 20 percent, and, most sick.importantly, it provides immediate tax So they are going to terrorize therelief for the death tax for family farm- Medicare System by not only cuttingers. $115 billion, but they are going to,

Mr. Chairman, this budget and this through this Medicare select and pri-tax relief package is good for America. vatization of Medicare, lead to itsI am proud to join in support of this eventual undoing.monumental agreement and support Remember the Speaker's dying onthe rule and passage of this bill. the vine that he attributed to Medi-

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield care? This is the beginning of it rightmyself such time as I may consume. now, and this is going to be in the bill

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that everyone is going to vote for thisthat my argument is not against the afternoon.spending bill, it is against the process, And, finally, this is bad not only forjust asking that Members have enough the budget, as I talked about, becausetime to read the bill. it front-loads the taxes and does not

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the allow for spending cuts to be madegentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. until future congresses, bad for Medi-KENNEDY]. care, but it is also bad for fairness. Do

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. my colleagues realize that the top 5Speaker, I thank the gentleman from percent of the income earners in this

country are going to get four times; letme repeat this, the top 5 percent getfour times what the bottom 60 percentget in this tax bill. Undisputed, my col-leagues cannot deny me on that. Thatis fact. Get it, people? Top 5 percent inthis country get 60 percent of the bene-fits, four times what the bottom 60 per-cent get. That is fact.

So whatever people talk about thisbeing a fair bill is bogus. This is not afair bill. And, my colleagues, knowwhat? Finally this, the Republicanside, and I might add many of my col-leagues on the Democratic side, willnot even bring out the income distribu-tion charts. They will not want to tellus where this deal, so to speak, reallywho it benefits. The reason is becausewe are not going to have enough timeon the floor today to debate this. Whatwe are considering right now is called amartial law. What that means is webetter be thankful we even have a rightto vote.

Mr. Speaker, this is a dictatorshipthat what we are talking about hereunder martial law. It says, OK, readthe newspaper, everybody, becauseyou're not going to be able to read theagreement, because it's not going to beavailable to the Members of this Con-gress.' I want to know as a Member ofRhode Island's delegation whether I amgoing to be able to go home and ask myconstituents what they feel about thisagreement when they know what is inthis agreement. They do not knowwhat is in this agreement.

I say to my colleagues today they donot know what is in this agreement,they do not know how this is going togut Medicare, they do not know this isgoing to destroy veterans and the like,and I can tell my colleagues they areleaving it to future congresses to dothe dirty work. That is what this budg-et agreement is all about, it is prom-ises that are not going to be kept in fu-ture congresses.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am com-pelled to yield myself 1 minute to pointout to the gentleman from Rhode Is-land that rules of the House requirethat he address his comments either tothe Chair or the House, not to the gal-lery; and, No. 2, his argument that thetop 4 percent gets 60 percent of the ben-efits, or whatever, only is true if weuse phony numbers to define who iswealthy; and, No. 3, I am curious toknow when he referred to the formermember from Oregon, the former gen-tleman from Oregon, whether it wasformerly a gentleman or formerly fromOregon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as hemay consume to the gentleman. fromNew York [Mr. SOLOMON] the chairmanof the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I wasupstairs. We were just having a Com-mittee on Rules meeting, and we bringdown the rule which will bring thismagnificent piece of legislation to thefloor. But I just am really taken abackby some of the comments by the last 2speakers on the Democrat side of the

July 30, 1997 H6307

H6308aisle, and I would just point to thesigners of this conference, and one ofthose is a gentleman by the name ofCHARLES RANGEL from New York.

Mr. Speaker, if this bill in any way,either this bill or the tax bill to followit tomorrow, did any of the things thatthe gentleman from Massachusetts orthe gentleman from Oregon said it did,I can tell my colleagues that the gen-tleman from New York [Mr. RANGEL],who has stood up for the indigent andpoor of this country, and I will yield tomy colleague when I am done perhaps,CHARLES RANGEL would never, never ina million years, sign this conferencereport.

Let me just say that the gentlemanprotests that he has not had a chanceto look at the bill. This bill here was infront of the Committee on Rules at 3:14and a half this morning down in room152. It was given to the minority in theCommittee on the Budget much earlierthan that so that there have been 15hours for people to sit down and talkto; I am talking about people on thatside of the aisle, talk to distinguishedMembers from their party that havesigned this conference report and knoweverything that is in it. Those mem-bers are people like the gentlemanfrom South Carolina [Mr. SPRATr], thegentleman from Michigan [Mr. BONIOR]of the liberal wing of the DemocraticParty, and I will yield when I am fin-ished, the gentleman from California[Mr. FAzI0], the gentleman from Texas[Mr. STENHOLM] from the more con-servative wing of the DemocraticParty, and my colleagues know I canjust go on, and on, and on: The gen-tleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL],who would never ever sign a bill, a con-ference report, as described by the pre-vious two Democratic speakers. And asmy colleagues know, they can look onthrough these signatures: The gen-tleman from Michigan [Mr. KILDEE],who is a very liberal member of theDemocratic Party, but one of the mostrespected Members because he is verysincere in his beliefs.

0 1115Incidentally, he has two great sons

that serve in the military, in an honor-able career in our military. There isthe gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.PAYNE]. Again, we can go on and on.There is the gentleman from Illinois[Mr. LANE EVANS], a noted liberal fromIllinois; the gentleman from Michigan[Mr. LEvIN].

My point is this, Mr. Speaker: Every-one has to compromise. I have offeredlegislation on this floor that wouldhave balanced the budget in 1 year, not2, 3, 4, 5 or 7. I can remember gettingonly 16 votes for it. I can remember an-other time bringing a budget to thefloor when my conservative group onlygot 75 votes, and then 99 votes.

But this is truly a bipartisan effortfrom liberals, from conservatives. Weought to be here working together onthis legislation. We should not be heretrying to tear each other apart on it. I


think this matter is going to pass over-whelmingly with bipartisan, over-whelming support on the Democraticside, as well as almost every, if notevery, Republican in this House. Thatis the way it should be.

Ronald Reagan once said to me thatwe cannot stick to our principles sole-ly, because there is a House of Rep-resentatives, there is a Senate, andthere is a White House. We all have togive a little. I think everybody hasgiven a little.

I am going to give credit to thePresident of the United States ofAmerica, because he has given, too, aswe Republicans have, to put togetherwhat is truly a great program that isgoing to mean that the future of mychildren and my grandchildren and allof the Members' are going to have a fu-ture in this country, and they aregoing to have a life as good as we havehad when we were growing up. That iswhat we are here to do.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gen-tleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.Speaker, the point I am trying to makeis this is a monumental agreement.The gentleman would agree with me onthat?

Mr. SOLOMON. Yes, it is.Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. It ef-

fects $95 billion in tax cuts, 395,000 sen-iors going into Medicare Select, MSA's,all the cuts that are going to ensue, 15percent in goals cuts, veteans, SocialSecurity Administration, all that is tocome down the road.

All I am saying to the gentleman isunder martial law, we have an hourand a half to debate that. The gen-tleman points out, rightfully so, thatthere are a lot of good Members on myside of the aisle who signed onto this.But that does not excuse the fact thatwe will not have adequate time to de-bate something that I might add, if thegentleman would yield further for asecond, that I might add wouldconsume months of debate in futureCongresses. The decision we are goingto make today and tomorrow is goingto impact enormously on the future ofthis country. Yet we have an hour anda half to decide something so huge.

Yet we are going to dilly-dally andspend months and months debating ap-propriations bills in future Congressesover just finite parts of this budgetdeal in the future.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I justhave to reclaim my time to say to thegentleman, it is not an hour and a half.Under normal rules of the House we arehaving 1½ hours of debate, but we arehaving an extra hour on the rule we arebringing up; we will have an extrahour, so the gentleman is talkingabout 3½ hours of time.

All of the Members on both sides ofthe aisle have been briefed. I have satthrough 17 hours of briefing on what isin this legislation. The White Househas done the same thing with Members

July 30, 1997on the Democratic side of the aisle. Sowe have had ample time to discusswhat is in this legislation.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gen-tleman from California.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding.

I would simply like to respond to mygood friend and neighbor, the gen-tleman from Rhode Island, that if welook at this debate that we are goingto be having on this issue, it is reallythe culmination of what for many of ushas been a decade or a decade and ahalf of debate on these issues.

My friend is relatively new to thisbody, and I think that he clearlyshould spend a lot of time discussingand looking at these questions. But thefact of the matter is, 90 minutes is notgoing to be the full debate time for thisquestion.

In fact, we just had testimony up-stairs, and let me just say that if welook at the fact that we 12 years agointroduced a resolution calling for theestablishment of medical savings ac-counts, which my friend just raised, wehave been debating that issue for wellover 10 years.

So this really is the culmination of avery great, great accomplishment thathas been done in a bipartisan way, andthat is why I am strongly supportive ofthis rule.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if mychairman was on the floor when Ispoke, and I know he was not, he wasattending to his duties, but this debatethis morning right now is not aboutthe spending bill. It is about the proc-ess. I just feel, and he said, this billwas dropped at my doorstep at 3:15 thismorning. It is not enough time, notonly for me but for the rest of theMembers. To quote one of his favoritemen in public office, Ronald Reagan,he said, "Trust, but verify." All I wantto do is verify.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2½ minutes tothe gentleman from Texas [Mr.DOGGETI1.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, todaySpeaker GINGRICH seeks our approval ofa resolution on a subject that this Re-publican Congress has quite obviouslydeveloped considerable expertise in.That subject is ignorance. Normally ig-norance is demonstrated here in thisHouse in ignoring the needs of the ordi-nary hard-working American family.Today that ignorance is demonstratedin a much more obvious way.

We know that an agreement was puttogether in the dead of night and pre-sented to a committee, that copies ofthe bill are not even out here, that noone has seen this bill. Perhaps that is abit of an overstatement. We have seenthe bill. This is it. If Members have aphotographic memory, perhaps theycan see it right now. It is about a foothigh. It weighs several pounds. It haswhat the Washington Post and the

July30, 1997Washington Times, two papers of verydiffering views, both describe as sig-nificant increases in spending, in socialspending. In fact, this bill representsbillions, if not trillions, of dollars inspending that the American taxpayerwill be asked to finance.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit that theMembers on the Republican side whoare speaking in favor of this martiallaw rule do not have the slightest ideawhat is in most of this several pounds,and that indeed few Members of thisCongress, if any, know what is in thatbill in terms of spending hundreds andhundreds of billions of dollars of theAmerican taxpayers' money.

No, the ignorance resolution theyask us to approve this morning is basedon that fundamental principle that gotus into some of this mess in the firstplace; that is, that we should vote firstand read later.

I am for the principle of a balancedbudget, just do not confuse me with thedetails. I do not want to take the pepout of their pep rally, but those of uswho tried to get a meaningful enforce-ment provision on this budget, both inthe Committee on the Budget and onthe floor of this Congress, do not wanta budget that is balanced for a milli-second. We do not want to approvehundreds of billions of dollars of newspending without knowing what it isgoing to do and without actually read-ing the bill. Who knows what provi-sions for special interests are buried inthese pounds of new spending?

We need the opportunity, not just forthis House but for the American peo-ple, to have an opportunity to see whatis in this bill, to understand it. If it isthat great, it can stand the test oftime, not a matter of a few minutes.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reservethe balance of my time.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield2½ minutes to the gentleman fromMinnesota [Mr. MINGE].

Mr. MINCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank theranking member of the Committee onRules for yielding time to me, and Iwould address my comments to my col-leagues and to the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly, as manyspeakers have already said this morn-ing, have seen a historic agreementreached. It certainly is uncommon forus to see a major controversial piece oflegislation drawing support from theWhite House, from the Republicanleadership in both the House and Sen-ate, and from most of the Democraticleadership in the House and Senate. Itis a massive bill.

This morning we have been treatedto repeated demonstrations of the sizeof the bill and the awkwardness of eventrying to work one's way through it. Ithink it is fairly safe to say that no-body in this body will have a chance toreview this bill in detail before it isvoted on.

It has large provisions which most ofus are familiar with and most of usprobably agree with. It has small provi-sions that only a few of us know about


because they affect our areas. I wouldlike to just mention one of them whichI think is of significance to Americanagriculture, to point out that this istypical of small things that find theirway into big bills.

We have labored in American agri-culture with a very restrictive rulingfrom the Internal Revenue Service thatprohibited farmers from taking advan-tage of deferred payment contracts. Itis because of the alternative minimumtax. This legislation corrects that.

Many say the devil is in the details.If this is the type of detail, I think wehave had an exorcist that has takenthe devil out. But the question is, howmany other details are there that wehave not had a chance to examine, anddo we need to give that exorcist moretime?

On a larger scale, I would like to sayin concluding that I think that thereare some very significant omissions inthis legislation:

Social Security. We are borrowingthis year $79 billion to balance thebudget with Social Security. By theyear 2002, it will be over $110 billion.

Medicare. We have a temporary fix toMedicare. We do not have a long-termfix.

Finally, enforcement. Many of us onboth sides of the aisle have struggledfor enforcement provisions in this leg-islation. We have been rebuffed. I thinkit is absolutely critical that we moveahead with enforcement provisions be-fore this session of Congress ends.

I anticipate supporting this legisla-tion, but I am a reluctant supporter. Iurge that we focus on these defi-ciencies.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out thatunlike 1984 when Speaker Wrightbrought a $1.3 trillion budget to thefloor with 1 hour's notice, not even let-ting the Committee on Rules see it, ev-erybody in America could have readthis. The full text of this budget is onthe Internet, Speakernews.house.gov.Speakernews is one word. The Memberscan do it on the Democratic side evenas we speak.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield3 minutes to the gentleman from Ver-mont [Mr. SANDERS].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, this isthe legislation that we received thismorning. On principle, nobody in thisHouse should vote for legislation whichhe does not understand, has not seen,and contains hundreds and hundreds ofpages with many provisions that weknow nothing about.

But Mr. Speaker, we do know some ofthe aspects that we are going to beasked to vote on. We do know that in atime when millions of elderly peopleare unable to pay for their prescriptiondrugs, when they are paying more andmore for private insurance to coverwhat Medicare does not cover, we doknow that we are going to be asked tocut Medicare by $115 billion. That iswrong. We also know there are signifi-

H6309cant cuts in the Social Security Ad-ministration and in veterans programs.That is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, in order to pay for thecuts in Medicare, in the Social Secu-rity Administration, and in veteransprograms, what the Congress is propos-ing is to provide huge tax breaks forthe wealthiest people in this country,unfortunately: precisely the peoplewho do not need it. The wealthiest 5percent of Americans will receive al-most half of the tax cuts. The upper 20percent will receive over 70 percent ofthe benefits. The upper 1 percent, whenthis plan is full-blown, the upper 1 per-cent will receive more benefits fromthis package than the bottom 80 per-cent.

So the people who really need thehelp are not getting the help. The peo-ple who do not need the help are get-ting more help than they are entitledto. Under this plan, the average tax cutfor middle-income families and individ-uals will be less than $200. The wealthi-est 1 percent, however, will receiveover $16,000 in tax breaks.

0 1130As the New York Times said today in

an editorial, and I quote:Even after last minute horse trading

around the edges. the deal remains unfairlytilted in favor of the better off citizens of so-ciety. It drills scores of new loopholes intothe tax code, mostly for the benefit of verywealthy families at the cost of opening uplarge deficits early next century conven-iently beyond the 10-year period that thedeal tracks.

In other words, what is going to hap-pen is, 10 years from now, when wehave, all of these loopholes for thewealthy and for large corporations, weare going to be back here again withanother huge deficit and we are goingto have Members here saying, we havegot to cut more into Medicare. moreinto Social Security, more into veter-ans programs, more into housing. Somy friends, before we pass a budgetlike this, first of all, have the courageto look at it and, second of all, let usnot balance the budget on the backs ofthe weak and the vulnerable in order togive huge tax breaks to the wealthy.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gen-tleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.Speaker, is the gentleman saying thatthe top 5 percent get four times the taxcut as the bottom 60 percent?

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker.Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from Michi-gan [Mr. 5Mm-I].

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speak-er, there are some Members that wouldlike to put off a decision on balancingthe budget and having tax cuts. Thereare some Members that would hopethat we could discuss this enough thatthey might discourage the Presidentfrom going along with this tax cut andbalanced budget for the American peo-ple. Regarding the questions whether

H6310we have had time to review this legis-lation, we never have enough time foreach Member to totally understand thetext of this legislation without thehelp of specialists. Look at Medicare,which is the large portion of this bill.

It is essentially the same Medicareproposal that was offered by the Re-publicans over 2 years ago. It is thesame Medicare bill that wasdemagogued last year in the election.Obviously Members have had 2 years toreview that proposal. If we want tolook at the other provisions of this bill,many are similar and we have talkedabout them since we voted on similarchange in 1995.

This legislation, this agreement hasbeen on the table since last April interms of what Republicans and Demo-crats working together actually signedoff on a detailed agreement. We aredoing what the American people wantus to do. That is balancing the budgetand cutting taxes. There is a lot moreto do but this is a good start.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield1 minute to the gentlewoman fromOhio [Ms. KAPTUR].

(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend her re-marks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want tosay that I am not going to vote for thisbill because I cannot even find the bill.I went down to the Clerk's office justnow because I was told that is wherethe only copy of the bill was. In fact, Iwas told that it was filed at the Gov-ernment Printing Office at 4:15 thismorning. So then we call over to theCommittee on Ways and Means. I said,I will run over to the Committee onWays and Means and get the bill. I callover to the Committee on Ways andMeans, and they said, we have only gotthe sections that deal with our com-mittee. We have got Social Security,we have got Medicare, we have gotMedicaid.

I said, let us take a look and see if itis up in the Committee on Rules. Theysaid, no, the Committee on Rules doesnot have the bill. Maybe there is onecopy down on the floor, maybe the gen-tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MOAK-LEY], maybe the gentleman from NewYork [Mr. SOLOMON] have that copy.

Then I said, well, let us go to the website. So we went to Thomas.loc.gov.Guess what? The bill is not on the website. I am not elected by the gentlemanfrom New York [Mr. SOLOMON]. I amnot elected by the gentleman fromMassachusetts [Mr. MOAKLEY]. I amelected by the people of the Ninth Con-gressional District of Ohio. I cannotget a bill, and I do not want to listen tothe gentleman from South Carolina[Mr. SPRArr] because he did not electme. The people back in Ohio electedme.

To bring this kind of a bill to thefloor today and tomorrow, what is therush? Are we afraid the American peo-ple might actually know what is in thisbill and would not want us to vote onthis until September when we have had


a chance to study the bill? What is therush? I can see a fast ball when itcomes.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Califor-nia [Mr. DiEIER], my colleague on theCommittee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thankmy friend for yielding me the time.

I would like to give this to my col-leagues: Speakernews. .House.gov.

The World Wide Web has it. It isthere. It has been there since early thismorning. Obviously my friend did notmove to the approprñate site.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentle-woman from Ohio.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I wouldlove to know why the Clerk's office didnot know what site it was at?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, because Ihad not stood here yet to announce it:Speakernews.House.gov. That is maybewhy the Clerk did not know it yet. Thefact is, it is there. It can be found. At3:14 this morning my very dear friendfrom Glens Falls pulled another all-nighter. He went right to the office ofthe gentleman from Massachusetts[Mr. MOAKLEY] and delivered thisthing.

It was delivered at 3:14 this morning.The gentleman from New York [Mr.SOLOMON] wanted to take it to thehouse of the gentleman from Massa-chusetts [Mr. MOAKLEY], but his betterjudgment told him to simply take it tothe office at 3:14 in the morning. Thisis in fact a very good package. Weshould move ahead with it as quicklyas possible.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, despite what we heardat the microphone from my very dearfriend, if one calls up the Speaker'sline, you will get a summary. This billis not in print anywhere except thecopies that I have and the gentlemanfrom New York [Mr. SOLOMON] has. Itwill not even be in the CongressionalREc0IW until tomorrow. We are talkingabout the bill itself.

If the previous question is defeated, Iwill offer an amendment to the rulewhich would make certain that Mem-bers will have no less than 10 hours toread the bills before the House beginsto consider them. I believe that is onlyfair for major bills such as these.

Mr. Speaker, I include for theREcORL the amendment to which I re-ferred:

At the end of the resolution add the follow-ing:

'SEC. 2. The waiver prescribed in the firstsection of this resolution shall not apply toa resolution providing for consideration ofany measure unless the measure has beenavailable to Members for at least 10 hoursbefore the consideration of such resolution."

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Let me point out that the WhiteHouse, the conferees have read everyword, every summary, every piece of it.And every bill that comes through here

July30, 1997

we have to trust the folks on the com-mittee or on the conference report togive us the best advice. They have donethat. We have got some of the most dis-tinguished Democrats in• this Housewho have signed onto this bill. Theyknow what is in it. We have been de-bating some of these issues for 3 and 4years. This is a specious argument totry and delay the action on a very goodbill. Most of the arguments against theprocess have come from the most lib-eral Members who do not like the bill.I think that is curious.

Let me say, this is a rule that wehave used in the past under Democratsand Republicans. It is a rule thatshould be supported as well as the bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balanceof my time, and I move the previousquestion on the resolution.

The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. GIB-BONS]. The question is on ordering theprevious question.

The question was taken; and theSpeaker pro tempore announced thatthe ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I objectto the vote on the ground that aquorum is not present and make thepoint of order that a quorum is notpresent.


The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-sent Members.

Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, theChair will reduce to 5 minutes the min-imum time for electronic voting if or-dered on the question of adoption ofthe resolution.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were—yeas 226, nays201, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 341JYEAS—226

CoburnCollinsCombestConditCookCookseyCoxCraneCrapoCubinCunninghamDavis (VA)DealDeLayDickeyDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEnsignEverettEwingFawellFoleyFowlerFoxFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenGalleglyGanskeGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilman

AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBakerBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBereuterBilbrayBilirakisBlileyBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBradyBryantBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenCoble

GoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGrangerGreenwoodGutknechtHansenHastertHastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHergerHillHillearyHobsonHoekstraHornHostettlerHoughtonHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJenkinsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJonesKasichKellyKimKing (NY)KingstonKIugKnollenbergKolbe

July 30, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H6311LaHood Paxon Shuster Strickland Torres Waxman Nussle Ros-Lehtinen StenholmLargent Pease Skeen Stupak Towns Wexler Oxley Roukema StumpLatham Peterson (MN) Smith (Ml) Tanner Turner Weygand Packard Royce SununuLaTourette Peterson (PA) Smith (NJ) Tauscher Velazquez Wise Pappas Ryun TalentLeach Petri Smith (OR) Taylor (MS) Vento Woolsey Parker Salmon TannerLewis (CA) Pickering Smith (TX) Thompson Visclosky Wynn Pascrell Sanford TauscherLewis (KY) Pitts Smith, Linda Thurman Waters Yates Paul Saxton TauzinLinder Pombo Snowbarger Tierney Watt (NC) Paxon Scarborough Taylor (NC)

Pease Schaefer, Dan ThomasLivingston Porter SolomonNOT VOTING7 Peterson (MN) Schaffer, Bob ThornberryLoBiondo Portman Souder

Lucas Pryce (OH) Spence Diaz-Balart Gonzalez Young (AK) Peterson (PA) Sensenbrenner ThuneManiullo Quinn Stearns Foglietta Lazo Petri Sessions TiahrtMcCollum Radanovich Stump Forbes Schiff Pickering Shadegg TorresMcCrery Ramstad Sununu Pitts Shays TraficantMcDade Redmond Talent 0 1156 Pombo Shimkus UptonMcHugh Regula Tauzin Porter Shuster WalshMcinnls Riggs Taylor (NC) Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. Portman Skeen Wamp

Mcintosh Riley Thomas SLAUGHTER, and Messrs. BOSWELL, Pryce (OH) Smith (Mi) WatkinsQuinn Smith (NJ) Watts (OK)McKeon Rogan Thornberry JOHN and GUTIERREZ changed their Radanovich Smith (OR) Weldon (FL)Metcalf Rogers Thune

Mica Rohrabacher Tiahrt vote from yea" to "nay. Ramstad Smith (TX) Weldon (PA)Miller (FL) Ros-Lehtinen Traficant Mr. ROYCE changed his vote from Redmond Smith, Adam WellerMolinari Roukema Upton "nay' to 'yea." Regula Smith, Linda Wexler

Riggs Snowbarger WhiteMoran (KS) Royce WalshMorella Ryun Wamp So the previous question was ordered. Roemer Solomon WhitfieldMyrick Salmon Watkins The result of the vote was announced Rogan Souder WickerNethercutt Sanford Watts (OK) as above recorded. Rogers Spence Wolf

Rohrabacher Stearns Young (FL)Neumann Saxton Weldon (FL)Ney Scarborough Weidon (PA) The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. GIB-Northup Schaefer. Dan Weller BONS). The question is on the resolu- NAYS—187Norwood Schaffer. Bob White tion. Abercrombie GeJdenson MoakleyNussle Sensenbrenner Whitfield The question was taken: and the Ackerman Gephardt MollohanOxley Sessions Wicker Alien Goode Moran (VA)Packard Shadegg Wolf Speaker pro tempore announced that Andrews Green MurthaPappas Shaw Young (FL) the ayes appeared to have it. Baesler Gutierrez NadlerParker Shays Mr. MOAKLEY, Mr. Speaker, on that Baldacci Hail (OH) NealPaul Shimkus I demand the yeas and nays. Barcia Hail (TX) Oberstar

Barrett (WI) Hamilton ObeyNAYS—201 The yeas and nays were ordered. Becerra Harman Olver

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This Bentsen Hastings (FL) OwensAbercrombie Ford McintyreAckerman Frank (MA) McKinney will be a 5-minute vote. Berman Hefner Pallone

Alien Frost McNulty The vote was taken by electronic de- Berry Hilliard PastorBishop Hinchey Payne

Andrews Furse Meehan vice, and there were— yeas 237, nays Blagojevich Hinojosa PelosiBaesler Geidenson Meek

187, not voting 10, as follows: Blumenauer Holden PickettBaldacci Gephardt MenendezBonior Hoyer Pomeroy

Barcia Gordon Millender- tRoll No. 3421 Borski Istook PoshardBarrett (WI) Green McDonald YEAS—237 Boucher Jackson (IL) Price (NC)Becerra Gutierrez Miller (CA)Bentsen Hall (OH) Minge Aderholt Danner Hunter Boyd Jackson-Lee Rahall

Berman Hall (TX) Mink Archer Davis (VA) Hutchinson Brown (CA) (TX) Rangel

Berry Hamilton Moakley Armey Deal Hyde Brown (FL) Jefferson Reyes

Bishop Harman Mollohan Bachus DeLay Inglis Brown (OH) John Rivers

Blagojevich Hastings (FL) Moran (VA) Baker Diaz-Balart Jenkins Capps Johnson (WI) Rodriguez

Blumenauer Hefner Murtha Ballenger Dickey Johnson (CT) Cardin Johnson, E. B. Rothman

Bonior Hilliard Nadler Barr Dooley Johnson, Sam Carson KanJorski Roybal-Allard

Borski Hinchey Neal Barrett (NE) Dreier Jones Christensen Kaptur Rush

Boswell Hinojosa Oberstar Bartlett Duncan Kasich Clay Kennedy (MA) Sabo

Boucher Holden Obey Barton Dunn Kelly Clayton Kennedy (RI) Sanchez

Boyd Hooley Olver Bass Ehlers Kim Clement Kennelly Sanders

Brown (CA) Hoyer Ortiz Bateman Ehrlich Kind (WI) Clyburn Kildee Sandlin

Brown (FL) Jackson (IL) Owens Bereuter Emerson King (NY) Conyers Kilpatrick Sawyer

Brown (OH) Jackson-Lee Pallone Bilbray English Kingston Costello Klink Schumer

Capps (TX) Pascrell Bilirakis Everett Kleczka Coyne Kucinich Scott

Cardin Jefferson Pastor Bliley Ewing KIug Cummings LaFalce Serrano

Carson John Payne Blunt Fawell Knollenberg Davis (FL) Lampson Sherman

Clay Johnson (WI) Pelosi Boehlert Foley Kolbe Davis (IL) Lantos Sisisky

Clayton Johnson, E. B. Pickett Boehner Fowler LaHood DeFazio Levin Skaggs

Clement KanJorski Pomeroy Bonilla Fox Largent DeGette Lewis (GA) Skelton

Clyburn Kaptur Poshard Bono Franks (NJ) Latham Delahunt Lofgren Slaughter

Conyers Kennedy (MA) Price (NC) Boswell Frelinghuysen LaTourette DeLauro Lowey Snyder

Costello Kennedy (RI) Rahall Brady Gallegly Leach Dellums Luther Spratt

Coyne Kennelly Rangel Bryant Ganske Lewis (CA) Deutsch Maloney (CT) Stabenow

Cramer Kildee Reyes Bunning Gekas Lewis (KY) Dicks Maloney (NY) Stark

Cummings Kilpatrick Rivers Burr Gibbons Linder Dingell Markey Stokes

Danner Kind (WI) Rodriguez Burton Gilchrest Lipinski Dixon Martinez Strickland

Davis (FL) Kleczka Roemer Buyer GilImor Livingston Doggett Mascara Stupak

Davis (IL) Klink Rothman Callahan Gilman LoBiondo Doolittle Matsui Taylor (MS)

DeFazio Kucinich Roybal-Allard Calvert Goodlatte Lucas Doyle McCarthy (MO) Thompson

DeGette LaFalce Rush Camp Goodling Manton Edwards McCarthy (NY) Thurman

Delahunt Lampson Sabo Campbell Gordon Maniullo Engel McDermott Tierney

DeLauro Lantos Sanchez Canady Goss McCollum Ensign McGovern Towns

Dellums Levin Sanders Cannon Granger McCrery Eshoo McHale Turner

Deutsch Lewis (GA) Sandlin Castle Greenwood McDade Etheridge Mcintyre Velazquez

Dicks Lipinski Sawyer Chabot Gutknecht McHugh Evans McKinney Vento

Dingell Lofgren Schumer Chambliss Hansen Mclnnls Farr McNulty Visclosky

Dixon Lowey Scott Chenoweth Hastert Mcintosh Fattah Meehan Waters

Doggett Luther Serrano Coble Hastings (WA) McKeon Fazio Meek Watt (NC)

Dooley Maloney (CT) Sherman Coburn Hayworth Metcalf Filner Menendez Waxman

Doyle Maloney (NY) Sisisky Collins Hefley Mica Flake Millender- Weygand

Edwards Manton Skaggs Combest Herger Miller (FL) Ford McDonald Wise

Engel Markey Skelton Condit Hill Molinari Frank (MA) Miller (CA) Woolsey

Eshoo Martinez Slaughter Cook Hilleary Moran (KS) Frost Minge Wynn

Etheridge Mascara Smith, Adam Cooksey Hobson Morella Furse Mink Yates

Evans Matsui Snyder Cox Hoekstra Myrick NOT VOTING—bFarr McCarthy (MO) Spratt Cramer Hooley NethercuttFattah McCarthy (NY) Stabenow Crane Horn Neumann Foglietta Lazio ShawFazio McDermott Stark Crapo Hostettler Ney Forbes Ortiz Young (AK)Filner McGovern Stenholm Cubin Houghton Northup Gonzalez RileyFlake McHale Stokes Cunningham Hulshof Norwood Graham Schiff

H6312 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE July 30, 199701205

So the resolution was agreed to.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.A motion to reconsider was laid upon

the table.


CONFERENCE REPORT

TO ACCOMPANY

H.R. 2015

105m CONGRESS

}HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

{1st SessionREPORT105—217

JULY 30, (legislative day of JuLY 29), 1997.—Ordered to be printed

105m CONGRESS I REPORT

1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 105-217


JULY 30 (legislative day, JuLY 29), 1997.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. KASICH, from the committee of conference,submitted the following

CONFERENCE REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 2015]

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of thetwo Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.2015), to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 104(a) of theconcurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998, havingmet, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend anddo recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from its di8agreement to the amend-ment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment asfollows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senateamendment, insert the following:SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Balanced Budget Act of 1997".SEC. 2. TABLE OF TITLES.

This Act is organized into titles as follows:Title I—Food Stamp ProvisionsTitle 11—Housing and Related ProvisionsTitle Ill—Communications and Spectrum Allocation ProvisionsTitle N—Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health ProvisionsTitle V—Welfare and Related ProvisionsTitle Vt—Education and Related ProvisionsTitle Vu—Civil Service Retirement and Related ProvisionsTitle VIlI—Veterans and Related ProvisionsTitle IX—Asset Sales, User Fees, and Miscellaneous ProvisionsTitle X—Budget Enforcement and Process ProvisionsTitle XE—District of Columbia Revitalization

42—432

2

TITLE I—FOOD STAMP PROVISIONS

5

SEC. 1003. DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS FOR PRISONERS.(a) STATE PLANS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 11(e) of the Food Stamp Act of1977 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)) is amended by striking paragraph (20)and inserting the following:

"(20) that the State agency shall establish a system andtake actton on a periodic basis—

"(A) to verify and otherwise ensure that an individualdoes not recetve coupons in more than 1 jurisdiction withinthe State; and

"(B) to verify and otherwise ensure that an individualwho is placed under detention in a Federal, State, or localpenal, correctional, or other detention facility for more than30 days shall not be eligible to participate in the foodstamp program as a member of any household, exceptthat—

"(i) the Secretary may determine that ext raor-dinary circumstances make it impracticable for theState agency to obtain information necessary to dis-conttnue inclusion of the individual; and

6

"(ii) a State agency that obtains information col-lected under section 161 1(e)(1)(I)(i)(I) of the Social Se-curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)(I)(i)(I)) pursuant to sec-tion 1611(e) (1)(I) (ii) (II) of that Act (42 U.S.C.1382(e)(1)(I)(ii)(II)), or under another program deter-mined by the Secretary to be comparable to the pro-gram carried out under that section, shall be consid-ered in compliance with this subparagraph."

(2) LIMITS ON DISCLOSURE AND USE OF INFORMATION.—Sec-tion 11(e)(8)(E) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.2020(e)(8)(E)) is amended by striking "paragraph (16)" and in-serting "paragraph (16) or (20)(B)'

(3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—(A) IN GENERAL—Except as provided in subparagraph

(B), the amendments made by this subsection shall take ef-fect on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactmentof this Act.

(B) ExTENSI0N.—The Secretary of Agrtculture maygrant a State an extension of time to comply with theamendments made by this subsection, not to exceed beyondthe date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of thisAct, if the chief executive officer of the State submits a re-quest for the extension to the Secretary—

(i) stating the reasons why the State ts not able tocomply with the amendments made by thts subsecttonby the date that is 1 year after the date of enactmentof this Act;

(ii) providing evidence that the State ts maktng agood faith effort to comply with the amendments madeby this subsection as soon as practicable; and

(iii) detailing a plan to bring the State into compli-ance with the amendments made by this subsection assoon as practicable but not later than the date of therequested extension.

(b) INFORMATION SIii'JUNG.—Section 11 of the Food Stamp Actof 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2020) is amended by adding at the end the follow-ng

"(q) DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS FOR PRIS0NERS.—The Secretaryshall assist States, to the maximum extent practicable, in imple-menting a system to conduct computer matches or other systems toprevent prisoners described in section 1 1(e)(20)(B) from partictpat-ing in the food stamp program as a member of any household.'

21

TITLE I V—MEDICARE, MEDICAID, ANDCHILDREN'S HEALTH PROVISIONS

SEC. 4000. AMENDMENTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND REFERENCESTO OBRA, TABLE OF CONTENTS OF TITLE.

(a) AMENDMENTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.—Except as other-wise specifically provided, whenever in this title an amendment isexpressed in terms of an amendment to or repeal of a section orother provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to thatsection or other provisioiz of the Social Security Act.

(b) REFERENCES TO OBRA.—In this title, the terms "OBRA—1986' "OBRA—1987' "OBRA—1989' OBRA—1990' and "OBRA—1993" refer to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (Pub-lic Law 99—509), the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987(Public Law 100—203), the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1989 (Public Law 101—239), the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Actof 1990 (Public Law 101—508), and the Omnibus Budget Reconcili-ation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103—66), respectively.

(c) Tis OF CONTENTS OF TITLE.—The table of contents of thistitle is as follows:Sec. 4000. Amendments to Social Security Act and references to OBRk table of con-

tents of title.

Subtitle A—Medicare+Choice Program

CHAPTER 1—MEDIci.JE+ CHoIcE PROGRAM

SUBCHAPTER A—MEDICARE+CHOICE PROGRAM

Sec. 4001. Establishment of Medicare+Choice Program.

"Pi.jT C—MEDIci.jE+CHoIcE PROGRAM

"Sec. 1851. Eligibility, election, and enrollment."Sec. 1852. Benefits and beneficiary protections."Sec. 1853. Payments to Medicare+ Choice organizations."Sec. 1854. Premium&"Sec. 1855. Organizational and financial requirements for

Medicare+ Choice organizations; provider-sponsoredorganizations.

"Sec. 1856. Establishment of standards."Sec. 1857. Contracts with Medicare+Choice organizations."Sec. 1859. Definitions; miscellaneous provisions.

Sec. 4002. Transitional rules for current medicare HMO program.Sec. 4003. Conforming changes in medigap program.SUBCHAPTER B—SPECIAL RULES FOR MEDICARE+CHOICE MEDICAL SAWNGS ACCOUNTS

Sec. 4006. Medicare+Choice MSA.

CHAPTER 2—DEMONSTRATIONS

SUBCHAPTER A—MEDICARE+CHOICE COMPETITIVE PRICING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

Sec. 4011. Medicare prepaid competitive pricing demonstration project.Sec. 4012. Administration through the Office of Competition; advisory committee.Sec. 4013. Project design based on FEHBP competitive bidding model.

SUBCHAPTER B—SOCIAL HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS

Sec. 4014. Social health maintenance organizations (SHMOs.)SUBCHAPTER C—MEDICARE SUBDIVISION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR MILITARY

RETIREES

Sec. 4015. Medicare subvention demonstration project for military retirees.

22

SUBCHAPTER D—OTHER PROJECTS

Sec. 4016. Medicare coordinated care demonstration project.Sec. 4017. Orderly transition of municipal health service demonstration projects.Sec. 4018. Medicare enrollment demonstration project.Sec. 4019. Extension of certain medicare community nursing organization dem-

onstration projects.

CHAPTER 3—COMMISSIONS

Sec. 4021. National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.Sec. 4022. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

CHAPTER 4—MEDIGAP PROTECTIONS

Sec. 4031. Medigap protections.Sec. 4032. Addition of high deductible medigap policies.

CHAPTER 5—TAX TREATMENT OF HOSPITALS PARTICIPATING IN PRO WDER-SPONSOREDORGAwIZATIONS

Sec. 4041. Tax treatment of hospitals which participate in provider-sponsored organi-zations.

Subtitle B—Pre.,ention InitiativesSec. 4101. Screening mammography.Sec. 4102. Screening pap smear and pelvic exams.Sec. 4103. Prostate cancer screening tests.Sec. 4104. Coverage of colorectal screening.Sec. 4105. Diabetes self-management benefits.Sec. 4106. Standardization of medicare coverage of bone mass measurements.Sec. 4107. Vaccines outreach expansion.Sec. 4108. Study on preventive and enhanced benefits.

Subtitle C—Rural InitiativesSec. 4201. Medicare rural hospital flexibilily program.Sec. 4202. Prohibiting denial of request by rural referral centers for reclassification

on basis of comparability of wages.Sec. 4203. Hospital geographic reclassification permitted for purposes of dispropor-

tionate share payment adjustments.Sec. 4204. Medicare-dependent, small rural hospital payment extension.Sec. 4205. Rural health clinic services.Sec. 4206. Medicare reimbursement for telehealth services.Sec. 4207. Informatics, telemedicine, and education demonstration project.

Subtitle D—Anti-Fraud and Abuse Provisions and Improvements in ProtectingProgram Integrity

CHAPTER 1—REVISIONS To SANCTIONS FOR FRAUD AND ABUSE

Sec. 4301. Permanent exclusion for those convicted of 3 health care related crimes.Sec. 4302. Authority to refuse to enter into medicare agreements with individuals or

entities convicted of felonies.Sec. 4303. Exclusion of entity controlled by family member of a sanctioned individ-

ual.Sec. 4304. Imposition of civil money penalties.

CHAPTER 2—IMPROVEMENTS IN PROTECTING PROGRAM INTEGRITY

Sec. 4311. Improving information to medicare beneficiaries.Sec. 4312. Disclosure of information and surety bonds.Sec. 4313. Provision of certain identification numbers.Sec. 4314. Advisory opinions regarding certain physician self-referral provisions.Sec. 4315. Replacement of reasonable charge methodology by fee schedules.Sec. 4316. Application of inherent reasonableness to all part B services other than

physicians' services.Sec. 4317. Requirement to furnish diagnostic information.Sec. 4318. Report by GAO on operation of fraud and abuse control program.Sec. 4319. Competitive bidding demonstration projects.Sec. 4320. Prohibiting unnecessary and wasteful medicare payments for certarn

items.

23

Sec. 4321. Nondiscrimination in post-hospital referral to home health agencies andother entities.

CHAPTER 3—CLARIFICATIONS AND TECHNICAL CHANGES

Sec. 4331. Other fraud and abuse related provisions.

Subtitle E—Provisions Relating to Part A Only

CHAPTER 1—PAYMENT OF PPS HOsPITALS

Sec. 4401. PPS hospital payment update.Sec. 4402. Maintaining savings from temporary reduction in capital payments for

PPS hospitals.Sec. 4403. Disproportionate share.Sec. 4404. Medicare capital asset sales price equal to book value.Sec. 4405. Elimination of IME and DSH payments attributable to outlier payments.Sec. 4406. Increase base payment rate to Pzerto Rico hospitals.Sec. 4407. Certain hospital discharges to post acute care.Sec. 4408. Reclassification of certain counties as large urban areas under medicare

program.Sec. 4409. Geographic reclassification for certain disproportionately large hospitals.Sec. 4410. Floor on area wage index.

CHAPTER 2—PAYMENT OF PPS -EXEMPT HOSPITALS

SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL PAYMENT PROVISIONS

Sec. 4411. Payment update.Sec. 4412. Reductions to capital payments for certain PPS-exempt hospitals and

units.Sec. 4413. Rebasing.Sec. 4414. Cap on TEFRA limits.Sec. 4415. Bonus and relief payments.Sec. 4416. Change in payment and target amount for new providers.Sec. 4417. Treatment of certain long-term care hospitals.Sec. 4418. Treatment of certain cancer hospitals.Sec. 4419. Elimination of exemptions for certain hospitals.

SUBCHAPTER B—PROSPECTiVE PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR PPS -EXEMPT HOSPITALS

Sec. 4421. Prospective payment for inpatient rehabilitation hospital services.Sec. 4422. Development of proposal on paynwnts for long-term care hospitals.

CHAPTER 3—PAYMENT FOR SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES

Sec. 4431. Extension of cost limits.Sec. 4432. Prospective payment for skilled nursing facility services.

CHAPTER 4—PROVISIONS RELATED TO HOSPICE SERVICES

Sec. 4441. Payments for hospice services.Sec. 4442. Payment for home hospice care based on location where care is furnished.Sec. 4443. Hospice care benefits periods.Sec. 4444. Other items and services included in hospice care.Sec. 4445. Contracting with independent physicians or physician groups for hospice

care services permitted.Sec. 4446. Waiver of certain staffing requirements for hospice care programs in non-

urbanized areas.Sec. 4447. Limitation on liability of beneficiaries for certain hospice coverage denials.Sec. 4448. Extending the period for physician certification of an individual's terminal

illness.Sec. 4449. Effective date.

CHAPTER 5—OTHER PAYMENT PRoViSIoNS

Sec. 4451. Reductions in payments for enrollee bad debt.Sec. 4452. Permanent extension of hemophilia pass-through payment.Sec. 4453. Reduction in part A medicare premiumfor certain public retirees.Sec. 4454. Coverage of services in religious nonmedical health care institutions under

the medicare and medicaid programs.

24

Subtitle F—Provisions Relating to Part B Only

CHAPTER 1—SERVICES OF HEALTH PROFESSIONALS

SUBCHAPTER A—PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Sec. 4501. Establishment of single conversion factor for 1998.Sec. 4502. Establishing update to conversion factor to match spending under sustain-

able growth rate.Sec. 4503. Replacement of volume performance standard with sustainable growth

rate.Sec. 4504. Payment rules for anesthesia services.Sec. 4505. Implementation of resource-based methodologies.Sec. 4506. Dissemination of information on high per discharge relative values for in-

hospital physicians' services.Sec. 4507. Use of przvate contracts by medicare beneficiaries.

SUBCHAPTER B—-OTHER HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS

Sec. 4511. Increased medicare reimbursement for nurse practitioners and clinicalnurse specialists.

Sec. 4512. Increased medicare reimbursement for physician assistants.Sec. 4513. No x-ray required for chiropractic services.

CHAPTER 2—PAYMENT FOR HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT SERVICES

Sec. 4521. Elimination of formula-driven overpayments (FDO) for certain outpatienthospital services.

Sec. 4522. Extension of reductions in payments for costs of hospital outpatient serv-ices.

Sec. 4523. Prospective payment system for hospital outpatient department services.

CHAPTER 3—AMBULANCE SERVICES

Sec. 4531. Payments for ambulance services.Sec. 4532. Demonstration of coverage of ambulance services under medicare

through contracts with units of local government.

CHAPTER 4—PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT FOR OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION SERVICES

Sec. 4541. Prospective payment for outpatient rehabilitation services.

CHAPTER 5—OTHER PAYMENT PROVISIONS

Sec. 4551. Payments for durable medical equipment.Sec. 4552. Oxygen and oxygen equipment.Sec. 4553. Reduction in updates to payment amounts for clinical diagnostic labora-

tory tests; study on laboratory tests.Sec. 4554. Improvements in administration of laboratory tests benefit.Sec. 4555. Updates for ambulatory surgical services.Sec. 4556. Reimbursement for drugs and biologicals.Sec. 4557. Coverage of oral anti-nausea drugs under chemotherapeu tic regimen.Sec. 4558. Renal dialysis-related services.Sec. 4559. Temporary coverage restoration for portable electrocardiogram transpor-

tation.

CHAPTER 6—PART B PREMIUM AND RELATED PROVISIONS

SUBCHAPTER A—DETERMINATION OF PART B PREMIUM AMOUNT

Sec. 4571. Part B premium.SUBCHAPTER B—OTHER PROVISIOWS RELATED TO PART B PREMIUM

Sec. 4581. Protections under the medicare program for disabled workers who lostbenefits under a group health plan.

Sec. 4582. Governmental entities eligible to elect to pay part B premiums for eligibleindividuals.

Subtitle G—Provisions Relating to Parts A and B

CHAPTER 1—HOME HEALTH SERVICES AND BENEFITS

SUBCHAPTER A—PAYMENTS FOR HOME HEALTH SERVICES

Sec. 4601. Recapturing savings resulting from temporary freeze on payment in-creases for home health services.

25

Sec. 4602. Interim payments for home health services.Sec. 4603. Prospective payment for home health services.Sec. 4604. Payment based on location where home health service is furnished.

SUBCHAPTER B—HOME HEALTH BENEFITS

Sec. 4611. Modification of part A home health benefit for individuals enrolledunder part B.

Sec. 4612. Clarification of part-time or intermittent nursing care.Sec. 4613. Study on definition of homebound.Sec. 4614. Normative standards for home health claims denials.Sec. 4615. No home health benefits based solely on drawing blood.Sec. 4616. Reports to Congress regarding home health cost containment.

CHAPTER 2—GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION

SUBCHAPTER A—INDIRECT MEDICAL EDUCATION

Sec. 4621. Indirect graduate medical education payments.Sec. 4622. Payment to hospitals of indirect medical education costs for

Medicare+ Choice enrollees.

SUBCHAPTER B—DIRECT GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION

Sec. 4623. Limitation on number of residents and rolling average FTE count.Sec. 4624. Payments to hospitals for direct costs of graduate medical education of

Medicare+Choice enrollees.Sec. 4625. Permitting payment to nonhospital providers.Sec. 4626. Incentive payments under plans for voluntary reduction in number of

residents.Sec. 4627. Medicare special reimbursement rule for primary care combined resi-

dency programs.Sec. 4628. Demonstration project on use of consortja.Sec. 4629. Recommendations on long-term policies regarding teaching hospitals and

graduate medical education.Sec. 4630. Study of hospital overhead and supervisory physician components of di-

rect medical education costs:

CHAPTER 3—PRO VISIONS RELATING TO MEDICARE SECONDARY PAYER

Sec. 4631. Permanent extension and revision ofixrtain secondary payer provisions.Sec. 4632. Clarification of time and filing limitations.Sec. 4633. Permitting recovery against third party administrators.

CHAPTER 4—OTHER PRO VISIONS

Sec. 4641. Placement of advance directive in medical record.Sec. 4642. Increased certification period for certain organ procurement organiza-

tions.Sec. 4643. Office of the Chief Actuary in the Health Care Financing Administration.Sec. 4644. Conforming amendments to comply with congressional review of agency

rulemaking.

Subtitle H—Medicaid

CHAPTER 1—MANAGED CARE

Sec. 4701. State option of using managed care; change in terminology.Sec. 4702. Primary care case management services at State option without need for

waiver.Sec. 4703. Elimination of 75:25 restriction on risk contracts.Sec. 4704 Increased beneficiary protections.Sec. 4705. Quality assurance standards.Sec. 4706. Solvency standards.Sec. 4707. Protections against fraud and abuse.Sec. 4708. Improved administration.Sec. 4709. 6-month guaranteed eligibility for all individuals enrolled in managed

care.Sec. 4710. Effective dates.

CHAPTER 2—FLEXIBILITY IN PAYMENT OF PROVIDERSSec. 4711. Flexibility in payment methods for hospital, nursing facility, ICFIMR,

and home health services.

26

Sec. 4712. Payment for center and clinic services.Sec. 4713. Elimination of obstetrical and pediatric payment rate requirements.Sec. 4714. Medicaid payment rates for certain medicare cost-sharing.Sec. 4715. Treatment of veterans' pensions under medicaid.

CHAPTER 3—FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO STATES

Sec. 4721. Reforming disproportionate share payments under State medicaid pro-grams.

Sec. 4722. Treatment of State taxes imposed on certain hospitals.Sec. 4723. Additional funding for State emergency health services furnished to un-

documented aliens.Sec. 4724. Elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse.Sec. 4725. Increased FMAPs.Sec. 4726. Increase in payment limitation for territories.

CHAPTER 4—ELIGIBILITY

Sec. 4731. State option of continuous eligibility for 12 months; clarification of Stateoption to cover children.

Sec. 4732. Payment of part B premiums.Sec. 4733. State option to permit workers with disabilities to buy into medicaid.Sec. 4734. Penalty for fraudulent eligibility.Sec. 4735. Treatment of certain settlement payments.

CHAPTER 5—BENEFITS

Sec. 4741. Elimination of requirement to pay for private insurance.Sec. 4742. Physician qualification requirements.Sec. 4743. Elimination of requirement of prior institutionalization with respect to

habilitation services furnished under a waiver for home or community-based services.

Sec. 4744. Study and report on EPSDT benefit.CHAPTER 6—ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 4751. Elimination of duplicative inspection of care requirements for ICFSIMRand mental hospitals.

Sec. 4752. Alternative sanctions for noncompliant ICFSIMR.Sec. 4753. Modification of MMIS requirements.Sec. 4754. Facilitating imposition of State alternative remedies on non-compliant

nursing facilities.Sec. 4755. Removal of name from nurse aide registry.Sec. 4756. Medically accepted indication.Sec. 4757. Continuation of State-wide section 1115 medicaid waivers.Sec. 4758. Extension of moratorium.Sec. 4759. Extension of effective date for State law amendment.

Subtitle I—Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE)

Sec. 4801. Coverage of PACE under the medicare program.Sec. 4802. Establishment of PACE program as medicaid State option.Sec. 4803. Effective date; transition.Sec. 4804. Study and reports.

Subtitle J—State Children's Health Insurance Program

CHAPTER 1—STATE CHILDREI'tS HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM

Sec. 4901. Establishment of program."TITLE XXf—STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM

"Sec. 2101. Purpose; State child health plans."Sec. 2102. General contents of State child health plan.; eligibility; outreach."Sec. 2103. Coverage requirements for children's health insurance."Sec. 2104. Allotments."Sec. 2105. Payments to States."Sec. 2106. Process for submission, approval, and amendment of State child health

plans."Sec. 2107. Strategic objectives and performance goals; plan administration."Sec. 2108. Annual reports; evaluations."Sec. 2109. Miscellaneous provisions."Sec. 2110. Definitions.

27

CHAPTER 2—EXPANDED COVERAGE OF CHILDREN UNDER MEDICAID

Sec. 4911. Optional use of State child health assistance funds for enhanced medic-aid match for expanded medicaid eligibility.

Sec. 4912. Medicaid presumptive eligibility for low-income children.Sec. 4913. Continuation of medicaid eligibility for disabled children who lose SSI

benefits.

CHAPTER 3—DIABETES GRANT PROGRAMS

Sec. 4921. Special diabetes programs for children with Type I diabetes.Sec. 4922. Special diabetes programs for Indians.Sec. 4923. Report on diabetes grant programs.

138

Subtitle D—Anti-Fraud and Abuse Provi-sions and Improvements in ProtectingProgram Integrity

140

CHAPTER 2—IMPROVEMENTS IN PROTECTINGPROGRAM INTEGRITY

144

SEC. 4313. PROVISION OF CERTAIN IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS.(a) REQUIREMENTS To DISCLOSE EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION

NUMBERS (EINS) D SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBERS(SSNS).—Section 1124(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1320a—3(a)(1)) is amendedby inserting before the period at the end the following: "and supplythe Secretary with both the employer identification number (as-signed pursuant to section 6109 of the Internal Revenue code of1986) and social security account number (assigned under section205(c)(2)(B)) of the disclosing entity, each person with an ownershipor control interest (as defined in subsection (a)(3)), and any sub-contractor in which the entity directly or indirectly has a 5 percentor more ownership interest.

(b) OTHER MEDICARE PROvIDERS.—Section 1124A (42 U.S.C.1320a—3a) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—(A) in paragraph (1), by striking "and" at the end;(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end

and inserting ", and"; and(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

"(3) including the employer identification number (assignedpursuant to section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)and social security account number (assigned under section205(c)(2)(B)) of the disclosing part B provider and any person,managing employee, or other entity identified or describedunder paragraph (1) or (2)."; and

(2) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting "(or, for purposes ofsubsection (a)(3), any entity receiving payment)" after "on an as-signment-related basis'

145

(c) VERIFICATION BY SOCIAL SEC URITY ADMINISTRATION(SSA).—Section 1124A (42 U.S.C. 1320a—3a), as amended by sub-section (b), is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new sub-

section:"(c) VERIFICATION.—

"(1) TRANSMI2TAL BY HHS.—The Secretary shall transmit—"(A) to the Commissioner of Social Security informa-

tion concerning each social security account number (as-signed under section 205(c) (2) (B)) , and

"(B) to the Secretary of the Treasury information con-cerning each employer identification number (assigned pur-suant to section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code of1986),

supplied to the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a)(3) or sec-tion 1124(c) to the extent necessary for verification of such in for-mation in accordance with paragraph (2).

"(2) VERIFICATION.—The Commissioner of Social Securityand the Secretary of the Treasury shall verify the accuracy of,or correct, the information supplied by the Secretary to such of-ficial pursuant to paragraph (1), and shall report such verifica-tions or corrections to the Secretary.

"(3) FEES FOR VERIFICATION.—The Secretary shall reim-burse the Commissioner and Secretary of the Treasury, at arate negotiated between the Secretary and such official, for thecosts incurred by such official in performing the verificationand correction services described in this subsection."(d) REP0RT.—Before the amendments made by this section may

become effective, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shallsubmit to Congress a report on steps the Secretary has taken to as-sure the confidentiality of social security account numbers that willbe provided to the Secretary under such amendments.

(e) EFFECTIVE DATES.—(1) DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.—The amendment made by

subsection (a) shall apply to the application of conditions ofparticipation, and entering into and renewal of contracts andagreements, occurring more than 90 days after the date of sub-mission of the report under subsection (d).

(2) OTHER PROVIDERS.—The amendments made by sub-section (b) shall apply to payment for items and services fur-nished more than 90 days after the date of submission of suchreport.

249


281

CHAPTER 4—ELIGIBILITYSEC. 4731. STATE OPTION OF CONTINUOUS ELIGIBILITY FOR 12

MONTHS; CLARIFICATION OF STATE OPTION TO COVERCHILDREN.

(a) COr'INuous ELIGIBILITY OPTION.—Section 1902(e) (42U.S.C. 1396a(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following newparraph:

(12) At the option of the State, the plan may provide that anindividual who is under an age specified by the State (not to exceed19 years of age) and who is determined to be eligible for benefitsunder a State plan approved under this title under subsection(a)(10)(A) shall remain eligible for those benefits until the earlierof—

"(A) the end of a period (not to exceed 12 months) followingthe determination; or

"(B) the time that the individual exceeds that age. '(b) CLARIFICATION OF STATE OpnON To COVER ALL CHILDREN

UNDER 19 YEARs OF AGE.-—Section 1902(l)(1)(D) (42 U.S.C.1396a(l)(1)(D)) is amended by inserting "(or, at the option of a State,after any earlier date)" after "children born after September 30,1983"

(c) EFFECTiVE DATE.—The amendments made by this sectionshall apply to medical assistance for items and services furnishedon or after October 1, 1997.SEC. 4732. PAYMENT OF PART B PREMIUMS.

(a) EijGIBIijfl'.—Section 1902 (a) (1 0) (E) (42 U.S.C.1396a(a)(10)(E)) is amended—

(1) by striking "and" at the end of clause (ii); and(2) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:

"(iv) subject to sections 1933 and l9O5(pX4), for mak-ing medical assistance available (but only for premiumspayable with respect to months during the period beginningwith January 1998, and ending with December 2002)—

"(I) for medicare cost-sharing described in section1905(p) (3) (A) (i i) for individuals who would be quali-fied medicare beneficiaries described in section1905(p) (1) but for the fact that their income exceeds theincome level established by the State under section1905(p) (2) and is at least 120 percent, but less than135 percent, of the official poverty line (referred to insuch section) for a family of the size involved and whoare not otherwise eligible for medical assistance underthe State plan, and

"(II) for the portion of medicare cost-sharing de-scribed in section 1905(p)(3)(A)(ii) that is attributableto the operation of the amendments made by (and sub-secüon (e)(3) of) section 4611 of the Balanced BudgetAct of 1997 for individuals who would be described insubclause (I) if '135 percent' and '175 percent' were sub-

282

stituted for '120 percent' and '135 percent' respectively;and".

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1905(b) (42 U.S.C.1396d(b)) is amended by striking "The term" and inserting "Subjectto section 1933(d), the term"

(c) TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COVERAGE.—Title XIX (42U.S.C. 1395 et seq.), as amended by section 4701(a), is amended byredesignating section 1933 as section 1934 and by inserting aftersection 1932 the following new section:

"STATE COVERAGE OF MEDICARE COST-SHARING FOR ADDITIONALLOW-INCOME MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES

"SEC. 1933. (a) IN GENERAL—A State plan under this titleshall provide, under section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iv) and subject to thesucceeding provisions of this section and through a plan amend-ment, for medical assistance for payment of the cost of medicarecost-sharing described in such section on behalf of all individualsdescribed in such section (in this section referred to as 'qualifyingindividuals') who are selected to receive such assistance under sub-section (b).

"(b)SELECTION OF QUALIFYING INDIVIDUALS.—A State shall se-lect qualifying individuals, and provide such individuals with as-sistance, under this section consistent with the following:

"(1) ALL QUALIFYING INDIVIDUALS MAY APPLY.—The Stateshall permit all qualifying individuals to apply for assistanceduring a calendar year.

"(2) SELECTION ON FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED BASIS.—"(A) IN GENERAL.—For each calendar year (beginning

with. 1998), from (and to the extent of) the amount of theallocation under subsection (c) for the State for the fiscalyear ending in such calendar year, the State shall selectqualifying individuals who apply for the assistance in theorder in which they apply.

"(B) CARRYOVER.—For calendar years after 1998, theState shall give preference to individuals who were pro-vided such assistance (or other assistance described in sec-tion 1902(a)(10)(E)) in the last month of the previous yearand who continue to be (or become) qualifying individuals."(3) LIMIT ON NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS BASED ON ALLOCA-

TION.—The State shall limit the number of qualifying individ-uals selected with respect to assistance in a calendar year sothat the aggregate amount of such assistance provided to suchindividuals in such year is estimated to be equal to (but not ex-ceed) the State's allocation under subsection (c) for the fiscalyear ending in such calendar year.

"(4) RECEIPT OF ASSISTANCE DURING DURATION OF YEAR.—If a qualifying individual is selected to receive assistance underthis section for a month in year, the individual is entitled to re-ceive such assistance for the remainder of the year if the indi-vidual continues to be a qualifying individual. The fact that anindividual is selected to receive assistance under this section atany time during a year does not entitle the individual to contin-ued assistance for any succeeding year."(c) ALLOCATION.—

283

"(1) TOTAL ALLOCATION.—The total amount available forallocation under this section for—

"(A) fiscal year 1998 is $200,000,000;"(TB) fiscal year 1999 is $250,000,000;"(C) fiscal year 2000. is $300,000,000;"(D) fiscal year 2001 is $350,000,000; and"(E) fiscal year 2002 is $400,000,000.

"(2) ALLOCATION TO STATES.—The Secretary shall providefor the allocation of the total amount described in paragraph(1) for a fiscal year, among the States that executed a planamendment in accordance with subsection (a), based upon theSecretary's estimate of the ratio of—

"(A) an amount equal to the sum of—"(i) twice the total number of individuals described

in section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iv)(I) in the State, and"(ii) the total number of individuals described in

section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iv)(II) in the State; to"(B) the sum of the amounts computed under subpara-

graph (A) for all eligible States."(d) APPLICABLE FMAP.—With respect to assistance described

in section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iv) furnished in a State for calendar quar-ters in a calendar year —

"(1) to the extent that such assistance does not exceed theState's allocation under subsection (c) for the fiscal year endingin the calendar year, the Federal medical assistance percentageshall be equal to 100 percent; and

"(2) to the extent that such assistance exceeds such alloca-tion, the Federal medical assistance percentage is 0 percent."(e) LIMITATION ON ENTITLEMENT —Except as specifically pro-

vided under this section, nothing in t1is title shall be construed asestablishing any entitlement of individuals described in section1902(a)(10)(E)(iv) to assistance described in such section.

"(f) COVERAGE OF COSTS THROUGH PART B OF THE MEDICAREPROGRAM.—For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall provide for thetransfer from the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance TrustFund under section 1841 to the appropriate account in the Treasurythat provides for payments under section 1903(a) with respect tomedical assistance provided under this section, of an amount equiv-alent to the total of the amount of payments made under such sec-tion that is attributable to this section and such transfer shall betreated as an expenditure from such Trust Fund for purposes of sec-tion 1839.".SEC. 4733. STATE OPTION TO PERMIT WORKERS WITH DISABILITIES

TO BUY INTO MEDICAID.Section 1902 (a)(10) (A)(ii) (42 US. C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(ii)) is

amended—(1) in subclause (XI), by striking "or" at the end;(2) in subclause (XII), by adding "or" at the end; and(3) by adding at the end the following':

"(XIII) who are in families whose income isless than 250 percent of the income official povertyline (as defined by the Office of Management andBudget, and revised annually in accordance withsection 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconcili-

284

ation Act of 1981) applicable to a family of the sizeinvolved, and who but for earnings in excess of thelimit established under section 1905(q) (2) (B),would be considered to be receiving supplementalsecurity income (subject, notwithstanding section1916, to payment of premiums or other cost-shar-ing charges (set on a sliding scale based on in-come) that the State may determine);'

SEC. 4734. PENALTY FOR FRAUDULENT ELIGIBILITY.Section 1128B(a) (42 U S.C. 1320a—7b(a)), as amended by sec-

tion 217 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Actof 1996 (Public Law 104—191; 110 Stat. 2008), is amended—

(1) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:"(6) for a fee knowingly and willfully counsels or assists an

individual to dispose of assets (including by any transfer intrust) in order for the individual to become eligible for medicalassistance under a State plan under title XIX, if disposing ofthe assets results in the imposition of a period of ineligibilityfor such assistance under section 1917(c),"; and

(2) in clause (ii) of the matter following such paragraph, bystriking "failure, or conversion by any other person" and insert-ing "failure, conversion, or provision of counsel or assistance byany other person'

SEC. 4735. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS.(a) IN GENERitL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law,

the payments described in subsection (b) shall not be considered in-come or resources in determining eligibility for, or the amount ofbenefits under, a State plan of medical assistance approved undertitle XIX of the Social Security Act.

(b) PAYMENTS DES CRIBED.—-The payments described in thissubsection are—

(1) payments made from any fund established pursuant toa class settlement in the case of Susan Walker v. Bayer Cor-poration, et al., 96—C--5024 (N.D. Ill.); and

(2) payments made pursuant to a release of all claims ina case—

(A) that is entered into in lieu of the class settlementreferred to in paragraph (1); and

(B) that is signed by all affected parties in such caseon or before the later of—

(i) December 31, 1997, or(ii) the date that is 270 days after the date on

which such release is first sent to the persons (or thelegal representative of such persons) to whom the pay-ment is to be made.

338

TITLE V—WELFARE AND RELATEDPROVISIONS

SEC. 5000. TABLE OF CONTENTS; REFERENCES.(a) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this title is

as follows:Sec. 5000. Table of contents; references.

Subtitle A—TANF Block Grant

Sec. 5001. Welfare-to-work grants.Sec. 5002. Limitation on amount of Federal funds transferable to title XX programs.Sec. 5003. Limitation on number of persons who may be treated as engaged in work

by reason of participation in educational activities.Sec. 5004. Penalty for failure of State to reduce assistance for recipients refusing

without good cause to work.

Subtitle B—Supplemental Security IncomeSec. 5101. Extension of deadline to perform childhood disability redeterminations.Sec. 5102. Fees for Federal administration of State supplementary payments.

Subtitle C—Child Support Enforcement

Sec. 5201. Clarification of authority to permit certain redisclosures of wage andclaim information.

Subtitle D—Restricting Welfare and Public Benefits for Aliens

Sec. 5301. 55! eligibility for aliens receiving SSI on August 22, 1996, and disabledaliens lawfully residing in the United States on August 22, 1996.

Sec. 5302. ExterLsion of eligibility period for refugees and certain other qualifiedaliens from 5 to 7 years for SSI and medicaid; status of Cuban andHaitian entrants.

Sec. 5303. Exceptions for certain Indians from limitation on eligibility for supple.mental security income and medicaid benefits.

Sec. 5304. Exemption from restriction on supplemental security income programparticipation by certain recipients eligible on the basis of very old appli-cations.

Sec. 5305. Reinstatement of eligibility for benefits.Sec. 5306. Treatment of certain Amerasian immigrants as refugees.Sec. 5307. Verification of eligibility for State and local public benefits.Sec. 5308. Effective date.

Subtitle E—Unemployment Compensation

Sec. 5401. Clarifying provision relating to base periods.Sec. 5402. Increase in Federal unemployment account ceiling.Sec. 5403. Special distribution to States from Unemployment Trust Fund.Sec. 5404. Interest.free advances to State accounts in Unemployment Trust Fund re-

stricted to States which meet funding goals.Sec. 5405. Exemption of service performed by election workers from the Federal un-

employment tax.Sec. 5406. Treatment of certain services performed by inmates.Sec. 5407. Exemption of service performed for an elementary or secondary school op-

erated primarily for religious purposes from the Federal unemploymenttax.

Sec. 5408. State program integrity activities for unemployment compensation.

339

Subtitle F—Welfare Reform Technical Corrections

CHAPTER 1—BLOCK GRANTS FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE TO NEEDY FAMILIES

Sec. 5501. Eligible States; State plan.Sec. 5502. Grants to States.Sec. 5503. Use of grants.Sec. 5504. Mandatory work requirements.Sec. 5505. Prohibitions; requirements.Sec. 5506. Penalties.Sec. 5507. Data collection and reporting.Sec. 5508. Direct funding and administration by Indian Tribes.Sec. 5509. Research, evaluations, and national studies.Sec. 5510. Report on data processing.Sec. 5511. Study on alternative outcomes measures.Sec. 5512. Limitation on payments to the territories.Sec. 5513. Conforming amendments to the Social Security Act.Sec. 5514. Other conforming amendments.Sec. 5515. Modifications to the job opportunities for certain low-income individuals

program.Sec. 5516. Denial of assistance and benefits for drug-related convictions.Sec. 5517. Transition rule.Sec. 5518. Effective dates.

CHAPTER 2—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME

Sec. 5521. Conforming and technical amendments relating to eligibility restrictions.Sec. 5522. Conforming and technical amendments relating to benefits for disabled

children.Sec. 5523. Additional technical amendments to title XVI.Sec. 5524. Additional technical amendments relating to title XVI.Sec. 5525. Technical amendments relating to drug addicts and alcoholics.Sec. 5526. Advisory board personnel.Sec. 5527. Timing of delivery of October 1, 2000, 551 benefit payments.Sec. 5528. Effective dates.

CHAPTER 3—CHILD SUPPORT

Sec. 5531. State obligation to provide child support enforcement services.Sec. 5532. Distribution of collected support.Sec. 5533. Civil penalties relating to State Directory of New Hires.Sec. 5534. Federal Parent Locator Service.Sec. 5535. Access to registry data for research purposes.Sec. 5536. Collection and use of social security numbers for use in child support en-

forcement.Sec. 5537. Adoption of uniform State laws.Sec. 5538. State laws providing expedited procedures.Sec. 5539. Voluntary paternity acknowledgement.Sec. 5540. Calculation of paternity establishment percentage.Sec. 5541. Means available for provision of technical assistance and operation of

Federal Parent Locator Service.Sec. 5542. Authority to collect support from Federal employees.Sec. 5543. Definition of support order.Sec. 5544. State law authorizing suspension of licenses.Sec. 5545. International support enforcement.Sec. 5546. Child support enforcement for Indian tribes.Sec. 5547. Continuation of rules for distribution of support in the case of a title IV—

Echilci.Sec. 5548. (kod cause in foster care and food stamp cases.Sec. 5549. Date of collection of support.Sec. 5550. Administrative enforcement in interstate cases.Sec. 5551. Work orders for arrearages.Sec. 5552. Additional technical State plan amendments.Sec. 5553. Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders.Sec. 5554. Full faith and credit for child support orders.Sec. 5555. Development costs of automated systems.Sec. 5556. Additional technical amendments.Sec. 5557. Effective date.

340

CHAPTER 4—RESTRICTING WELFARE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR ALIENS

SUBCHAPTER A—ELIGIBILITY' FOR FEDERAL BENEFITS

Sec. 5561. Alien eligibility for Federal benefits: limited application to medicare andbenefits under t/u' Railroad Retirement Act.

Sec. 5562. Exceptions to benefit limitatiozs: corrections to reference concerningaliens whose deportation is withheld.

Sec. 5563. Veterans exception: application of minimum active duty service require-ment; extension to unremarried surviving spouse; expanded definition ofveteran.

Sec. 5564. Notification concerning aliens not lawfully present: correction of terminol-ogy.

Sec. 5565. Freely associated States: contracts and licenses.Sec. 5566. Congressional statement regarding benefits for Hmong and other High-

land Lao veterans.SUBCHAPTER B—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 5571. Determination of treatment of battered aliens as qualified aliens; inclu-sion of alien child of battered parent as qualified alien.

Sec. 5572. Verification of eligibility for benefits.Sec. 5573. Qualifying quarters: disclosure of quarters of coverage information; cor-

rection to assure that crediting applies to all quarters earned by parentsbefore child is 18.

Sec. 5574. Statutory construction: benefit eligibility limitations applicable only withrespect to aliens present in the United States.

SUBCHAPTER C—MISCELL4NEOUS CLERICAL AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS; EFFECTIVEDATE

Sec. 5581. Correcting miscellaneous clerical and technical errors.Sec. 5582. Effective date.

CHAPTER 5—CHILD PROTECTION

Sec. 5591. Conforming and technical amendments relating to child protection.Sec. 5592. Additional technical amendments relating to child protection.Sec. 5593. Effective date.

CHAPTER 6—CHILD CARE

Sec. 5601. Conforming and technical amendments relating to child care.Sec. 5602. Additional conforming and technical amendments.Sec. 5603. Effective dates.

CHAPTER 7—ERISA AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MEDICAL CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS

Sec. 5611. Amendments relating to section 303 of the Personal Responsibility andWork Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

Sec. 5612. Amendment relating to section 381 of the Personal Responsibility andWork Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.


Subtitle U--MiscellaneousSec. 5701. Increase in public debt limit.Sec. 5702. Authorization of appropriations for enforcement initiatives related to the

earned income tax credit.

(b) REFERENCES.—EXcept as otherwise expressly provided,wherever in this title an amendment or repeal is expressed in termsof an amendment to, or repeal of a section or other provision, thereference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provi-sion of the Social Security Act.

359

Subtitle B—Supplemental Security IncomeSEC. 5101. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO PERFORM CHILDHOOD DIS-

ABILITY REDETERMINATIONS.Section 211(d)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Op

portunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104—193; 110 Stat.2190) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A)—(A) in the 1st sentence, by striking "1 year" and insert-

ing "18 months"; and(B) by inserting after the 1st sentence the following:

"Any redetermination required by the preceding sentencethat is not performed before the end of the period describedin the preceding sentence shall be performed as soon as ispracticable thereafter. "; and(2) in subparagraph (C), by adding at the end the follow-

ing: "Before commencing a redetermination under the 2nd sen-tence of subparagraph (A), in any case in which the individualinvolved has not already been notified of the provisions of thisparagraph, the Commissioner of Social Security shall notify theindividual involved of the provisions of this paragraph. ".

SEC. 5102. FEES FOR FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION OF STATE SUPPLE-MENTARY PAYMENTS.

(a) FEE SCHEDULE.—(1) OPTIONAL STATE SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS.—

(A) IN GENERAL—Section 1616(d) (2) (B) (42 U.S.C.1382e(d) (2) (B)) is amended—

(i) by striking "and" at the end of clause (iii); and(ii) by striking clause (iv) and inserting the follow-

ing:"(iv) for fiscal year 1997, $5.00;"(v) for fiscal year 1998, $6.20;"(vi) for fiscal year 1999, $7.60;"(vii) for fiscal year 2000, $7.80;"(viii) for fiscal year 2001, $8.10;"(ix) for fiscal year 2002, $8.50; and"(x) for fiscal year 2003 and each succeeding fiscal year—

"(I) the applicable rate in the preceding fiscal year, in-creased by the percentage, if any, by which the ConsumerPrice Index for the month of June of the calendar year ofthe increase exceeds the Consumer Price Index for themonth of June of the calendar year preceding the calendaryear of the increase, and rounded to the nearest whole cent;or

"(II) such different rate as the Commissioner deter-mines is appropriate for the State.".

(B) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1616(d)(2)(C)of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382e(d)(2)(C)) is amended by strik-ing "(B)(iv)" and inserting "(B)(x)(II)".(2) MANDATORY STATE SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS.—

(A) IN GENERAL—Section 212(b) (3) (B)(ii) of Public Law93—66 (42 U.S.C. 1382 note) is amended—

360

(i) by striking "and" at the end of subclause (III);and

(ii) by striking subclause (IV) and inserting the fol-lowing:

"(IV) for fiscal year 1997, $5.00;"(V) for fiscal year 1998, $6.20;"(VI) for fiscal year 1999, $7.60;"(VII) for fiscal year 2000, $7.80;"(VIII) for fiscal year 2001, $8.10;"(IX) for fiscal year 2002, $8.50; and"(X) for fiscal year 2003 and each succeeding fiscal year—

"(aa) the applicable rate in the preceding fiscal year,increased by the percentage, if any, by which the ConsumerPrice Index for the month of June of the calendar year ofthe increase exceeds the Consumer Price Index for themonth of June of the calendar year preceding the calendaryear of the increase, and rounded to the nearest whole cent;or

"(bb) such different rate as the Commissioner deter-mines is appropriate for the State. ".

(B) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section212(b) (3) (B) (iii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382 note) is amend-ed by striking "(ii)(IV)" and inserting "(ii)(X)(bb)".

(b) USE OF NEW FEES To DEFRAY THE SOCIAL SECURITY AD-MINISTRATION'S ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—

(1) CREDIT TO SPECIAL FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 ANDSUBSEQUENT YEARS.—

(A) OPTIONAL STATE SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENT FEES.—Section 1616(d)(4) (42 U.S.C. 1382e(d)(4)) is amended toread as follows:

"(4)(A) The first $5 of each administration fee assessed pursu-ant to paragraph (2), upon collection, shall be deposited in the gen-eral fund of the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous re-ceipts.

"(B) That portion of each administration fee in excess of $5, and100 percent of each additional services fee charged pursuant toparagraph (3), upon collection fbr fiscal year 1998 and each subse-quent fiscal year, shall be credited to a special fund established inthe Treasury of the United States for State supplementary paymentfees. The amounts so credited, to the extent and in the amounts pro-vided in advance in appropriations Acts, shall be available to de-fray expenses incurred in carrying out this title and related laws.The amounts so credited shall not be scored as receipts under sec-tion 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Actof 1985, and the amounts so credited shall be credited as a discre-tionary offset to discretionary spending to the extent that theamounts so credited are made available for expenditure in appro-priations Acts. ".

(B) MANDATORY STATE SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTFEES.—Section 212(b) (3) (D) of Public Law 93-66 (42 U.S.C.1382 note) is amended to read as follows:

"(D)(i) The first $5 of each administration fee assessed pursuantto subparagraph (B), upon collection, shall be deposited in the gen-

361

eral fund of the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous re-ceipts.

"(ii) The portion of each administration fee in excess of $5, and100 percent of each additional services fee charged pursuant to sub-paragraph (C), upon collection for fiscal year 1998 and each subse-quent fiscal year, shall be credited to a special fund established inthe Treasury of the United States for State supplementary paymentfees. The amounts so credited, to the extent and in the amounts pro-vided in advance in appropriations Acts, shall be available to de-fray expenses incurred in carrying out this section and title XVI ofthe Social Security Act and related laws. The amounts so creditedshall not be scored as receipts under section 252 of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and theamounts so credited shall be credited as a discretionary offset todiscretionary spending to the extent that the amounts so creditedare made available for expenditure in appropriations Acts.".

(2) LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—From amounts credited pursuant to section 1616(d) (4) (B) of theSocial Security Act and section 212(b) (3) (D) (ii) of Public Law93—66 to the special fund established in the Treasury of theUnited States for State supplementary payment fees, there isauthorized to be appropriated an amount not to exceed$35,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and such sums as may be nec-essary for each fiscal year thereafter.

Subtitle C—Child Support EnforcementSEC. 5201. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO PERMIT CERTAIN RE-

DISCLOSURES OF WAGE AND CLAIM INFORMATION.Section 303(h)(1)(C) (42 U.S.C. 503(h)(1)(C)) is amended by

striking "section 453(i)(1) in carrying out the child support en force-ment program under title IV" and inserting "subsections (i)(1), (i)(3),and (j) of section 453".

Subtitle D—Restricting Welfare and PublicBenefits for Aliens

SEC. 5301. SSI ELIGIBILITY FOR ALIENS RECEIVING SSI ON AUGUST 22,1996 AND DISABLED ALIENS LAWFULLY RESIDING IN THEUNITED STATES ON AUGUST 22, 1996.

(a) SSI ELIGIBILITY FOR ALIENS RECEIVING SSI ON AUGUST 22,1996.—Section 402(a)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and WorkOpportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)) isamended by adding after subparagraph (D) the following new sub-paragraph:

"(E) ALIENS RECEIVING SSI ON AUGUST 22, 1996.—Withrespect to eligibility for benefits for the program defined inparagraph (3)(A) (relating to the supplemental security in-come program), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alienwho is lawfully residing in the United States and who wasreceiving such benefits on August 22, 1996.'

(b)SSI ELIGIBILITY FOR DISABLED ALIENS LAWFULLY RESIDINGIN THE UNITED STATES ON AUGUST 22, 1996.—Section 402(a)(2) of

362

the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the endthe following:

"(F) DISABLED ALIENS LAWFULLY RESIDING IN THEUNITED STATES ON AUGUST 22, 1996.—With respect to eligi-bility for benefits for the program defined in paragraph(3)(A) (relating to the supplemental security income pro-gram), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien who—

"(i) was lawfully residing in the United 5tates onAugust 22, 1996; and

"(ii) is blind or disabled, as defined in section1614(a)(2) or 1614(a)(3) of the Social 5ecurity Act (42U.S. C. 1382c(a)(3)). ".

(c) EXTENSION OF GRANDFATHER PROVISION RELATING TO 551ELIGIBILITY.—Section 402(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Personal Responsibilityand Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.s.C.1612(a)(2)(D)(i)) is amended—

(1) in subclause (I), by striking "5eptember 30, 1997," andinserting "5eptember 30, 1998,",, and

(2) in subclause (III), by striking "5eptember 30, 1997," andinserting "5eptember 30, 1998'

SEC. 5302. EXTENSION OF ELIGIBILITY PERIOD FOR REFUGEES ANDCERTAIN OTHER QUALIFIED ALIENS FROM 5 TO 7 YFARSFOR SSI AND MEDICAID; STATUS OF CUBAN ANDIL4ITL4NEiVrRANTS.

(a) 551.—Section 402 (a) (2) (A) of the Personal Responsibilityand Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.s.C.1612(a)(2)(A)) is amended to read as follows:

"(A) TIME-LIMITED EXCEPTION FOR REFUGEES ANDASYLEES.—

"(i) 551.—With respect to the specified Federal pro-gram described in paragraph (3)(A), paragraph (1)shall not apply to an alien until 7 years after thedate—

"(I) an alien is admitted to the United 5tatesas a refugee under section 207 of the Immigrationand Nationality Act;

"(II) an alien is granted asylum under section208 of such Act;

"(III) an alien's deportation is withheld undersection 243(h) of such Act; or

"(IV) an alien is granted status as a cubanand Haitian entrant (as defined in section 501(e)of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980)."(ii) FOOD STAMPS.—With respect to the specified

Federal program described in paragraph (3)(B), para-graph (1) shall not apply to an alien until 5 years afterthe date—

"(I) an alien is admitted to the United 5tatesas a refugee under section 207 of the Immigrationand Nationality Act;


363


"(IV) an alien is granted status as a Cubanand Haitian entrant (as defined in section 501(e)of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980)."

(b) MEDICAID.—Section 402(b) (2) (A) of the Personal Responsibil-ity and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1612(b) (2) (A)) is amended to read as follows:


"(i) MEDICAID.—With respect to the designatedFederal program described in paragraph (3)(C), para-graph (1) shall not apply to an alien until 7 years afterthe date—

"(I) an alien is admitted to the United Statesas a refugee under section 207 of the Immigrationand Nationality Act;



"(IV) an alien is granted status as a Cubanand Haitian entrant (as defined in section 501(e)of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980)."(ii) OTHER DESIGNATED FEDERAL PROGRAMS.—

With respect to the designated Federal programs underparagraph (3) (other than subparagraph (C)), para-graph (1) shall not apply to an alien until 5 years afterthe date—




"(IV) an alien is granted status as a Cubanand Haitian entrant (as defined in section 501(e)of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980).".

(c) STATUS OF CUBAN AND HAITL4N ENTRANTS.—(1) FEDERAL MEANS-TESTED PUBLIC BENEFITS.—

(A) Section 403(b) (1) of the Personal Responsibility andWork Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1613(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the followingnew subparagraph:

"(D) An alien who is a Cuban and Haitian entrant asdefined in section 501(e) of the Refugee Education Assist-ance Act of 1980. '

(B) Section 403 of the Personal Responsibility andWork Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1613) is amended by striking subsection (d).(2) STATE PUBLIC BENEFITS.—Section 412(b)(1) of the Per-

sonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

364

of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1622(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the endthe following new subparagraph:

"(D) An alien who is a cuban and Haitian entrant asdefined in section 501(e) of the Refugee Education Assist-ance Act of 1980 until 5 years after the alien is grantedsuch status.'(3) QUALIFIED ALIEN DEFINED.—Section 431(b) of the Per-

sonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Actof 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1641(b)) is amended—

(A) in paragraph (5) by striking "or";(B) in paragraph (6) by striking the period and insert-

ing "; or"; and(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

"(7) an alien who is a Cuban and Haitian entrant (as de-fined in section 501(e) of the Refugee Education Assistance Actof 1980).".

SEC. 5303. EXCEPTIONS FOR CERTAIN INDIANS FROM LIMITATION ONELIGIBILITY FOR SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME ANDMEDICAID BENEFITS.

(a) EXCEPTION FROM LIMITATION ON SSI ELIGIBILITY.—Section402(a) (2) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Rec-onciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)) is amended by addingat the end the following:

"(G) SSI EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN INDIANS.—With re-spect to eligibility for benefits for the program defined inparagraph (3)(A) frelating to the supplemental security in-come program), section 401(a) and paragraph (1) shall notapply to any individual—

"(i) who is an American Indian born in Canada towhom the provisions of section 289 of the Immigrationand Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1359) apply; or

"(ii) who is a member of an Indian tribe (as de-fined in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determinationand Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)))."

(b)EXCEPTION FROM LIMITATION ON MEDICAID ELIGIBILI7Y.—Section 402(b)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor-tunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(b)(2)) is amendedby inserting at the end the following:

"(E) MEDICAID EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN INDIANS.—Withrespect to eligibility for benefits for the program defined inparagraph (3)(C) (relating to the medicaid program), sec-tion 401(a) and paragraph (1) shall not apply to any indi-vidual described in subsection (a)(2)(G). ".

(c) SSI AND MEDICAID EXCEPTIONS FROM LIMITATION ON ELIGI-BILITY OF NEW ENTRetNTS.—Section 403 of the Personal Responsibil-ity and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1613) is amended by adding after subsection (c) the following newsubsection:

"(d) SSI AND MEDICAID BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN INDIANS.—Not-withstanding any other provision of law, the limitations under sec-tion 401(a) and subsection (a) shall not apply to an individual de-scribed in section 402(a)(2)(G), but only with respect to the pro-grams specified in subsections (a)(3)(A) and (b)(3)(C) of section402. ".

365

SEC. 5304. EXEMPTION FROM RESTRICTION ON SUPPLEMENTAL SECU-RITY INCOME PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY CERTAIN RE-CIPIENTS ELIGIBLE ON THE BASIS OF VERY OLD APPLICA-TIONS.

Section 402(a)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Op-portunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a) (2)) is amend-ed by adding at the end the following:

"(H) SSI EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RECIPIENTS ON THEBASIS OF VERY OLD APPLICATIONS.—With respect to eligi-bility for benefits for the program defined in paragraph(3)(A) (relating to the supplemental security income pro-gram), paragraph (1) shall not apply to any individual—

"(i) who is receiving benefits under such programfor months after July 1996 on the basis of an applica-tion filed before January 1, 1979; and

"(ii) with respect to whom the Commissioner of So-cial Security lacks clear and convincing evidence thatsuch individual is an alien ineligible for such benefitsas a result of the application of this section. ".

SEC. 5305. REINSTATEMENT OF ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS.(a) FooD STAMPS.—The Personal Responsibility and Work Op-

portunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 is amended by adding after sec-tion 435 the following new section:"SEC. 436. DERIVATiVE ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS.

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien whounder the provisions of this title is ineligible for benefits under thefood stamp program (as defined in section 402(a) (3) (B)) shall not beeligible for such benefits because the alien receives benefits underthe supplemental security income program (as defined in section402(a) (3) (A)) .

(b) MEDICMD.—Section 402(b)(2) of the Personal Responsibilityand Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1612(b) (2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

"(F) MEDICAID EXCEPTION FOR ALIENS RECEIVING SSI.—An alien who is receiving benefits under the program de-fined in subsection (a)(3)(A) (relating to the supplementalsecurity income program) shall be eligible for medical as-sistance under a State plan under title XIX of the SocialSecurity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) under the same termsand conditions that apply to other recipients of benefitsunder the program defined in such subsection. ".

(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections as containedin section 2 of the Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996 is amended by adding after the item re-lating to section 435 the following:"Sec. 436. Derivative eligibility for benefits. ".

SEC. 5306. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN AMERASIAN IMMiGRANTS AS REF-UGEES.

(a) FoR PURPOSES OF SSI AND FOOD STAMPS.—Section402 (a) (2) (A) of the Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(A)) as amended bysection 5302 is amended—

(1) in clause (i)—(A) by striking "or" at the end of subclause (III);

366

(B) by striking the period at the end of subclause (IV)and inserting ' or' and

(C) by adding at the e&d the following:an alien is admitted to the United States

as an Amerasian immigrant pursuant to section584 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing,and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1988(as contained in section 101(e) of Public Law 100—202 and amended by the 9th proviso under MIGRA-TION AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE in title II of theForeign Operations, Export Financing, and Relat-ed Programs Appropriations Act, 1989, Public Law100—461, as amended)."; and

(2) in clause (iO—(A) by striking "or" at the end of subclause (IlL);(B) by striking the period at the end of subclause (IV)

and inserting ' or' and(C) by adding at the end the following:

an alien is admitted to the United Statesas an Amerasian immigrant as described in clause(i)(V).

(b) FOR PURPOSES OF TANF, SSBG, AND MEDICAID.—Section402 (b) (2) (A) of the Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.SC. 1612(b)(2)(A)) as amended bysection 5302 is amended—

(1) in clause (i)—(A) by striking "or" at the end of subclause (III);(B) by striking the period at the end of subclause (IV)

and inserting "; or' and(C) by adding at the endthe following:

an alien admitted to the United States as anAmerasian immigrant as described in subsection(a) (2) (A) (i)(V) until 5 years after the date of such alien'sentry into the United States."; and

(2) in clause (ii)—(A) by striking "or" at the end of subclause (III);(B) by striking the period at the end of subclause (IV)

and inserting ' or"; and(C) by adding at the end the following:

an alien admitted to the United States as anAmerasian immigrant as described in subsection(a) (2) (A) (i)(V) until 5 years after the date of such alien'sentry into the United States. ".

(c) FOR PURPOSES OF EXCEPTION FROM 5-YEAR LIMITED ELIGI-BILITY OF QUALIFIED ALIENS.—Section 403(b)(1) of the Personal Re-sponsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8U.S.C. 1613(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

"(E) An alien admitted to the United States as anAmerasian immigrant as described in section402(a) (2) (A) (i)(V). ".

(d) FOR PURPOSES OF CERTAIN STATE PROGRAMS.—Section412(b) (1) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Rec-onciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1622(b) (1)) is amended by addingat the end the following new subparagraph:

367

"(E) An alien admitted to the United States as anAmerasian immigrant as described in section402(a) (2) (A) (i)(V). ".

SEC. 5307. VERIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR STATE AND LOCAL PUB-LIC BENEFITS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Personal Responsibility and Work Op-portunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 is amended by adding after sec-tion 412 the following new section:"SEC. 413. AUTHORIZATION FOR VERIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR

STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC BENEFITS."A State or political subdivision of a State is authorized to re-

quire an applicant for State and local public benefits (as defined insection 411(c)) to provide proof of eligibility.'

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections as containedin section 2 of the Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996 is amended by adding after the item re-lating to section 412 the following:"Sec. 413. Authorization for verification of eligibility for state and local public bene-

fits.'SEC. 5308. EFFECTIVE DATE.*ERR11* Except as otherwise provided, the amendments madeby this subtitle shall be effective as if included in the enactment oftitle JY of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Rec-onciliation Act of 1996.

370

Subtitle F—Welfare Reform TechnicalCorrections

386

CHAPTER 2—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOMESEC. 5521. CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO

ELIGIBILITY RESTRICTIONS.(a) DENIAL OF SSI BENEFITS FOR FUGITIVE FELONS AND PRO-

BATION AND PAROLE VI0LAT0RS.—Section 1611(e)(6) (42 U.S.C.1382(e)(6)) is amended by inserting "and section 1106(c) of this Act"after "of 1986"

387

(b) TREATMENT OF PRISONERS.—Section 161 1(e)(1)(I)(i)(II) (42U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)(I)(i)(II)) is amended by striking "inmate of the in-stitution" and all that follows through "this subparagraph" and in-serting "individual who receives in the month preceding the firstmonth throughout which such individual is an inmate of the jail,prison, penal institution, or correctional facility that furnishes in for-mation respecting such individual pursuant to subclause (I), or isconfined in the institution (that so furnishes such information) asdescribed in section 202(x)(1)(A)(ii), a benefit under this title forsuch preceding month, and who is determined by the Commissionerto be ineligible for benefits under this title by reason of confinementbased on the information provided by such institution'

(c) CORRECTION OF REFERENCE.—Section 1611(e)(1)(I)(i)(I) (42U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)(I)(i)(I)) is amended by striking "paragraph (1)"and inserting "this paragraph'SEC. 5522. CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO

BENEFITS FOR DISABLED CHILDREN.(a) ELIGIBILITY REDETERMINATIONS AND CONTINUING DISABIL-

ITY REWEWS.—(1) DIsABILnY ELIGIBILI2Y REDETERMINATIONS REQUIRED

FOR SSI RECIPIENTS WHO AITAIN 18 YEARS OF AGE.—Section1614(a)(3)(H)(iii) (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(H)(iii)) is amended bystriking subclauses (I) and (II) and all that follows and insert-ing the following:

"(I) by applying the criteria used in determining initial eli-gibility for individuals who are age 18 or older; and

"(II) either during the 1-year period beginning on the indi-vidual's 18th birthday or, in lieu of a continuing disability re-view, whenever the Commissioner determines that an individ-ual's case is subject to a redetermination under this clause.

With respect to any redetermination under this clause, paragraph(4) shall not apply. ".

(2) CONTINUING DISABILITY RE WE W REQUIRED FOR LOWBIRTH WEIGHT BABIES.—Section 1614(a) (3) (H) (i v) (42 U.S.C.1382c(a)(3)(H)(iv)) is amended—

(A) in subclause (I), by striking "Not" and inserting"Except as provided in subclause (VI), not' and

(B) by adding at the end the following:"(VI) Subclause (I) shall not apply in the case of an individual

described in that subclause who, at the time of the individual's ini-tial disability determination, the Commissioner determines has animpairment that is not expected to improve within 12 months afterthe birth of that individual, and who the Commissioner schedulesfor a continuing disability review at a date that is after the individ-ual attains 1 year of age. ".

(b) ADDITIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY REQ UIREMEN TS.—Section1631(a)(2)(F) (42 U.S.C. 1383(a) (2) (F)) is amended—

(1) in clause (ii)(III)(bb), by striking "the total amount" andall that follows through "1613(c)" and inserting "in any case inwhich the individual knowingly misapplies benefits from suchan account, the Commissioner shall reduce future benefits pay-able to such individual (or to such individual and his spouse)by an amount equal to the total amount of such benefits so mis-applied' and

388

(2) by striking clause (iii) and inserting the following:"(iii) The representative payee may deposit into the account es-

tablished under clause (i) any other funds representing past duebenefits under this title to the eligible individual, provided that theamount of such past due benefits is equal to or exceeds the maxi-mum monthly benefit payable under this title to an eligible individ-ual (including State supplementary payments made by the Commis-sioner pursuant to an agreement under section 1616 or section212(b) of Public Law 93—66).'

(c) REDUCTION IN CASH BENEFITS PAYABLE TO INSTITUTIONAL-IZED INDIVIDUALS WHOSE MEDICAL COSTS AIE COVERED BY PRI-VATE INSURANCE.—Section 1611(e) (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)) is amend-ed—

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)—(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking "hos-

pital, extended care facility, nursing home, or intermediatecare facility" and inserting "medical treatment facility'

(B) in clause (ii)—(i) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by strik-

ing "hospital, home or"; and(ii) in subclause (I), by striking "hospital, home,

or";(C) in clause (iii), by striking "hospital, home, or"; and(D) in the matter following clause (iii), by striking

"hospital, extended care facility, nursing home, or inter-mediate care facility which is a 'medical institution ornursing facility' within the meaning of section 1917(c)" andinserting "medical treatment facility that provides servicesdescribed in section 191 7(c)(1)(C)";(2) in paragraph (1)(E)—

(A) in clause (i)(II), by striking "hospital, extended carefacility, nursing home, or intermediate care facility" and in-serting "medical treatment facility"; and

(B) in clause (iii), by striking "hospital, extended carefacility, nursing home, or intermediate care facility" and in-serting "medical treatment facility";(3) in paragraph (1)(G), in the matter preceding clause (i)—

(A) by striking "or which is a hospital, extended carefacility, nursing home, or intermediate care" and inserting"or is in a medical treatment' and

(B) by inserting "or, in the case of an individual whois a child under the age of 18, under any health insurancepolicy issued by a private provider of such insurance" after"title XIX"; and(4) in paragraph (3)—

(A) by striking "same hospital, home, or facility" andinserting "same medical treatment facility' and

(B) by striking "same such hospital, home, or facility"and inserting "same such facility'.

(d) CORRECTION OF U.S.C. CITATI0N.—Section 211(c) of the Per-sonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of1996 (Public Law 104—193; 110 Stat. 2189) is amended by striking"1382(a) (4)" and inserting "1382c(a)(4)'

389

SEC. 5523. ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO 2YTLE XVI.Section 1615(d) (42 U.S.C. 1382d(d)) is amended—

(1) in the first sentence, by inserting a comma after "sub-section (a)(1)' and

(2) in the last sentence, by striking "him" and inserting "theCommissioner'

SEC. 5524. ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TOTITLE XVI.

Section 111O(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. l310(a)(3)) is amended—(1) by inserting "(or the Commissioner, with respect to any

jointly financed cooperative agreement or grant concerning titleXVI)" after "Secretary" the first place it appears; and

(2) by inserting "(or the Commissioner, as applicable)" after"Secretary" the second place it appears.

SEC. 5525. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO DRUG ADDICTSAND ALCOHOLICS.

(a) CLARIFICATION RELATING TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THEDENIAL OF SSI DIsILfl'Y BENEFITS TO DRUG ADDICTS AND Az,co-HOLICS.—Section 105(b)(5) of the Contract with America Advance-ment Act of 1996 (Public Law 104—121; 110 Stat. 853) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking "by the Commissionerof Social Security" and "by the Commissioner' and

(2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (F)and by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new sub-paragraphs:

"(D) For purposes of this paragraph, an individual'sclaim, with respect to supplemental security income benefitsunder title XVI of the Social Security Act based on disabil-ity, which has been denied in whole before the date of theenactment of this Act, may not be considered to be finallyadjudicated before such date it; on or after such date—

"(i) there is pending a request for either adminis-trative or judicial review with respect to such claim, or

"(ii) there is pending, with respect to such claim, areadjudication by the Commissioner of Social Securitypursuant to relief in a class action or implementationby the Commissioner of a court remand order."(E) Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph,

with respect to any individual for whom the Commissionerdoes not perform the eligibility redetermination before thedate prescribed in subparagraph (C), the Commissionershall perform such eligibility redetermination in lieu of acontinuing disability review whenever the Commissionerdetermines that the individual's eligibility is subject to re-determination based on the preceding provisions of thisparagraph, and the provisions of section 1614(a)(4) of theSocial Security Act shall not apply to such redetermina-tion. ".

(b) CORRECTIONS TO EFFECTIVE DATE OF PR0W5ION5 CON-CERNING REPRESENTATIVE PAYEES AND TREATMENT REFERRALS OFSSI BENEFICIARIES WHO ARE DRUG ADDICTS AND ALCOHOLICS.—Section 105(b)(5)(B) of such Act (Public Law 104—121; 110 Stat.853) is amended to read as follows:

390

"(B) The amendments made by paragraphs (2) and (3)shall take effect on July 1, 1996, with respect to any indi-vidual—

"(i) whose claim for benefits is finally adjudicatedon or after the date of the enactment of this Act, or

"(ii) whose eligibility for benefits is based upon aneligibility redetermination made pursuant to subpara-graph (C). '

(c) REPEAL OF OBSOLETE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—Sub-sections (a)(3)(B) and (bX3)(B)(ii) of section 201 of the Social Secu-rity Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994 (PublicLaw 103—296; 108 Stat. 1497, 1504) are repealed.SEC. 5526. ADVISORY BOARD PERSONNEL.

Section 703(i) (42 U.S.C. 903(i)) is amended—(1) in the first sentence, by striking ' and three" and all

that follows through "Board,' and(2) in the last sentence, by striking "clerical"

SEC. 5527. TIMING OF DELIVERY OF OCTOBER 1, 2000, SSI BENEFITPAYMENTS.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 708(a) of the SocialSecurity Act (42 U.S.C. 908(a)), the day designated for delivery ofbenefit payments under title XV1 of such Act for October 2000 shallbe the second day of such month.SEC. 5528. EFFECTIVE DATES.

(a) IN GENERAL—Except as provided in this section, theamendments made by this chapter shall take effect as if includedin the enactment of title II of the Personal Responsibility and WorkOpportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104—193; 110Stat. 2185).

(b) SECTION 5524 AMENDMENTS.—The amendments made bysection 5524 of this Act shall take effect as if included in the enact-ment of the Social Security Independence and Program Improve-ments Act of 1994 (Public Law 103—296; 108 Stat. 1464).

(c) SECTION 5525 AMENDMENTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by subsections (a)

and (b) of section 5525 of this Act shall take effect as if in-cluded in the enactment of section 105 of the Contract withAmerica Advancement Act of 1996 (Public Law 104—121; 110Stat. 852 et seq.).

(2) REPEALS.—The repeals made by section 5525(c) shalltake effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.(d) SECTION 5526 AMENDMENTS.—The amendments made by

section 5526 of this Act shall take effect as if included in the enact-ment of section 108 of the Contract with America Advancement Actof 1996 (Public Law 104—121; 110 Stat. 857).

(e) SECTION 5227.—Section 5227 shall take effect on the date ofthe enactment of this Act.


392

SEC. 5533. CIVIL PENALTIES RELATING TO STATE DIRECTORY OF NEWHIRES.Section 453A (42 U.S.C. 653a) is amended—

(1) in subsection (d)—(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking

"shall be less than" and inserting "shall not exceed' and(B) in paragraph (1), by striking "$25" and inserting

"$25 per failure to meet the requirements of this sectionwith respect to a newly hired employee"; and(2) in subsection (g)(2)(B), by striking "extracts" and all

that follows through "Labor" and inserting "information'SEC. 5534. FEDERAL PARENT LOCATOR SERVICE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 453 (42 U.S.C. 653) is amended—(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) by inserting "(1)" after "(a)' and(B) by striking "to obtain" and all that follows through

the period and inserting "for the purposes specified in para-graphs (2) and (3).

"(2) For the purpose of establishing parentage, establishing, set-ting the amount of modifying, or enforcing child support obliga-

393

tions, the Federal Parent Locator Service shall obtain and transmitto any authorized person specified in subsection (c)—

"(A) information on, or facilitating the discovery of, the lo-cation of any individual—

"(i) who is under an obligation to pay child support;"(ii) against whom such an obligation is sought; or"(iii) to whom such an obligation is owed,

including the individual's social security number (or numbers),most recent address, and the name, address, and employeridentification number of the individual's employer;

"(B) information on the individual's wages (or other in-come) from, and benefits of, employment (including rights to orenrollment in group health care coverage); and

"(C) information on the type, status, location, and amountof any assets of, or debts owed by or to, any such individual."(3) For the purpose of enforcing any Federal or State law with

respect to the unlawful taking or restraint of a child, or making orenforcing a child custody or visitation determination, as defined insection 463(d)(1), the Federal Parent Locator Service shall be usedto obtain and transmit the information specified in section 463(c) tothe authorized persons specified in section 463(d)(2). ";

(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:"(b)(1) Upon request, filed in accordance with subsection (d), of

any authorized person, as defined in subsection (c) for the informa-tion described in subsection (a)(2), or of any authorized person, asdefined in section 463(d)(2) for the information described in section463(c), the Secretary shall, notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, provide through the Federal Parent Locator Service such infor-mation to such person, if such information—

"(A) is contained in any files or records maintained by theSecretary or by the Department of Health and Human Services;or

"(B) is not contained in such files or records, but can be ob-tained by the Secretary, under the authority conferred by sub-section (e), from any other department, agency, or instrumental-ity of the United States or of any State,

and is not prohibited from disclosure under paragraph (2)."(2) No information shall be disclosed to any person if the dis-

closure of such information would contravene the national policy orsecurity interests of the United States or the confidentiality of cen-sus data. The Secretary shall give priority to requests made by anyauthorized person described in subsection (c)(1). No informationshall be disclosed to any person if the State has notified the Sec-retary that the State has reasonable evidence of domestic violence orchild abuse and the disclosure of such information could be harmfulto the custodial parent or the child of such parent, provided that—

"(A) in response to a request from an authorized person (asdefined in subsection (c) of this section and section 463(d)(2)),the Secretary shall advise the authorized person that the Sec-retary has been notified that there is reasonable evidence of do-mestic violence or child abuse and that information can only bedisclosed to a court or an agent of a court pursuant to subpara-graph (B); and

394

"(B) information may be disclosed to a court or an agent ofa court described in subsection (c)(2) of this section or section463(d)(2)(B), if—

"(i) upon receipt of information from the Secretary, thecourt determines whether disclosure to any other person ofthat information could be harmful to the parent or thechild; and

"(ii) if the court determines that disclosure of such in-formation to any other person could be harmful, the courtand its agents shall not make any such disclosure.

"(3) Information received or transmitted pursuant to this sectionshall be subject to the safeguard provisions contained in section454 (2 6). ' and

(3) in subsection (c)—(A) in paragraph (1), by striking "or to seek to enforce

orders providing child custody or visitation rights' and(B) in paragraph (2)—

(i) by inserting "or to serve as the initiating courtin an action to seek an order" after "issue an order'and

(ii) by striking "or to issue an order against a resi-dent parent for child custody or visitation rights'

(b) USE OF THE FEDERAL PARENT LOCATOR SERVICE.—Section463 (42 U.S.C. 663) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)—

(i) by striking "any State which is able and willingto do so," and inserting "every State' and

(ii) by striking "such State" and inserting "eachState", and(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting "or visitation" after

"custody";(2) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting "or visitation" after

"custody";(3) in subsection (d)—

(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting "or visitation" after"custody' and

(B) in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2), byinserting "or visitation" after "custody" each place it ap-pears;(4) in subsection (/)(2), by inserting "or visitation" after

"custody' and(5) by striking "noncusfodial" each place it appears.

SEC. 5535. ACCESS TO REGISTRY DATA FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES.(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 453(j)(5) (42 U.S.C. 653(j)(5)) is

amended by inserting "data in each component of the Federal Par-ent Locator Service maintained under this section and to" before"information'

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 453 (42 U.S.C. 653) isamended—

(1) in subsection (j)(3)(B), by striking "registries" and in-serting "components' and

(2) in subsection (k)(2), by striking "subsection (j)(3)" andinserting "section 453A(g)(2)'

395

SEC. 5536. COLLECTION AND USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS FORUSE IN CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT.

Section 466(a)(13) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(13)) is amended—(1) in subparagraph (A)—

(A) by striking "commercial' and(B) by inserting "recreational license," after "occupa-

tional license, ' and(2) in the matter following subparagraph (C), by inserting

"to be used on the face of the document while the social securitynumber is kept on file at the agency" after "other than the socialsecurity number'

403

CHAPTER 4—RESTRICTING WELFARE AND PUBLICBENEFITS FOR ALIENS

Subchapter A—Eligibility for Federal BenefitsSEC. 5561. ALIEN ELIGIBILiTY FOR FEDERAL BENEFiTS: LIMITED AP.

PLICATION TO KEDICARE AND BENEFITS UNDER THERAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT.

(a) LIMITED APPLICATION TO MEDIcARE.—Section 401(b) of thePersonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611(b)) is amended by adding at the end the follow-

"(3) Subsection (a) shall not apply to any benefit payableunder title XVIII of the Social Security Act (relating to the med-icare program) to an alien who is lawfully present in the UnitedStates as determined by the Attorney General and, with respectto benefits payable under part A of such title, who was author-ized to be employed with respect to any wages attributable toemployment which are counted for purposes of eligibility forsuch benefits.'(b)LIMITED APPLICATION TO BENEFITS UNDER THE RAILROAD

RETIREMENT ACT.—Section 401(b) of the Personal Responsibilityand Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611(b))(as amended by subsection (a)) is amended by inserting at the endthe following:

404

"(4) Subsection (a) shall not apply to any benefit payableunder the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 or the Railroad Un-employment Insurance Act to an alien who is lawfully presentin the United States as determined by the Attorney General orto an alien residing outside the United States."

SEC. 5562. RXCEPTIONS TO BENEFIT LIMITATIONS: CORRECTIONS TOREFERENCE CONCERNING ALIENS WHOSE DEPORTATIONIS WITHHELD.

Sections 402 (a) (2) (A), 402 (b) (2) (A), 403(b)(1)(C), 412(b)(1)(C),and 431(b)(5) of the Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(A), 1612(b)(2)(A),1613(b)(1)(C), 1622(b)(1)(C), and 1641(b)(5)) as amended by this Actare each amended by striking "section 243(h) of such Act" each placeit appears and inserting "section 243(h) of such Act (as in effect im-mediately before the effective date of section 307 of division C ofPublic Law 104—208) or section 241(b)(3) of such Act (as amendedby section 305(a) of division C of Public Law 104—208)"SEC. 5563. VETERANS EXCEPTION: APPLICATION OF MINIMUM ACTIVE

DUTY SERVICE REQUIREMENT; EXTENSION TOUNREMAR1UED SURVIVING SPOUSE; EXPANDED DEFINI-TION OF VETERAN.

(a) APPLICATION OF MINIMUM ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE REQUIRE-MENT.—Sections 402(a)(2)(C)(i), 402(b)(2)(C)(i), 403(b) (2) (A), and412(b)(3)(A) of the Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a) (2) (C) (i),1612(b)(2)(C)(i), 1613(b) (2) (A), and 1622(b)(3)(A)) are each amendedby inserting "and who fulfills the minimum active-duty service re-quirements of section 5303A(d) of title 38, United States Code" after"alienage"

(b) EXCEPTION APPLICABLE TO UNREMARRIED SURVIVINGSPOUSE.—Sections 402 (a) (2) (C) (iii), 402 (b) (2) (C) (iii), 403(b) (2) (C),and 412(b)(3)(C) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor-tunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a) (2) (C) (iii),1612(b) (2)(C) (iii), 1613(b)(2)(C), and 1622(b)(3)(C)) are each amend-ed by inserting before the period "or the unremarried survivingspouse of an individual described in clause (i) or (ii) who is de-ceased if the marriage fulfills the requirements of section 1304 oftitle 38, United States Code'

(c) EXPANDED DEFINITION OF VETERAN.—Sections402(a)(2)(C)(i), 402(b)(2)(C)(i), 403(b)(2)(A), and 412(b)(3)(A) of thePersonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(C)(i), 1612(b)(2)(C)(i), 1613(b)(2)(A), and1 622(b) (3) (A)) are each amended by inserting ' 1101, or 1301, or asdescribed in section 107" after "section 101'SEC. 5564. NOTIFICATION CONCERNING ALIENS NOT LAWFULLY

PRESENT: CORRECTION OF TERMINOLOGY.Section 1631(e) (9) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

1383(e) (9)) and section 27 of the United States Housing Act of 1937,as added by section 404 of the Personal Responsibility and WorkOpportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, are each amended by strik-ing "unlawfully in the United States" each place it appears and in-serting "not lawfully present in the United States'

405

SEC. 5565. FREELY ASSOCIATED STATES: CONTRACTS AND LICENSES.Sections 401 (c)(2)(A) and 411 (c)(2)(A) of the Personal Respon-

sibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1611(c)(2)(A) and 1621(cX2)(A)) are each amended by inserting be-fore the semicolon at the end ' or to a citizen of a freely associatedstate, if section 141 of the applicable compact of free association ap-proved in Public Law 99—239 or 99—658 (or a successor provision)is in effect'SEC. 5566. CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT REGARDING BENEFITS FOR

HMONG AND OTHER HIGHLAND LAO VETERANS.(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Hmong and other Highland Lao tribal peoples were re-cruited, armed, trained, and funded for military operations bythe United States Department of Defense, Central IntelligenceAgency, Department of State, and Agency for International De-velopment to further United States national security interestsduring the Vietnam conflict.

(2) Hmong and other Highland Lao tribal forces sacrificedtheir own lives and saved the lives of American military person-nel by rescuing downed American pilots and aircrews and byengaging and successfully fighting North Vietnamese troops.

(3) Thousands of Hmong and other Highland Lao veteranswho fought in special guerilla units on behalf of the UnitedStates during the Vietnam conflict, along with their families,have been lawfully admitted to the United States in recentyears.

(4) The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Rec-onciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193), the new nationalwelfare reform law, restricts certain welfare benefits for nonciti-zens of the United States and the exceptions for noncitizen vet-erans of the Armed Forces of the United States do not extendto Hmong veterans of the Vietnam conflict era, making Hmongveterans and their families receiving certain welfare benefitssubject to restrictions despite their military service on behalf ofthe United States.(b) CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT.—It is the sense of the Con-

gress that Hmong and other Highland Lao veterans who fought onbehalf of the Armed Forces of the United States during the Vietnamconflict and have lawfully been admitted to the United States forpermanent residence should be considered veterans for purposes ofcontinuing certain welfare benefits consistent with the exceptionsprovided other noncitizen veterans under the Personal Responsibil-ity and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

Subchapter B—General ProvisionsSEC. 5571. DETERMINATION OF TREATMENT OF BAITERED ALIENS AS

QUALIFIED ALIENS; INCLUSION OF ALIEN CHILD OF BAT-TERED PARENT AS QUALIFIED ALIEN.

(a) DETERMINATION OF STATUS BY AGENCY PROVIDING BENE-FITS.—Section 431 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor-tunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1641) is amended insubsections (c)(1)(A) and (c)(2)(A) by striking "Attorney General,which opinion is not subject to review by any court)" each place itappears and inserting "agency providing such benefits)"

406

(b) GUIDANCE ISSUED BY ATTORNEY GENEL.—Section 431(c)of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct of 1996 (8 U.s.c. 1641(c)) is amended by adding at the end thefollowing new undesignated paragraph:

"After consultation with the Secretaries of Health and HumanServices, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban Development, thecommissioner of Social Security, and with the heads of such Fed-eral agencies administering benefits as the Attorney General consid-ers appropriate, the Attorney General shall issue guidance (in theAttorney General's sole and unreviewable discretion) for purposes ofthis subsection and section 421(f), concerning the meaning of theterms 'battery' and 'extreme cruelty and the standards and meth-ods to be used for determining whether a substantial connection ex-ists between battery or cruelty suffered and an individual's need forbenefits under a specific Federal, State, or local program. '

(c) INCLUSION OF ALIEN CHILD OF BATTERED PARENT AS QUALI-FIED ALIEN.—Section 431(c) of the Personal Responsibility andWork Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1641(c)) isamended—

(1) at the end of paragraph (1)(B)(iv) by striking "or";(2) at the end of paragraph (2)(B) by striking the period

and inserting ", or", and(3) by inserting after paragraph (2)(B) and before the last

sentence of such subsection the following new paragraph:"(3) an alien child who—

"(A) resides in the same household as a parent who hasbeen battered or subjected to extreme cruelty in the UnitedStates by that parent's spouse or by a member of thespouse's family residing in the same household as the par-ent and the spouse consented or acquiesced to such batteryor cruelty, but only if (in the opinion of the agency provid-ing such benefits) there is a substantial connection betweensuch battery or cruelty and the need for the benefits to beprovided; and

"(B) who meets the requirement of subparagraph (B) ofparagraph (1). '

(d) INCLUSION OF ALIEN CHILD OF BATTERED PARENT UNDERSPECIAL RULE FOR ATTRIBUTION OF INCOME.—Section 421(f)(1)(A)of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1631(D(1)(A)) is amended—

(1) at the end of clause (i) by striking "or"; and(2) by striking "and the battery or cruelty described in

clause (i) or (ii)" and inserting "or (iii) the alien is a childwhose parent (who resides in the same household as the alienchild) has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty in theUnited States by that parent's spouse, or by a member of thespouse's family residing in the same household as the parentand the spouse consented to, or acquiesced in, such battery orcruelty, and the battery or cruelty described in clause (i), (ii),or (iii)'

SEC. 5572. VERIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS.(a) REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE.—Section 432(a) of the Per-

sonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of1996 (8 U.S.C. 1 642(a)) is amended—

407

(1) by inserting at the end of paragraph (1) the following:"Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of theBalanced Budget Act of 1997, the Attorney General of the Unit-ed States, after consultation with the Secretary of Health andHuman Services, shall issue interim verification guidance. ";and

(2) by adding after paragraph (2) the following new para-graph:"(3) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of

the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Attorney General shall pro-mulgate regulations which set forth the procedures by which a Stateor local government can verify whether an alien applying for a Stateor local public benefit is a qualified alien, a nonimmigrant underthe Immigration and Nationality Act, or an alien paroled into theUnited States under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Na-tionality Act for less than 1 year, for purposes of determining wheth-er the alien is ineligible for benefits under section 411 of this Act. ".

(b) DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION FOR VERIFICATION.—Section384(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Respon-sibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104—208) is amendedby adding after paragraph (4) the following new paragraph:

"(5) The Attorney General is authorized to disclose informa-tion, to Federal, State, and local public and private agenciesproviding benefits, to be used solely in making determinationsof eligibility for benefits pursuant to section 431(c) of the Per-sonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Actof 1996.'

SEC. 5573. QUALIFYING QUARTERS: DISCLOSURE OF QUARTERS OFCOVERAGE INFORMATION; CORRECTION TO ASSURE THATCREDITING APPLIES TO ALL QUARTERS EARNED BY PAR-ENTS BEFORE CHILD IS 18.

(a) DISCLOSURE OF QUARTERS OF COVERAGE INFORMATION.—Section 435 of the Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1645) is amended by addingat the end the following: "Notwithstanding section 6103 of the Inter-nal Revenue Code of 1986, the Commissioner of Social Security isauthorized to disclose quarters of coverage information concerningan alien and an alien's spouse or parents to a government agencyfor the purposes of this title. ".

(b)CORRECTION To ASSURE THAT CREDITING APPLIES TO ALLQUARTERS EARNED BY PARENTS BEFORE CHILD IS 18.—Section435(1) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Rec-onciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1645(1)) is amended by striking"while the alien was under age 18," and inserting "before the dateon which the alien attains age 18,".SEC. 5574. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION: BENEFIT ELIGIBILITY LIMITA-

TIONS APPLICABLE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO ALIENSPRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES.

Section 433 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor-tunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1643) is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections(c) and (d); and

(2) by adding after subsection (a) the following new sub-section:

408

"(b) BENEFIT ELIGIBILITY LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE ONLY WITHRESPECT TO ALIENS PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES.—Notwith-standing any other provision of this title, the limitations on eligi-bility for benefits under this title shall not apply to eligibility forbenefits of aliens who are not residing, or present, in the UnitedStates with respect to—

"(1) wages, pensions, annuities, and other earned paymentsto which an alien is entitled resulting from employment by, oron behalf of a Federal, State, or local government agency whichwas not prohibited during the period of such employment orservice under section 274A or other applicable provision of theImmigration and Nationality Act; or

"(2) benefits under laws administered by the Secretary ofVeterans Affairs. ".

Subchapter C—Miscellaneous Clerical and TechnicalAmendments; Effective Date

SEC. 5581. CORRECTING MISCELLANEOUS CLERICAL AND TECHNICALERRORS.

(a) INFORMATION REPORTING UNDER TITLE IV OF THE SOCIvSECURITY ACT.—Effective July 1, 1997, section 408 (42 U.S. C. 608),as amended by sections 5001(h)(1) and 5505(e) of this Act, isamended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

"(g) STATE REQUIRED To PROVIDE CERTAIN INFORMATION.—Each State to which a grant is made under section 403 shall, atleast 4 times annually and upon request of the Immigration andNaturalization Service, furnish the Immigration and NaturalizationService with the name and address of and other identifying in for-mation on, any individual who the State knows is not lawfullypresent in the United States. ".

(b) MISCELLANEOUS CLERICAL AND TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.—(1) Section 41 1(c)(3) of the Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1 621(c) (3)) is amended by striking "4001(c)" and inserting"401(c)"

(2) Section 422(a) of the Personal Responsibility and WorkOpportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1632(a)) isamended by striking "benefits (as defined in section 412(c)),"and inserting "benefits, ".

(3) Section 412(b)(1)(C) of the Personal Responsibility andWork Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1622(b)(1)(C)) is amended by striking "with-holding" and in-serting "withholding'

(4) The subtitle heading for subtitle D of title IV of the Per-sonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Actof 1996 is amended to read as follows:

"Subtitle D—General Provisions"(5) The subtitle heading for subtitle F of title IV of the Per-

sonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Actof 1996 is amended to read as follows:

409

"Subtitle F—Earned Income Credit Deniedto Unauthorized Employees"

(6) Section 431(c)(2)(B) of the Personal Responsthility andWork Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1641(c)(2)(B)) is amended by striking "clause (ii) of subpara-graph (A)" and inserting "subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1)'

(7) Section 431(c)(1)(B) of the Personal Responsibility andWork Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1641(c)(1)(B)) is amended—

(A) in clause (iii) by striking ' or" and, inserting "(asin effect prior to April 1, 1997),"; and

(B) by adding after clause (iv) the following newclause:

"(v) cancellation of removal pursuant to section240A(b)(2) of such Act;"

SEC. 5582. EFFECTIVE DATE.Except as otherwise provided, the amendments made by this

chapter shall be effective as if included in the enactment of title IVof the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct of 1996.

442

TITLE X—BUDGET ENFORCEMENT ANDPROCESS PROVISIONS

SEC. 1000L SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.(a) SHORT TITLE.—This title may be cited as the "Budget En-

forcement Act of 1997'(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this title is

as follows:Sec. 10001. Short title; table of contents.

Subtitle A—Amendments to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Actof 1974

Sec. 10101. Amendment to section 3.Sec. 10102. Amendments to section 201.Sec. 10103. Amendments to section 202.Sec. 10104. Amendment to section 300.Sec. 10105. Amendments to section 301.Sec. 10106. Amendments to section 302.Sec. 10107. Amendments to section 303.Sec. 10108. Amendment to section 304.Sec. 10109. Amendment to section 305.Sec. 10110. Amendments to section 308.Sec. 10111. Amendments to section 310.Sec. 10112. A,nendments to section 311.Sec. 10113. Amendment to section 312.Sec. 10114. Adjustments.Sec. 10115. Effect of adoption of a special order of business in the House of Rep.

resentatwes.Sec. 10116. Amendment to section 401 and repeal of section 402.Sec. 10117. Amendments to title V.Sec. 10118. Repeal of title VI.Sec. 10119. Amendments to section 904.Sec. 10120. Repeal of sections 905 and 906.Sec. 10121. A,nendments to sections 1022 and 1024.

443

Sec. 10122. Amendment to section 1026.Sec. 10123. Senate task force on consideration of budget measures.

Subtitle B—Amendments to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Actof 1985

Sec. 10201. Purpose.Sec. 10202. General statement and definitions.Sec. 10203. Enforcing discretionary spending limits.Sec. 10204. Violent crime reduction spending.Sec. 10205. Enforcing pay-as-you-go.Sec. 10206. Reports and orders.Sec. 10207. Exempt programs and actiuities.Sec. 10208. General and special sequestration rules.Sec. 10209. The baseline.Sec. 10210. Technical correction.Sec. 10211. Judicial reuiew.Sec. 10212. Effectiue date.Sec. 10213. Reduction of preexisting balances and exclusion of effects of this Act

from paygo scorecard.

Subtitle A—Amendments to the Congres-sional Budget and Impoundment ControlAct of 1974

SEC. 10101. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.Section 3(9) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment

Control Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:"(9) The term 'entitlement authority' means—

"(A) the authority to make payments (including loansand grants), the budget authority for which is not providedfor in advance by appropriation Acts, to any person or gov-ernment if under the provisions of the law containing thatauthority, the United States is obligated to make such pay-ments to persons or governments who meet the require-ments established by that law; and

"(B) the food stamp program. ".SEC. 10102. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 201.

(a) TERM OF OFFICE.—The first sentence of section 201(a)(3) ofthe Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:"The term of office of the Director shall be 4 years and shall expireon January 3 of the year preceding each Presidential election.".

(b) CONFORMING CHANGE.—Section 201(e) of the CongressionalBudget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting "and" before "the Li-brary", by striking "and the Office of Technology Assessment, ", byinserting "and" before "the Librarian", and by striking ' and theTechnology Assessment Board'

(c) REDESIGNATION OF EXECUTED PR0VISI0N.—Section 201 ofthe Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by redesignatingsubsection (g) (relating to revenue estimates) as subsection (I).SEC. 10103. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 202.

(a) ASSISTANCE TO BUDGET COMMIITEES.—The first sentence ofsection 202(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amendedby inserting "primary" before "duty".

(b) ELIMINATION OF EXECUTED PR0WSI0N.—Section 202 of theCongressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking subsection

444

(e) and by redesignating subsections (J9, (g), and (h) as subsections(e), (/9, and (g), respectively.

(c) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—The first sentence of section202(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (as redesignated)is amended by—

(1) striking "and" before "(B)"; and(2) inserting before the period the following: ' and (C) a

statement of the levels of budget authority and outlays for eachprogram assumed to be extended in the baseline, as provided insection 257(b) (2) (A) and for excise taxes assumed to be extendedunder section 257(b)(2)(C) of the Balanced Budget and Emer-gency Deficit Control Act of 1985'

SEC. 10104. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 300.(a) TIMETABLE.—The item relating to February 25 in the time-

table set forth in section 300 of the Congressional Budget Act of1974 is amended by striking "February 25" and inserting "Not laterthan 6 weeks after President submits budget'

(b)CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Clause 4(g) of rule X of theRules of the House of Representatives is amended by striking "on orbefore February 25 of each year" and inserting "not later than 6weeks after the President submits his budget'

(2) Clause 3(c) of rule XLVIII of the Rules of the House of Rep-resentatives is amended by striking "On or before March 15 of eachyear" and inserting "Within 6 weeks after the President submits abudget under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code" andby striking "section 301(c)" and inserting "section 301(d)"SEC. 10105. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 301.

(a) TERMS OF BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.—Section 301(a) of theCongressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking ' andplanning levels for each of the two ensuing fiscal years," and insert-ing "and for at least each of the 4 ensuing fiscal years"

(b)CONTENTS OF BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.—Paragraphs (1) and(4) of section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 areamended by striking ' budget outlays, direct loan obligations, andprimary loan guarantee commitments" each place it appears and in-serting "and outlays'

(c) ADDITIONAL MArrERS.—Section 301(b) of the CongressionalBudget Act of 1974 is amended by—

(1) striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:"(7) set forth procedures in the Senate whereby committee

allocations, aggregates, and other levels can be revised for legis-lation if that legislation would not increase the deficit, or wouldnot increase the deficit when taken with other legislation en-acted after the adoption of the resolution, for the first fiscal yearor the total period of fiscal years covered by the resolution;";

(2) in paragraph 8, striking the period and inserting 'and' and

(3) adding the following new paragraph:"(9) set forth direct loan obligation and primary loan guar-

antee commitment levels. ".(d) VIEWS AND ESTIMATEs.—The first sentence of section 301(d)

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting "or

445

at such time as may be requested by the Committee on the Budget,"after "Code,".

(e) HEARINGS AND REPORT.—Section 301(e) of the CongressionalBudget Act of 1974 is amended—

(1) by striking '7n developing" and inserting the following:"(1) IN GENERAL—In developing' and(2) by striking the sentence beginning with "The report ac-

companying" and all that follows through the end of the sub-section and inserting the following:

"(2) REQUIRED CONTENTS OF REPORT.—The report accom-panying the resolution shall include—

"(A) a comparison of the levels of total new budget au-thority, total outlays, total revenues, and the surplus or def-icit for each fiscal year set forth in the resolution with thoserequested in the budget submitted by the President;

"(B) with respect to each major functional category, anestimate of total new budget authority and total outlays,with the estimates divided between discretionary and man-datory amounts;

"(C) the economic assumptions that underlie each ofthe matters set forth in the resolution and any alternativeeconomic assumptions and objectives the committee consid-ered;

"(D) information, data, and comparisons indicating themanner in which, and the basis on which, the committeedetermined each of the matters set forth in the resolution;

"(E) the estimated levels of tax expenditures (the tax ex-penditures budget) by major items and functional cat-egories for the President's budget and in the resolution; and

"(F) allocations described in section 302(a)."(3) ADDITIONAL CONTENTS OF REPORT.—The report accom-

panying the resolution may include—"(A) a statement of any significant changes in the pro-

posed levels of Federal assistance to State and local govern-ments;

"(B) an allocation of the level of Federal revenues rec-ommended in the resolution among the major sources ofsuch revenues;

"(C) information, data, and comparisons on the shareof total Federal budget outlays and of gross domestic prod-uct devoted to investment in the budget submitted by thePresident and in the resolution;

"(D) the assumed levels of budget authority and outlaysfor public buildings, with a division between amounts forconstruction and repair and for rental payments; and

"(E) other matters, relating to the budget and to fiscalpolicy, that the committee deems appropriate. ".

(f) SoCLtL SECURITY ComECTIONS.—(1) Section 301(i) of theCongressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by—

(A) inserting "SOCIAL SECURITY POINT OF ORDER.—" after"(i)"; and

(B) striking "as reported to the Senate" and inserting "(oramendment, motion, or conference report on the resolution)";and

446

(2) Section 22 of House Concurrent Resolution 218 (103dCongress) is repealed.

SEC. 10106. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 302.(a) ALLOCATIONS AND SuBALL0CATI0NS.—Section 302 of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking sub-sections (a) and (b) and inserting the following:

"(a) COMMI7TEE SPENDING ALLOCATIONS.—"(1) ALLOCATION AMONG COMMI7TEES.—The joint explana-

tory statement accompanying a conference report on a concur-rent resolution on the budget shall include an allocation, con-sistent with the resolution recommended in the conference re-port, of the levels for the first fiscal year of the resolution, forat least each of the ensuing 4 fiscal years, and a total for thatperiod of fiscal years (except in the case of the Committee on Ap-propriations only for the fiscal year of that resolution) of—

"(A) total new budget authority; and"(B) total outlays;

among each committee of the House of Representatives or theSenate that has jurisdiction over legislation providing or creat-ing such amounts.

"(2) No DOUBLE COUNTING.—In the House of Representa-tives, any item allocated to one committee may not be allocatedto another committee.

"(3) FURTHER DIVISION OF AMOUNTS.—"(A) IN THE SENATE.—In the Senate, the amount allo-

cated to the Committee on Appropriations shall be furtherdivided among the categories specified in section 250(c) (4)of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Actof 1985 and shall not exceed the limits for each category setforth in section 251(c) of that Act.

"(B) IN THE HOUSE.—In the House of Representatives,the amounts allocated to each committee for each fiscalyear, other than the Committee on Appropriations, shall befurther divided between amounts provided or required bylaw on the date of filing of that conference report andamounts not so provided or required. The amounts allo-cated to the Committee on Appropriations shall be furtherdivided—

"(i) between discretionary and mandatory amounts orprograms, as appropriate; and

"(ii) consistent with the categories specified in section250(c) (4) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985."(4) AMOUNTS NOT ALLOCATED.—In the House of Represent-

atives or the Senate, if a committee receives no allocation of newbudget authority or outlays, that committee shall be deemed tohave received an allocation equal to zero for new budget author-ity or outlays.

"(5) ADJUSTING ALLOCATION OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDINGIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE5.—(A) If a concurrent reso-lution on the budget is not adopted by April 15, the chairmanof the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representativesshall submit to the House, as soon as practicable, an allocationunder paragraph (1) to the Committee on Appropriations con-

447

sistent with the discretionary spending levels in the most re-cently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the ap-propriate fiscal year covered by that resolution.

"(B) As soon as practicable after an allocation under para-graph (1) is submitted under this section, the Committee on Ap-propriations shall make suballocations and report those sub-allocations to the House of Representatives."(b) SUBALLOCATIONS BY APPROPRIATIONS COMMIrrEE5.—As

soon as practicable after a concurrent resolution on the budget isagreed to, the Committee on Appropriations of each House (afterconsulting with the Committee on Appropriations of the otherHouse) shall suballocate each amount allocated to it for the budgetyear under subsection (a) among its subcommittees. Each Committeeon Appropriations shall promptly report to its House suballocationsmade or revised under this subsection. The Committee on Appro-priations of the House of Representatives shall further divide amongits subcommittees the divisions made under subsection (a)(3)(B) andpromptly report those divisions to the House. ".

(b) POINT OF OnDER.—Section 302(c) of the CongressionalBudget Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:

"(c) POINT OF ORDER.—After the Committee on Appropriationshas received an allocation pursuant to subsection (a) for a fiscalyear, it shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or theSenate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, orconference report within the jurisdiction of that committee providingnew budget authority for that fiscal year, until that committeemakes the suballocations required by subsection (b). ".

(c) ENFORCEMENT OF POINT OF ORDER.—(1) IN THE HOUSE.—Section 302(f)(1) of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 is amended by—(A) striking "providing new budget authority for such

fiscal year or new entitlement authority effective duringsuch fiscal year" and inserting "providing new budget au-thority for any fiscal year' and

(B) striking "appropriate allocation made pursuant tosubsection (b)" and all that follows through "exceeded." andinserting "applicable allocation of new budget authoritymade under subsection (a) or (b) for the first fiscal year orthe total of fiscal years to be exceeded. ".(2) IN THE SENATE.—Section 302(f)(2) of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:"(2) IN THE SENATE.—After a concurrent resolution on the

budget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in the Senate to con-sider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or con-ference report that would cause—

"(A) in the case of any committee except the Committeeon Appropriations, the applicable allocation of new budgetauthority or outlays under subsection (a) for the first fiscalyear or the total of fiscal years to be exceeded; or

"(B) in the case of the Committee on Appropriations,the applicable suballocation of new budget authority or out-lays under subsection (b) to be exceeded. ".

42-432 97- 15

448

(d) PAY-AS-YOU-GO EXCEPTION IN THE HOUSE.—Section 302(g)of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended to read as fol-lows:

"(g) PAY-As-You-Go EXCEPTION IN THE HOUSE.—"(1) IN GENERAL.—(A) Subsection (IX1) and, after April 15,

section 303(a) shall not apply to any bill or joint resolution, asreported, amendment thereto, or conference report thereon if foreach fiscal year covered by the most recently agreed to concur-rent resolution on the budget—.

"(i) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;"(ii) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or"(iii) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the

form recommended in that conference report,would not increase the deficit, and, if the sum of any revenueincreases provided in legislation already enacted during thecurrent session (when added to revenue increases, if any, in ex-cess of any outlay increase provided by the legislation proposedfor consideration) is at least as great as the sum of the amount,if any, by which the aggregate level of Federal revenues shouldbe increased as set forth in that concurrent resolution and theamount, if any, by which revenues are to be increased pursuantto pay-as-you-go procedures under section 301(b) (8), if includedin that concurrent resolution.

"(B) Section 311(a), as that section applies to revenues,shall not apply to any bill, joint resolution, amendment thereto,or conference report thereon if for each fiscal year covered bythe most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budg-et—

"(i) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;"(ii) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or"(iii) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the

form recommended in that conference report,would not increase the deficit, and, if the sum of any outlay re-ductions provided in legislation already enacted during the cur-rent session (when added to outlay reductions, if any, in excessof any revenue reduction provided by the legislation proposedfor consideration) is at least as great as the sum of the amount,if any, by which the aggregate level of Federal outlays shouldbe reduced as required by that concurrent resolution and theamount, if any, by which outlays are to be reduced pursuant topay-as-you-go procedures under section 301(b) (8), if included inthat concurrent resolution.

"(2) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—(A) As soon as practicableafter Congress agrees to a bill or joint resolution that wouldhave been subject to a point of order under subsection (j9(1) butfor the exception provided in paragraph (1)(A) or would havebeen subject to a point of order under section 311(a) but for theexception provided in paragraph (1)(B), the chairman of thecommittee on the Budget of the House of Representatives shallfile with the House appropriately revised allocations under sec-tion 302(a) and revised functional levels and budget aggregatesto reflect that bill.

"(B) Such revised allocations, functional levels, and budgetaggregates shall be considered for the purposes of this Act as

449

allocations, functional levels, and budget aggregates containedin the most recently agreed to concw rent resolution on thebudget.".

SEC. 10107. AMENDMENTS TO.SECTION 303.(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act

of 1974 is amended to read as follows:

"CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET MUST BE ADOPTEDBEFORE BUDGET-RELATED LEGISLATION IS CONSIDERED

"SEC. 303. (a) IN GENERAL.—Until the concurrent resolution onthe budget for a fiscal year has been agreed to, it shall not be inorder in the House of Representatives, with respect to the first fiscalyear covered by that resolution, or the Senate, with respect to anyfiscal year covered by that resolution, to consider any bill or jointresolution, amendment or motion thereto, or conference report there-on that—

"(1) first provides new budget authority for that fiscal year;"(2) first provides an increase or decrease in revenues dur-

ing that fiscal year;"(3) provides an increase or decrease in the public debt

limit to become effective during that fiscal year;"(4) in the Senate only, first provides new entitlement au-

thority for that fiscal year; or"(5) in the Senate only, first provides for an increase or de-

crease in outlays for that fiscal year."(b) EXCEPTIONS IN THE HOUSE.— In the House of Representa-

tives, subsection (a) does not apply—"(1)(A) to any bill or joint resolution, as reported, providing

advance discretionary new budget authority that first becomesavailable for the first or second fiscal year after the budget year;or

"(B) to any bill or joint resolution, as reported, first increas-ing or decreasing revenues in a fiscal year following the fiscalyear to which the concurrent resolution applies;

"(2) after May 15, to any general appropriation bill oramendment thereto; or

"(3) to any bill or joint resolution unless it is reported bya committee."(c) APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATION MEASURES IN THE SEN-

ATE.—"(1) IN GENERAL.—Until the concurrent resolution on the

budget for a fiscal year has been agreed to and an allocationhas been made to the Committee on Appropriations of the Sen-ate under section 302(a) for that year, it shall not be in orderin the Senate to consider any appropriation bill or joint resolu-tion, amendment or motion thereto, or conference report thereonfor that year or any subsequent year.

"(2) EXCEPTI0N.—Paragraph (1) does not apply to appro-priations legislation making advance appropriations for thefirst or second fiscal year after the year the allocation referredto in that paragraph is made. ".(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating to section 303

in the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional

450

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended to readas follows:"Sec. 303. Concurrent resolution on the budget must be adopted before budget-related

legislation is considered. '

SEC. 10108. AMENDMENT TO SECTION304.Section 304 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amend-

ed by—(1) striking "(a) IN GENERAL.—' and(2) striking subsection (b).

SEC. 10109. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 305.(a) BUDGET ACT.—Section 305(a) (1) of the Congressional Budg-

et Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:"(1) When a concurrent resolution on the budget has been

reported by the Committee on the Budget of the House of Rep-resentatives and has been referred to the appropriate calendarof the House, it shall be in order on any day thereafter, subjectto clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Rep-resentatives, to move to proceed to the consideration of the con-current resolution. The motion is highly privileged and is notdebatable. An amendment to the motion is not in order and itis not in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the mo-tion is agreed to or disagreed to. ".(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT IN THE HOUSE.—The first sen-

tence of clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Rep-resentatives is amended by striking ' or as provided by section305(a) (1)" and all that follows thereafter through "under that sec-tion)"SEC. 10110. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 308.

Section 308 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amend-ed—

(1)(A) in the heading of subsection (a), by striking ' NEWSPENDING AUTHORIIY, OR NEW CREDIT AUTHORIIY, ",

(B) in subsection (a)(1), by striking subparagraph (B) andby redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as subparagraphs(B) and (C), respectively;

(C) in subsection (a)(1)(B) (as red.esignated), by striking"spending authority" through "commitments" and inserting"revenues, or tax expenditures' and

(D) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), by striking' new spending authority described in section 401(c) (2), or newcredit authority," each place it appears;

(2) in subsection (b)W, by striking ' new spending author-ity d.escribed in section 401(c) (2), or new credit authority, ";

(3) in subsection (c), by inserting "and" after the semicolonat the end of paragraph (3), by striking ", and" at the end ofparagraph (4) and inserting a period; and by striking para-graph (5); and

(4) by inserting 'joint" before "resolution" each place it ap-pears except when "concurrent' "such' or "reconciliation" pre-cedes "resolution" and, in subsection (b)(1), by inserting 'joint"before "resolutions" each place it appears.

451

SEC. 10111. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 310.Section 310(c)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is

amended—(1) by striking "20 percent" the first place it appears and

all that follows thereafter through ' and" and inserting the fol-lowing:

"(I) in the Senate, 20 percent of the total of theamounts of the changes such committee was directed tomake under paragraphs (1) and (2) of such subsection;or

"(II) in the House of Representatives, 20 percent ofthe sum of the absolute value of the changes the com-mittee was directed to make under paragraph (1) andthe absolute value of the changes the committee was di-rected to make under paragraph (2); and' and

(2) by striking "20 percent" the second place it appears andall that follows thereafter through ' and" and inserting the fol-lowing:

"(I) in the Senate, 20 percent of the total of theamounts of the changes such committee was directed tomake under paragraphs (1) and (2) of such subsection;or

"(II) in the House of Representatives, 20 percent ofthe sum of the absolute value of the changes the com-mittee was directed to make under paragraph (1) andthe absolute value of the changes the committee was di-rected to make under paragraph (2); and'

SEC. 10112. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 311.(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act

of 1974 is amended to read as follows:"BUDGET-RELATED LEGISLATION MUST BE WITHIN APPROPRIATE

LEVELS

"SEC. 311. (a) ENFORCEMENT OF BUDGET AGGREGATES.—"(1) IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—Except as pro-

vided by subsection (c), after the Congress has completed actionon a concurrent resolution on the budget for a fiscal year, itshall not be in order in the House of Representatives to considerany bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference re-port providing new budget authority or reducing revenues, if—

"(A) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;"(B) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or"(C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form

recommended in that conference report;would cause the level of total new budget authority or total out-lays set forth in the applicable concurrent resolution on thebudget for the first fiscal year to be exceeded, or would causerevenues to be less than the level of total revenues set forth inthat concurrent resolution for the first fiscal year or for the totalof that first fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal years for whichallocations are provided under section 302(a), except when adeclaration of war by the Congress is in effect.

"(2) IN THE SENATE.—After a concurrent resolution on thebudget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in the Senate to con-

452

sider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or con-ference report that—

"(A) would cause the level of total new budget authorityor total outlays set forth for the first fiscal year in the ap-plicable resolution to be exceeded; or

"(B) would cause revenues to be less than the level oftotal revenues set forth for that first fiscal year or for thetotal of that first fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal years inthe applicable resolution for which allocations are providedunder section 302(a)."(3) ENFORCEMENT OF SOCIAL SECURIIY LEVELS IN THE

SENATE.—After a concurrent resolution on the budget is agreedto, it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill,joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report thatwould cause a decrease in social security surpluses or an in-crease in social security deficits relative to the levels set forthin the applicable resolution for the first fiscal year or for thetotal of that fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal years for whichallocations are provided under section 302(a)."(b) SOCIAL SECUPJ7Y LEVELS.—

"(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subsection (a)(3), socialsecurity surpluses equal the excess of social security revenuesover social security outlays in a fiscal year or years with suchan excess and social security deficits equal the excess of socialsecurity outlays over social security revenues in a fiscal year oryears with such an excess.

"(2) TAx TREATMENT.—For purposes of subsection (a)(3), noprovision of any legislation involving a change in chapter 1 ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated as affectingthe amount of social security revenues or outlays unless thatprovision changes the income tax treatment of social securitybenefits."(c) EXCEPTION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATWES.—Sub-

section (a)(1) shall not apply in the House of Representatives to anybill, joint resolution, or amendment that provides new budget au-thority for a fiscal year or to any conference report on any such billor resolution, if—

"(1) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;"(2) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or"(3) the enactment of that bill or resolutibn in the form rec-

ommended in that conference report;would not cause the appropriate allocation of new budget authoritymade pursuant to section 302(a) for that fiscal year to be exceeded."

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents set forth in sec-tion 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment ControlAct of 1974 is amended by striking the item relating to section 311and inserting the following:"Sec. 311. Budget-related legislation must be within appropriate 1eue1s.'SEC. 10113. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 312.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Actof 1974 is amended to read as follows:

453

"DETERMINATIONS AND POINTS OF ORDER

"SEC. 312. (a) BUDGET COMMITTEE DETERMINATIONS.—FOr pur-poses of this title and title IV, the levels of new budget authority,outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority, and revenuesfor a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of estimates madeby the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives orthe Senate, as applicable.

"(b) DISCRETIONARY SPENDING POINT OF ORDER IN THE SEN-ATE.—

"(1) IN GENERAL—Except as otherwise provided in this sub-section, it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider anybill or resolution (or amendment, motion, or conference reporton that bill or resolution) that would exceed any of the discre-tionary spending limits in section 251(c) of the Balanced Budg-et and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

"(2) EXCEPTIONS.—This subsection shall not apply if a dec-laration of war by the Congress is in effect or if a joint resolu-tion pursuant to section 258 of the Balanced Budget and Emer-gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 has been enacted."(c) MAXIMUM DEFICIT AMOUNT POINT OF ORDER IN THE SEN-

ATE.—It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any concur-rent resolution on the budget for a fiscal year, or to consider anyamendment to that concurrent resolution, or to consider a con-ference report on that concurrent resolution, if—

"(1) the level of total outlays for the first fiscal year setforth in that concurrent resolution or conference report exceeds;or

"(2) the adoption of that amendment would result in a levelof total outlays for that fiscal year that exceeds;

the recommended level of Federal revenues for that fiscal year, byan amount that is greater than the maximum deficit amount, if any,specified in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Actof 1985 for that fiscal year.

"(d) TIMING OF POINTS OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.—A point oforder under this Act may not be raised against a bill, resolution,amendment, motion, or conference report while an amendment ormotion, the adoption of which would remedy the violation of thisAct, is pending before the Senate.

"(e) POINTS OF ORDER IN THE SENATE AGAINST AMENDMENTSBETWEEN THE H0USES.—Each provision of this Act that establishesa point of order against an amendment also establishes a point oforder in the Senate against an amendment between the Houses. Ifa point of order under this Act is raised in the Senate against anamendment between the Houses and the point of order is sustained,the effect shall be the same as if the Senate had disagreed to theamendment.

"(f) EFFECT OF A POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.—In the Sen-ate, if a point of order under this Act against a bill or resolutionis sustained, the Presiding Officer shall then recommit the bill orresolution to the committee of appropriate jurisdiction for furtherconsideration. ".

(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

454

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 313 of the Congressional BudgetAct of 1974 is amended—

(A) by striking "(c) When" and inserting "(d) CON-FERENCE REPORTS.—When' and

(B) by striking subsection (e) and redesignating sub-section (d) as subsection (e).(2) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The item relating to section 312

in the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the Congres-sional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amend-ed by striking "Effect of points" and inserting "Determinationsand points'

SEC. 10114. ADJUSTMENTS.(a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of

1974 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:"ADJUSTMENTS

"SEC. 314. (a) ADJUSTMENTS.—"(1) IN GENERAL.—After the reporting of a bill or joint reso-

lution, the offering of an amendment thereto, or the submissionof a conference report thereon, the chairman of the Committeeon the Budget of the House of Representatives or the Senateshall make the adjustments set forth in paragraph (2) for theamount of new budget authority in that measure (if that meas-ure meets the requirements set forth in subsection (b)) and theoutlays flowing from that budget authority.

"(2) MA7TERS TO BE ADJUSTED.—The adjustments referredto in paragraph (1) are to be made to—

"(A) the discretionary spending limits, if any, set forthin the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget;

"(B) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriateconcurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section302(a); and

"(C) the budgetary aggregates as set forth in the appro-priate concurrent resolution on the budget.

"(b)ArOUNTS OF ADJUSTMENT5.—The adjustment referred toin subsection (a) shall be—

"(1) an amount provided and designated as an emergencyrequirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of theBalanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985;

"(2) an amount provided for continuing disability reviewssubject to the limitations in section 251(b) (2) (C) of that Act;

"(3) for any fiscal year through 2002, an amount providedthat is the dollar equivalent of the Special Drawing Rights withrespect to—

"(A) an increase in the United States quota as part ofthe International Monetary Fund Eleventh General Reviewof Quotas (United States Quota); or

"(B) any increase in the maximum amount available tothe Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 17 of theBretton Woods Agreements Act, as amended from time totime (New Arrangements to Borrow);"(4) an amount provided not to exceed $1,884,000,000 for

the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2000 for arrearages for

455

international organizations, international peacekeeping, andmultilateral development banks; or

"(5) an amount provided for an earned income tax creditcompliance initiative but not to exceed—

"(A) with respect to fiscal year 1998, $138,000,000 innew budget authority;

"(B) with respect to fiscal year 1999, $143,000,000 innew budget authority;

"(C) with respect to fiscal year 2000, $144,000,000 innew budget authority;

"(D) with respect to fiscal year 2001, $145,000,000 innew budget authority; and

"(E) with respect to fiscal year 2002, $146,000,000 innew budget authority.

"(c) APPLICATION OF ADJUSTMENTS.—The adjustments madepursuant to subsection (a) for legislation shall—

"(1) apply while that legislation is under consideration;"(2) take effect upon the enactment of that legislation; and"(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as

practicable."(d) REPORTING REVISED 5UBALLOcATIONs.—Following any ad-

justment made under subsection (a), the Committees on Appropria-tions of the Senate and the House of Representatives may report ap-propriately revised suballocations under section 302(b) to carry outthis section.

"(e) DEFINITIONS FOR CDRS.—As used in subsection (b)(2)—"(1) the term 'continuing disability reviews' shall have the

same meaning as provided in section 251 (b)(2)(C)(ii) of the Bal-anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985; and

"(2) the term 'new budget authority' shall have the samemeaning as the term 'additional new budget authority' and theterm 'outlays' shall have the same meaning as 'additional out-lays' in that section.".(b)TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents set forth in sec-

tion 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment ControlAct of 1974 is amended by adding after the item relating to section313 the following new item:"Sec. 314. Adjust ments.'SEC. 10115. EFFECT OF ADOPTION OF A SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.(a) EFFECT OF POINTS OF ORDER.—Title III of the Congres-

sional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding after section 314the following new section:

"EFFECT OF ADOPTION OF A SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS IN THEHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

"SEC. 315. For purposes of a reported bill or joint resolutionconsidered in the House of Representatives pursuant to a specialorder of business, the term 'as reported' in this title or title IV shallbe considered to refer to the text made in order as an original billor joint resolution for the purpose of amendment or to the text onwhich the previous question is ordered directly to passage, as thecase may be.".

456

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of contents set forthin section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Con-trol Act of 1974 is amended by adding after the item relating to sec-tion 314 the following new item:"Sec. 315. Effect of adoption of a special order of business in the House of Represent-

atives. '

SEC. 10116. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 401 AND REPEAL OF SECTION402.

(a) SECTION 401.—(1) CONTROLS.—Section 401 of the Congressional Budget

Act of 1974 is amended by—(A) striking the heading and inserting the following:

"BUDGET-RELATED LEGISLATION NOT SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS";

and(B) striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:

"(a) CONTROLS ON CERTAIN B UDGET-RELATED LEGISLATION NOTSUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS.—It shall not be in order in either theHouse of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or jointresolution (in the House of Representatives only, as reported),amendment, motion, or conference report that provides—

"(1) new authority to enter into contracts under which theUnited States is obligated to make outlays;

"(2) new authority to incur indebtedness (other than indebt-edness incurred under chapter 31 of title 31 of the UnitedStates Code) for the repayment of which the United States isliable; or

"(3) new credit authority;unless that bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conferencereport also provides that the new authority is to be effective for anyfiscal year only to the extent or in the amounts provided in advancein appropriation Acts. ".

(2) POINT OF ORDER.—Section 401(b) of the CongressionalBudget Act of 1974 is amended—

(A) by inserting "new" before "entitlement" in the head-ing;

(B) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the follow-ing:"(1) POINT OF ORDER.—It shall not be in order in either the

House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill orjoint resolution (in the House of Representatives only, as re-ported), amendment, motion, or conference report that providesnew entitlement authority that is to become effective during thecurrent fiscal year."; and

(C) in paragraph (2)—(i) by striking "new spending authority described

in subsection (c)(2)(C)" and inserting "new entitlementauthority' and

(ii) by striking "of that• House" and inserting "ofthe Senate or may then be referred to the Committee onAppropriations of the House, as the case may be, ".

(3) DEFINITI0NS.—Section 401 of the Congressional BudgetAct of 1974 is amended by striking subsection (c).

457

(4) ExcEPTIONS.—Section 401(d) of the CongressionalBudget Act of 1974 is amended—

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking "new spending au-thority if the budget authority for outlays which result fromsuch new spending authority is derived" and inserting "newauthority described in those subsections if outlays from thatnew authority will flow",

(B) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating para-graph (3) as paragraph (2); and

(C) in paragraph (2), as redesignated, by striking "newspending authority" and inserting "new authority describedin those subsections"(5) REDESIGNATION.—Subsection (d) of section 401 of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is redesignated as subsection(c).

(6) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(A) Clause 1(b)(4) of ruleX of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended toread as follows:

"(4) The amount of new authority to enter into contractsunder which the United States is obligated to make outlays, thebudget authority for which is not provided in advance by appro-priation Acts; new authority to incur indebtedness (other thanindebtedness incurred under chapter 31 of title 31 of the UnitedStates Code) for the repayment of which the United States isliable, the budget authority for which is not provided in ad-vance by appropriation Acts; new entitlement authority as de-fined in section 3(9) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,including bills and resolutions (reported by other committees)which provide new entitlement authority as defined in section3(9) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and are referredto the committee under clause 4(a); authority to forego the col-lection by the United States of proprietary offsetting receipts,the budget authority for which is not provided in advance byappropriation Acts to offset such foregone receipts; and author-ity to make payments by the United States (including loans,grants, and payments from revolving funds) other than thosecovered by this subparagraph, the budget authority for which isnot provided in advance by appropriation Acts. ".

(B) Clause 4(a)(2) of rule X of the Rules of the House ofRepresentatives is amended by striking "new spending authoritydescribed in section 401 (c)(2)(C)" and inserting "new entitle-ment authority as defined in section 3(9)" and by striking "totalamount of new spending authority" and inserting "total amountof new entitlement authority"

(C) Clause 2(l)(3) of rule XI of the Rules of the House ofRepresentatives is amended by striking "new spending authorityas described in section 401(c) (2)" and by inserting "new entitle-ment authority as defined in section 3(9)".(b) REPEALER OF SECTION 402.—Section 402 of the Congres-

sional Budget Act of 1974 is repealed.(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

(1) REDESIGNATI0N.—Sections 403 through 407 of the Con-gressional Budget Act of 1974 are redesignated as sections 402through 406, respectively.

458

(2) GAO ANAIYSIS.—Section 404 (as redesignated) of theCongressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking"spending authority as described by section 401(c) (2) and whichprovide permanent appropriations," and inserting "mandatoryspending"

(3) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents set forth insection 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and ImpoundmentControl Act of 1974 is amended by—

(A) striking the item for section 401 and inserting thefollowing:

"Sec. 401. Budget-related legislation not subject to appropriations. "; and(B) striking the item relating to section 402 and redes-

ignating the items relating to sections 403 through 407 asthe items relating to sections 402 through 406, respectively.(4) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.-.-(A) Clause 2(l)(3) of rule

XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended bystriking "section 403" and inserting "section 402"

(B) Clause 7(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House ofRepresentatives is amended by striking "section 403" and insert-ing "section 402"

SEC. 10117. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE V.(a) SECTION 502.—Section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act

of 1990 is amended as follows:(1) In the second sentence of paragraph (1), insert "and fi-

nancing arrangements that defer payment for more than 90days, including the sale of a government asset on credit terms"before the period.

(2) In paragraph (5)(A), insert "or modification thereof' be-fore the first comma.

(3) In paragraph (5), strike subparagraphs (B) and (C) andinsert the following:

"(B) The cost of a direct loan shall be the net present value,at the time when the direct loan is disbursed, of the followingestimated cash flows:

"(i) loan disbursements;"(ii) repayments of principal; and"(iii) payments of interest and other payments by or to

the Government over the life of the loan after adjusting forestimated defaults, prepayments, fees, penalties, and otherrecoveries; including the effects of changes in loan terms re-sulting from the exercise by the borrower of an option in-cluded in the loan contract."(C) The cost of a loan guarantee shall be the net present

value, at the time when the guaranteed loan is disbursed, of thefollowing estimated cash flows:

"(i) payments by the Government to cover defaults anddelinquencies, interest subsidies, or other payments; and

"(ii) payments to the Government including originationand other fees, penalties and recoveries;

including the effects of changes in loan terms resulting from theexercise by the guaranteed lender of an option included in theloan guarantee contract, or by the borrower of an option in-cluded in the guaranteed loan contract. "

459

(4) In paragraph (5), amend subparagraph (D) to read asfollows:

"(D) The cost of a modification is the difference between thecurrent estimate of the net present value of the remaining cashflows under the terms of a direct loan or loan guarantee con-tract, and the current estimate of the net present value of theremaining cash flows under the terms of the contract, as modi-fied. ".

(5) In paragraph (5)(E), insert "the cash flows of' after "to".(6) In paragraph (5), by adding at the end the following:"(F) When funds are obligated for a direct loan or loan

guarantee, the estimated cost shall be based on the current as-sumptions, adjusted to incorporate the terms of the loan con-tract, for the fiscal year in which the funds are obligated. ".

(7) Redesignate paragraph (9) as paragraph (11) and afterparagraph (8) add the following new paragraphs:

"(9) The term 'modification' means any Government actionthat alters the estimated cost of an outstanding direct loan (ordirect loan obligation) or an outstanding loan guarantee (orloan guarantee commitment) from the current estimate of cashflows. This includes the sale of loan assets, with or without re-course, and the purchase of guaranteed loans. This also in-cludes any action resulting from new legislation, or from the ex-ercise of administrative discretion under existing law, that di-rectly or indirectly alters the estimated cost of outstanding di-rect loans (or direct loan obligations) or loan guarantees (orloan guarantee commitments) such as a change in collectionprocedures.

"(10) The term 'current' has the same meaning as in section250(c) (9) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit ControlAct of 1985.".(b) SECTION 504.—Section 504 of the Federal Credit Reform Act

of 1990 is amended as follows:(1) Amend subsection (b)(1) to read as follows:"(1) new budget authority to cover their costs is provided in

advance in an appropriations Act;".(2) In subsection (b)(2), strike "is enacted" and insert "has

been provided in advance in an appropriations Act'(3) In subsection (c), strike "Subsection (b)" and insert

"Subsections (b) and (e)".(4) In subsection (d)(1), strike "directly or indirectly alter

the costs of outstanding direct loans and loan guarantees" andinsert "modify outstanding direct loans (or direct loan obliga-tions) or loan guarantees (or loan guarantee commitments)'

(5) Amend subsection (e) to read as follows:"(e) MODIFICATIONS.—An outstanding direct loan (or direct loan

obligation) or loan guarantee (or loan guarantee commitment) shallnot be modified in a manner that increases its costs unless budgetauthority for the additional cost has been provided in advance inan appropriations Act.

(c) SECTION 505.—Section 505 of the Federal Credit Reform Actof 1990 is amended as follows:

(1) In subsection (c), by inserting before the period at theend of the second sentence the following: ' except that the rate

460

of interest charged by the Secretary on lending to financing ac-counts (including amounts treated as lending to financing ac-counts by the Federal Financing Bank (hereinafter in this sub-section referred to as the 'Bank') pursuant to section 406(b)) andthe rate of interest paid to financing accounts on uninvestedbalances in financing accounts shall be the same as the rate de-termined pursuant to section 502 (5) (E). For guaranteed loans fi-nanced by the Bank and treated as direct loans by a Federalagency pursuant to section 406(b), any fee or interest surcharge(the amount by which the interest rate charged exceeds the ratedetermined pursuant to section 502(5)(E)) that the Bankcharges to a private borrower pursuant to section 6(c) of theFederal Financing Bank Act of 1973 shall be considered a cashflow to the Government for the purposes of determining the costof the direct loan pursuant to section 502(5). All such amountsshall be credited to the appropriate financing account. TheBank is authorized to require reimbursement from a Federalagency to cover the administrative expenses of the Bank that areattributable to the direct loans financed for that agency. Allsuch payments by an agency shall be considered administrativeexpenses subject to section 504(g). This subsection shall applyto transactions related to direct loan obligations or loan guar-antee commitments made on or after October 1, 1991'

(2) In subsection (c), by striking "supercede" and inserting"supersede'

(3) By amending subsection (d) to read as follows:"(d) AUTHORIZATION FOR LIQUIDATING AccoUNTs.—(1)

Amounts in liquidating accounts shall be available only for pay-ments resulting from direct loan obligations or loan guarantee com-mitments made prior to October 1, 1991, for—

"(A) interest payments and principal repayments to theTreasury or the Federal Financing Bank for amounts borrowed;

"(B) disbursements of loans;"(C) default and other guarantee claim payments;"(D) interest supplement payments;"(E) payments for the costs of foreclosing, managing, and

selling collateral that are capitalized or routinely deducted fromthe proceeds of sales;

"(F) payments to financing accounts when required formodifications;

"(G) administrative expenses, if—"(i) amounts credited to the liquidating account would

have been available for administrative expenses under aprovision of law in effect prior to October 1, 1991; and

"(ii) no direct loan obligation or loan guarantee com-mitment has been made, or any modification of a directloan or loan guarantee has been made, since September 30,1991; or"(H) such other payments as are necessary for the liquida-

tion of such direct loan obligations and loan guarantee commit-ments."(2) Amounts credited to liquidating accounts in any year shall

be available only for payments required in that year. Any unobli-gated balances in liquidating accounts at the end of a fiscal year

461

shall be transferred to miscellaneous receipts as soon as practicableafter the end of the fiscal year.

"(3) If funds in liquidating accounts are insufficient to satisfyobligations and commitments of such accounts, there is hereby pro-vided permanent, indefinite authority to make any payments re-quired to be made on such obligations and commitments.'

(d) SECTION 506.—Section 506 of the Federal Credit Reform Actof 1990 is amended—

(1) by striking "(a) IN GENERAL.—";(2) by striking "(1)" and inserting the following:

"(a) IN GENERAL.—'(3) by striking "(2) The" and inserting the following:

"(b) STuDY.—The",(4) by striking "(3)" and inserting the following:

"(c) ACCESS TO DATA.—"; and(5) in subsection (c) (as redesignated) by striking "para-

graph (2)" and inserting "subsection (b)".SEC. 10118. REPEAL OF TITLE VI.

(a) REPEALER.—Title VI of the Congressional Budget Act of1974 is repealed.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) The items relating to titleVI of the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the Congres-sional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 are repealed.

(2) Clause 4(h) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Represent-atives is amended by striking "section 302 or section 602 (in the caseof fiscal years 1991 through 1995)" and inserting "section 302'SEC. 10119. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 904.

(a) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 904(a) of the Congres-sional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking "(except section905)" and by striking "V, and VI (except section 601(c))" and insert-ing "and 1".

(b)WA1VERS.—Section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of1974 is amended to read as follows:

"(c) WAIvERS.—"(1) PERMANENT.—Sections 305(b) (2), 305(c) (4), 306,

310(d) (2), 313, 904(c), and 904(d) of this Act may be waived orsuspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

"(2) TEMP0RARY.—Sections 301(i), 302(c), 302(f), 310(g),311(a), 312(b), and 312(c) of this Act and sections 258(a) (4) (C),258A (b) (3) (C) (I) , 258B(f)(1), 258B(h)(1), 258(h) (3), 258C(a)(5),and 258C(b)(1) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985 may be waived or suspended in the Senateonly by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, dulychosen and sworn. ".(c) APPEALS.—Section 904(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of

1974 is amended to read as follows:"(d) APPEALS.—

"(1) PROCEDuRE.—Appeals in the Senate from the decisionsof the Chair relating to any provision of title III or IV or section1017 shall, except as otherwise provided therein, be limited to1 hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the

462

mover and the manager of the resolution, concurrent resolution,reconciliation bill, or rescission bill, as the case may be.

"(2) PERMANENT.—An affirmative vote of three-fifths of theMembers, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Sen-ate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a pointof order raised under sections 305(b) (2), 305(c) (4), 306,310(d) (2), 313, 904(c), and 904(d) of this Act.

"(3) TEMPORARy.—An affirmative vote of three-fifths of theMembers, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Sen-ate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a pointof order raised under sections 301(i), 302(c), 302(f), 310(g),311(a), 312(b), and 312(c) of this Act and sections 258(a) (4) (C),258A (b) (3) (C) (I), 258B(f)(1), 258B(h)(1), 258(h) (3), 258C(a)(5),and 258C(b)(1) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985. '(d) ExPIRATION OF SUPERMAJORIIY VOTING REQUIREMENTS.—

Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended byadding at the end the following:

"(e) EXPIRATION OF CERTAIN SUPERMAJORIIY VOTING REQUIRE-MENTS.—Subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) shall expire on September 30,2002. 'SEC. 10120. REPEAL OF SECTIONS 905 AND 906.

(a) REPEALER.—Sections 905 and 906 of the CongressionalBudget Act of 1974 are repealed.

(b)CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The table of contents set forthin section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Con-trol Act of 1974 is amended by striking the items relating to sections905 and 906.SEC. 10121. AMENDMENTS To SECTIONS 1022 AND 1024.

(a) SECTION 1022.—Section 1022(b)(1)(F) of the CongressionalBudget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by strik-ing "section 601" and inserting "section 251(c) of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985"

(b)SECTION 1024.—Section 1024(a)(1)(B) of the CongressionalBudget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by strik-ing "section 601(a)(2)" and inserting "section 251(c) of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985"SEC. 10122. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1026.

Section 1026(7)(A)(iv) of the Congressional Budget and Im-poundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by striking ' and" andinserting ' or'SEC. 10123. SENATE TASK FORCE ON CONSIDERATION OF BUDGET

MEASURES.(a) APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS.—The Majority Leader and Mi-

nority Leader of the Senate shall each appoint 3 Senators to serveon a bipartisan task force to study the floor procedures for the con-sideration of budget resolutions and reconciliation bills in the Sen-ate as provided in sections 305(b) and 310(e) of the CongressionalBudget Act of 1974.

(b)REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE.—The task force shall submitits report to the Senate not later than October 8, 1997.

463

Subtitle B—Amendments to the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit ControlAct of 1985

SEC. 10201. PURPOSE.The purpose of this subtitle is to extend discretionary spending

limits and pay-as-you-go requirements.SEC. 10202. GENERAL STATEMENT AND DEFINITIONS.

(a) GENERAL STATEMENT.—SeCtiOn 250(b) of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended bystriking the first 2 sentences and inserting the following: "This partprovides for budget enforcement as called for in House ConcurrentResolution 84 (1 05th Congress, 1st session).".

(b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)—(A) by striking "(but including" through "amount' ";

and(B) by striking "section 601 of that Act as adjusted

under sections 251 and 253" and inserting "section 251'(2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:"(4) The term 'category' means the subsets of discretionary

appropriations in section 251(c). Discretionary appropriationsin each of the categories shall be those designated in the jointexplanatory statement accompanying the conference report onthe Balanced Budget Act of 1997. New accounts or activitiesshall be categorized only after consultation with the committeeson Appropriations and the Budget of the House of Representa-tives and the Senate and that consultation shall, to the extentpracticable, include written communication to such committeesthat affords such committees the opportunity to comment beforeofficial action is taken with respect to new accounts or activi-ties. ";

(3) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:"(6) The term 'budgetary resources' means new budget au-

thority, unobligated balances, direct spending authority, andobligation limitations. ";

(4) in paragraph (9), by striking "submission of the fiscalyear 1992 budget that are not included with a budget submis-sion" and inserting "that budget submission that are not in-cluded with it";

(5) in paragraph (14), by inserting "first 4" before "fiscalyears" and by striking "through fiscal year 1995'

(6) by striking paragraphs (17) and (20) and by redesignat-ing paragraphs (18), (19), and (21) as paragraphs (17), (18),and (19), respectively;

(7) in paragraph (1 V (as redesignated), by striking "Omni-bus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990" and inserting "BalancedBudget Act of 1997",,

(8) in paragraph (18) (as redesignated), by striking all after"expenses" and inserting "the Federal deposit insurance agen-cies, and other Federal agencies supervising insured depository

468

"(C) for the violent crime reduction category:$5,800,000,000 in new budget authority and$4,953,000,000 in outlays;"(4) with respect to fiscal year 2000—

"(A) for the discretionary category: $532,693,000,000 innew budget authority and $558,711,000,000 in outlays; and

"(B) for the violent crime reduction category:$4,500,000,000 in new budget authority and$5,554,000,000 in outlays;"(5) with respect to fiscal year 2001, for the discretionary

category: $542,032,000,000 in new budget authority and$564,396,000,000 in outlays; and

"(6) with respect to fiscal year 2002, for the discretionarycategory: $551,074,000,000 in new budget authority and$560,799,000,000 in outlays;

as adjusted in strict conformance with subsection (b).".(c) REPEAL OF DUPLICATIVE PROvISIONS.—Sections 201, 202,

204(b), 206, and 211 of House Concurrent Resolution 84 (105thCongress) are repealed.SEC. 10204. VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION SPENDING.

(a) SEQUESTRATION REGARDING VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTIONSPENDING.—

(1) REPEAL.—Section 251A of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is repealed.

(2) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The item relating to section 251Ain the table contents set forth in section 250(a) of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is repealed.(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 310002 of Public Law

103—322 (42 U.S.C. 14212) is repealed.SEC. 10205. ENFORCING PAY-AS.YO U-GO.

Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985 is amended—

(1) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the fol-lowing:"(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to assure that any

legislation enacted before October 1, 2002, affecting direct spendingor receipts that increases the deficit will trigger an offsetting seques-tration.

"(b) SEQUESTRATION.--"(1) TIMING.—Not later than 15 calendar days after the

date Congress adjourns to end a session and on the same dayas a sequestration (if any) under section 251 or 253, there shallbe a sequestration to offset the amount of any net deficit in-crease caused by all direct spending and receipts legislation en-acted before October 1, 2002, as calculated under paragraph(2).

"(2) CALCULATION OF DEFICIT INCREASE.—OMB shall cal-culate the amount of deficit increase or decrease by adding—

"(A) all 0MB estimates for the budget year of directspending and receipts legislation transmitted under sub-section (d);

"(B) the estimated amount of savings in direct spend-ing programs applicable to budget year resulting from the

469

prior year's sequestration under this section or section 253,if any, as published in OMB's final sequestration report forthat prior year; and

"(C) any net deficit increase or decrease in the currentyear resulting from all 0MB estimates for the current yearof direct spending and receipts legislation transmittedunder subsection (d) that were not reflected in the final0MB sequestration report for the current year. ";(2) by amending subsection (c)(1)(B), by inserting "and di-

rect" after "guaranteed";(3) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:

"(d) ESTIMATES.—"(1) CBO ESTIMATES.—As soon as practicable after Con-

gress completes action on any direct spending or receipts legis-lation, CBO shall provide an estimate to 0MB of that legisla-tion.

"(2) 0MB ESTIMATES.—Not later than 7 calendar days (ex-cluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) after the dateof enactment of any direct spending or receipts legislation, 0MBshall transmit a report to the House of Representatives and tothe Senate containing—

"(A) the CBO estimate of that legislation;"(B) an 0MB estimate of that legislation using current

economic and technical assumptions; and"(C) an explanation of any difference between the 2 es-

timates."(3) SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES.—If during the preparation

of the report under paragraph (2) 0MB determines that thereis a significant difference between the 0MB and CBO estimates,0MB shall consult with the Committees on the Budget of theHouse of Representatives and the Senate regarding that dif-ference and that consultation, to the extent practicable, shall in-clude written communication to such committees that affordssuch committees the opportunity to comment before the issuanceof that report.

"(4) SCOPE OF ESTIMATES.—The estimates under this sec-tion shall include the amount of change in outlays or receiptsfor the current year (if applicable), the budget year, and eachoutyear excluding any amounts resulting from—

"(A) full funding of and continuation of the deposit in-surance guarantee commitment in effect under current esti-mates; and

"(B) emergency provisions as designated under sub-section (e)."(5) SCOREKEEPING GUIDELINES.—OMB and CBO, after

consultation with each other and the Committees on the Budgetof the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall—

• "(A) determine common scorekeeping guidelines; and"(B) in conformance with such guidelines, prepare esti-

mates under this section. "; and(4) in subsection (e), by striking ' for any fiscal year from

1991 through 1998," and by striking "through 1995".

470

SEC. 10206. REPORTS AND ORDERS.Section 254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

Control Act of 1985 is amended—(1) by striking subsection (c) and redesignating subsections

(d) through (k) as (c) through (j), respectively;(2) in subsection (c) (as redesignated), by striking "1998"

and inserting "2002",,(3) in subsection (d) (as redesignated), by striking "(h)" and

inserting "(/9";(4)(A) in subsection (/)(2)(A) (as redesignated), by striking

"1998" and inserting "2002",(B) in subsection (/)(3) (as redesignated), by striking

"through 1998"; and(C) by striking subsection (/9(4) (as redesignated) and by re-

designating paragraphs (5) and (6) of that subsection as para-graphs (4) and (5), respectively; and

(5) in subsection (g) (as redesignated), by striking "(g)" eachplace it appears and inserting "(/)".

SEC. 10207. EXEMPT PROGRAMS AND ACT! VI TIES.(a) VETERANS PROGRAMS.—Section 255(b) of the Balanced

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended asfollows:

(1) In the item relating to Veterans Insurance and Indem-nity, strike "Indemnity" and insert "Indemnities"

(2) In the item relating to Veterans' Canteen Service Revolv-ing Fund, strike 'Veterans' ".

(3) In the item relating to Benefits under chapter 21 of title38, strike "(36—0137—0—1—702)" and insert "(36—O120—0—1—701)'

(4) In the item relating to Veterans' compensation, strike'Veterans' compensation" and insert "Compensation"

(5) In the item relating to Veterans' pensions, strike 'Veter-ans' pensions" and insert "Pensions"

(6) After. the last item, insert the following new items."Benefits under chapter 35 of title 38, United States Code,

related to educational assistance for survivors and dependentsof certain veterans with service-connected disabilities (36—0137—0—1 —702);

"Assistance and services under chapter 31 of title 38, Unit-ed States Code, relating to training and rehabilitation for cer-tain veterans with service-connected disabilities (36—0137—0—1—702);

"Benefits under subchapters I, II, and III of chapter 37 oftitle 38, United States Code, relating to housing loans for cer-tain veterans and for the spouses and surviving spouses of cer-tain veterans Guaranty and Indemnity Program Account (36—1119-0—1—704);

"Loan Guaranty Program Account (36—1025—0—1—704); and"Direct Loan Program Account (36—1024—0—1—704).".

(b) CERTAIN PROGRAM BASES.—Section 255(/) of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended toread as follows:

"(/9 Opyozsi. EXEMPTION OF MILITARY PERSONNEL.—"(1) IN GENERAL.—The President may, with respect to any

military personnel account, exempt that account from sequestra-

471

tion or provide for a lower uniform percentage reduction thanwould otherwise apply.

"(2) LIMITATION.—The President may not use the authorityprovided by paragraph (1) unless the President notifies the Con-gress of the manner in which such authority will be exercisedon or before the date specified in section 254(a) for the budgetyear. '(c) OTHER PROGRAMS AND AcTJvITIES.—(1) Section 255(g)(1)(A)

of the Balanced Budget Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 isamended as follows:

(A) After the first item, insert the following new item:"Activities financed by voluntary payments to the Gov-

ernment for goods or services to be provided for such pay-ments;'(B) Strike "Thrift Savings Fund (26—8141—O—7—602);"(C) In the first item relating to the Bureau of Indian Af-

fairs, insert '1ndian land and water claims settlements and"after the comma.

(D) In the second item relating to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, strike "miscellaneous" and insert 'Miscellaneous" andstrike ' tribal trust funds'

(E) Strike "Claims, defense (97—O102—O—1—O51);'(F) In the item relating to Claims, judgments, and relief

acts, strike "806" and insert "808'(G) Strike "Coinage profit fund (20—5811-0—2—803);"(H) Insert "Compact of Free Association (14—0415—0—1—

808);" after the item relating to the Claims, judgments, and re-lief acts.

(I) Insert "Conservation Reserve Program (12—2319—0—1—302);" after the item relating to the Compensation of the Presi-dent.

(J) In the item relating to the Customs Service, strike "852"and insert "806"

(K) In the item relating to the Comptroller of the Currency,insert ' Assessment funds (20—8413--0--8--373)" before the semi-colon.

(L) Strike "Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision;'(M) Strike "Eastern Indian land claims settlement fund

(14—2202—0—1—806);'(N) After the item relating to the Exchange stabilization

fund, insert the following new items:"Farm Credit Administration, Limitation on Adminis-

trative Expenses (78—4131—0—3—351);"Farm Credit System Financial Assistance Corpora-

tion, interest payment (20—1850-0—1—908);'(0) Strike "Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;'(P) In the first item relating to the Federal Deposit Insur-

ance Corporation, insert "(51—4064—0—3—373)" before the semi-colon.

(0) In the second item relating to the Federal Deposit In-surance Corporation, insert "(51—4065--0--3—373)" before thesemicolon.

472

(R) In the third item relating to the Federal Deposit Insur-ance Corporation, insert "(51—4066—0—3—373)" before the semi-colon.

(S) In the item relating to the Federal Housing FinanceBoard, insert "(95—4039—0—3—371)" before the semicolon.

(T) In the item relating to the Federal payment to the rail-road retirement account, strike "account" and insert "accounts"

(U) In the item relating to the health professions graduatestudent loan insurance fund, insert "program account" after"fund" and strike "(Health Education Assistance Loan Pro-gram) (75-4305—0—3—553)" and insert "(75—0340—0—1—552)"

(V) In the item relating to Higher education facilities, strike"and insurance"

(W) In the item relating to Internal Revenue collections forPuerto Rico, strike "852" and insert "806".

(X) Amend the item relating to the Panama Canal Commis-sion to read as follows:

"Panama Canal Commission, Panama Canal Revolv-ing Fund (95-4061-0—3-403);"(Y) In the item relating to the Medical facilities guarantee

and loan fund, strike "(75-4430—0—3—551)" and insert "(75—9931—O—3—550)"

(Z) In the first item relating to the National Credit UnionAdministration, insert "operating fund (25-4056—0—3—373)" be-fore the semicolon.

(AA) In the second item relating to the National CreditUnion Administration, strike "central" and insert "Central" andinsert "(25—4470—0—3—373)" before the semicolon.

(BB) In the third item relating to the National CreditUnion Administration, strike "credit" and insert "Credit" andinsert "(25—4468—0—3—373)" before the semicolon.

(CC) After the third item relating to the National CreditUnion Administration, insert the following new item:

"Office of Thrift Supervision (20-4108—0—3—373);"(DD) In the item relating to Payments to health care trust

funds, strike "572" and insert "571'(EE) Strike "Compact of Free Association, economic assist-

ance pursuant to Public Law 99—658 (14—0415—0—1-806);"(FF) In the item relating to Payments to social security

trust funds, strike "571" and insert "651 ".(GG) Strike "Payments to state and local government fiscal

assistance trust fund (20—2111—0—1—851);".(HH) In the item relating to Payments to the United States

territories, strike "852" and insert "806".(IL) Stri/?e "Resolution Funding Corporation;'('JJ) In the item relating to the Resolution Trust Corpora-

tion, insert "Revolving Fund (22-4055—0—3—373)" before thesemicolon.

(KK) After the item relating to the Tennessee Valley Author-ity funds, insert the following new items:

"Thrift Savings Fund,"United States Enrichment Corporation (95-4054—0—3—

2 71);"Vaccine Injury Compensation (75—0320—0—1—551);

473

"Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Trust Fund(20—81 75—0—7—551);"

(2) Section 255(g)(1)(B) of the Balanced Budget and EmergencyDeficit Control Act of 1985 is amended as follows.

(A) Strike "The following budget" and insert "The followingFederal retirement and disability"

(B) In the item relating to Black lung benefits, strike '?ungbenefits" and insert "Lung Disability Trust Fund"

(C) In the item relating to the Court of Federal ClaimsCourt Judges' Retirement Fund, strike "Court of Federal"

(D) In the item relating to Longshoremen's compensationbenefits, insert "Special workers compensation expenses," before"Longshoremen's"

(E) In the item relating to Railroad retirement tier II, strike"retirement tier II" and insert "Industry Pension Fund'(3) Section 255(g) (2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency

Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended as follows:(A) Strike the following items:

"Agency for International Development, Housing, andother credit guarantee programs (72—4340—0—3—151);

"Agricultural credit insurance fund (12—4140—0—1—351);".(B) In the item relating to Check forgery, strike "Check"

and insert "United States Treasury check'(C) Strike "Community development grant loan guarantees

(86—0162-0—1-451);"(D) After the item relating to the United States Treasury

Check forgery insurance fund, insert the following new item:"Credit liquidating accounts;"

(E) Strike the following items:"Credit union share insurance fund (25-4468-0—3—

371);"."Economic development revolving fund (13—4406—0—3—

452);""Export-Import Bank of the United States, Limitation

of program activity (83-4027-0—3—155);""Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (51—8419--O—8—

371);"."Federal Housing Administration fund (86—4070-0—3—

371);"."Federal ship financing fund (69-4301—O—3-403);""Federal ship financing fund, fishing vessels (13-4417—

O—3—376);""Government National Mortgage Association, Guaran-

tees of mortgage-backed securities (86—4238—0—3—371);""Health education loans (75-4307-0—3—553);""Indian loan guarantee and insurance fund (14—4410—

0—3-452);"."Railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing

fund (69-4411-0—3-401);""Rural development insurance fund (12-4155-0—3—

452);'"Rural electric and telephone revolving fund (12—4230—

8—3—271);".

474

"Rural housing insurance fund (12—4141-0—3—371);""Small Business Administration, Business loan and in-

vestment fund (73—4154—O—3—376);""Small Business Administration, Lease guarantees re-

volving fund (73-4157-0—3—376);""S mall Business Administration, Pollution control

equipment contract guarantee revolving fund (73—4147—0---3—376);"

"Small Business Administration, Surety bond guaran-tees revolving fund (73—4156—0—3—376);"

"Department of Veterans Affairs Loan guaranty revolv-ing fund (36—4025-0—3—704);"

(d) LOW-INCOME PROGRAMS.—Section 255(h) of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended asfollows:

(1) Amend the item relating to Child nutrition to read asfollows:

"Child nutrition programs (with the exception of specialmilk programs) (12—3539-0—1—605);"

(2) After the second item insert the following new items:"Temporary assistance for needy families (75—1552—0—i—

609);"Contingency fund (75—1522-0—1—609);""Child care entitlement to States (75—1550—0—1—609);(3) Amend the item relating to Women, infants, and chil-

dren program to read as follows:"Special supplemental nutrition program for women, in-

fants, and children (WIC) (12—3510—0—1—605);"(4) After the last item add the following new item:"Family support payments to States (75—1501—0—1—609);"

(e) IDENTIFICATION OF PROGRAMS.—Section 255(i) of the Bal-anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amend-ed to read as follows:

"(i) IDENTIFICATION OF PROGRAMS .—For purposes of subsections(b), (g), and (h), each account is identified by the designated budgetaccount identification code number set forth in the Budget of theUnited States Government 1998—Appendix, and an activity withinan account is designated by the name of the activity and the identi-fication code number of the account. ".

(/) OPTIONAL EXEMPTION OF MILITARY PERSONNEL.—Section255(h) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Actof 1985 (relating to optional exemption of military personnel) is re-pealed.SEC. 10208. GENERAL AND SPECIAL SEQUESTRATION RULES.

(a) HEADINGS.—(1) SECTION.—The section heading of section. 256 of the

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 isamended by striking "EXCEPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND SPECL4LRULES" and inserting "GENERAL AND SPECL4L SEQUESTRATIONRULES"

(2) TaLE OF CONTENTS.—The item relating to section 256in the table contents set forth in section 250(a) of the Balanced

475

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amendedto read as follows:

"SEC. 256. GENERAL AND SPECIAL SEQUESTRATION RULES. "

(b) AUTOMATIC SPENDING INCREASES .—Section 256(a) of theBalanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 samended by striking paragraph (1) and redesignating paragraphs(2) and (3) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively.

(c) GUARANTEED AND DIRECT STUDENT LOAN PROGRAMS.—Sec-tion 256(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit ControlAct of 1985 is amended to read as follows:

"(b) STUDENT LOANS.—For all student loans under part B or Dof title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 made during the pe-riod when a sequestration order under section 254 is in effect as re-quired by section 252 or 253, origination fees under sections438(c)(2) and 455(c) of that Act shall each be increased by 0.50 per-centage point.'

(d) HEALTH CENTERS.—Section 256(e)(1) of the Balanced Budg-et and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by strik-ing the dash and all that follows thereafter and inserting "2 per-cent. ".

(e) TREATMENT OF FEDERAL ADMINISTRATWE EXPENSES.—Sec-tion 256(h) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit ControlAct of 1985 is amended—

(1) in paragraph (2), by striking 'joint resolution" and in-serting "part' and

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking subparagraphs (D) and(H), by redesignating subparagraphs (E), (F), (G), and (I), assubparagraphs (D), (E), (F), and (G), respectively, and by add-ing at the end the following new subparagraph:

"(H) Farm Credit Administration."(/) COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.—Section 256(1) of the

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 isamended by striking paragraphs (2) through (5) and inserting thefollowing:

"(2) REDUCTION IN PAYMENTS MADE UNDER CONTRACTS.—(A) Loan eligibility under any contract entered into with a per-son by the Commodity Credit Corporation prior to the time anorder has been issued under section 254 shall not be reducedby an order subsequently issued. Subject to subparagraph (B),after an order is issued under such section for a fiscal year, anycash payments for loans or loan deficiencies made by the Com-modity Credit Corporation shall be subject to reduction underthe order.

"(B) Each loan contract entered into with producers or pro-ducer cooperatives with respect to a particular crop of a com-modity and subject to reduction under subparagraph (A) shallbe reduced in accordance with the same terms and conditions.If some, but not all, contracts applicable to a crop of a commod-ity have been entered into prior to the issuance of an orderunder section 254, the order shall provide that the necessary re-duction in payments under contracts applicable to the commod-ity be uniformly applied to all contracts for the next succeedingcrop of the commodity, under the authority provided in para-graph (3).

476

"(3) DELAYED REDUCTION IN OUTLAYS PERMISSIBLE.—Not-withstanding any other provision of this title, if an order undersection 254 is issued with respect to a fiscal year, any reductionunder the order applicable to contracts described in paragraph(1) may provide for reductions in outlays for the account in-volved to occur in the fiscal year following the fiscal year towhich the order applies.

"(4) UNIFORM PERCENTAGE RATE OF REDUCTION AND OTHERLIMITATIONS.—All reductions described in paragraph (2) whichare required to be made in connection with an order issuedunder section 254 with respect to a fiscal year shall be madeso as to ensure that outlays for each program, project, activity,or account involved are reduced by a percentage rate that isuniform for all such programs, projects, activities, and ac-counts, and may not be made so as to achieve a percentage rateof reduction in any such item exceeding the rate specified in theorder.

"(5) DAIRY PROGRAM.—Notwithstanding any other provisionof this subsection, as the sole means of achieving any reductionin outlays under the milk price support program, the Secretaryof Agriculture shall provide for a reduction to be made in theprice received by producers for all milk produced in the UnitedStates and marketed by producers for commercial use. Thatprice reduction (measured in cents per hundred weight of milkmarketed) shall occur under section 201(d) (2) (A) of the Agricul-tural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446(d)(2)(A)), shall begin on theday any sequestration order is issued under section 254, andshall not exceed the aggregate amount of the reduction in out-lays under the milk price support program that otherwisewould have been achieved by reducing payments for the pur-chase of milk or the products of milk under this subsection dur-ing the applicable fiscal year.".(g) EFFECTS OF SEQUESTRATION.—Section 256(k) of the Bal-

anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amend-ed as follows:

(1) In paragraph (1), strike "other than a trust or specialfund account" and insert ' except as provided in paragraph(5)" before the period.

(2) Amend paragraph (6) to read as follows:"(6) Budgetary resources sequestered in revolving, trust,

and special fund accounts and offsetting collections sequesteredin appropriation accounts shall not be available for obligationduring the fiscal year in which the sequestration occurs, butshall be available in subsequent years to the extent otherwiseprovided in law. ".

SEC. 10209. THE BASELINE.(a) IN GENEReu.—Section 257 of the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended—(1) in subsection (b)(2) by amending subparagraph (A) to

read as follows:"(A)(i) No program established by a law enacted on or be-

fore the date of enactment of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997with estimated current year outlays greater than $50,000,000shall be assumed to expire in the budget year or the outyears.

477

The scoring of new programs with estimated outlays greaterthan $50,000,000 a year shall be based on scoring by the Com-mittees on Budget or 0MB, as applicable. 0MB, CBO, and theBudget Committees shall consult on the scoring of such pro-grams where there are differenes between CBO and 0MB.

"(ii) On the expiration of the suspension of a provision oflaw that is suspended under section 171 of Public Law 104—127and that authorizes a program with estimated fiscal year out-lays that are greater than $50,000,000, for purposes of clause(i), the program shall be assumed to continue to operate in thesame manner as the program operated immediately before theexpiration of the suspension. '

(2) by adding the end of subsection (b)(2) the following newsubparagraph:

"(D) If any law expires before the budget year or any out-year, then any program with estimated current year outlaysgreater than $50,000,000 that operates under that law shall beassumed to continue to operate under that law as in effect im-mediately before its expiration. '

(3) in the second sentence of subsection (c)(5), by striking"national product fixed-weight price index" and inserting "do-mestic product chain-type price index"; and

(4) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:"(e) ASSET SALES.—Amounts realized from the sale of an asset

shall not be included in estimates under section 251, 252, or 253 ifthat sale would result in a financial cost to the Federal Governmentas determined pursuant to scorekeeping guidelines. '

(b) PRESIDENT'S BUDGET.—Section 1105(a) of title 31, UnitedStates Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

"(32) a statement of the levels of budget authority and out-lays for each program assumed to be extended in the baselineas provided in section 257(b) (2) (A) and for excise taxes assumedto be extended under section 257(b)(2)(C) of the Balanced Budg-et and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.".(c) BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRUST FUND OPER-

ATIONS.—Section 710 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 911) isamended to read as follows:

"BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF TRUST FUND OPERATIONS

"SEc. 710. (a) The receipts and disbursements of the FederalOld-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Dis-ability Insurance Trust Fund and the taxes imposed under sections1401 and 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall not beincluded in the totals of the budget of the United States Governmentas submitted by the President or of the congressional budget andshall be exempt from any general budget limitation imposed by stat-ute on expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) of the UnitedStates Government.

"(b)No provision of law enacted after the date of enactment ofthe Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985(other than a provision of an appropriation Act that appropriatedfunds authorized under the Social Security Act as in effect on thedate of the enactment of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Defi-cit control Act of 1985) may provide for payments from the general

478

fund of the Treasury to any Trust Fund specified in subsection (a)or for payments from any such Trust Fund to the general fund ofthe Treasury.".SEC. 10210. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

Section 258 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985, entitled "Modification of Presidential Order'is repealed.SEC. 10211. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Section 274 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985 is amended as follows:

(1) Strike "252" or "252(b)" each place it occurs and insert"254".

(2) In subsection (d)(1)(A), strike "257(l) to the extent that"and insert "256(a) if' and at the end insert "or".

(3) In subsection (d)(1)(B), strike "new budget" and all thatfollows through "spending authority" and insert "budgetary re-sources" and strike "or" after the comma.

(4) Strike subsection (d)(1)(C).(5) Strike subsection (I) and redesignate subsections (g) and

(h) as subsections (I) and (g), respectively.(6) In subsection (g) (as redesignated), strike "base levels of

total revenues and total budget outlays, as" and insert "figures'and strike "251(a) (2) (B) or (c)(2)," and insert "254".

SEC. 10212. EFFECTiVE DATE.(a) ExPrniTIoN.—Section 275(b) of the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended—(1) by striking "Part C of this title, section" and inserting

"Sections 251, 253, 258B, and";(2) by striking "1995" and inserting "2002"; and(3) by adding at the end the following new sentence: "The

remaining sections of part C of this title shall expire September30, 2006.".(b) ExPrnATI0N.—Section 14002(c) (3) of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993 (2 U.S.C. 900 note) is repealed.SEC. 10213. REDUCTION OF PREEXISTING BALANCES AND EXCLUSION

OF EFFECTS OF THIS ACT FROM PAYGO SCORECARD.Upon the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of

Management and Budget shall—(1) reduce any balances of direct spending and receipts leg-

islation for any fiscal year under section 252 of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to zero; and

(2) not make any estimates of changes in direct spendingoutlays and receipts under subsection (d) of that section for anyfiscal year resulting from the enactment of this Act or of theTaxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

555And the Senate agree to the same.

For consideration of the House bill, and the Senate amend-ment, and modifications committed to conference:

JOHN R. KASICH,DAVID L. HOBSON,RICHARD K. ARMEY,TOM DELAY,J. DENNIS HASTERT,JOHN M. SPRATr, JR.,DAVID E. B0NI0R,Vic FAzIO.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Agri-culture, for consideration of title I of the House bill, andtitle I of the Senate amendment, and modifications com-mitted to conference:

ROBERT SMITH,BOB GOODLATrE,

556

CHARLES W. STENHOLM.As additional conferees from the Committee on Bankingand Financial Services, for consideration of title II of theHouse bill, and title II of the Senate amendment, andmodifications committed to conference:

JAMES A. LEACH,RICK LAZIO.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Commerce,for consideration of subtitles A—C of title III of the Housebill, and title 1V of the Senate amendment, and modifica-tions committed to conference:

TOM BLILEY,DAN SCHAEFER,JOHN D. DINGELL.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Commerce,for consideration of subtitle D of title III of the House bill,and subtitle A of title III of the Senate amendment, andmodifications committed to conference:

TOM BLILEY,BILLY TAUZIN.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Commerce,for consideration of subtitles E and F of title III, titles 1Vand X of the House bill, and divisions 1 and 2 of title Vof the Senate amendment, and modifications committed toconference:

TOM BLILEY,MICHAEL BILIRAKIS.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Educationand the Workiorce, for consideration of subtitle A of titleV and subtitle A of title IX of the House bill, and chapter2 of division 3 of title V of the Senate amendment, andmodifications committed to conference:

BILL GOODLING,JIM TALENT.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Educationand the Workforce, for consideration of subtitles B and Cof title V of the House bill, and title VII of the Senateamendment, and modifications committed to conference:

• BILL GOODLING,HOWARD "BUCK" MCKEON,DALE E. KILDEE.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Educationand the Workforce, for consideration of subtitle D of titleV of the House bill, and chapter 7 of division 4 of title Vof the Senate amendment, and modifications committed toconference:

DONALD M. PAYNE.As additional conferees from the Committee on Govern-ment Reform and Oversight, for consideration of title VI ofthe House bill, and subtitle A of title VI of the Senateamendment, and modifications committed to conference:

DAN BURTON,JOHN L. MICA.

557

As additional conferees from the Committee on Transpor-tation and Infrastructure, for consideration of title VII ofthe House bill, and subtitle B of title III and subtitle B oftitle VI of the Senate amendment, and modifications com-mitted to conference:

BuD SHUSTER,WAYNE T. GILCHREST,JAMES L. OBERSTAR.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Veterans'Affairs, for consideration of title VIII of the House bill, andtitle VIII of the Senate amendment, and modificationscommitted to conference:

BOB STUMP,CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH,LANE EVANS.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Ways andMeans, for consideration of subtitle A of title V and title1X of the House bill, and divisions 3 and 4 of title V of theSenate amendment, and modifications committed to con-ference:

BILL ARCHER,E. CLAY Sw, JR.,DAVE CAMP,CHARLES B. RANGEL,SANDER M. LEVIN.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Ways andMeans, for consideration of titles IV and X of the Housebill, and division 1 of title V of the Senate amendment,and modifications committed to conference:

BILL ARCHER,WILLIAM THOMAS.

Managers on the Part of the House.From the Committee on the Budget:

PETE DOMENICI,CHUCK GRASSLEY,DON NICKLES,PHIL GRAMM,FRANK LAUTENBERG.

From the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and For-estry:

DICK LUGAR.From the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Af-fairs:

ALFONSE D'AMATO,RIcHARD SHELBY,PAUL SARBANES.

From the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transpor-tation:

JOHN MCCAIN,TED STEVENS,

(Except for provisions inuniversal service fund).

From the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:FRANK H. MURKOWSKI,

558

LARRY E. CRAIG.From the Committee on Finance:

BILL ROTH,TRENT Lorr,DANIEL P. MOYNIHAN.

From the Committee on Governmental Affairs:FRED THOMPSON,SUSAN COLLINS.

From the Committee on Veterans' Affairs:ARLEN SPECTER,STROM THURMOND,JOHN ROCKEFELLER.

Managers on the Part of the Senate.

(559)

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OFCONFERENCE

The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at theconference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on theamendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2015) to provide for rec-onciliation pursuant to sections 104 to 105 of the concurrent resolu-tion on the budget for fiscal year 1997, submit the following jointstatement to the House and the Senate in explanation of the effectof the action agreed upon by the managers and recommended inthe accompanying conference report:

TITLE I—AGRICULTURE

567

DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS FOR PRISONERS

CURRENT LAW

No provisions.

HOUSE BILL

[Note: The House Bill does not contain an amendment dealingwith food stamps and prisoners. However, H.R. 1000 (approved bythe House on April 8, 1997) requires state agencies to establish asystem and take action on a periodic basis to verify and otherwiseassure that an individual who is officially detained in a correc-tional, detention, or penal facility administered under federal orstate law is not considered to be part of any food stamp house-hold—except to the extent that the Secretary determines that ex-traordinary circumstances have made it impracticable for the stateagency to obtain the necessary information.]

SENATE AMENDMENT

Requires state agencies to establish a system and take actionon a periodic basis to verify and otherwise ensure that an individ-ual placed under detention in a federal, state, or local penal, correc-tional, or other detention facility (for more than 30 days) is not eli-

568

gible to participate as a member of any food stamp household—ex-cept that (1) the Secretary may determine tha€ extraordinary cir-cumstances make it impracticable for a state agency to obtain thenecessary information and (2) state agencies obtaining informationcollected under the Social Security Administration's system foridentifying prisoner recipients (or a comparable system) will bejudged to be in compliance.

Provides that this new requirement will take effect 1 year afterenactment—except that the Secretary may grant an extension (notto exceed 2 years after enactment) if a request is submitted statingthe reasons for noncompliance, providing evidence of a good faitheffort, and detailing a plan for bringing the state into compliance.

Requires the Secretary to assist states—to the maximum ex-tent practicable—in implementing systems to carry out the new re-quirement regarding prisoners.

[Sec. 1003.1

CONFERENCE AGREEMENT

House recedes.[Section 1003.1

722

PROVISION OF CERTAIN IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS

Section 10308 and 4208 of House bill and Section 5212 of Senateamendment

CURRENT LAW

Section 1124 of the Social Security Act requires that entitiesparticipating in Medicare, Medicaid and the Maternal and ChildHealth Block Grant programs (including providers, clinical labora-tories, renal disease facilities, health maintenance organizations,carriers and fiscal intermediaries), provide certain information re-garding the identity of each person with an ownership or controlinterest in the entity, or in any subcontractor in which the entityhas a direct or indirect 5 percent or more ownership interest. Sec-tion 1 124A of the Socia Security Act requires that providers underpart B of Medicare also provide information regarding persons withownership or control interest in a provider or any subcontractor inwhich the provider has a direct or indirect 5 percent or more own-ership interest.

HOUSE BILL

Section 1308. Requires that all Medicare providers supply theSecretary with both the employer identification number and SocialSecurity account number of each disclosing entity, each person withan ownership or control interest, and any subcontractor in whichthe entity has a direct or indirect 5 percent or more ownership in-terest. The Secretary of HHS is directed to transmit to the Com-missioner of Social Security information concerning each social se-curity account number and employer identification number sup-plied to the Secretary for verification of such information. The Sec-retary would reimburse the Commissioner for costs incurred in per-forming the verification services required by this provision. TheSecretary of HHS would report to Congress on the steps taken toassure confidentiality of Social Security numbers to be provided tothe Secretary of HHS under this section.

Section 4308. Similar, but specifies that Social Security num-bers would not be disclosed to other persons or entities, and use ofsuch numbers would be limited to verification and matching pur-poses only.

723

Effective Date. Effective 90 days after submission of Sec-retary's report to Congress on confidentiality of Social Securitynumbers.

SENATE AMENDMENT

Identical to Ways and Means provision.


The conference agreement includes provisions that are similarin the House bill and the Senate amendment with modifications.Although the Conferees are aware of the widespread use of SocialSecurity numbers as personal identifiers, the Conferees had con-cern about the confidentiality of such numbers under this new dis-closure requirement. Therefore, this provision provides for a studyby the Secretary before this requirement would become effective. Inaddition, the Conferees note that the disclosure of Social Securitynumbers and other personal identifiers to a Federal agency areprotected by applicable provisions of the Privacy Act.

882

STATE OvrIoN To PERMIT WORKERS WITH DISABILITIES To BuYINTo MEDICAID

Section 5731 of Senate amendment

CURRENT LAW

States must. continue Medicaid coverage for "qualified severelyimpaired individuals under the age of 65." These are disabled andblind individuals whose earnings reach or exceed the SSI benefitstandard. (The current law threshold for earnings is $1,053 permonth.) This special eligibility status applies as long as the individ-ual (1) continues to be blind or have a disabling impairment; (2)except for earnings, continues to meet all the other requirementsfor SSI eligibility; (3) would be seriously inhibited from continuingor obtaining employment if Medicaid eligibility were to end; and (4)has earnings that are not sufficient to provide a reasonable equiva-lent of benefits from SSI, state supplementary payments (if pro-vided), Medicaid, and publicly funded attendant care that wouldhave been available in the absence of those earnings. To implementthe fourth criterion, the Social Security Administration comparesthe individual's gross earnings to a "threshold" amount that rep-resents average expenditures for Medicaid benefits for disabled SSIcash recipients in the individual's state of residence.

HOUSE BILL

No provision.

SENATE AMENDMENT

Provides states the option of allowing disabled SSI bene-ficiaries with incomes up to 250% of poverty to "buy into" Medicaidby paying a premium. Premium levels are on a sliding scale, basedon the individual's income as determined by the State.

Effective on and after October 1, 1997.

883


The conference agreement includes the Senate amendment.

941

II. SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME

11. Requirement to Perforni Childhood Disability Redeterminationsin Missed Cases

CURRENT LAW

By August 22, 1997 (one year after the date of enactment ofP.L. 104—193), the Commissioner of the Social Security Administra-tion (SSA) is expected to redetermine the eligibility of any child re-ceiving SSI benefits on August 22, 1996, whose eligibility may beaffected by changes in childhood disability eligibility criteria, in-cluding the new definition of childhood disability and the elimi-nation of the individualized functional assessment. Benefits of cur-rent recipients will continue until the later of July 1, 1997 or a re-determination assessment. Should a child be found ineligible, bene-fits will end following redetermination. Within 1 year of attainmentof age 18, SSA is expected to make a medical redetermination ofcurrent SSI childhood recipients using adult disability eligibilitycriteria. For low birth weight babies, a review must be conductedwithin 12 months after the birth of a child whose low birth weightis a contributing factor to his or her disability.

HOUSE BILL

This provision extends from 1 year after the date of enactmentto 18 months after the date of enactment the period by which SSAmust redetermine the eligibility of any child receiving benefits onAugust 22, 1996 whose eligibility may be affected by changes inchildhood disability. The provision also specifies that any child sub-ject to an SSI redetermination under the terms of the welfare re-form law whose redetermination does not occur during the 18-month period following enactment (that is, by February 22, 1998)is to be assessed as soon as practicable thereafter using the neweligibility standards applied to other children under the welfare re-form law.

SENATE AMENDMENT

No provision.


The conference agreement follows the House bill.

942

12. Repeal of Maintenance-of-Effort Requirement for Optional StateSupplementation of SSI Benefits

CURRENT LAW

States have an option to supplement the Federal SSI paymentwith their own funds. States that operate optional supplementationprograms are required by Section 1618 of the Social Security Actto "pass along" the amount of any Federal SSI benefit increase torecipients. The law allows States to comply with this requirementby either maintaining their supplementary payment levels to re-cipients of a given type at or above 1983 levels or by maintainingtheir supplementary payments at a level that, when combined withFederal payments, at least equals combined payments to the sametype of recipients during the previous 12 months. In effect, Section1618 requires that once a State elects to provide supplementarypayments, it must continue to do so.

HOUSE BILL

The House Bill repeals Section 1618, ending the requirementthat States pass along any Federal benefit increase to recipients.

SENATE AMENDMENT

No provision.


The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment (noprovision).

13. Fees for Federal Administration of State Supplementary Pay-ments

CURRENT LAW

The law requires the Commissioner of Social Security to assessan administration fee for making State supplementary SSI pay-ments (optional or mandatory) on behalf of States. For Fiscal Year1997 and each succeeding fiscal year, the fee is $5.00 monthly ora different rate that the Commissioner determines to be appro-priate for the State. The administration fees—along with any addi-tional service fees that the Commissioner imposes to cover costs—are deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as miscellaneousreceipts.

HOUSE BILL

The House Bill increases fees for administering State supple-ments (optional or mandatory) as follows:

For Fiscal Year 1998 $6.20For Fiscal Year 1999 $7.60For Fiscal Year 2000 $7.80For Fiscal Year 2001 $8.10For Fiscal Year 2002 $8.50

For Fiscal Year 2003 and each succeeding fiscal year, the ratein the preceding year, adjusted for price inflation (by use of theConsumer Price Index); or a different rate that the Commissionerdetermines to be appropriate for the State.

943

The first $5 in monthly administration shall be deposited inthe general fund of the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. The re-maining portion of administration fees (and 100 percent of addi-tional services fees) shall, upon collection for Fiscal Year 1998 andlater years, be credited to a special Treasury fund to be availableto defray expenses in carrying out SSI and related laws.

The bill authorizes $35 million to be appropriated from thenew special Treasury fund for Fiscal Year 1998 and "such sums asare necessary" for later years.

SENATE AMENDMENT

No provision.


The conference agreement follows the House bill, with themodification that administration fees authorized by this section tobe charged and credited to a special fund established in the Treas-ury for State supplementary payment fees shall not be scored asreceipts under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and EmergencyDeficit Control Act of 1985; such amounts shall be credited as adiscretionary offset to discretionary spending to the extent they aremade available for expenditure in appropriations Acts.

944

IV. RESTRICTING WELFARE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS FORALIENS

15. Extension of SSI/Medicaid Eligibility Period for Refugees andCertain Other Qualified Aliens From 5 to 7 Years

CURRENT LAW

Provides 5-year exemption from: (1) the bar against SSI andFood Stamps; and (2) the provision allowing States to deny "quali-fied aliens" access to Medicaid, TANF, and Social Services BlockGrant for refugees, asylees, and aliens granted withholding of de-portation for persecution.

HOUSE BILL

Lengthens from 5 years to 7 years the period during which SSIand Medicaid eligibility is guaranteed to refugees, asylees, andaliens whose deportation has been withheld.

SENATE AMENDMENT

Similar to House, except also clarifies that Cuban-Haitian en-trants would be considered "refugees."


The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.

16. Definition: "Qualified Aliens"

CURRENT LAW

Defined by P.L. 104—193 (as amended by P.L. 104—208) asaliens admitted for legal permanent residence (i.e., immigrants),refugees, aliens paroled into the United States for at least 1 year,aliens granted asylum or related relief, and certain abused spousesand children. Most Cuban/Haitian entrants are paroled for 1 yearand, as such, are "qualified aliens." Amerasians enter as immi-grants and, as such, are qualified aliens.

HOUSE BILL

Specifies that Cuban and Haitian entrants and Amerasian per-manent resident aliens are to be considered qualified aliens forpurpose of continuing SSI and Medicaid eligibility of those whowere receiving benefits on August 22, 1996.

SENATE AMENDMENT

Specifies Cuban and Haitian entrants are qualified aliens forpurpose of continuing SSI and Medicaid eligibility of those whowere receiving benefits on August 22, 1996 (see below regardingtreatment of Amerasians).



945

17. SSI Eligibility for Noncitizens Receiving SSI on August 22,1996

CURRENT LAW

Most "qualified aliens" are barred from Supplemental SecurityIncome (SSI) for the Aged, Blind, and Disabled. Current recipientsmust be screened for continuing eligibility by September 30, 1997.

HOUSE BILL

"Qualified aliens" receiving SSI benefits on August 22, 1996would remain eligible for SSI. Applies to both the aged and dis-ableci.

SENATE AMENDMENT

Similar to House, but clarifies that ban does not apply to analien who is "lawfully residing in any State."


The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment, withthe modification that the ban does not apply to an alien who is"lawfully residing in the United States." The conference agreementclarifies that non-qualified aliens who are current SSI recipientswould remain eligible for SSI and guaranteed Medicaid until Octo-ber 1, 1998.

18. SSI Eligibility for Noncitizens Here by August 22, 1996 andSubsequently Disabled

CURRENT LAW

Not eligible under current law (unless otherwise exempt fromineligibility).

HOUSE BILL

No provision (thus eligibility continues beyond September 30,1997 only for those receiving benefits as of August 22, 1996; seeabove).

SENATE AMENDMENT

Eligibility for SSI disability benefits provided for "qualifiedaliens" here by August 22, 1996 who subsequently become disabled.


The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment, withthe modification that benefits are to be provided to aliens "lawfullyresiding in the United States" on August 22, 1996.19. SSI Eligibility for the Severely Disabled

CURRENT LAW

No provision for eligibility of severely disabled "qualifiedaliens" beyond continued coverage through September 30, 1997 ofthose on rolls as of August 22, 1996.

946

HOUSE BILL

No special provision for the severely disabled. Eligibility ofthose on the rolls as of August 22, 1996 would continue (see above).

SENATE AMENDMENT

Provides for coverage of future severely disabled "qualifiedaliens" who are unable to naturalize solely because of their disabil-ity.


The conference agreement follows the House bill (no provision).However, qualified aliens present in the U.S. on August 22, 1996who subsequently become disabled would be eligible for SSI (seeitem 18 above).

20. SSI Eligibility for SSI Recipients with Applications Filed BeforeJanuary 1, 1979

CURRENT LAW

Not eligible under current law beyond September 30, 1997 un-less can prove citizenship (or are otherwise exempt because of workrecord or veteran status).

HOUSE BILL

No provision.

SENATE AMENDMENT

Individuals who have been receiving SSI on basis of an appli-cation filed before January 1, 1979 would continue to be eligibleunless there is convincing evidence that they are non-qualifiedaliens.



21. Medicaid eligibility for noncitizens receiving SSI on August 22,1996

CURRENT LAW

States may exclude "qualified aliens" who entered the UnitedStates before enactment of the welfare law (August 22, 1996) fromMedicaid beginning January 1, 1997. Additionally, to the extentthat legal immigrants' receipt of Medicaid is based only on theireligibility for SSI, some will lose Medicaid because of their ineli-gibility for SSI.

HOUSE BILL

"Qualified aliens" who were receiving derivative Medicaid ben-efits on August 22, 1996 as a result of receipt of SSI would remaineligible for Medicaid.

947

SENATE AMENDMENT

Similar to House.


The conference agreement follows the House bill and the Sen-ate amendment.22. Food stamp eligibility

CURRENT LAW

"Qualified aliens" here before August 22, 1996 are barred fromfood stamps by August 22, 1997; new arrivals are barred from dateof entry.

HOUSE BILL

No derivative eligibility from SSI eligibility; i.e., no change inexisting law.

SENATE AMENDMENT

No derivative eligibility from SSI eligibility; i.e., no change inexisting law.


The conference agreement follows the House bill and the Sen-ate amendment.

23. Medicaid eligibility for children

CURRENT LAW

"Qualified aliens" entering after August 22, 1996 are barredfrom all but emergency Medicaid for their first 5 years after entry,at which point their participation is a State option; no special pro-vision is made for children.

HOUSE BILL

No change in existing law.

SENATE AMENDMENT

Exempts "qualified alien" children under age 19 entering afterAugust 22, 1996 from the 5-year bar on full Medicaid.


The conference agreement follows the House bill (no provision).

24. SSI/Medicaid eligibility for permanent resident aliens who aremembers of an Indian Tribe

CURRENT LAW

Makes no exception for qualified aliens who are Native Ameri-cans. Section 289 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952(INA) preserves the right of free passage recognized in the JayTreaty of 1794 by allowing "American Indians born in Canada"

948

unimpeded entry and residency rights if they "possess at least 50per centum of blood of the American Indian race." By regulation,individuals who enter the U.S. and reside here under this provisionare regarded as lawful permanent resident aliens.

HOUSE BILL

Excepts members of federally recognized American Indiantribes who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence from theSSI (and derivative Medicaid if applicable) restrictions on qualifiedaliens.

SENATE AMENDMENT

Excepts (1) members of federally recognized tribes and (2)American Indians who come under Sec. 289 of the INA from theSSI (and derivative Medicaid if applicable) restrictions on qualifiedaliens. Makes similar exceptions to the 5-year bar on benefits fornewly arriving qualified aliens.


The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment, withclarifying amendments.

25. Amerasians

CURRENT LAW

Amerasians enter as immigrants and, as such, are qualifiedaliens.

HOUSE BILL

Considered to be "qualified aliens" for purpose of continued eli-gibility for SSI for those here by August 22, 1996.

SENATE AMENDMENT

Amerasians would be made eligible for benefits on same basisas refugees. Provides for funding through $100 processing fees tobe levied on unlawfully present aliens who are ordered removedafter having been convicted in the U.S. of a felony.


The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment, withthe modification that the funding provision is dropped.

26. Verification of eligibility for state and local public benefits

CURRENT LAW

Requires verification that applicants for federal benefits are él-igible for the benefits, and that States administering such pro-grams have a verification system.

HOUSE BILL

Authorizes State and local governments to verify eligibility forState or local public benefits.

949

SENATE AMENDMENT

No provision.


The conference agreement follows the House bill.

952

VI. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

Note: Provisions of the House-passed Technical Corrections Act(H.R. 1048) are identical to those of the Senate-passed TechnicalCorrections Act (Subtitle M of Title V of 5. 947) except the itemsnoted below.

35. Inadvertent references to Internal Revenue Code

CURRENT LAW

No provision.

953

HOUSE BILL

Strikes one paragraph (number 7) of Sec. 110(1) of P.L. 104—193, which made an inadvertent change in the Internal RevenueCode.

SENATE AMENDMENT

Strikes additional paragraphs (numbers 1, 4, and 5) whichmade inadvertent or obsolete changes in the Internal RevenueCode.



36. Expenditures to be excluded from historic state expenditures

CURRENT LAW

No provision.

HOUSE BILL

Clarifies that State funds spent as a condition of receivingother Federal funds may not count toward the State maintenanceof effort requirement; also makes a minor wording change to en-sure that State spending on JOBS is included in the maintenance-of-effort baseline (historic State expenditures).

SENATE AMENDMENT

Makes this change in conforming amendments to the welfare-to-work block grant (see item 1 above). Language is the same asthat in the Ways and Means welfare-to-work provision.


The conference agreement follows the House bill and the Sen-ate amendment.

37. Correction of references

CURRENT LAW

No provision.

HOUSE BILL

No provision.

SENATE AMENDMENT

Strikes "amendment made by section 2103 of the Personal Re-sponsibility and Work Opportunity" and inserts "amendmentsmade by section 103 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Op-portunity Reconciliation."



954

38. Technical correction pertaining to Social SecurityCURRENT LAW

The two technical changes made in this section pertain to thedefinition of "qualified organization" that may serve as a represent-ative payee, "final adjudication" as it applies to drug addicts andalcoholics, and cost-of-living increases as they apply to Social Secu-rity benefits.

HOUSE BILL

Makes minor changes in wording to improve clarity.SENATE AMENDMENT

No provision.CONFERENCE AGREEMENT

The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment withthe modification that only the provisions of subtitle B of H.R. 1048affecting title II of the Social Security Act are deleted.

The provisions of Public Law 104—121 denying Social Securityand Supplemental Security Income disability benefits to drug ad-dicts and alcoholics used identical language in pegging the effectivedates to the "final adjudication" of an individual's claim. Those pro-visions warrant clarification, since at least one court has alreadyreached conclusions regarding their meaning that are contrary tothe intent of Congress. The conference agreement includes lan-guage clarifying the effective date of the Supplemental Security In-come provision only; it does not include parallel language clarifyingthe effective date of the Social Security provision due only to proce-dural considerations in the Senate regarding reconciliation bills.

39. Timing of delivery of October 2000 SSI benefit payments

CURRENT LAW

Section 708 of the Social Security Act provides that benefits fora month are paid in the preceding month if the regular pay datefalls on a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday. Since the regularpay date for October 2000 (October 1) falls on a Sunday, the checkfor that month, under current law, would be delivered on Friday,September 29, 2000. As a result, 13 months of SSI benefits wouldbe paid in FY 1999.

HOUSE BILL

No provision.SENATE AMENDMENT

No provision.CONFERENCE AGREEMENT

The conference agreement includes the technical modificationthat the date of delivery of SSI benefits in October 2000 will be Oc-tober 2, 2000. It is the intention of conferees to return to this issueand work with the Social Security Administration to minimize any

955

possible difficulties recipients might experience as a result of thischange.

40. Clarification of the Contingency Fund

CURRENT LAW

States that have high unemployment (at least 6.5 percent andup 10 percent or more from the comparable period in at least oneof the two preceding years) or a substantial increase in food stamprecipients (10 percent above same period of Fiscal Year 1994 or Fis-cal Year 1995, assuming the new law had been in effect throughoutFiscal Year 1994) are entitled to matching grants out of a contin-gency fund, provided their State spending under the TANF pro-gram exceeds 100 percent of its 'historic' level. Historic spendinglevel is Fiscal Year 1994 State spending on AFDC, JOBS, Emer-gency Assistance, and AFDC-related child care. Monthly paymentsfrom the contingency fund cannot exceed Vl2th of 20 percent of theState TANF grant.

HOUSE BILL

The contingency fund operates in two stages: (1) States get anadvance payment of Vl2th of 20 percent of their block grant everymonth that they meet the trigger and then for 1 month after theyno longer meet the trigger; and (2) an annual reconciliation is per-formed in which States are required to remit money they did notdeserve, usually because either they did not achieve the 100 per-cent maintenance of effort requirement or they financed more ofthe extra spending from contingency fund advances than theyshould have. The primary change is how the annual reconciliationis conducted. Generally, countable expenditures are subtractedfrom historic State expenditures to compute a new measure calledreimbursable expenditures. Countable expenditures are defined asqualified State expenditures (as defined in the Act) under theTANF program (minus spending on child care) plus expendituresmade by States from contingency fund monthly advances. HistoricState expenditures are the same as under the Act except thatspending on AFDC-related child care is not counted. The amountto which States are entitled under the contingency fund equals re-imbursable expenditures times the State Medicaid match ratetimes the number of months in the year during which States wereeligible divided by 12. This formula provides States with a Federalmatch on the amount of money they spent under the TANF pro-gram out of State funds that exceed the State's historic State ex-penditures prorated for the number of months during the year theState was eligible for contingency payments. This section also con-tains a slight modification of language to clarify that the Medicaidmatching rate formula itself, and not the values for each State pro-duced by the formula, is maintained as it existed on September 30,1995.

The amendment retains the policy of only counting State ex-penditures made under the TANF program toward meeting contin-gency fund spending requirements. It would permit States to countonly the portion of qualified State expenditures made under theTANF program, and hence under the rules that apply to State ex-

956

penditures under TANF, toward meeting contingency fund mainte-nance of effort and matching requirements.

SENATE AMENDMENT

Same as House.


The conference agreement follows the identical provisions inthe House bill and the Senate amendment.

981

TITLE X—BUDGET ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1997

BACKGROUND

CURRENT LAW

Current budget enforcement mechanisms were put into placeas a result of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment ControlAct of 1974 and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Con-trol Act of 1985 (GRH). While the Supreme Court's 1986 decisionin Bowsher v. Synar (478 U.S. 714) invalidated the GRH sequestermechanism, Congress moved to correct the constitutional flaw inthe law by enacting the Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Reaffirmation Act of 187.

In the spring of 1990 it was evident that the deficit would ex-ceed the GRH maximum deficit amount by more than $100 billion.Later that year, the Office of Management and Budget estimatedthat a sequester of $85 billion would be required to eliminate theexcess deficit amount. A key feature of the 1990 budget summitagreement was a major restructuring of budget enforcement provi-sions of GRH. The budget process provisions of the 1990 budgetsummit agreement were enacted as the Budget Enforcement Act of1990 (BEA) (title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1990; H.R. 5835; Pub. L. 101--508). The BEA created a two-tieredbudget enforcement regime by establishing caps on discretionaryappropriations spending and a "pay-as-you-go" requirement for leg-islation affecting mandatory spending or revenues.

While the BEA also extended deficit limits through 1995, it re-lied exclusively on discretionary spending limits and the pay-as-you-go requirement for 1991 through 1993 to impose budgetary dis-cipline. For 1991 through 1993, the BEA required the President toadjust the deficit limits each year to equal the deficit. This effec-tively made the deficit limits unenforceable for those years. TheBEA, however, gave the President the choice of returning to fixedenforceable deficit limits in 1993. In 1993, President Clinton choseto continue to adjust the deficit limits and effectively discontinuedenforceable deficit limits. Later that year, when the BEA was ex-tended through 1998, Congress did not extend deficit limits.

The discretionary spending limits and the pay-as-you-go re-quirement are scheduled to sunset at the end of 1998. These mech-

982

anisms have been extremely useful tools for the Congress to controldiscretionary spending and to ensure legislation is not enacted thatwould increase the deficit.

Congressional budget processUnder the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, the

Congress adopts its own budget in the form of a concurrent budgetresolution. The budget resolution provides a budgetary frameworkwithin which it considers spending and tax legislation. The budgetresolution establishes aggregate spending and revenue levels anddistributes the spending levels across. 20 functional categories.

The conference report accompanying the budget resolution allo-cates a lump sum of spending authority to all committees with ju-risdiction over federal spending. The Appropriations CommitteeEubdivides this allocation amount among each of its 13 subcommit-tees.

If the budget resolution envisions changes in revenue andmandatory spending, the budget resolution may provide reconcili-ation instructions directing the authorizing committees to reportlegislation that achieves the specified spending and revenue tar-gets. The authorizing committees respond to these reconciliation di-rectives by reporting their legislative recommendations to theBudget Committees. The Budget Committees compile these legisla-tive recommendations into omnibus reconciliation bills that areconsidered under fast4rack procedures in the Congress.

The spending and revenue levels in the budget resolution andthe accompanying report are enforced through points of order thatmay be raised by members of Congress when the House or Senateconsiders spending and tax legislation.

Statutory controls over the budgetThe Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 amended the Congres-

sional Budget Act of 1974 and the Balanced Budget Act of 1985 toestablish two new statutory controls over federal spending: (1) lim-its on general purpose discretionary budget authority and discre-tionary outlays, which apply to spending controlled through the an-nual appropriations process; and (2) a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) re-quirement, which applies to direct spending and revenues. Initially,the two processes were to be effective for 1991 through 1995. Thespending limits and PAYGO were extended through 1998 by TitleXIV of P.L. 103—66, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1993. The Congress established separate discretionary spendinglimits through 1998 for crime prevention and certain law enforce-ment activities as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law En-forcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103—322).

Breaches of the discretionary spending limits and PAYGO re-quirements are enforced by sequestration—automatic across-the-board spending reductions in non-exempt programs. A sequester istriggered under the discretionary spending limits if either thebudget authority or outlay limit for the applicable fiscal year is ex-ceeded. A sequester is triggered under PAYGO if the net effect oflegislation affecting receipts or entitlement spending is to increasethe deficit.

983

Summary of this titleThe primary purpose of this title is to implement the budget

process provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Agreement. The Bipar-tisan Budget Agreement called for the extension of the BEAthrough 2002 with some modifications (the text of the BipartisanBudget Agreement appears on pages 75—92 of the Senate print ac-companying S. Con. Res. 27, S.Rpt. 105—27). This title also makesa number of changes to consolidate provisions, repeal obsolete pro-visions, make technical and conforming changes, and to update theBudget Act and GRH. The Budget Act and GRH have been amend-ed in a piecemeal fashion over the years. Consequently both ofthese laws contain redundant and obsolete provisions. Finally, thistitle calls for a task force in the Senate to review the floor proce-dares used during the considerations of budget resolutions and rec-onciliation bills.

House proceduresThis title makes various changes in the application of certain

budget procedures in the House. Many of these changes are appli-cable only in the House of Representatives. The title allows theCommittee on Ways and Means to reduce revenue below the reve-nue floor if it is offset by reductions in spending (in excess ofamounts required under reconciliation). In addition, this title dis-continues the practice of providing an allocation of new entitlementauthority separate from other forms of mandatory spending. Fi-nally, this title provides that it is not necessary to waive the Budg-et Act where through rulemaking the Budget Act violation is re-moved in the text pending before the House.

Senate proceduresThis title makes a number of changes to the Budget Act re-

garding the congressional budget process and its application to theSenate. During consideration of the revenue reconciliation bill, Sen-ator Byrd offered an amendment to incorporate many aspects ofSenate Rule XXII (cloture) to procedures governing the Senate'sconsideration of reconciliation bills. The Senate adopted the Byrdamendment (#572) by a vote of 92—8. After a great deal of consulta-tion, the Senate leadership concluded that any change to floor pro-cedures under fast-track requires further study. Consequently, theconference agreement includes the creation of a bipartisan Senatetask force which is to report to the Senate by October 8, 1997.

Structure of this titleDuring the course of the past year, the House and Senate Com-

mittees on the Budget, with the assistance of the CongressionalBudget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, developedlegislation to extend the BEA, incorporate the budget process provi-sions of the Bipartisan Budget Agreement, and make technical andconforming changes to budget laws.

At the start of the legislative process, the House and SenateCommittees on the Budget worked from the same basic draft. Thisdraft was then modified to meet the specific concerns of the mem-bership of each House. In the House of Representatives, the draftwas incorporated into the language of H.R. 2015 (as title XI Budget

984

Enforcement) as part of a Manager's Amendment. During consider-ation in the Senate of the spending reconciliation bill, 5. 947, (thetext of which became the Senate amendment to H.R. 2015) nobudget enforcement language was included. However, during con-sideration in the Senate of the revenue reconciliation bill, 5. 949,(the text of which became the Senate amendment to H.R. 2014) theenforcement language was adopted by a vote of 98—2 in the formof an amendment offered by Senators Domenici and Lautenberg(amendment number 537) and became title XVI.

As a result of each House sending the enforcement languageto conference on a different bill, this joint explanatory statement:(1) sets forth the language found in each bill (by identifying thesection in the respective bill), (2) compares the two (by referenceto the section of the Budget Act or GRH which is sought to beamended), and (3) indicates the agreement reached by the con-ferees. Where the position of the House and Senate are identicalwith respect to any particular language, for purposes of clarity, theSenate will recede to the language of the House bill. Any other re-sults will be specifically explained below.

Subtitle A: Amendments to the Congressional Budget andImpoundment Control Act of 1974; Sections 10001—10123

1. Table of Contents

HOUSE BILL (SECTION 11001)

Sets forth a short title and table of contents for the Budget En-forcement Act of 1997.

SENATE AMENI'MENT

No provision.

CONFERENCE AGREEMENT (10001)

The Senate recedes to the House with the appropriate renum-bering.

2. Amendments to section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act


Amends Section 3 of the Congressional Budget and Impound-ment Control Act of 1974 ("Budget Act") to include entitlement au-thority as defined under current law in section 401(c)(2)(C) of theBudget Act and the Food Stamp program (which is technically notan entitlement). This change is taken in concert with the dis-continuation of separate allocations of new entitlement authority insection 11106. As a consequence of these changes, entitlement au-thority will be allocated as new budget authority and will be sub-ject to the points under the Budget Act that apply to new budgetauthority.

SENATE AMENDMENT

No provision.

985

CONFERENCE AGREEMENT (SECTION 10101)

The Conference agreement reflects the House bill with modi-fications. The Conference agreement defines the term "entitlementauthority" in section 3 of the Budget Act and adds the food stampprogram to that definition.

It is the intent of the conferees that legislation providing newentitlement authority as defined in section 401(c)(2)(C) is also aform of new budget authority as set forth in Section 3(2). In theHouse, legislation providing new entitlement authority will also beconsidered as new budget authority and subject to the same BudgetAct requirements that apply to new budget authority. In the Sen-ate, this provision merely conforms to current practice.

3. Amendment to section 201 of the Congressional Budget Act


Provides a nonsubstantive change clarifying that the term ofthe Director of the Congressional Budget Office is one of four yearsthat expires in the year preceding a Presidential election.

Corrects an error made by Section 13202 of the Budget En-forcement Act of 1990 that designated two different subsections as201(g) by redesignating the first as Section 201W.

SENATE AMENDMENT (SECTION 1601)

Provides a technical correction to redesignate a subsection re-garding revenue estimates which was not properly executed inprior amendments.


The Conference agreement reflects the House bill with modi-fications to eliminate the references to the Office of Technology As-sessment and the Technology Assessment Board from this section.



Amends Section 202(a) of the Budget Act to clarify that the"primary" duty of the Congressional Budget Office is to assist theHouse and Senate Budget Committees. This section also eliminatesan obsolete provision relating to the transfer of the functions of theJoint Committee on Reductions of Federal Expenditures to theCongressional Budget Office.


The language in the Senate Amendment is identical to theHouse Bill.


The Conference agreement reflects the House bill with a modi-fication. The conferees recognize that CBO's responsibilities haveexpanded considerably, particularly with the enactment of the Un-funded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. In addition to scoring re-ported legislation and providing spending and revenue projections,

986

CBO also provides assistance to committees and individual mem-bers upon request. The intent of this language is to clarify thatCBO's primary duty is to assist the Budget Committees in its du-ties to the Congress to develop, implement, and enforce the budgetresolution and address other budgetary matters.

The Conference agreement also requires CBO to include in itsreport the estimated budgetary impact associated with assumingthe extension of mandatory programs that exceed $50 million andexcise taxes dedicated to trust funds for the baseline as requiredby section 257 of GRH.



Conforms the date in the table in Section 300 of the BudgetAct for committee submission of views and estimates (six weeksafter the submission of the President's budget) with the date inSection 30 1(d) of the Budget Act (which was in turn amended toallow the Budget Committee Chairman to set an alternative dead-line for submission of committee views and estimates).




The Conference agreement reflects House bill with a modifica-tion.



This section makes various changes in the content and enforce-ment of the budget resolution through changes to Section 301 ofthe Budget Act. First, and most importantly, it permanently ex-tends the requirement that the term of budget resolutions be fora period of at least 5 years. Under current law, the resolution mustcover three fiscal years, but this window was temporarily extendedto five years as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Acts of1990 and 1993.

Second, it eliminates the requirement that budget resolutionsset forth levels of direct loan obligations and primary loan guaran-tee commitment levels because under the Credit Reform Act of1990 all loans are scored up front as new budget authority.

Third, it extends a provision, applicable only in the Senate,that provides for adjustments of committee allocations for deficit-neutral legislation as long as the legislation is deficit-neutral in thefirst year covered by the resolution and for the 5-year period cov-ered by the resolution.

Fourth, it allows the Budget Committee Chairmen to set an al-ternative deadline for submission of committee views and esti-mates.

987

Finally, it extends the Social Security point of order in theSenate to include the concurrent budget resolution and any relatedamendments, motions, or conference reports.


The Senate amendment is identical to the House bill with twoexceptions. First, it adds a new paragraph (9) to include direct loanobligations and primary loan commitment guarantee levels asitems that may be included in a budget resolution. Second, it alsoamends the listing of those items that must be included in a com-mittee report accompanying a budget resolution and adds a listingof those items that may be included in such a report.


The Conference agreement reflects the House bill with anamendment.

The Conference agreement modifies the scope of budget resolu-tions to provide that a budget resolution must cover at least fiveyears. The Congress has expanded the scope of budget enforcementactivities in recent years. The 1990 BEA (section 606 of the BudgetAct) expanded the scope of budget enforcement by requiring budgetresolutions to set 5-year enforceable levels. The Senate adopted itspay-as-you-go rule in 1993 that established a 10-year time-framewith respect to direct spending and revenue legislation. The 1996budget resolution covered 7 years. The Bipartisan Budget Agree-ment covers ten years. The conference agreement retains the re-quirement that budget resolutions cover at least five years and pro-vides Congress with the discretion to set a longer time frame in abudget resolution.

The conference agreement eliminates the requirement that abudget resolution contain direct loan and loan guarantee levels.The Conference agreement allows a budget resolution to set creditlevels. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 ("Credit Reform")modified the budgetary treatment of credit programs to require asubsidy appropriation before a direct loan obligation or loan guar-antee commitment is made. Under credit reform, budget authorityand outlays are scored when the subsidy appropriation is made andthese levels are enforced by the section 302 allocations and the sec-tion 311 aggregates established by the budget resolution. Since thesubsidy appropriation controls credit activity levels, there is no rea-son to continue these credit levels.

Credit reform is largely dependent on estimates made by theExecutive Branch about interest rates and default risk. The integ-rity of these subsidy estimates is entirely in the control of the Ex-ecutive Branch. If the Executive Branch made gross errors with re-spect to subsidy estimates or intentionally manipulated these esti-mates, the subsidy appropriation becomes much less relevant fordetermining credit levels. The conferees have been satisfied withthe implementation of the Federal Credit Reform Act. However, ifthere are significant errors in subsidy estimates, for whatever rea-son, the Congress may want to return to establishing credit levelsin a budget resolution. While the conferees do not believe creditlevels need to be established in a budget resolution, for the reasons

988

stated above, the conference agreement leaves this option to thediscretion of the Congress.



The House bill permanently extends the requirement that allo-cations to the authorizing committees cover at least a five-year pe-riod. In the process, it collapses the temporary allocations undersection 602 into section 302, generally conforming to the structureset forth in section 602.

It also modifies the default allocation in which an interim allo-cation is provided to the Appropriations Committee in the Houseif the budget resolution is not agreed to by April 15. Under themodified default allocation, the Appropriations Committee would beallocated an amount based on the prior year's budget resolution(instead of the President's budget). It clarifies that the Appropria-tions Committee shall subdivide its allocation among its 13 sub-committees. It provides that the allocations and suballocationsshall be divided between defense, non-defense, and the violentcrime reduction category as long as separate spending limits are ineffect.


The Senate amendment is essentially identical to the Housebill, though it does not contain the provision regarding temporaryallocations to the House Appropriations Committee in section 302.


The Conference agreement reflects the House bill with modi-fications. As with section 301 regarding the scope of the timeframesin a budget resolution, the conference agreement also requires thatsection 302 allocations made to committees cover at least fiveyears. Interim allocations only apply in the House.

The conference agreement also provides that the Budget Com-mittee must make separate allocations of defense, nondefense, andviolent crime reduction funding. Section 302(a)(3) requires that theallocation of budget authority and outlays to the AppropriationsCommittees will be further divided among the categories specifiedin section 250(c)(4) of GRH. Under section 302(b), the Appropria-tions Committees are required to allocate these separate categoriesamong its 13 subcommittees. These separate divisions of the alloca-tions are enforced in the Senate pursuant to section 302(f) of theBudget Act.

As modified, section 302(f) of the Budget Act refers to the "ap-plicable" allocation. The word "applicable" is used in part to recog-nize the fact that two budget resolutions will often be in force atthe same time.8. Amendments to section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act


The House bill makes several technical changes to Section303(a) of the Budget Act which prohibits the consideration of

989

spending legislation before Congress has agreed to a budget resolu-tion. It eliminates references to new credit authority and new enti-tlement authority. In the future, legislation providing new entitle-ment authority will be scored as providing new budget authoritywhich is also subject to section 303(a). Credit authority is alreadyscored as new budget authority, in the amount of the subsidy.


The Senate amendment repeals subsection (c) of section 303,which provides a process for the Senate to consider a resolution towaive this point of order. Since this point of order can be waivedunder section 904 of the Budget Act through a motion, the waiverresolution process is not needed.


The Conference agreement reflects the House bill with anamendment. The Conference agreement rewrites section 303 in itsentirety to simplify this section, drop obsolete provisions, and makeconforming changes to reflect changes made to other provisions inthe Act. The Conference agreement retains the general objective ofsection 303: to discourage the Congress from considering budget-re-lated legislation until the adoption of a budget resolution for ayear.

The language of current section 303 is vague with respect toits application to appropriations measures in the Senate. Undersection 302 of the Budget Act, allocations are made to the SenateAppropriations Committee for just the first year of a budget resolu-tion (the budget year). The conference clarifies the application ofthis point of order to provide that it is out of order to consider anappropriations measure for a year until an allocation under section302(a) has been made pursuant to the budget resolution for thatyear. The conference agreement retains the current law exceptionthat allows appropriations measures to contain advance appropria-tions for the two years following that year. By "advance appropria-tions", the conferees mean an appropriation which is first availablein a year beyond the year for which the appropriation bill applies.

The conferees intend to clarify that section 303(a) is a grosstest which looks at whether any provision within the measure pro-vides new budget authority, increases revenue, etc. It is not a nettest that looks at the sum of changes in budget authority, increasesin revenue, etc. as is the case with sections 302(f) and 311(a).9. Amendments to section 304 of the Congressional Budget Act

HOUSE BILL

No provision

SENATE AMENDMENT

No provision


The Conference agreement repeals subsection (b) of section304. Subsection 304(a) provides the authority for Congress to revise

990

a budget resolution at any time. Subsection (b) provides that sec-tion 30 1(g), regarding economic assumptions, applies to revisions tobudget resolutions. This subsection is not needed and raises an am-biguity with respect to whether other provisions of the Budget Actapply to revisions of a budget resolution.

By repealing subsection 304(b), the conferees intend that allprovisions of the Budget Act apply to revised budget resolutionsunless there is a specific exception made for a revision to a budgetresolution, such as section 305(b) which provides for only 10 hoursof debate on a revision to a budget resolution.



Clarifies that the five day layover requirement for budget reso-lutions includes Saturdays, Sundays and holidays when the Houseis in session. This is a conforming change to clause 2(1)(5) of HouseRule XI, which was amended in the 104th Congress to count Satur-days, Sundays and holidays when the House is in session towardsthe layover requirement for bills and resolutions.


The Senate amendment includes the same provision.


The Conference agreement reflects the House bill with a modi-fication providing that the resolution can be considered the thirdcalendar day (except Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays whenthe House is not in session) after tITe report has been made avail-able to Members.



The House bill includes a technical change eliminating a ref-erence to credit authority in legislation for which committees mustinclude a statement essentially justifying changes in revenue or di-rect spending. It also clarifies that such statements are to be pro-vided for joint resolutions rather than simple (one-House) resolu-tions.


The Senate amendment is essentially identical to the Housebill.


The Conference agreement reflects the House bill with modi-fications to make additional technical and conforming changes re-garding section 308.

991



The House bill provides that reconciliation instructions may di-rect committees to achieve specified changes in direct spending.Under current law, the instructions are to be expressed as achange in new entitlement authority and new budget authority.This section essentially codifies the recent practice of reconcilingcommittees to report legislation providing the necessary change indirect spending. Under current law, reconciliation instructions maybe for new budget authority, outlays and new entitlement author-ity. Direct spending is defined under section 250(c)(8) of GRH.

It also codifies the interpretation of the House that thefungibility rule in section 310 of the Budget Act applies to legisla-tion regardless of whether it increases or decreases revenues orspending. In order to preserve the original intent of section 310 toprovide committees maximum flexibility in meeting their reconcili-ation targets, committees are allowed to substitute changes in reve-nue for changes in spending, or vice versa, by up to 20 percent ofthe sum of the reconciled changes in spending and revenue as longas the result does not increase the deficit relative to the reconcili-ation instructions.

Under one interpretation, the existing fungibility rule couldnot be invoked when a committee reduces revenues because therevenue change may cancel out reductions in spending. Accord-ingly, the rule now explicitly provides that the substitution factoris 20 percent of the sum of the absolute value of the reconciledchange in revenue and the absolute value of the reconciled changein spending.


The Senate amendment amends section 310(e)(2) of the Con-gressional Budget Act to provide 30 hours of Senate considerationof a Reconciliation Bill. The amendment requires consent to yieldback time on the bill or to limit debate. It also provides 30 minutesof debate per first degree amendment, and 20 minutes of debateper second degree amendment until the 15th hour of debate afterwhich all amendments are limited to 30 minutes of debate. And,it prohibits submitting first degree amendments after the 15thhour of consideration, and prohibits submitting second degreeamendments after the 20th hour.


The Conference agreement reflects the House bill with a modi-fication. The conference agreement only amends section 310 tomodify subsection 310(c)(1)(A) regarding the application of thefungibility rule in the House. While no language regarding Senatefloor procedure is included, the conference agreement calls for aSenate bipartisan task force to study and report on budget resolu-tion and reconciliation floor procedures.

42-432 97 - 32

992



This section modifies section 311, which enforces the budgetresolution by prohibiting the consideration of legislation that ex-ceeds its aggregate spending levels or reduces revenues below itsrevenue floor.

It eliminates references in section 311 to new entitlement au-thority. It clarifies that the exception under 303 for legislation pro-viding new budget authority applies only to advanced discretionarybudget authority—not mandatory spending.

This section also preserves the so-called Fazio exception in theHouse that allows appropriation measures to exceed the aggregaterceiling on new budget authority or outlays if they do not exceed theAppropriations Committee's applicable allocation.

Finally, this section eliminates a redundant point of order inthe Senate and clarifies the Social Security "firewall" point oforder, making its application more clear.


The Senate amendment is identical to the House bill.CONFERENCE AGREEMENT (SECTION 10112)

The Conference agreement reflects the House bill with modi-fications. The Conference agreement provides that the spendingand revenue levels are enforced for the first year covered by thebudget resolution. The Conference agreement also provides that therevenue level is also enforced for the same multiyear period cov-ered by the allocations provided in a conference report accompany-ing a budget resolution, which is at least 5 years.14. Amendments to section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act


The House bill makes stylistic changes to the heading and con-solidates existing provisions regarding points of order and addssome new provisions.

Subsection (a) provides generic authority clarifying that theCommittees on the Budget are responsible for providing estimates(or "scoring" information) to the House and Senate for the purposesof evaluating the applicability of Budget Act points of order. Re-dundant language is repealed throughout the Act and replacedwith this one statement that applies to all points of order undertitles III and IV.

Subsection (b) moves the existing section 60 1(b) point of orderin the Senate for the enforcement of discretionary spending limitsto subsection 3 12(b).

Subsection (c) moves the existing section 605(b) point of orderin the Senate for the enforcement of the maximum deficit amountto subsection 3 12(c). This point of order will not be enforced be-cause the House bill does not provide "maximum deficit amounts"in GRH. The House bill retains both the point of order and the se-quester procedures (section 253 of GRH) in the event the Congresswants to return to deficit limits.

993

Subsection (d) adds new language which places into law thecurrent practice in the Senate with respect to the timing of pointsof order.

Subsection (e) retains current law (first paragraph of section312) with respect to amendments between the Houses.

Subsection (f) retains current law (section 3 12(b)) with respectto the effect of a point of order against a bill in the Senate.

It repeals the now redundant (by virtue of new 3 12(a)) lan-guage from current law.


The Senate amendment is identical to the House Bill.


The Conference agreement reflects the House bill with tech-nical changes.

15. Addition of a new section "314" of the Congressional Budget Act


Adds a new section 314 to the Budget Act containing some ofthe elements in the now-eliminated title VI. Most importantly, sec-tion 314 provides a procedure for adjusting the appropriate budgetresolution levels for certain legislation for which similar adjust-ments are provided in the statutory discretionary spending levelsunder section 11203 of this title. The adjustments are for continu-ing disability reviews, the IMF, arrearages and emergencies.

In a change from current law, the appropriate spending levelsare adjusted for legislation designating funding for emergencies in-stead of the previous practice of simply not counting such spendingagainst the budget resolution's levels.

In another change in allocation procedures for the House, theadjustments are made only for the consideration of the relevantlegislation and do not become permanent until the legislation is ac-tually enacted.


The Senate amendment is the same as the House languagewith slight modifications.


The Conference agreement reflects the House bill with modi-fications. The conference agreement provides for a process for theBudget Committee Chairman to make adjustments to levels setforth in or pursuant to a budget resolution for emergency legisla-tion, continuing disability reviews, an IMF allowance, an allowancefor international arrearages, and earned income tax credit compli-ance. The purpose of these adjustments is to ensure that budgetarylimits, are only adjusted for the legislation that meets the specificcriteria spelled out in this section. This section sets out a processregarding discretionary spending limits that is similar to the proc-ess in section 251 of GRH.

994

Subsection (a)( 1) provides the general authority for the BudgetCommittee Chairman to make adjustments for legislation. Sub-section (a)(2) provides the Chairman with the authority to revisethe levels set forth by or pursuant to a budget resolution. Sub-section (b) provides the criteria for legislation that qualified for theadjustments. A bill, resolution, amendment or conference reportmust meet the specific terms spelled out in one of these paragraphsbefore the Chairman can make any adjustments pursuant to thissection. Subsection (c) provides that the adjustments only applywhile the legislation is under consideration and only take final ef-fect upon the legislation's enactment. The conferees intend that theadjustments only apply while the legislation that meets the termsof one of the paragraphs of subsection (b) is under consideration.In subsection (c), the reference to "legislation" means a bill, jointresolution, amendment, motion or conference report. It is theChairman's responsibility to ensure these adjustments are onlyavailable for legislation that meets the terms of subsection (b). Thiscould necessitate that the Chairman reverse the adjustments, par-ticularly the aggregates, after the pending legislation is disposedof.

16. Addition of a new section 315 to the Congressional Budget ActHOUSE SILL (SECTION 11114)

The House bill provides that it is not necessary to waive theBudget Act as part of a House resolution to consider legislation inwhich the resolution eliminates the source of the Budget Act viola-tion. Most points of order under the Budget Act lie against consid-eration of the bill as originally reported by a committee. If the re-ported version of the bill violates the Budget Act, then the Chair-man of the Budget Committee often arranges to have the violationcorrected as part of a rule that effectively amends the version ofthe bill pending before the House. However, it is still necessary towaive the point of order because the point of order lies against thebill as reported. As modified, it will no longer be necessary to waivethe point of order in order to consider a bill in which the rule elimi-nates the source of the violation.

SENATE AMENDMENT

No provision.


The Conference agreement reflects the House bill with tech-nical changes providing that it is not necessary to waive the Budg-et Act when the source of the Budget Act violation in the reportedbill is eliminated through a special rule or unanimous consent re-quest. This provision only applies in the House.

17. Amendments to section 401 and repeal of section 402 of the Con-gressional Budget Act

HOUSE SILL (SECTION 11115)

The House bill makes changes in section 401 (which definesand enforces various forms of spending authority that are not con-

995

trolled through the annual appropriations process). It repeals thedefinition of new entitlement authority (which is shifted into sec-tion 3 of the Budget Act). It repeals a seldom used process in theHouse for referring bills providing certain forms of mandatory ap-propriations to the Committee on Appropriations. Finally, it col-lapses a point of order against legislation providing credit authoritynot subject to appropriations into section 401, which also prohibitsthe consideration of legislation providing contract or borrowing au-thority.

SENATE AMENDMENT

No provision.


The Conference agreement reflects the House bill with modi-fications.

Sections 401 and 402 were enacted as a means of controlling"backdoor" spending. This is spending not under the annual controlof the Congress through the appropriations process. The Con-ference agreement's changes to section 401 are not intended toweaken this section, but to update it.

The conference agreement provides that section 40 1(a) willapply, just as it does under current law, to contract authority andborrowing authority. The conference expands section 40 1(a) toapply to credit authority and repeals section 402. This change hasno practical effect. It just consolidates the point of order againstcreating these types of spending authority in one section of theBudget Act.

The Conference agreement repeals the definition of "newspending authority". This definition is no longer needed and raisesquestions about what constitutes new spending authority. Sincebeing defined in the original 1974 Budget Act, the Congress has ex-panded the definition of budget authority. Under the current defi-nition, "new spending authority" as defined in section 40 1(c) and"budget authority" as defined in section 3 are essentially the same.As a result, the separate definition in section 40 1(c) of the BudgetAct is unneeded.

The important provisions of section 401 of the Budget Act areto provide controls on backdoor spending and to provide a defini-tion of "entitlement authority". The definition of the term "entitle-ment authority" has been moved to section 3 of the Budget Act.The conference agreement refers to "new entitlement authority."The conferees intend that this term applies to legislation that ei-ther expands an existing entitlement or creates a new entitlement.The existing controls on backdoor spending authority have been re-tained.

This Conference agreement generally makes technical and con-forming changes to the Budget Act. The conferees note that thereare major deficiencies in section 401 that have not been correctedin this section. It is the intent of the conferees that future legisla-tion should address the purposes of section 401 and the definitionsof "contract authority" and "borrowing authority", and should pro-vide an up-to-date and moire effective means of controlling backdoorspending.

996

18. Amendments to Title V of the Congressional Budget Act (CreditReform)

HOUSE BILL

No provision.


The Senate amendment contains technical corrections and con-forming amendments to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. Allof the proposed changes to Credit Reform in this amendment aretaken from suggestions made by 0MB. In general they reflect theexperience with implementing Credit Reform since 1990 and codifycurrent working definitions used by the Congressional Budget Of-fice and the Office of Management and Budget.

The amendments to section 502 clarify the definition of a directloan by explicitly including the sale of assets on credit terms. Theseamendments also clarify the law to reflect current practice concern-ing the treatment of modifications of outstanding direct loans andloan guarantees that affect their cost, adding a definition of theterm "modification."

The amendments to section 504 clarify that appropriation ac-tion is required before direct loans and loan guarantees can bemade (subsidy costs must be appropriated in advance), except formandatory programs that are exempt from this requirement. Theexisting language with respect to modifications is also madeclearer.

The amendments to section 505 provide technical instructionsconcerning the interest rate charged to Government agencies byTreasury to finance credit programs, including the interest ratecharged on loans financed by the-Federal Financing Bank (FFB).The amendments require Treasury, including the FFB, to use thesame rate as the one used to calculate the cost of a direct loan orloan guarantee. That is the current practice for Treasury financingother than financing by the FFB. The FFB is permitted to add asurcharge to the Treasury rate of interest, which is paid by the bor-rower and, in turn, by the agency. Current law does not provide in-structions for dealing with the surcharge. The amendments specifythat the surcharge will be credited to the credit program's financ-ing account along with other interest paid to the Government. Cur-rently, a fraction of the surcharge is used to finance the FFB's ad-ministrative expenses. The amendments allow the FFB to requirereimbursement from an agency to cover the FFB's administrativeexpenses. The agency will pay for its administrative expenses outof appropriations for that purpose, as is required now for other ad-ministrative expenses of most credit programs.


The Conference agreement adopts the Senate Amendment withadditional changes for clarification.

Amendments to section 502 clarify the definition of the term"cost," including a modification of the requirement concerning the"discount rate" used to determine cost so that it is based on thetiming of the cash flows, as opposed to the term of the loan. Under

997

this approach, a claim payment that will occur in year 1 of a guar-anteed loan is discounted using the rate on a 1-year Treasury secu-rity, while a claim payment that will occur in year 30 is discountedusing the rate on a 30-year Treasury security. The total cost is thesum of the present values of each year's cash flows over the life ofthe direct loan or loan guarantee. This change increases accuracyand reduces bias. Accuracy is improved because each cash flow isdiscounted by the interest rate on a Treasury security having thesame maturity as the period of that cash flow. Under the presentpractice, the rate on a Treasury security of similar maturity to theloan is based on the pattern of interest and principal payments forthe security (semi-annual interest payments and full principal re-payment on the last payment date). The estimated cash flows forcredit programs almost never match this pattern. Bias is reducedbecause loans with the same cash flows but different maturitieswould be priced using the same basket of discount rates, and wouldtherefore have the same cost.

Also under the definition of "cost," the amendments requiresthat, for purposes of an agency obligating funds for the cost of acredit program, the cost estimate will be based on the assumptionsused in the President's budget for the fiscal year in which the di-rect loan or loan guarantee is obligated, adjusted for differences be-tween the projected and actual terms of the contract. For example,assuming no difference between the projected and actual terms ofthe loan contract, the cost estimate for the obligation of a directloan in 1998 would be based on the assumptions used in the Presi-dent's 1998 budget. This incorporates by statute OMB's currentguidelines for calculating the cost estimate when funds are obli-gated for a direct loan or loan guarantee. For one-year funds, itprovides Congress with the assurance that loan volume will not beaffected by changes in assumptions during the period of programexecution. In effect, it means that Congress will get the volume itpaid for when it appropriated funds for the credit program. Forprograms with multi-year funds, the cost estimate will reflect morerecent assumptions.

Workouts are not assumed to be included in the definition ofmodifications. The conference agreement does not change the treat-ment of workouts as implemented under the Federal Credit ReformAct of 1990. 0MB and CBO shall report recommendations for anychanges in such treatment to the House and Senate Committees onthe Budget not later than March 30, 1998. Such report shall in-clude data on the extent of the use of workouts and the resultingcosts or savings.

The amendments add a definition of the term "current," whichis used in other credit definitions with regard to credit assump-tions. By referring to GRH, the definition is the same as the onethat is used for Budget Enforcement Act purposes.

19. Repeal of title VI of the Congressional Budget Act (BudgetAgreement Enforcement Provisions)


The House bill repeals title VI, which provided changes in Con-gressional budget procedures that were expected to last only for the

998

duration of previous budget agreements. Title VI temporarily ex-tended the coverage and enforcement of budget resolutions fromthree to five fiscal years. It also provided for adjustments in thebudget resolution for such factors as emergencies, estimating dif-ferences, and tax compliance.

The five-year scope of the resolution is permanently extendedin sections 11105 and 11106. The new adjustments are set forth insection 11113. The House bill repeals an unused provision in sec-tion 604 of the Budget Act, which provided the House Budget Com-mittee with the authority to report a reconciliation directive provid-ing for tax increases to offset legislation cutting taxes.




The Senate recedes to the House.



The House bill contains technical corrections regarding waiversand appeals. It redrafts the section so as to make it possible to dif-ferentiate between those points of order which are subject to super-majority discipline and those that are not. It adds a new subsection"(e)" to indicate which waiver and appeal provisions expire at theend of 2002. This has previously been applicable in the Senate byvirtue of a provision of the 1996 Budget Resolution. This amend-ment thus codifies the current Senate rules regarding the sunsetdate for these points of order. Generally for those points of orderwhich relate to budget levels, the supermajority requirements sun-set in 2002. With respect to the other points of order which relateto the substantive effect of language (germaneness, the Byrd Rule,Budget Committee jurisdiction etc.), the supermajority require-ments are permanent.




The Conference agreement reflects the House bill with tech-nical modifications.

21. Repeal of sections 905 and 906 of the Congressional Budget Act


The House bill repeals two obsolete sections in the Budget Act:the original effective dates for the Budget Act in section 905 anda special rule relating to the applicability of the Act for Fiscal Year1976.

999

SENATE AMENI)MENT (SECTION 1615)




22. Amendments to sections 1022 and 1024 of the CongressionalBudget Act


The House bill makes conforming changes to sections 1022 and1024 of the Line Item Veto Act reflecting the repeal of section 601of the Budget Act and its incorporation into section 251(c) of GRH.


The language in the Seiriate Amendment is identical to theHouse Bill.

CONFERENCE AGJREEMENT (SECTION 10121)

The Senate recedes to the House.23. Amendments to section 1026 of the Congressional Budget Act


The House bill makes conforming changes to section 1026 (defi-nitions) to correct a drafting error in the definition of "dollaramount of discretionary budget authority" to reflect the repeal ofsection 601 of the Budget Act and its incorporation into section25 1(c) of GRH.




The Senate recedes to the House.24. Senate task force

HOUSE BILL

No provision.


During consideration of 5. 949 (spending reconciliation bill inthe Senate) the Senate adopted by a vote of 92 to 8 an amendmentoffered by Senator Byrd (number 148) which provided new floorprocedures for the consideration of reconciliation legislation in theSenate. The most significant aspect of the Byrd amendment wasthe proposal to adopt cloture like procedures at the conclusion ofconsideration. The amendment called for changing the currentlaw's 20 hour limit on consideration to 30 hours of debate. In addi-tion, it called for imposing a filing requirement for all amendments

1000

to be considered after 15 hours. This is a significant departure fromcurrent law in that it would have the effect of closing off theamendment process once all time has expired.

Current law provides that an unlimited number of amend-ments and motions are in order, without debate, at the end of time.Although this is not explicitly set forth in section 305 of the BudgetAct, it is the interpretation that has governed the Senate's consid-eration of budget resolutions and reconciliation legislation. At theinsistence of a number of Senators, current Senate practice haspermitted (by unanimous consent) a very brief time for debate(usually between 2 and 4 minutes, equally divided) prior to thevote on such amendments. This at least permits proponents andthe managers to lay out for their colleagues the basic issue pre-sented by the amendment. This has resulted in what many referto as a "vote-a-ramma" at the end of time. In this situation Sen-ators are forced to vote on scores of amendments with little or nodebate.

In addition to ending the "vote-a-ramma", the Byrd amend-ment provides that the time for debate on individual amendmentsbe reduced from 2 hours to 30 minutes for amendments in the firstdegree, from 1 hour to 20 minutes for amendments in the seconddegree or debatable motions and appeals, and after 15 hours debateon all debatable items would be limited to 20 minutes. The Byrdamendiñent also provides that the motion to reduce time be debt-able for 30 minutes and that time may be yielded back only byunanimous consent. Current law permits this motion to be voted onwithout debate and time to be yielded back as a matter of right.


The conference agreement provides for a bipartisan task forcein the Senate to review the floor procedures governing consider-ation of budget resolutions and reconciliation bills. The task forceis to report to the Senate by October 8, 1997.

Subtitle B: Amendments to the Balanced Budget and EmergencyDeficit Control Act of 1985; Sections 10201—10213

24. Purpose


Purpose. States that the purpose of this subtitle is to extenddiscretionary spending limits and pay-as-you-go requirements.


The language in the Senate Amendment is identical to theHouse bill.



1001

25 Amendments to section 250 of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings


Amends section 250(b) of GRH to state that it provides for theenforcement of a balanced budget by 2002 as called for in H. Con.Res. 84.

This section also defines the terms "category", "budgetary re-sources" and "consultation". "Consultation" means that the BudgetCommittee is consulted by CBO in manner timely enough to affordthe committee an opportunity to comment on the matter; "category"means defense, non-defense, and violent crime reduction discre-tionary spending, and the definition of budgetary resources isamended to drop an obsolete reference to credit authority. Theterms "current" and "outyear" are also modified and extended.


The Senate amendment is substantially similar to the Housebill though it does not provide a definition of "consultation".


The Conference agreement reflects the Senate amendmentwith modifications. The conference agreement also updates the def-inition of "budget authority" and other terms in section 250(c)(1).26. Amendments to section 251 of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings


The House bill provides for the extension of discretionaryspending limits and enforcement procedures (sequestration)through 2002. Retains adjustments for emergencies, changes inconcepts and definitions, and estimating differences in outlays.Adds automatic adjustments in these limits for legislation relatingto the International Monetary Fund and arrearages. Eliminates ad-justments for inflation, estimating differences in budget authorityas well as expired adjustments for loan forgiveness and IRS compli-ance.

It imposes separate spending limits for defense and non de-fense discretionary spending for 1998 and 1999 and then collapsesthese limits under a general purpose discretionary spending limitfor 2000, 2001 and 2002.

In conformance with the Bipartisan Budget Agreement, theHouse bill allows the separate limits on the violent crime reductioncategory to expire at the end of 1998. Funding for these programswill be subject to the non defense discretionary spending limit in1999 and 2000 and the general purpose discretionary limits in 2001and 2002.


The Senate amendment is substantially similar to the Housebill except that it extends separate violent crime reduction spend-ing limits through 2002.

1002


The Conference agreement reflects the House bill with somemodifications. The violent crime reduction spending limits are ex-tended through 2000.27. Amendments to section 251A of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and

to section 310002 of P.L. 103—322


The House bill shifts the separate spending limits on the Vio-lent Crime Reduction Trust Fund spending into section 251 ofGRH, which includes the limits for defense and nondefense discre-tionary spending. Under current law, section 251 provides seques-ter procedures for defense and nondefense discretionary spendingand section 251A provides sequester procedures for violent crimereduction spending. Because this bill amends section 251 to providefor violent crime reduction as a separate category of discretionaryspending, section 251A is not needed and is repealed. Also makesa conforming change by repealing section 310002 of the ViolentCrime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which reducedthe discretionary caps to provide a separate category for violentcrime reduction funding. Since the section 25 1(c) caps reflect thesereductions, section 310002 of the Crime Act is no longer necessary.


The Senate amendment is identical to the House bill.



28. Amendments to section 252 of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings


The House bill extends the pay-as-you-go requirements for leg-islation enacted through 2002. Under current law, PAYGO expiresat the end of 1998.

In order to impede legislation that would exacerbate the deficitbeyond 2002, the House bill provides a "rolling" PAYGO scorecard.Under a rolling five year scorecard, 0MB will score legislation forthe budget year and each of the ensuing four fiscal years through2002. If this legislation causes a net deficit increase for any yearthrough 2006, 0MB will be required to implement a sequester inthat year to eliminate any deficit increase. For example, a bill en-acted in January 2002 would be scored for 2002 through 2006. Al-though the PAYGO requirements expire at the end of 2002, the es-timates and enforcing sequestration process would extend as lateas 2006 for legislation that is enacted prior to the end of 2002.

The House bill also corrects the "lookback" procedure in whichsize of a sequester can be offset by savings from the prior fiscalyear. Current law provides a "lookback" procedure to ensure thatlegislation that is enacted after the beginning of a fiscal year iscaptured by the pay-as-you-go requirements. Under OMB's currentinterpretation of the existing lookback mechanism, 0MB double-

1003

counts pay-as-you-go surpluses or deficits in calculating whether asequester would be necessary. 0MB currently interprets thePAYGO lookback mechanism to require that the PAYGO balancefor the current year be added to the budget year in determining ifthere will be a net deficit increase (this results in "double-count-ing").

The House bill amends the pay-as-you-go lookback proceduresto require 0MB to calculate the net deficit impact on the currentyear of all legislation enacted after the final deficit sequester reportfor that year. If this legislation would result in a net deficit in-crease, 0MB is required to add the amount of this net deficit in-crease to the next year's sequester calculations. If legislation is notenacted to offset this deficit increase, a sequester will occur.

The House bill makes other technical and conforming changesto PAYGO.


The Senate amendment is substantially similar to the Housebill except that it would sunset pay-as-you-go sequester proceduresin 2002.


The conference agreement reflects the House bill with modi-fications. The lookback procedure is modified to provide that anynet deficit increase or decrease created during the current yearthat is enacted after the final sequester report for that year isadded to the pay-as-you-go estimates for the budget year. The con-ference agreement makes other clarifying and conforming changesto section 252.

The conference agreeme:nt also modifies the manner in whichdeposit insurance and emergency spending estimates are coveredunder section 252. The conference agreement provides that esti-mates associated with either deposit insurance legislation or emer-gency legislation will not be recorded on the pay-as-you-go score-card. The conferees intend that 0MB and CBO include the esti-mated budgetary impact of deposit insurance and emergency legis-lation separately for informational purposes in their reports to Con-gress, but these estimates should not be recorded for the purposesof calculating pay-as-you-go.

For deposit insurance, the conference agreement provides that0MB and CBO should only score legislation that modifies the de-posit insurance guarantee commitment under current estimates."Current" is a defined term and the conferees intend that 0MB usethe technical and economic assumptions for deposit insurance con-tained in the President's most recent budget submission (CBOshould use the economic and technical assumptions in the base-line). Section 252 presently requires 0MB and CBO to measure theimpact relative to the deposit insurance commitment in effect in1990. To the extent legislation modifies the deposit insurance guar-antee commitment, it should be scored by 0MB and CBO. If thislegislation becomes law, the cost will have been captured for thepurposes of pay-as-you-go and should be reflected in the next base-line.

42-432 97 - 33

1004



Amends section 254 of GRH by removing an expired provisionrelating to the optional adjustment of maximum deficit amountsand extending the requirements for sequestration reports throughfiscal year 2006 (for legislation enacted prior to the end of 2002).


The Senate amendment is identical to the House bill exceptthat it deletes the requirement for a General Accounting Officecompliance report.





Makes several conforming changes to the list of exempt pro-grams to account for changes in the program code, changes in pro-gram names, and programs that are no longer in existence.


The Senate amendment is identical to the House bill with afew minor exceptions.


The conference agreement reflects the Senate amendment withmodifications, including a technical correction regarding the treat-ment of low-income programs.

The amendments to section 255(d) change the titles of threeaccounts to reflect actions by the Committees on Appropriation.Also, three accounts have been added to this section. The PersonalResponsibility and Work Opportunities Act of 1996 eliminated theformer Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Programand created these three accounts in its place. As such, the exemp-tion of these accounts is a continuation of the exemption of theformer AFDC program.



The House bill makes technical corrections and conformingchanges to special sequestration procedures to reflect changes sincethe Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. The only substantive changein this section is in the sequestration procedure for the studentloan program, which provides that in the event of a PAYGO se-quester, origination fees for both direct loans and guaranteed loanswill be increased by 0.50 percent.

1005


The Senate amendment makes similar technical correctionsand conforming changes, but does not change the sequestrationprocedure for student loan programs.


The conference agreement reflects the House bill with an addi-tional technical change related to agriculture programs.

The amendments to section 256(b) update the special rule forguaranteed student loans to reflect recent changes in the HigherEducation Act, including the introduction of the direct loan pro-gram, and for consistency with the Federal Credit Reform Act. Therule continues to allow a sequestration order to be carried outthrough a limited increase in loan origination fees.

The amendments to section 256(j) update the special rule forprograms of the Commodity Credit Corporation to reflect recentchanges in farm legislation. The rule allows for the application ofa sequester order, if one is issued, to CCC programs on a crop-yearbasis, instead of a fiscal year basis, and for sequestration of thedairy program through reduction in price supports.



The House bill makes various changes in the definition of thebaseline which is used to score legislation for the purpose of enforc-ing PAYGO requirements. It modifies the rule that programs withoutlays greater than $50 million are assumed to continue beyondtheir expiration date. As modified, the exception would apply onlywhen the legislation explicitly designates that a provision is ex-empt from the baseline extension requirement.

It assumes that the baseline for expiring mandatory programscontinues to operate under the law that was immediately in effectbefore the program's expiration.

It changes the index used for calculating the inflator from the"national product fixed-weight price index" to the "domestic productchain-type price index".

It changes the budgetary treatment of asset sales (which cur-rently prohibits counting the proceeds of asset sales for PAYGOpurposes). As modified, the proceeds will score only if the sale doesnot result in a net cost to the Federal government. The formula formaking this determination is included in the scorekeeping guide-lines.


The Senate amendment is similar to the House bill with twoexceptions. First, the Senate amendment provides a different treat-ment of the baseline for mandatory programs that exceed $50 mil-lion. Under current law, CBO and 0MB will not score savings asso-ciated with terminating mandatory programs that exceed $50 mil-lion or reflect the termination of such programs in their baselines.The Senate amendment would allow CBO and 0MB to score sav-ings associated with the termination of mandatory programs and

1006

reflect the program's termination in the baseline if the legislationclearly eliminated the Federal government's financial obligation tocontinue to fund the program. Second, the Senate amendment con-forms provisions of the Social Security Act regarding the budgetarytreatment of the Hospital Insurance Fund with section 257 of GRH.The law is ambiguous regarding the budgetary treatment of theHospital Insurance Fund. The amendment clarifies that this trustfund is not off-budget and modifies provisions regarding the budgetresolution's display of health care budgetary levels.


The conference agreement reflects the Senate amendment withmodifications. The conference agreement amends section 257 toprovide that only those programs with current year outlays in ex-cess of $50 million and that were in existence on or before the dateof enactment of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 are assumed tocontinue for the purposes of the baseline. The conference agree-ment provides that the Budget Committees and 0MB, as applica-ble, will determine the scoring of new programs in excess of $50million annually and CBO and 0MB will consult on any differenceson scoring of such new programs. The subsequent baseline treat-ment of such a new program should be consistent with the scoringof that program.33. Amendments to section 258 of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings


This section removes a superseded provision (Section 258 ofGRH) regarding modification of a presidential order.


The Senate amendment is identical to the House bill.





Makes conforming changes to Section 274 of GRH (providingstanding for Members of Congress and other persons affected by se-questration orders to seek judicial review) to reflect changes in sec-tion numbers made by this Act.


The Senate amendment is identical with one technical excep-tion.


The conference agreement reflects the House bill with moth-fications.

1007

35. Amendments to section 275(b) of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings andsection 14002 (cK3) of OBRA 1993


Makes conforming changes to the effective dates of certain pro-grams in Part C of GRH to indicate that the sequestration rulesand the special reconciliation process expire in 2002, while theother programs in Part C of GRH (including five-year estimates)expire in 2006.

This section also repeals an expiring provision of OBRA 1993(section 14002(c)(3)) which provided that Part C of GRH (sequestra-tion procedures) and Title VI of the Budget Act were to expire onSeptember 30, 1998.


The Senate amendment is identical to the House bill exceptthat it sunsets pay-as-you-go sequester procedures in 2002.



36. Provisions related to the Paygo Scorecard

HOUSE BIlL (SECTION 11213)

The House bill provides that existing PAYGO balance is elimi-nated. It further provides that the net deficit reduction from rec-onciliation is not counted under PAYGO. Such net savings couldnot be used to offset future PAYGO legislation. This effectivelylocks in the net savings from reconciliation and previously enactedPAYGO legislation for deficit reduction. This language is similar tolanguage enacted as part of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of1993.


The language in the Senate Amendment has the same effect asthe House bill.


The conference agreement reflects the House bill with a modi-fication with respect to the references to the two reconciliationbills.

Scorekeeping GuidelinesThese budget scorekeeping guidelines are to be used by the

House and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional BudgetOffice, and the Office of Management and Budget (the "scorekeep-ers") in measuring compliance with the Congressional Budget Actof 1974 (CBA), as amended, and GRH as amended. The purpose ofthe guidelines is to ensure that the scorekeepers measure the ef-fects of legislation on the deficit consistent with establishedscorekeeping conventions and with the specific requirements inthose Acts regarding discretionary spending, direct spending, andreceipts. These rules shall be reviewed annually by the scorekeep-

1008

ers and revised as necessary to adhere to the purpose. These rulesshall not be changed unless all of the scorekeepers agree. New ac-counts or activities shall be classified only after consultation amongthe scorekeepers. Accounts and activities shall not be reclassifiedunless all of the scorekeepers agree.

1. Classification of appropriationsFollowing is a list of appropriations that are normally enacted

in appropriations acts. The list identifies appropriated entitlementsand other mandatory spending in appropriations acts, and it identi-fies discretionary appropriations by category.

2. Outlays priorOutlays from prior-year appropriations will be classified con-

sistent with the discretionary/mandatory classification of the ac-count from which the outlays occur.

3. Direct spending programsEntitlements and other mandatory programs (including offset-

ting receipts) will be scored at current law levels as defined in sec-tion 257 of GRH, unless Congressional action modifies the author-izing legislation. Substantive changes to or restrictions on entitle-ment law or other mandatory spending law in appropriations lawswill be scored against the Appropriations Committee's section302(b) allocations in the House and the Senate. For the purpose ofCBA scoring, direct spending savings that are included in both anappropriations bill and a reconciliation bill will be scored to thereconciliation bill and not to the appropriations bill. For scoringunder sections 251 or 252 of GRH such provisions will be scoredto the first bill enacted.

4. Transfer of budget authority from a mandatory account toa discretionary account

The transfer of budget authority to a discretionary account willbe scored as an increase in discretionary budget authority and out-lays in the gaining account. The losing account will not show anoffsetting reduction if the account is an entitlement or mandatoryprogram.

5. Permissive transfer authorityPermissive transfers will be assumed to occur (in full or in

part) unless sufficient evidence exists to the contrary. Outlays fromsuch transfers will be estimated based on the best informationavailable, primarily historical experience and, where applicable, in-dications of Executive or Congressional intent.

This guideline will apply both to specific transfers (transferswhere the gaining and losing accounts and the amounts subject totransfer can be ascertained) and general transfer authority.

6. ReappropriationsReappropriations of expiring balances of budget authority will

be scored as new budget authority in the fiscal year in which thebalances become newly available.

1009

7. Advance appropriationsAdvance appropriations of budget authority will be scored as

new budget authority in the fiscal year in which the funds becomenewly available for obligation, not when the appropriations are en-acted.

8. Rescissions and transfers of unobligated balancesRescissions of unobligated balances will be scored as reductions

in current budget authority and outlays in the year the money isrescinded.

Transfers of unobligated balances will be scored as reductionsin current budget authority and outlays in the account from whichthe funds are being transferred, and as increases in budget author-ity and outlays in the account to which these funds are beingtransferred.

In certain instances, these transactions will result in a netnegative budget authority amount in the source accounts. For pur-poses of section 257 of GRH, such amounts of budget authority willbe projected at zero. Outlay estimates for both the transferring andreceiving accounts will be based on the spending patterns appro-priate to the respective accounts.

9. Delay of obligationsAppropriations acts specify a date when funds will become

available for obligation. It is this date that determines the year forwhich new budget authority is scored. In the absence of such adate, the act is assumed to be effective upon enactment.

If a new appropriation provides that a portion of the budgetauthority shall not be available for obligation until a future fiscalyear, that portion shall be treated as an advance appropriation ofbudget authority. If a law defers existing budget authority (or un-obligated balances) from a year in which it was available for obliga-tion to a year in which it was not available for obligation, that lawshall be scored as a rescission in the current year and a reappropri-ation in the year in which obligational authority is extended.

10. Contingent legislationIf the authority to obligate is contingent upon the enactment

of a subsequent appropriation, new budget authority and outlayswill be scored with the subsequent appropriation. If a discretionaryappropriation is contingent on the enactment of a subsequent au-thorization, new budget authority and outlays will be scored withthe appropriation. If a discretionary appropriation is contingent onthe fulfillment of some action by the Executive branch or someother event normally estimated, new budget authority will bescored with the appropriation, and outlays will be estimated basedon the best information about when (or if) the contingency will bemet. If direct spending legislation is contingent on the fulfillmentof some action by the Executive branch or some other event nor-mally estimated, new budget authority and outlays will be scoredbased on the best information about when (or if) the contingencywill be met. Non-lawmaking contingencies within the control of theCongress are not scoreable events.

1010

11. Scoring purchases, lease-purchases, capital leases, andoperating leases

When a law provides the authority for an agency to enter intoa contract for the purchase, lease-purchase, capital lease, or operat-ing lease of an asset, budget authority and outlays will be scoredas follows:

For lease-purchases and capital leases, budget authority willbe scored against the legislation in the year in which the budgetauthority is first made available in the amount of the estimatednet present value of the government's total estimated legal obliga-tions over the life of the contract, except for imputed interest costscalculated at Treasury rates for marketable debt instruments ofsimilar maturity to the lease period and identifiable annual operat-ing expenses that would be paid by the Government as owner (suchas utilities, maintenance, and insurance). Property taxes will notbe considered to be an operating cost. Imputed interest costs willbe classified as mandatory and will not be scored against the legis-lation or for the current level but will count for other purposes.

For operating leases, budget authority will be scored againstthe legislation in the year in which the budget authority is firstmade available in the amount necessary to cover the government'slegal obligations. The amount scored will include the estimatedtotal payments expected to arise under the full term of a lease con-tract or, if the contract will include a cancellation clause, anamount sufficient to cover the lease payments for the first fiscalyear during which the contract is in effect, plus an amount suffi-cient to cover the costs associated with cancellation of the contract.For funds that are self-insuring under existing authority, onlybudget authority to cover the annual lease payment is required tobe scored.

Outlays for a lease-purchase in which the Federal governmentassumes substantial risk—for example, through an explicit govern-ment guarantee of third party financing—will be spread across theperiod during which the contractor constructs, manufactures, orpurchases the asset. Outlays for an operating lease, a capital lease,or a lease-purchase in which the private sector retains substantialrisk, will be spread across the lease period. In all cases, the totalamount of outlays scored over time against legislation will equalthe amount of budget authority scored against that legislation.

No special rules apply to scoring purchases of assets (whetherthe asset is existing or is to be manufactured or constructed).Budget authority is scored in the year in which the authority topurchase is first made available in the amount of the government'sestimated legal obligations. Outlays scored will equal the estimateddisbursements by the government based on the particular purchasearrangement, and over time will equal the amount of budget au-thority scored against that legislation.

Existing contracts will not be rescored.To distinguish lease purchases and capital leases from operat-

ing leases, the following criteria will be used for defining an operat-ing lease:

—Ownership of the asset remains with the lessor during theterm of the lease and is not transferred to the Government at orshortly after the end of the lease period.

1011

—The lease does not contain a bargain-price purchase option.—The lease term does not exceed 75 percent of the estimated

economic lifetime of the asset.—The present value of the minimum lease payments over the

life of the lease does not exceed 90 percent of the fair market valueof the asset at the inception of the lease.

—The asset is a general purpose asset rather than being fora special purpose of the Government and is not built to uniquespecification for the Government as lessee.

—There is a private-sector market for the asset.Risks of ownership of the asset should remain with the lessor.Risk is defined in terms of how governmental in nature the

project is. If a project is less governmental in nature, the private-sector risk is considered to be higher. To evaluate the level of pri-vate-sector risk associated with a lease-purchase, legislation andlease-purchase contracts will be considered against the followingtype of illustrative criteria, which indicate ways in which theproject is less governmental:

—There should be no provision of Government financing andno explicit government guarantee of third party financing.

—Risks of ownership of the asset should remain with the les-sor unless the government was at fault for such losses.

—The asset should be a general purpose asset rather than fora special purpose of the government and should not be built tounique specification for the government as lessee.

—There should be a private-sector market for the asset.—The project should not. be constructed on government land.Language that attempts to waive the Anti-Deficiency Act, or to

limit the amount or timing of obligations recorded, does not changethe government's obligations or obligational authority, and so willnot affect the scoring of budget authority or outlays.

Unless language that authorizes a project clearly states that noobligations are allowed unless budget authority is provided specifi-cally for that project in an appropriations bill in advance of the ob-ligation, the legislation will be interpreted as providing obligationauthority, in an amount to be estimated by the scorekeepers.12. Write-o ifs of uncashed checks, unredeemed food stamps, and

similar instrumentsExceptional write-offs of uncashed checks, unredeemed food

stamps, and similar instruments (i.e., write-offs of cumulative bal-ances that have built up over several years or have been on thebooks for several years) shall be scored as an adjustment to themeans of financing the deficit rather than as an offset. An estimateof write-offs or similar adjustments that are part of a continuingroutine process shall be netted against outlays in the year in whichthe write-off will occur. Such write-offs shall be recorded in the ac-count in which the outlay was originally recorded.

13. Reclassification after an agreementExcept to the extent assumed in a budget agreement, a law

that has the effect of altering the classification or scoring of spend-ing and revenues (e.g., from discretionary to mandatory, specialfund to revolving fund, on-budget to off-budget, revenue to offset-

1012

ting receipt), will not be scored as reclassified for the purpose of en-forcing a budget agreement.

14. Scoring of receipt increases or direct spending reductions for ad-ditional administrative or program management expensesNo increase in receipts or decrease in direct spending will be

scored as a result of provisions of a law that provides direct spend-ing for administrative or program management activities.15. Asset sales

If the net financial cost to the government of an asset sale iszero or negative (a savings), the amount scored shall be the esti-mated change in receipts and mandatory outlays in each fiscal yearon a cash basis. If the cost to the government is positive (a loss),the proceeds from the sale shall not be scored for purposes of theCBA or GRH.

The net financial cost to the federal government of an assetsale shall be the net present value of the cash flows from:

(1) estimated proceeds from the asset sale;(2) the net effect on federal revenues, if any, based on special

tax treatments specified in the legislation;(3) the loss of future offsetting receipts that would otherwise

be collected under continued government ownership (using baselinelevels for the projection period and estimated levels thereafter);and

(4) changes in future spending, both discretionary and manda-tory, from levels that would otherwise occur under continued gov-ernment ownership (using baseline levels for the projection periodand at levels estimated to be necessary to operate and maintainthe asset thereafter).

The discount rate used to estimate the net present value shallbe the average interest rate on marketable Treasury securities ofsimilar maturity to the expected remaining useful life of the assetfor which the estimate is being made, plus 2 percentage points toreflect the economic effects of continued ownership by the govern-ment.

Explanation of changes to the scorekeeping guidelinesThe Scorekeeping Guidelines above are based on the guidelines

that accompanied the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 and havebeen used for scoring legislation since that time. Some of the exist-ing guidelines have been changed in order to clarify them. Somenew guidelines were added to make certain current scoring conven-tions explicit. There are no substantive changes from currentscorekeeping practices. The changes to the introductory paragraphmake it clear that the scorekeepers—the Budget Committees, CBO,and OMB—are bound by established scorekeeping conventions andthe specific requirements of the Congressional Budget Act and theBalanced Budget Act, as amended by the Budget Enforcement Act.They also make it clear that the guidelines will be reviewed andchanged if all of the scorekeepers agree. The scorekeepers are re-quired to consult on new account classifications and must agree toany reclassification. Following is a description of the significantchanges to specific scorekeeping guidelines.

1013

1. Classification of appropriationsThere was no substantive change to this guideline. The title

was changed to more accuratelly reflect the nature of the list of ac-counts to which the guideline refers. The list includes mandatoryappropriations and discretionary accounts listed according to thenew categories—defense, non-defense, and violent crime reduction.

2. Outlays priorNo significant change.

3. Direct spending programsLanguage was added on scoring provisions that affect direct

spending when similar provisions are included in both an appro-priations bill and a reconciliation bill. This requirement applies tobills, not to enacted legislation.

4. Transfer of budget authority from a mandatory to a discre-tionary account—No change.

5. Permissive transfer authority—No significant change.

6. Reappropriations—No change.

7. Advance appropriations—No significant change.

8. Rescissions and transfers of unobligated balances—No sig-nificant change.

9. Delay of obligationsThe existing guideline covers the scoring of legislation with

provisions that delay obligatiions and contingencies. There are nosignificant changes to the part concerning delay of obligations. Thepart concerning contingencies has been broken out as a separateguideline—new guideline 10.

10. Contingent legislationThe existing language (formerly part of guideline 9) was

changed to clarify the treatment of contingencies affecting discre-tionary spending versus those affecting direct spending.

The former guideline 10, concerning the absorption of payraises, has been deleted because it was no longer necessary. Anypay raises are assumed to be within the caps.

11. Scoring purchases, lease-purchases, and capital leasesThe changes in this guideline clarify existing conventions that

were developed to implement the 1990 requirements. The require-ments are generally consistent with commercial accounting prac-tices. Matter formerly included in an addendum to the rule hasbeen integrated into the rule itself.

1014

12. Write-offs of uncashed checks, unredeemed food stamps,and similar instruments—No change.

13. Reclassification after an agreement—No significantchange.

14. Scoring of receipt increases or direct spending reductionsfor additional administrative or program managementexpenses

This new rule would prohibit scoring direct spending, savings,or receipt increases to legislation providing mandatory spending foradministrative or program management activities.

15. Asset salesGR}I formerly included a prohibition on the scoring of the pro-

ceeds from asset sales. That provision was amended to allow scor-ing on a cash basis if the sale does not result in a net cost to thegovernment over the long term. This guideline specifies the methodfor determining the net financial cost to the government of an assetsale. It requires a calculation of the net present value of the esti-mated changes in cash flows resulting from the sale. It requiresusing a discount rate equal to the interest rate on Treasury securi-ties plus 2 percentage points. The 2 percentage points addition isan arbitrary factor intended to take into account the economic ef-fects of continued government ownership. This is believed to be afairer test that handicaps for private sector risk and taxes.

APPROPRIATED ENTITLEMENTS AND MANDATORIES FORFISCAL YEAR 1997

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES

Agriculture Department:

Agricultural Marketing Service:12-5209 -0-2-605 Funds for strengthening markets, in-

come, and supply (section 32) 1

Risk Management Agency:12-4085 -0-3-351 Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

fund

Farm Service Agency:12-3314 .0-1-351 Dairy indemnity program12-4336 -0-3-35 1 Commodity Credit Corporation fund

Food and Consumer Service:12-3505 -0-1-605 Food stamp program12-3539 -0-1-605 Child nutrition programs

Treasury Department:

Financial Management Service:20- 1850 -0- 1-351 Payments to the farm credit system fi-

nancial assistance corp.

1015

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE, THE JUDICIARY AND RELATED AGENCIES

The Judiciary:10-0 100 -0-1-752 Supreme Court of the United States,

Salaries and expenses210-0400 -0-1-752 U.S. Court of International Trade, Sala-

nes and expenses210-05 10 -0- 1-752 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit, Salaries and expenses210-0920 -0-1-752 Cotirts of Appeals, District Courts, etc.,

Salaries and expenses210-0941 -0- 1-752 Judticial Retirement Funds, Payment to

judiciary trust funds

Commerce Department:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:13-4313 -0-3-306 Coastal zone management fund3

Justice Department:Legal Activities:

15-03 11 -0-1-752 Fees and expenses of witnesses15-0327 -0- 1-752 Independent counsel15-0329 -0- 1-808 Civil liberties public education fund

Office of Justice Programs:15-0403 -0- 1-754 Public safety officers' benefits4

State Department:Administration of Foreign Affairs:

19-0540 -0-1-153 Payment to the Foreign Service retire-ment and disability fund

DEFENSE

Central Intelligence Agency:56-3400 -0- 1-054 Payment to Central Intelligence

Agency retirement and disability fund

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

No mandatory accounts.

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT


FOREIGN OPERATIONS

Agency for International Development:72-1036 -0-1-153 Payment to the Foreign Service retire-

ment and disability fund

1016

INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES

Interior Department:Bureau of Land Management:

14-5 132 -0-2-302 Range improvements14-997 1 -0-7-302 Miscellaneous trust funds

Insular Affairs:14-0412 -0- 1-808 Assistance to territories514-0415 -0-1-808 Compact of free association6

LABOR, HHS, EDUCATION AND RELATED AGENCIES

Labor Department:Employment and Training Services:

16-0326 -0- 1-504 Federal unemployment benefits and al-lowances (FUBA)

16-0326 -0- 1-603 Federal unemployment benefits and al-lowances (FUBA)

16-0327 -0-1-601 Advances to the unemployment trustfund and other funds

Employment Standards Administration:16-1521 -0-1-601 Special benefits16-152 1 -0- 1-602 Special benefits20-8144 -0-7-601 Black lung disability trust fund

Health and Human Services:

Health Resources and Services Administration:75-0350 -0-1-551 Health resources and services775-0320 -0- 1-551 Vaccine injury compensation75-993 1 -0-3-55 1 Health loan funds75-4430 -0-1-551 Medical facilities guarantee and loan

fund20-8 175 -0-7-55 1 Vaccine injury compensation program

trust fund8Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA):

75-0512 -0-1-551 Grants to States for Medicaid75-0580 -0-1-571 Payments to health care trust funds75-4420 -0-3-55 1 HMO loan and loan guarantee fund

Administration for Children and Families:75-150 1 -0- 1-609 Family support payments to States75-1509 -0-1-504 Job opportunities and basic skills75- 1512 -0-1-506 Family preservation and support75-1534 -0-1-506 Social services block grant75-1545 -0-1-506 Payments to States for foster care and

adoption assistanceProgram Support Center:

75-0379 -0- 1-551 Retirement pay and medical benefits forcommissioned officers

1017

Education Department:

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services:91-0301 -0-1-506 Rehabilitative services and disability re-

search

Social Security Administration:28-0404 -0-1-651 Payments to social security trust funds28-0409 -0-1-601 Special benefits for disabled coal miners28-0406 -0-1-609 Supplemental security income program9

Treasury Department:20- 1702 -0- 1-808 Payment to D.C. financial responsibility

and management assistance authority

LEGISLATWE BRANCH

Legislative Branch:

Senate:00-0100 -0-1-801 Compensation of members, Senate00-0 115 -0- 1-801 Payments to widows and heirs of de-

ceased members of Congress—Senate

House:00-0200 -0-1-801 Compensation of members, House and

related administrative expenses00-02 15 -0- 1-801 Payments to widows and heirs of de-

ceased members of Congress—House

MILiTARY CONSTRUCTION


TEANSPORTATION

Transportation Department:

Coast Guard:69-0241 -0-1-403 Retired pay69-8349 -0-7-304 Oil spill recovery

TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Treasury Department:

Bureau of the Public Debt:20-1710 -0-1-803 Payment of government losses in ship-

ment20-0560 -0-1-803 Administering the public 10

Postal Service:18-1004 -0-1-372 Payment to the Postal Service fund for

non-funded liabilities

1018

Office of Personnel Management:24-0206 -0-1-551 Government payment for annuitants,

employees health benefits24-0500 -0-1-602 Government payment for annuitants,

employee life insurance benefits24-0200 -0- 1-805 Payment to civil service retirement and

disability fund

Executive Office of the President:

Compensation of the President and the White House Office:11-0001 -0- 1-802 Compensation of the President

VETERANS, HOUSING AND URBAN, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Housing and Urban Development:

Housing Programs:86-0183 -0-1-371 FHA-mutual mortgage insurance pro-

gram account11

Veterans Affairs:

Veterans Benefits Administration:36-0153 -0-1-701 Compensation36-0154 -0-1-701 Pensions36-0155 -0-1-701 Burial benefits and miscellaneous assist-

ance36-0137 -0-1-702 Readjustment benefits36-0120 -0-1-701 Veterans insurance and indemnities36-0138 -0-1-704 Veterans housing benefit program fund

program account9

Other Agencies:5 1-4065 -0-3-373 FSLIC resolution fund

APPROPRIATED ENTITLEMENTS AND MANDATORIES FOR FISCAL YEAR1997—FOOTNOTES:

'The entire account shall be scored as mandatory except to the extent that discretionary setasides are specified in appropriations language.

2 split—only salaries of judges are mandatory.3 split—loan repayments from the former Coastal Zone Emergency Impact Program

are mandatory.4Account split—the entire account shall be scored as mandatory except to the extent that dis-

cretionary activities are specified in appropriations language.5 split—the interest rate differential related to the Guam Power Authority refinancing

and the Northern Marianas covenant will be scored as mandatory.6 split—the account shall be split between mandatory payments (required by treaty)

and discretionary costs.7Account split—the Welfare Reform bill provides $50 million in mandatory funding for each

fiscal year from 1998 through 2002.8 administrative expenses associated with this account are discretionary within the juris-

diction of the Commerce, Justice, State subcommittee.9 split—administrative expenses shall be scored as discretionary budget authority and

outlays.10 split—reimbursement to the Federal Reserve is mandatory."Portion of account is discretionary.

1054

For consideration of the House bill, and the Senate am end-ment, and modifications committed to conference:

JOHN R. KASICH,DAVID L. HOBSON,RIcHAIw K ARMEY,TOM DELAY,J. DENNIS HASTERT,JOHN M. SPRATr, JR.,DAVID E. B0NI0R,Vic FAzIO.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Agri-culture, for consideration of title I of the House bill, andtitle I of the Senate amendment, and modifications com-mitted to conference:

ROBERT SMITH,BOB GOODLATFE,CHARLES W. STENHOLM.

As additional confeirees from the Committee on Bankingand Financial Services, for consideration of title II of theHouse bill, and title II of the Senate amendment, andmodifications commiitted to conference:

JAMES A. LEACH,RICK LAZIO.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Commerce,for consideration of subtitles A—C of title III of the Housebill, and title N of the Senate amendment, and modifica-tions committed to conference:

TOM BLILEY,D SCHAEFER,JOHN D. DINGELL.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Commerce,for consideration of subtitle D of title III of the House bill,and subtitle A of title III of the Senate amendment, andmodifications committed to conference:

TOM BLILEY,BILLY TAUZIN.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Commerce,for consideration of subtitles E and F of title III, titles Nand X of the House bill, and divisions 1 and 2 of title Vof the Senate amendment, and modifications committed toconference:

TOM BLILEY,MICHAEL BILIRAKIS.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Educationand Workforce, for consideration of subtitle A of title Vand subtitle A of title IX of the House bill, and chapter 2of division 3 of title V of the Senate amendment, and modi-fications committed to conference:

BILL GOODLING,JIM TALENT.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Educationand the Workforce, for consideration of subtitles B and C

1055

of title V of the House bill, and title VII of the Senateamendment, and modifications committed to conference:

BILL GOODLING,HOWARD "BucK" MCKEON,DALE E. KILDEE.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Educationand Workforce, for consideration of subtitle D of title V ofthe House bill, and chapter 7 of division 4 of title V of theSenate amendment, and modifications committed to con-ference:

DONALD M. PAYNE.As additional conferees from the Committee on Govern-ment Reform and Oversight, for consideration of title VI ofthe House bill, and subtitle A of title VI of the Senateamendment, and modification committed to conference:

DAN BURTON,JOHN L. MICA.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Transpor-tation and Infrastructure, for consideration of title VII ofthe House bill, and subtitle B of title III and subtitle B oftitle VI of the Senate amendment, and modifications com-mitted to conference:

BUD SHUSTER,WAYNE T. GILCHREST,JAMES L. OBERSTAR.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Veterans'Affairs, for consideration of title VIII of the House bill, andtitle VIII of the Senate amendment, and modificationscommitted to conference:

BOB S1'UMP,CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH,LANE EVANS.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Ways andMeans, for consideration of subtitle A of title V and titleIX of the House bill, and divisions 3 and 4 of title V of theSenate amendment, and modifications committed to con-ference:

BILL ARCHER,E. CLkY Sriw, JR.,DAVE CAMP,CHARLES B. RANGEL,SANDER M. LEVIN.

As additional conferees from the Committee on Ways andMeans, for consideration of titles IV and X of the Housebill, and division 1 of title V of the Senate amendment,and modifications committed to conference:

BILL ARCHER,WILLIAM THOMAS.

Managers on the part of the House.From the Committee on the Budget:

PETE DOMENICI,CHUCK GRASSLEY,DON NICKLES,

1056

PHIL GRAMM,FRANK LAUTENBERG.

From the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and For-estry:

DICK LUGAR.From the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Af-fairs:

ALFONSE D'AItTo,RICHARD SHELBY,PAUL SARBANES.

From the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transpor-tation:

JOHN MCCAIN,TED STEVENS,

(Except for provisions inuniversal service fund).

From the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:FRANK H. MIJRKOWSKJ,LARRY E. CIWG.

From the Committee on Finance:BILL Rom,TRENT Lorr,DANIEL P. MOYNIHAN.

From the Committee on Governmental Affairs:FRED THOMPSON,SuSAN COLLINS.

From the Committee on Veterans' Affairs:ARLEN SPECTER,SmOM THURMOND,JOHN ROCKEFELLER.

Managers on the part of the Senate.

0

H6312

WAIVING POINTS OF ORDERAGAINST CONFERENCE REPORTON H.R. 2015, BALANCED BUDGETACT OF 1997Mr. SOLOMON, from the Committee

on Rules, submitted a privileged report(Rept. 105—218) on the resolution (H.Res. 202) waiving points of orderagainst the conference report to ac-company the bill (H.R. 2015) to providefor reconciliation pursuant to sub-sections (b) (1) and (c) of section 105 ofthe concurrent resolution on the budg-et for fiscal year 1998, which was re-ferred to the House Calendar and or-dered printed.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by di-rection of the Committee on Rules, Icall up House Resolution 202 and askfor its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-lows:

H. RES. 202Resolved, That upon adoption of this reso-

lution it shall be in order to consider theconference report to accompany the bill(H.R. 2015) to provide for reconciliation pur-suant to subsections (b) (1) and (c) of section105 of the concurrent resolution on the budg-et for fiscal year 1998. All points of orderagainst the conference report and against itsconsideration are waived. The conference re-port shall be considered as read. The con-ference report shall be debatable for ninetyminutes equally divided and controlled bythe chairman and ranking minority memberof the Committee on the Budget.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman from New York [Mr. SOLOMON]is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for pur-poses of debate only, I yield 30 minutesto the gentleman from MassachusettsEMr. MOAKLEY] pending which I yieldmyself such time as I might consume.Mr. Speaker, concerning the time justyielded to the minority, all time yield-ed is for debate purposes only.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is the standardrule for consideration of a conferencereport on reconciliation legislation. Allpoints of order are waived against thebill and its consideration. The rule fur-ther provides that the conference re-port shall be considered as read.

Finally, the rule provides 90 minutesof general debate equally divided andcontrolled by the chairman and rank-ing minority members of the Commit-tee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I would also point outthat we have extended the debate timefrom the customary 1 hour to 90 min-utes in order to maximize the time for


the House to debate this very historicagreement. And when I state "very his-toric agreement," Mr. Speaker, I wantto heap praise on the gentleman fromOhio [Mr. KASICH], chairman of theCommittee on the Budget, who hasbrought to this floor something thatmany of us have worked so hard forover all these years. And it could nothave happened without the leadershipof the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KA-SICH], certainly his committee, and thestaff of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, on July 20, 1969, NealArmstrong and the crew of Apollo 11made their famous leap for mankindonto the surface of the Moon. Laterthat same year, the Federal Govern-ment recorded its first balanced budgetin a decade, an actual budget surplus of$300 million. Both are milestones, Mr.Speaker, because the budget has notbeen balanced since that time back in1969.

In fact, in 1997, the Governmentspent over $6,000 for every man,woman, and child in America. And thatis up from $500 in 1960. Each person'sshare of that national debt is morethan $14,500, and that is up from $1,300in 1960. This goes to show us what hashappened over the years.

And even worse, the Federal Govern-ment is three times larger than in 1960,and the tax burden is unconscionableon the American people, particularlymiddle-class American people, whomake up the real backbone of this Na-tion.

Today, Mr. Speaker, this RepublicanCongress and President Clinton willstem the tide of this rising sea of redink, and it will stop the growth of Gov-ernment. Today, the Republican Con-gress will deliver America's workingfamilies the first balanced budget in ageneration.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues recall,in 1994, when the American people gaveRepublicans control of the people'sHouse, we pledged to balance the budg-et. Today, we deliver on that promise.

0 1215Mr. Speaker, this body has debated

balanced budgets many times over thelast few years, but today's debate isspecial. It represents a historicachievement for the future benefit ofAmerica's children, for their familiesand for the economy of this Nation.For today we do not just debate a bal-anced budget, we actually deliver onefor the American people, what theyhave been asking of this body for somany years now.

This endeavor proves that Congress,working with the administration, canachieve common goals without com-promising fundamental principles,showing the American people that wecan work together to solve problems,and the American people are applaud-ing this every day now since we cameto this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I am also proud to in-form the American people that ourdemocratic process, something that

July 30, 1997has been maligned in recent years, isworking. This democratic process, evenwith the Congress and with a Presidentof opposing parties has produced a bi-partisan balanced budget agreementthat cuts taxes for the first time in 16years, that preserves Medicare and pro-tects it from bankruptcy into the 21stcentury, that slows the growth of totalFederal spending to 3 percent a year.That is no easy task. And that shiftspower, money and influence away fromWashington and to the people in theStates and communities.

Mr. Speaker, while this is a biparti-san agreement, it is useful to recognizejust how far we have come. Just 4 yearsago, this Congress under a Democratmajority passed the largest tax in-crease in the history of the UnitedStates of America. Today we cut thetax burden on American families forevery single working American in thiscountry.

Just 4 years ago, Mr. Speaker, thisCongress expanded new entitlementprograms and they increased spendingby tens of billions of dollars. What isdifferent today? Today we slow thegrowth of entitlement spending. Todaywe increase budget enforcement, andtoday we actually reduce Federalspending to 18.9 percent of the GrossDomestic Product by the year 2002.That will be the first time since 1974, 25years ago, that spending has fallenbelow 20 percent of the GDP.

Mr. Speaker, just 4 years ago thisCongress passed increased Governmentspending packages. Today we make theFederal Government smaller, allowingthe free market to provide the stimu-lus for the economy to create long-term job growth. Mr. Speaker, what adifference a Republican Congress hasmade to the economy.

Since the 1994 election, the DowJones Industrial Average has morethan doubled from 3,900 points to 8,100points, interest rates have droppedfrom 8 percent to 6 percent, and 6.4 mil-lion new jobs have been created. Theeconomy is growing because taxes,spending, and the Government are notgrowing.

But, Mr. Speaker, we are not heretoday to only look at the past or eventhe present but to the future of thisgreat country. The balanced budget wedebate here today is built on a solidfoundation of programmatic and eco-nomic assumptions, a foundation thatwill generate benefits to Americanworking families for years to come.This is a package that will keep on de-livering financial relief to families andto businesses in the form of lowertaxes, lower interest rates, higher jobgrowth and a stronger economy, andwe are locking it all into law so that ithas to happen.

For example, Mr. Speaker, in my dis-trict in upstate New York, a balancedbudget will significantly enhance theopportunities of working families tocare for their children and to help theircommunities. Alan Greenspan, greatlyrespected by both sides of the aisle,

July 30, 1997Democrats and Republicans alike, andby the American people, he is theChairman of the Federal Reserve, andhe has testified that a balanced budgetwill lead to lower interest rates, asmuch as 2 percent lower on home mort-gages, on family farms, on auto loans,on student loans. For the averagehomeowner in my district, before evencalculating in the benefits of the cutsin the capital gains tax, a 2 percentlower interest rate on a home mort-gage as a result of a balanced budgetwould save that family over $130 amonth. That is $130 more a month tosend a kid to college, to buy groceriesor to pay for child care, which is sobadly needed today in the pockets ofthe American people. It means moreinvestment in the local community, astronger local economy, and higherwages.

Under these circumstances, Mr.Speaker, these hardworking familieswill do more in 1 year to help the lessfortunate, the young and the old, thanthis Congress could do under a bannerof compassion in an entire decade. Allthese benefits result merely from Con-gress fulfilling its moral obligation tobalance this budget year in and yearout.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would liketo make one final observation. Duringthis debate today, many of my friendson the other side of the aisle will assertthat Republicans are only interested inhelping the so-called wealthy in Amer-ica. Mr. Speaker, let me state for therecord right now that I plead guilty tothat charge. I believe that a growingeconomy helps all of America's fami-lies, for it was not a Republican Presi-dent but it was President John F. Ken-nedy that said "a rising tide lifts allboats."

Furthermore, and this is so terriblyimportant, a recent NASDAQ reportsummarized in a recent Los AngelesTimes story found the following facts.These are facts, these are not Repub-lican rhetoric, these are facts out ofNASDAQ:

Fifty-five percent of the stocks inAmerica today are held by householdfamilies. Fifty-five percent. Thatmeans middle class America holds 55percent of the stock today.

Forty-seven percent of all investorsare women. Fifty-five percent of all in-vestors are under the age of 50. And 10percent of all investors, and this is soterribly important, have started to in-vest within the last 10 years.

These numbers do not even includeall of those who have their pensions in-vested in the stock market or in mu-tual funds, which is the case for manyolder Americans. These so-calledwealthy people are middle class work-ing families that know that a balancedbudget, lower taxes, and a smaller Gov-ernment mean higher wages, more Jobs,and a stronger economy.

That is really what we are all here onthis floor to try to do. That is why Iurge all Members to join these Amer-ican families in supporting the bal-


anced budget we have here before ustoday. It is good for families, it is goodfor America. The future will be betterbecause of what we do here today.

And, Mr. Speaker, what we do heretoday is what the Republican Partystands for, and that is cutting taxes forall working Americans, every singleone of them, cutting runaway entitle-ment spending, saving Medicare frombankruptcy. But most importantly,Mr. Speaker, we are here today bal-ancing the budget and shrinking thesize and the power of the Federal Gov-ernment.

Mr. Speaker, I have never been soproud to be a Republican Member ofCongress for what we are doing heretoday.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as hemay consume to the gentleman fromGeorgia [Mr. GINGRICH], the Speaker ofthe House.

Mr. GINGRICH. I thank the gen-tleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, Ijust want to say to mygood friend from Massachusetts, I wasconcerned by his earlier concerns. Iwent back and checked. The gentlemanwas correct. When we initially an-nounced that the entire bill was avail-able at http://speakernews.house.gov infact it was not all fully uploaded. Iwaited to make sure the entire bill wastotally loaded. It is now available notjust to any Member of the House, notjust to all the congressional staffs whoI hope are watching this debate, all ofwhom can access it simultaneouslywithout having to xerox it, but in add!-tion it is available to every citizen inthis country and anyone worldwide onthe Internet.

As the gentleman knows, we are stillhaving growing pains learning how tobe in the information age, but we havenow made this available to every citi-zen in the country. We are going totest this afternoon when we file the taxbill and see how long it takes to totallyupload the tax bill for the same proc-ess. Sometime late this afternoon,every citizen in the country, without alobbyist, without a trade association,without any payment, will have accessto the tax bill in full. I do thank thegentleman for bringing it to our atten-tion. We are still learning, but I didwant to make that available.

By the way, if I might, this is thelast page. We printed it out, becausemy good friend had pointed out earlierthat he could not get them all printedout.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I hopethe Speaker will autograph it for me.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hearthat from the Speaker and I am gladthat all the citizens of America havethis now. If the Republican Partywould just allow them a few hours toread it, I think the public servicewould really be done.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemanfrom New York [Mr. SOLOMON], thechairman of my committee, my dearfriend, for yielding me the customaryhalf-hour, and I yield myself such timeas I may consume.

H63 13Mr. Speaker, again I want to begin

by registering my frustration at beingexpected to vote on this very enormousbill that was dropped outside my doorat 3:30 this morning. It came the sametime as the milkman. But I am not ex-actly sure if my Republican colleaguesdrafted the bill we expected them todraft, and I suspect that no one else issure either. This bill has come to thefloor with an unprecedented bipartisancompromise in cooperation. It is ashame that it ended today with themartial law rule. Members should havethe chance to carefully consider thisbill before voting on it.

Mr. Speaker, although this bill willbalance our budget in the short term, Ido not believe it gets us where we needto be in the long term. I know thatquite a few of my colleagues will sup-port this bill, and there are very goodreasons to do so, but I at this presenttime cannot. It squeezes funding foreducation, training, health programs,and school construction, and I do notbelieve that it should.

One particular problem for me, Mr.Speaker, is the hit that the hospitalswill have to take. We in Massachusettsare very fortunate to have some of theworld's greatest hospitals and researchfacilities. They already bear an enor-mous share of the financial burden ofour health care problems, but this billwill cut Medicare spending by $115 bil-lion by reducing payments to thesevery same hospitals and the doctorsthat serve in them. It also cuts Medic-aid spending by $13 billion by reducingpayments to these same hospitals thatserve large numbers of poor people,like our Boston City Hospital. Mr.Speaker, the hospitals in my districtare already facing enormous budgetcrunches. They cannot stand it any-more.

This bill also cuts $4.8 billion fromFederal employees' retirement pro-grams over the next 5 years. Federalemployees work just as hard as thosein the private sector, but because theywork in public service rather than theprivate sector, they are going to be pe-nalized.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also makeschanges that will cut $1.8 billion in stu-dent loans and $1.8 billion from housingprograms. It reduces section 8 adjust-ments and replaces the FHA fore-closure relief program. Another provi-sion in this bill which many of my col-leagues may not be aware of is an in-crease in the public debt limit to $5.95trillion.

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Demo-crats in Congress and the Clinton ad-ministration, this bill is a lot betterthan it was. It expands health care forchildren, although not enough. It re-stores Supplemental Security Incomeand Medicare benefits to legal immi-grants. It also contains funding forStates to help welfare recipients findjobs. Again, Mr. Speaker, not enough.

There are good reasons to supportthis bill, and I understand why many ofmy colleagues will do so. But as I said,

H6314because of those other matters, I justcannot at this time. For the sake ofour hospitals, for the sake of our stu-dents, for the sake of our housing pro-grams, I cannot support the bill.

I cannot support a bill that will hurtMassachusetts hospitals as much asthis one will. I cannot support a billthat, although it provides much neededmoney to help poor children get healthinsurance, it provides the money in theform of block grants which may or maynot be used for that purpose.

There are some very good provisionsin this bill that I very much support,and I congratulate my colleagues fortheir hard work on this bill. I am re-lieved to see many of the education is-sues and the food stamp problem havebeen taken care of.

0 1230And although I strongly suspect that

this bill will pass and that our Presi-dent will sign it, I simply, as I said,cannot support it. So I urge my col-leagues to defeat the previous questionin order to increase debate time to 3hours.


Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield3 minutes to the gentleman from SouthCarolina [Mr. SpRNrr], the rankingmember on the Committee on theBudget.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman from Massachusetts foryielding this time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for thisconference report, and I am satisfied,and even proud, of the outcome, but Icannot vote for the rule in this case,and I want to explain why.

I think it is being brought to thefloor, this conference agreement, withunseemly haste for something so seri-ous and so far-reaching.

I was here until midnight last night.The Democratic staff of the Committeeon the Budget were here until after2:30. Most of that time of our staff onthe Committee on the Budget wasspent trying to prepare reports so thatwe could tell Members on our side fromour inside perspective as the Commit-tee on the Budget just what is in thisconference agreement and what is not,what compromises have been cut, whatdeals have been done that they need toknow about before they make their de-cision to vote, and it was a frustrating,sometimes fruitless, effort to call dif-ferent places on the Hill and try to findout what was in the conference reportbecause we did not have a copy of theconference report.

The staff left at 2:30, the conferencereport was filed at 3:20 this morning, itwas not until we got back to work thismorning, just an hour before the Houseconvened that we found the conferencereport on our doorstep. We finishedposthaste the reports so that we coulddeliver it to Members on our side. Theygot it at 10 o'clock this morning, justbefore the House convened to take upthis matter.

CON GRESS]{ONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Now there are strong reasons for hav-ing a certain delay. The rules of theHouse, the rules of the House long-standing, call for a 3-day layover forconference reports, 24-hour layover forrules which have been waived, but 3days for a conference report, and thereare good reasons for that. Conferencereports are the last station on thetrack. We are making law. There areno more opportunities on our part tocorrect mistakes, to add something,change something, to perfect a piece oflegislation.

Furthermore, in the House we havewhat in the State legislature they callfree conference powers virtually. As ev-erybody knows, conference reports arehammered out behind closed doors. Theconferees make deals, cut com-promises, go out of scope all the time,and the rule waives any points of orderfor going out of scope. And my col-leagues will find plenty of things inthis conference report, I am sure,which are out of scope, one in theHouse bill and one in the Senate bill,that have been concocted by the con-ferees.

That is why the longstanding rules ofthis House have provided 3 days forMembers to see what is in it, sauce andblow it, weigh it and come to a delib-erate decision as to whether or notthey would support it.

And then when the matter finallycomes to the floor, there ought to beample time to discuss something sofar-reaching as this because this is notjust an ordinary conference agreement,this is probably the single most impor-tant piece of legislation that this Con-gress will adopt in the 105th Congress.Yet we are going to take it up in anhour and a half. The Senate providesfor 10 hours of debate, 10 hours on thetax reconciliation bill, 10 hours on thespending reconciliation bill. We havean hour and a. half, and I have Membersover here pulling at my coattails be-cause they want to say something.

Mr. Speaker, they want to explainwhy they are voting for it or why theyare voting against it; they want to saythey are in favor of this. That is theway the House operates. They want tohave a real debate, and we will not beable to have it with the truncated timethat has been allowed for this particu-lar bill.

This is too fast a track for legislationso serious. It should not be railroadedagainst this House. We should voteagainst the previous question.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from Mas-sachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY].

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.Speaker, I have heard the chairman ofthe Committee on Rules quote myuncle, Presideiit Kennedy, saying thata rising tide lifts all boats. I would saythat in this tax bill what we have is atax cut that will raise the yachts inplaces like the Ocean Reef Club andother Republican strongholds of thiscountry, but the people that own thelittle bass boats of America, the only

July 30, 1997rise they are going to get is when theygo up on the rocks as a result of thecuts that are going to be created inorder to pay for the wonderful tax cutsthat are contained in this bill.

Look, the Republicans shut down theCongress of the United States last yearbecause of our protests about the levelof budget cuts contained in terms ofthe Medicare budget. This bill, makeno mistake, my colleagues, this billcontains the exact same level of Medi-care cuts as last year's bill did. That isthe hidden truth that we are not seeingeverybody who is walking around, giv-ing each other high fives and whoopingand hooping down at the White Houseor on the floor or off in the Halls of theCongress saying what a wonderfulthing this is. Everybody is all talkingabout how we are going to balance thebudget of this country.

Mr. Speaker, we are balancing thebudget in the most unbalanced fashionone can possibly imagine, lining thepockets of the wealthiest Americans,pretending to working people that theyare going to get a tax cut. They get atax cut. Seventy-five percent of thesetax benefits go to the top 20 percent ofthe American people. It is a sham.

In order to pay for it what are wegoing to do? We have cut the housingbudget by 25 percent, we are cuttingthe homeless budget by 25 percent, wecome back, we are going to get rid ofthe fuel assistance program. They saythey are going to do so much to helpout education, but we come back, theyare going to cut almost 20 percent ofthe entire research and developmentaccounts of the Government. They saybefore the American people this yearwe are going to put 6 percent more intothe National Institutes of Health budg-et in order to look after women'shealth and breast cancer research, butthen we are going to come back some-how, according to these numbers, weare going to come back and cut 20 per-cent out of that same budget over thecourse of the next 5 years.

This budget is a sham, and we oughtto have the truth about the budgetcome out before we are forced to voteon it.

This rule that we are going to beforced to vote on gives us 15 minutes,15 minutes to discuss what is in fact inthis bill, and I say, "Take your 15 min-utes and stuff it, stuff it the same placeyou ought to stuff this tax bill, stuff itthe same place you ought to stuff thesespending cuts. It's not right to forcespending cuts on the working familiesin order to provide a tax cut to therich."

Get rid of this tax bill.Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat sur-

prised by the gentleman from Massa-chusetts in his delivery.

As my colleagues know, I was veryproud to have been a John F. KennedyDemocrat, I was very proud of it, and Iwas for many years until the Demo-cratic Party drifted away from the

July 30, 1997principles of John F. Kennedy andJERRY SOLOMON, in my eyes, and thatis why Ronald Reagan and I switchedparties and became Republicans, be-cause we really believe that the peopleback home know better than the peoplehere in Washington.

Let me just take one more second tosay I cannot believe the gentlemanwould tell these people to stuff it. Thegentleman from South Carolina [Mr.SPRArr] a very, very distinguishedMember from the gentleman's side, thegentleman from Michigan [Mr.BONIOR], a liberal Member from thegentleman's side, the gentleman fromCalifornia [Mr. FAzIO], the gentlemanfrom Texas [Mr. STENHOLM], the gen-tleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL],the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. KIL-DEE]; this reads like Who's Who in theDemocratic Party, the gentleman fromNew Jersey [Mr. PAYNE], the gen-tleman from Minnesota [Mr. OBER-STAR], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.EVANS], the gentleman from New York[Mr. RANGEL]; Mr. Speaker, CHARLIERANGEL signing this conference reportand voting for this conference report. Ido not think they are going to stuff it,the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.LEVIN], and on the other side of theaisle Senators LAUTENBERG, SARBANES,Senator MOYNIHAN from my State,very, very respected Democrat, andSenator ROCKEFELLER are going to votefor this conference report that the gen-tleman says, "Stuff it."

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SOLOMON. I yield 30 seconds tothe gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.Speaker, I thank the gentleman fromNew York for yielding briefly.

I would just point out that the gen-tleman probably had a long list ofDemocrats that voted for the 1981budget cuts that in 1982 wished theyhad not, and probably a lot of Repub-licans felt the same way.

The truth of the matter is that forthe gentleman from New York to usePresident Kennedy on this House floorindicating that he would support thekind of cuts in terms of the programsthat are necessary to fund a tax cutthat is largely going to the wealthy is,I think, reshaping the history of whatPresident Kennedy stood for when hecut taxes in 1960.

Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time,Mr. Speaker, I not only think John F.Kennedy would be voting, and support-ing and bringing this bill to the floor,I think TED KENNEDY, whose picture ishere with the President yesterday inthe New York Times applauding thislegislation, would also be voting for it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to thegentleman from Florida [Mr. GOSS], avery distinguished member of the Com-mittee on Rules and someone who hasled the fight for balanced budget andfiscal responsibility in this House formany years.

(Mr. GOSS asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)


Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank myfriend from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. SOLO-MON] for yielding me the time and Ishare his enthusiasm. I rise in strongsupport of this appropriate rule, and Ibelieve his observation about the tideis correct.

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 30years since Congress has balanced theNation's books, a generation and a halfthat is, of spending money we do nothave, running up the tab on our chil-dren and our grandchildren, avoidingtough decisions, and Americans aretired of that. So today and tomorrowand the day after we are going to beputting in place the final details of thefirst real achievable balanced budget in30 years. The magnitude of the changein the direction this legislative accom-plishment represents is very, verygreat indeed. Consider that just 4 yearsago the White House and Democraticmajority here pushed through the larg-est tax increase, the largest tax in-crease in American history, just 4

years ago. What a difference 4 yearsand a new majority can make.

I know some will be skeptical thatmay be just another promise that wecannot keep here, and I do not blamepeople who wish to withhold their fullexuberance about this until the ink isdry and the effects of this historicagreement are felt across the land. Butthe bills we vote on in the cominghours and days hold more than a prom-ise to balance the budget and bringabout tax relief for American families.These bills are the implementation ofthe promises, and there is accountabil-ity built in for all of us. We cannot run,we cannot hide, we will be here, and wewill be judged.

As chairman of a legislative andbudget process subcommittee, I wantto take a second to point out to Mem-bers that this bill includes a series ofclean up provisions in our budget en-forcement rules, including extendingthe pay as you go and spending limitprocedures. Of course we know addi-tional work is needed to beef up budgetenforcement, and budget process re-form will take place in this Congress ashas been promised.

Mr. Speaker, for too long Americanshave had to get by with less while thefolks in Washington rolled merrilyalong taxing and spending to supportthe ever growing Federal Government.Look around, my colleagues will see it.This agreement means tax relief for in-dividuals, for families with children,for students, for small businesses, forhomeowners, for those with familyfarms. It brings a measure of fairnessto the system, and it is predicated onthe fundamental belief that Govern-ment taxes too much, not too little. Weare getting control over spending underthe discretionary side, and we areshrinking the size and scope of thereach of Government and, man, is thatgood news for America.

This legislation takes the first stepstoward solving the long term problemswith Medicare, laying the groundwork

H6315for us to come together on a com-prehensive plan to rescue the problemfor coming generations. We are expand-ing choice and benefits for seniors,clamping down on waste, fraud andabuse, a problem whose vast propor-tions have made news in recent days:in fact are in the headlines today. Andwe are modernizing the program's pay-ment and care delivery systems. This isa long overdue down payment on Medi-care, and America's current and futureseniors come out the winners.

Mr. Speaker, there are many, manydetails in this plan, and I am sure it isstill not perfect. I fully expect that thecoming days will bring efforts by thosewho prefer the status quo of big gov-ernment, to pick it apart provision byprovision, and indeed we have alreadystarted to hear some of the clamor onthe floor today. But we have done theunthinkable by Washington standards.We have kept our promise to the Amer-ican taxpayers, and that is what this isabout. We pledge to balance the budg-et. We are doing it. We pledge to saveMedicare. We are doing it. And wepledge to cut taxes, and we are doingit.

I cannot think of a single reason todelay this process. It is all long over-due, it is wanted by the people we rep-resent and work for in this country.The time is now. Any deviation to goto motions to commit or other dilatorytactics are just delaying the inevitable.We are going to give this country therelief this country deserves and wants,and we are going to do it this week.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for thisrule and for the wonderful agreementthat has been worked out.

0 1245Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield

3 minutes to the gentleman from Mary-land [Mr. HOYER].

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman inexile for yielding time to me, Mr.Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we promised and we de-livered. In August 1981, PresidentReagan, when he signed the tax bill of1981, said that we will balance thebudget as a result of this bill by Octo-ber 1, 1983. That was the promise. Whatwas delivered? Four and one-half tril-lion dollars of new debt.

Two courageous Presidents lookedthat debt in the eye and acted. One wasa Republican, George Bush. In 1990, hesaid the deficit is a problem, and wemust act. He was savaged, savaged byhis own party and by the Speaker ofthis House.

In 1993, a courageous President withvision said we must confront this defi-cit, for this generation and for genera-tions yet to come. Almost to a person,Republicans rose and said the economyis going to go into the dumpster, unem-ployment will rise, inflation will rise,and deficits will rise.

Mr. Speaker, exactly the oppositehappened. Not one Republican had thecourage or the vision to vote for the1993 bill. But for that bill, we would notbe here this day.

H6316Mr. Speaker, I intend to support both

of these bills. They are not what Iwould have written, and perhaps whatno Member individually would havewritten, but we have collectively cometogether and we are going to act. In myopinion, it will be good for people andit will be good for the economy, whichis good for our country and for our peo-ple.

But let there be no mistake aboutwhat the history of this fight has been.Bill Clinton said we needed to confrontthis deficit, but we needed to do sowhile investing in our people, in mak-ing sure that average working familieswere advantaged by this particularpiece of legislation.

We came to grips with that issue, re-alizing full well that there would be apolitical cost, and indeed there was in1994. There was a cost, because acrossthis land our candidates were attackedas taxers and spenders. But in fact,what they did was bring the deficitdown for 5 years in a row, and peoplesay the last time it was done was 1969.That was, of course, following 8 yearsof Democratic Presidencies throughJanuary of 1969, Mr. Speaker; Demo-cratic leadership, we had a balancedbudget. And again, we are going tohave a balanced budget because ofDemocratic leadership that hasbrought the deficit down 5 years in arow, the first time that has happenedsince before the Civil War.

I stand to say that I am proud of thefact that I voted for that 1993 bill. Wewould not be here today but for that. Iam proud of the fact that my Presi-dent, your President, has led us to apoint where we can balance the budgetwhile investing in America's future andour people.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield2½ minutes to the gentleman from NewJersey [Mr. PALLONE].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise inopposition to the rule because of thetime constraints on debate, but I sup-port the underlying budget spendingbill. The reason is because today Con-gress is taking a major step in cuttingthe number of uninsured children.

Over a year ago Democrats had madethis a top priority, while Republicanswere balking at finding a solution. Ear-lier this year, while Democrats wereleading the charge to reduce the ranksof the 10 million uninsured children,Republicans were questioning the needto help working families provide fortheir uninsured children.

It was not until the President's in-clusion, after Democrats' urging, offunding for children's health care in hisinitial budget that Republicans real-ized that resistance would be hopeless.Even then, though, they had to bedragged to the table. House Repub-licans pushed a children's health careblock grant program that did not guar-antee one penny to actually insurekids. The Congressional Budget Officeestimated 500,000 kids would be coveredand most of the $16 billion in fundingcould be drained away by the States for


other purposes. Democrats protestedthe Republican plan and voted unani-mously for a motion to recommit thatwould implement the proposal of ourhealth care task force.

The idea was to attach requirementsthat States actually use the money toinsure kids through Medicaid or an al-ternative State health insurance plan.We insisted as Democrats that the di-rect services option, which allowed cer-tain exemptions from using money toinsure kids, be eliminated or severelycurtailed. In addition, Democrats de-manded an adequate benefits packagefor kids.

As the negotiations over the budgetcontinued, Democrats joined in the se-ries of letters to the budget negotiatorsurging inclusion of an additional $8 bil-lion through a cigarette tax, and provi-sions intended to insure that all thenew funds for kids' health care wouldsupplement and not supplant currentState efforts to provide children withhealth coverage.

In the end, Mr. Speaker, the Repub-licans relented and the bill before ustoday includes $24 billion, requires thatkids actually be insured with themoney, and caps the direct services op-tion to 15 percent of the funds.

The benefits package is adequate, inmy opinion, and language is includedso States have to spend at least whatthey do now on kids' health care.

Mr. Speaker, the kids' health careplan in this bill, in my opinion, is amajor victory for the President andcongressional Democrats. Thanks toDemocratic values and perseverance,America's children will be the winnersof this budget agreement.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield1 minute to the gentleman from Cali-fornia [Mr. CArps].

Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise todayin support of the balanced budget legis-lation. When I ran for Congress, Ipledged to the voters of my districtthat I would work to make the Housemore bipartisan and solution-oriented.This bill and my support of it is a re-flection of that pledge. It is good forthe residents of the central coast ofCalifornia, it is good for our country.

I am very happy that we have in-creased the amount of funding for chil-dren's health care to $24 billion. It isunconscionable that millions of Amer-ican children have no health insurance.I also strongly support the restorationof benefits for millions of legal immi-grants who were callously cut off fromdisability benefits under last year'swelfare reform bill. Today we are fi-nally treating these individuals withthe dignity they deserve. I urge my col-leagues to vote for this historic andimportant bill.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from Mas-sachusetts [Mr. TIERNEY].

(Mr. TIERNEY asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise todiscuss not thE bill but the rule beforeus in this particular case.

July 30, 1997

Since I came here some 6 months agoor 7 months ago, it seems that all Ihear from the party that said over andover again while it was in the minorityis how it was going to do things betterwhen it became the majority; in fact,all we hear now is, when they do some-thing that is totally unconscionable,well, you did it, too, or you did anotherversion of it.

In fact, that is not a good enough an-swer for people in this country, and Ido not think people are going to be sat-isfied that this deliberative body orthis body that is supposed to be delib-erative spent virtually no time debat-ing one of the more important billsthat is going to come out of legislationthis year.

The real issue is not whether we havethis particular tax cut or this spendingbill this year. There are larger issues inthis country, not the least of which iswhat is happening to working familiesand why we have companies reporting15 percent profits and 1 percent addi-tional revenues, and we know the dif-ference is because they are squeezingthat out of American workers.

Those American workers have lesshealth care benefits and they have lesspension contributions, and they aretold by employers that they are goingto have the company move to Mexicoor they are going to have replacementworkers in if they try too hard to geta raise.

The real question is what does thistax package, what does this spendingbill do for those American workers.And just a few minutes ago they said,we put it on the Internet, go read 20inches of material and find the answerout for the voters. That is not appro-priate. The American people say theywant this body to deliberate. Theywant this body to know what is in thatbill.

It is a darned good thing that I am anocturnal sort of person, because sinceI have gotten here very little that isput on the floor by the majority is everput on in the light of day, and veryoften that is because I suspect most ofwhat they are putting forward will notsuffer well the light of day.

In fact, this particular bill was deliv-ered at 3:45 in the morning, and wehave the audacity for the chairman ofthe Committee on Rules to say, likethat is a great thing, like at 3:45 in themorning it was delivered to the minor-ity member, ranking minority mem-ber, which gave us all plenty of timebetween 3:45 this morning and now toread 20 inches of documents and debateit and deliver it for the American peo-ple.

That is not conscionable. That is notright. This is not a good rule.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the pre-vious speaker that he follow the rulesof the House, and be a little carefulabout how he might reflect on the in-tegrity or character of another Mem-ber.

July30, 1997Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the

gentlewoman from Columbus, OH [Ms.DEBORAH PRYCE], who is a very valuedmember of the Committee on Rules,and someone who has been a true advo-cate of families and children in thisCongress.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the distinguished chairman ofthe Committee on Rules for yieldingme this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my en-thusiastic support for this rule and forthe Balanced Budget Act, and to pointout to the last speaker, and to all thebody, that we are already 50 percentfairer than the other party was in theirrules in the last time they had controlof this House.

What is exciting this day, Mr. Speak-er, is that today Americans in thiscountry, the earners, the savers, andthe taxpayers, the people who playhard, work hard, take a few risks,strive every day to build a better fu-ture for their families and commu-nities, are about to realize somethingfor it.

For years, their message to us hasbeen crystal clear. They wanted Con-gress to cut the tax burden on Ameri-cans. They wanted us to reduce Gov-ernment spending and Governmentsize. They wanted us to create new jobsand opportunities. They wanted us toshift power and influence to the Statesand local communities, where creativelocal solutions could take the place ofbroad Federal mandates. Most of all,they wanted us to balance the budget.

Finally, the message has sunk in. Weare relearning the lessons of the 1980's,when we did cut taxes, when we did re-strain Federal regulation and lowerGovernment spending, because whenwe did those things prosperity made ahuge comeback. Jobs were created, in-come started to rise, and people feltmore secure about their economic fu-tures.

Today we are about to kickstart thateconomic revolution again. Imaginethat, Mr. Speaker, we will actually bal-ance the budget by the year 2002, thefirst time since 1969. That was the yearI graduated from high school. That wasthe year Neal Armstrong walked on theMoon. That was a long time ago, Mr.Speaker.

Not only that, we are extending thelife of Medicare for 10 years. We aresaving it from bankruptcy, and givingseniors expanded options in meetingtheir health care needs.

At the same time, the BalancedBudget Act makes important invest-ments in people, like the children'shealth initiative, preventive healthprograms, and the new welfare to workprogram to move welfare recipients offthe public assistance rolls and into thepayrolls.

Mr. Speaker, these are just a few ofthe provisions in this historic legisla-tion, and I commend the bipartisan ne-gotiators who worked hard throughmany long days and nights to bring usto this conference agreement today.


I especially want to recognize mycolleague, the gentleman from Colum-bus, OH, Mr. JOHN KASICH for his stead-fast leadership in the fight to achieve abalanced budget over the years. Backin Ohio, we are so doggoned proud ofChairman KASICH that we could bust.Not only him, but all the negotiatorsthat came up with this agreement arenational heroes.

Mr. Speaker, we have the oppor-tunity today to begin a new chapter inour Nation's history. Let us seize it.Let us grasp this once-in-a-lifetime op-portunity. Vote for this rule. Supportthe conference report.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield3 minutes to the gentleman from Or-egon [Mr. DEFAzIO].

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, let usmake no mistake on what we are abouthere today; the cuts we are about toadopt today, with precious little de-bate, are to finance the tax cuts of to-morrow. There is a direct and irref-utable relationship. So the cuts inMedicare, the cuts in veterans' bene-fits, the cuts in Social Security Admin-istration costs, are to finance tax cutstomorrow. Tomorrow perhaps we willget the debate on the merits of the taxcut.

The point is, earlier the esteemedchairman of the Committee on Rulesresponded to my earlier statement say-ing, well, so the gentleman has not hadtime to read the bill. So there is onlyone copy. Now it is on the Internet.That is great. But he said earlier, hesaid, he should just rely on the judg-ment of some of his colleagues. Can henot follow them?

0 1300First off, I doubt that they have had

an opportunity to read the entire bill.And secondly, no, I did not check mybrain at the door when I got elected toCongress. I do not hand my voting cardto anybody else. And to say that, well,the Democrats were abusive so weshould not give them adequate time toread and review the bill, so we aregoing to do the same thing, I votedagainst those reconciliation bills whenwe had a Republican President and aDemocratic Congress, and they keptshoving them through here and we didnot have to read them.

I even signed a pledge never to votefor another one unless we were given aminimum of 24 hours to read it. No onehas been given 24 hours to read how-ever many thousand pages there are,and I do not know, because there is noindex and it is not numbered. But it isprobably a couple of thousand pages.Makes amazing changes.

I would ask the gentleman if he isparticularly familiar with the cuts inveterans. We have an aging veteranspopulation, and by the year 2002 we aregoing to see a reduction of $4.1 billionin veterans benefits in the year 2002 toachieve this theoretically balancedbudget or, if one wanted to be morecynical, to finance tax cuts for thewealthy, a 19-percent cut.

H6317How is it we are going to reduce vet-

erans benefits with a dramaticallyaging veterans population, not just theWorld War II people and the Koreanwar vets, my own generation, the Viet-nam generation, is beginning to de-velop aging problems. We cannot do it.It will not work.

We are not going to debate those vet-erans provisions here on the floor. Weare not going to debate the merits ofthem. We are not going to be giventime to even examine them. It took mea while to find them in this pile.

Let us talk about the Social Securityadministrative costs. Social Securityis underfunded for administration, andit is paid for out of the trust fund. It ispaid for out of the trust fund, yet weare going to cut Social Security ad-ministrative costs by 25 percent. So thenext time that your mom or dad oryour grandparents or the gentlemanfrom New York [Mr. SOLOMON] in a fewyears tries to find out what has hap-pened to their Social Security check,they are going to be put on indefinitehold. Right now it takes 3 months onthe average to process a claim.

Under this legislation, it is going totake 6 months or 9 months, and with anaging population, who knows how badit will get?

These are not the places to cut thebudget. They are not fair cuts. In fact,I do not believe these cuts will ever b.made. In fact, under this bill the deficitgets larger next year for the first timein 5 years. Is that not ironic? We aregoing to balance the Federal budget,but the deficit has been going downsince 1992. Under this for the first timesince 1992, the deficit goes on.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I do notknow whether the gentleman is a vet-eran or not, but I am a veteran. I am amember of the AARP. Half of theAARP are made up of veterans andtheir families and they support thisbill, as I do very, very strongly.

Second, if you read the bill, spendingon veterans programs will rise eachyear with outlays increasing from 39.4billion in fiscal year 1997 to 42.4 billionin fiscal year 2002.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1'/2 minutes tothe gentlewoman from Connecticut[Mrs. JOHNSON], a very respected mem-ber of the Committee on Ways andMeans.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.Speaker, I rise in strong support of therule and of this budget. Together thebudget and tax package we will passthis week demonstrate that hard workand able, commonsense leadership canbalance the budget, cut taxes, and ad-dress critical unmet needs of our peo-ple responsibly and effectively.

With this budget we have won a greatvictory for our children. Three monthsago people said Congress would nottake action on children's health insur-ance this year and we are proving themwrong today. In this budget agreementwe set aside $24 billion for a children'shealth insurance program under a lawthat allows States to structure their

H6318program to effectively reach the unin-sured children of working parents. Sixmillion kids from working families,families who need and deserve our help,will get that help to ensure that theirchildren will have the health care thatthey need. We have worked long andhard, and millions of children will leadhealthy lives as a result of our biparti-san efforts today. This Congress shouldbe proud of its accomplishments. Thereis no higher priority than protectingthe health of our children.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from Illi-nois [Mr. GUTIERREZ].

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, it isinteresting to see so many of my col-leagues so eager to vote on this spend-ing bill. They are excited. They cannotwait. And I know what it feels like. Iknow what it is like to vote for a defi-cit reduction package, to vote for a billthat puts our fiscal house in order.

I already cast my vote that makes abalanced budget a reality. None of mycolleagues on the other side of the aislehave ever done so. But I already did it.Did I sneak onto the floor last night tocast that vote? Or is it true what theysay about Chicagoans, that we voteearly and often?

Mr. Speaker, I cast that vote 4 yearsago in 1993. I passed and voted for thelargest deficit reduction package inU.S. history. It was a package that rep-resented fairness, demanded sharedsacrifice in the name of common goodasked those of us who were doing wellto share in the burden. Unfortunatelythose principles that just 4 short yearsago appeared to be antiquated, out ofstyle, and politically unpopular today,it was a package that passed withoutthe vote of a single solitary member ofthe Republican Party. In fact, ratherthan standing with us in 1993, theystood and they jeered and they tauntedus who voted for it. And yet look at thefacts.

It is only thanks to what we did in1993 that we can even consider thispackage today. You see, I hear a lot ofmy colleagues slapping each other onthe back congratulating each other fordoing something historic. Let me tellmy colleagues about historic deeds andthe people who were responsible forthem, our veterans, men and womenwho fought for our country. And whatdoes today's historic agreement meanto them? It means $2.7 billion in cutsto the VA medical services, $4.1 billionin cuts in total.

It means under this bill a low-incomeveteran who took a bullet or two atIwo Jima or in Vietnam has to makeanother sacrifice to help an investorwho wants to take a profit on WallStreet. It tells a veteran: You saved usfrom fascism in World War II; I hopeyou saved up some money, too, to payfor your health care; you are going toneed it, now in your seventies andeighties.

Vote against this rule and thesespending cuts.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield5 minutes to the gentleman from Wis-


consin [M:r. OBEY], ranking member onthe Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I very badlywanted to vote for this budget deal. Ihad expected I would be able to becauseI thought that the White House wouldhold out long enough to have a packagethat would truly be fair to averageworking Americans, and I am sorrythat they did not do that.

I support three-quarters of this deal.I support the child tax credit. I was oneof the original four sponsors of thatproposal Nith Vice President GoREwhen he was then in the U.S. Senate. Iam a sponsor of the education taxbreaks because I believe in them deep-ly. I support the childrens health carepackage. There is much that is goingto be good in this deal. But there arecertain standards that must be metwhen we are talking about distributingalmost $600 billion of the people'smoney.

First of all, most of that relief shouldgo to middile-income working families,not the economic elite of this country.Second, this bill should be used to closerather than widen the gap in incomebetween the wealthiest 2 percent of thepeople in this society and everybodyelse.

Third, this should prevent the unrav-eling of Medicare and, last, it shouldnot cripple the long-term investmentsnecessary for our country to grow inthe future.

These bills fail those tests. The mostwell off 5 percent of people in the coun-try, as demonstrated by this chart, themost well off 5 percent of the people inthis country, those who make $112,000 ayear or more will gain six times asmuch tax relief in these bills as the 60percent of the American people, wellover a majority, who make less than$37,000 a year. That is not fair.

The wealthiest 1 percent of people inthis society who make more than$250,000 a year will get a $16,000 tax cutunder this proposal. But if you makeunder $19,000 a year, on average youwill have a lax increase. That is notfair.

This package is also based on the as-sumptions, as have been indicated inthe past, that we will cut the SocialSecurity administration by 25 percentover the next 5 years. We already havea 3-month backlog now in handling So-cial Security cases.

Do we really believe Congress isgoing to vote for a package that willextend that waiting period for a year?We are told that we are supposed to cuthealth care by 16 percent over the next5 years. The bill which will come to thefloor later today for this year is goingto raise National Institutes of Healthspending by 6 percent. Are we reallygoing to vote to raise it this year andthen to cut it by 16 percent in futureyears? Come on. I cannot believe thisHouse would be that dishonest.

Are we really going to vote to cutveterans benefits by 19 percent over thenext 5 years? I cannot believe we wouldbe that ungrateful.

July 30, 1997

Are we really going to vote to cutcommunity development programs by30 percent? Seventy percent of thefunding to the community develop-ment block grant program or to FEMAfor emergencies? We just raised thebudget for FEMA. Are we really goingto cut it 30 percent? Come on. Get real.

Are we really going to cut agri-culture programs 23 percent over thenext 5 years? Not if you come from ag-ricultural districts, I will bet my col-leagues. But those are the promisesupon which this deficit reduction pack-age is based. Those are false promises.I do not believe a majority of Membersof either party will vote for those kindsof reductions when the time comes.That means the reality of this packagein terms of the deficit is that we willbe causing upward pressure, not down-ward pressure on the Federal deficit.

I am sorry about this today. I amsorry that we do not even have thechance to further examine this pack-age. It is a national disgrace to makedecisions over the future content of theTax Code, to make decisions which willdetermine for 5 years or more whathappens to people's pocketbooks, whathappens to their education, what hap-pens to their veterans benefits, it is un-conscionable that that is going to bemade without having at least 5 hoursto review what is in this package. Whoknows what other special gimmicks arewrapped into this package. Voteagainst this rule. Vote against thesebills tomorrow. You do not know whatis in them and you will come to regretwhat is hidden from the public in all ofthese packages.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Iowa[Mr. GANsKE].

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, in 1

minute I do not have time to answerall of the charges by the last speaker.

I would point out that we are dealingwith a tax cut of about $90 billion.About $70 billion of that $90 billionover the next 5 or 6 years goes to a$500-per-child tax credit for familiesthat earn less than $110,000.

But I want to answer the charge thatpeople have not had time to lookthrough this bill. Here is the Medicarebill. It is not like this was just dumpedon people's doorsteps last night. It is 95to 98 percent of this bill that has beenout there for weeks. This was what theHouse and the Senate passed. The greatmajority of this bill was agreed toweeks ago by the administration, andthe House and the Senate.

Yes, there were some differences andin the last couple weeks there has beenample newspaper and news coverage ofhow we have come to a resolution onsome of those contentious issues. I amvery interested in this issue. So forthose last final remaining items thatwere in dispute, all we have to do islook in those sections and know whatis in the bill. For those who are inter-ested in housing or veterans, the samething applies.

July 30, 1997Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from Arizona[Mr. HAYwORm].

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the chairman of the Committeeon Rules for this time.

I again rejoice for this debate on theHouse floor because once again itpoints up some very important dif-ferences. I listened with great interestto the ranking member of the Commit-tee on Appropriations essentially callthis exercise, and I believe I am usinghis words accurately, 'a national dis-grace."

0 1315Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is a

national disgrace to allow hard work-ing people to hang onto more of theirown money and send less here to Wash-ington. I do not believe it is a nationaldisgrace to allow for the reduction inthe overall growth of spending, tomake sure we save and preserve pro-grams for Americans.

That is what we are doing with thisBalanced Budget Act, as we work topreserve Medicare into the next gen-eration, as we preserve veterans' bene-fits, as we work to make sure that thisGovernment takes less money out ofthe pockets of working Americans, toallow them to keep more of theirmoney to save, spend and invest asthey see fit.

The fact that over 70 percent of thesetax cuts go to families making under$75,000 is not disgraceful, it is thetruth, and it is good for the Americanpeople.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3minutes to the gentleman from Clare-mont, CA [Mr. DREIER], the vice chair-man of the Committee on Rules, one ofthe most distinguished and respectedMembers of this body.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thankmy friend, the gentleman from NewYork [Mr. SOLOMON] for yielding methis time.

It is very clear Bill Clinton will, byvirtue of supporting this measure, beleaving one of the greatest Republicanlegacies in recent history, and we arevery proud to be able to play a strongrole in bringing that opportunityabout.

This debate that has been going onhas to do with whether or not Membershave utilized Speakernews.House.Gov.When I last stood here, I said that itwas on line. Obviously, I was a real vi-sionary. It was about to be on line, andit now is there and available.

I did speak a little too soon, but thefact of the matter is virtually everyonehas been following this debate. TheDemocratic Caucus and the RepublicanConference have been discussing thismeasure for a long period of time. Wehave had hearings, we have had debateson these issues for years in some cases.

I am particularly proud of several ofthe provisions that are included in thisbalanced budget agreement. One ofthem includes 390,000 demonstrationcases for medical savings accounts. As


we were discussing this up in the Com-mittee on Rules earlier this morning, Imentioned the fact our former col-league French Slaughter and I, 12 yearsago, introduced legislation called thehealth care savings account.

It was modeled after a package puttogether by the Center for Policy Anal-ysis in Dallas, TX, and it actually wasdesigned to be a successor to Medicare,because even more than a decade agowe were looking at the problems ofMedicare and pursuing the idea ofhealth care savings accounts. So I amhoping that these 390,000 demonstra-tion cases will be a real plus and a ben-efit as we look at baby boomers movingtoward retirement and the health carecosts for retirees.

One of the other provisions that Ithink is very important is what iscalled the Disproportionate Share Hos-pital funding formula, known as DSH.It is not perfect from the perspective ofa Californian, but I believe it goes along way toward addressing a numberof the very important concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to point tothis issue, which a number of us havebeen very sensitive to, specifically onour side of the aisle the gentlemanfrom Florida [Mr. DIAz-BALART], thegentlewoman from Florida [Ms. ILEANAROS-LEHTINEN], and a number of usfrom California, and that has to dowith legal immigrants who could con-ceivably be thrown off of SSI. I believeas we look at the fact that a legal im-migrant clearly is to have a sponsor,we did not want to see those who wereelderly or infirm in any way jeopard-ized. This agreement addresses that.

Most important, it gets us right on tothat glidepath toward a balanced budg-et, and I believe we have a very, verygood opportunity to do that. That iswhy this is a great day for both the Re-publican and the Democratic Partiesand all of the American people, and Iurge strong support of the rule andthen support for this package, and to-morrow the greatest tax cut that wehave had in 16 years. I anxiously lookforward to supporting that.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself the balance of my time.

If the previous question is defeated,Mr. Speaker I will offer an amendmentto increase the debate time to 3 hours.Everybody is calling this measure anhistoric agreement. With only 90 min-utes of debate, Mr. Speaker, there willnot be much of an historical record.

Republicans refuse to give us suffi-cient time to read it; they should atleast give us time to discuss it. So Iask that my amendment be printed inthe RECORD immediately before thevote on the previous question, and Iurge my colleagues to vote 'no" on theprevious question so that I may offerthat amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balanceof my time.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself the balance of my time.

Earlier in the debate I mentionedthat Ronald Reagan and this Member

H6319of Congress used to be John F. KennedyDemocrats until the Democrat Partyabandoned Kennedy's principles andmoved so far to the left.

I vividly recall back in 1962 thatPresident John F. Kennedy, in intro-ducing his tax cut plan to the Amer-ican people, he, President Kennedy,stated, and this is a quote, Prosperityis the real way to balance the budget.By lowering tax rates, by increasingjobs and incomes, we can expand taxrevenues and finally bring our budgetinto balance."

President Kennedy was right thenand the bills before us today are rightalso. Members should come to thisfloor, cast their vote to cut taxes, tocut spending, to balance the budget, tosave Medicare and, most of all, toshrink the size and the power of thisFederal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balanceof my time, and I move the previousquestion on the resolution.

The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr.BOEHNER]. The question is on orderingthe previous question.

The question was taken: and theSpeaker pro tempore announced thatthe ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I objectto the vote on the ground that aquorum is not present and make thepoint of order that a quorum is notpresent.


The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-sent Members.

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5of rule XV, the Chair announces thathe will reduce to a minimum of 5 min-utes the period of time within which avote by electronic device. if ordered,will be taken on the question of agree-ing to the resolution.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were—yeas 226, nays197, not voting 11, as follows:

IRoll No. 343]YEAS—226

Aderholt castle FawellArcher chabot FoleyArmey chambliss FowlerBachus chenoweth FoxBaker christensen Franks (NJ)Ballenger coble FrelinghuysenBarr coburn GalleglyBarrett (NE) collins GanskeBartlett combest GekasBarton cook GibbonsBass cooksey GllchrestBateman cox GillmorBereuter crane GilmanBilbray crapo GoodeBilirakis cubin GoodlatteBliley cunningham GoodlingBlunt Davis (VA) GossBoehiert Deal GrahamBoehner DeLay GrangerBonilla Diaz-Balart GreenwoodBono Dickey GutknechtBrady Doolittle HansenBunning Dreier HarmanBurr Duncan HastertBurton Dunn Hastings (WA)Buyer Ehlers Hayworthcallahan Ehrlich Hefleycalvert Emerson Hergercamp English Hillcampbell Ensign Hillearycanady Everett Hobsoncannon Ewing Hoekstra

H6320 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 30, 1997Horn Morella Sensenbrenner Sanders Stabenow VelazquezHostettler Myrick Sessions Sandlin Stark VentoHuishof Nethercutt Shadegg Sawyer Stenhoim ViscioskyHunter Neumann Shaw Schumer Stokes WatersHutchinson Ney Shays Scott Strickland Watt (NC)Hyde Northup Shimkus Serrano Stupak WaxmanInglis Norwood Shuster Sherman Tanner WexlerIstook Nussle Skeen Sisisky Taylor (MS) WeygandJenkins Oxley Smith (MI) Skaggs Thompson WiseJohnson (CT) Packard Smith (NJ) Skelton Thurman WoolseyJohnson, Sam Pappas Smith (OR) Slaughter Tierney WynnJones Parker Smith (TX) Smith, Adam Torres YatesKasich Paul Smith, Linda Snyder TownsKelly Paxon Snowbarger Spratt TurnerKim Pease Solomon

1King (NY) Peterson (MN) Souder —Kingston Peterson (PA) Spence Blagojevich Forbes McIntoshKlug Petri Stearns Bryant Gonzalez SchiffKnollenberg Pickering Stump Fattah Houghton Young (AK)Kolbe Pitts Sununu Foglietta McColIumLaHood Pombo TalentLargent Porter Tauscher 0 1339Latham Portman Tauzin Mrs. KENNELLY of ConnecticutLaTourette Pryce (OH) Taylor (NC)Lazio Quinn Thomas changed her vote from yea to nay.Leach Radanovich Thornberry So the previous question was ordered.Lewis (CA) Ramstad Thune The result of the vote was announcedLewis (KY) Redmond Tiahrt as above recorded.5ton gula Traficant

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.LoBiondo Riley Walsh BOEHNER). The question is on the reso-Lucas Rogan Wamp lution.McCarthy (NY) Rohrabacher Watts (OK) The resolution was agreed to.McCrery Ros-Lehtinen Weldon (FL) A motion to reconsider was laid onMcDade Roukema Weldon (PA) the table.McHugh Royce WellerMclnnls Ryun WhiteMcKeon Salmon WhitfieldMetcalf Sanford WickerMica Saxton WolfMiller (FL) Scarborough Young (FL)Molinari Schaefer, DanMoran (KS) Schaffer, Bob

NAYS—197

Abercrombie Etheridge Maloney (CT)Ackerman Evans Maloney (NY)Allen Farr MantonAndrews Fazio MarkeyBaesler Filner MartinezBaldacci Flake MascaraBarcia Ford MatsuiBarrett (WI) Frank (MA) McCarthy (MO)Becerra Frost McDermottBentsen Furse McGovernBerman GeJdenson McHaleBerry Gephardt McIntyreBishop Gordon McKinneyBlumenauer Green McNultyBonior Gutierrez MeehanBorski Hall (OH) MeekBoswell Hall (TX) MenendezBoucher Hamilton Millender-Boyd Hastings (FL) McDonaldBrown (CA) Hefner Miller (CA)Brown (FL) Hilliard MingeBrown (OH) Hinchey MinkCapps Hinojosa MoakleyCardin Holden MollohanCarson Hooley Moran (VA)Clay Hoyer MurthaClayton Jackson (IL) NadlerClement Jackson-Lee NealClyburn (TX) OberstarCondit Jefferson ObeyConyers John OlverCostello Johnson (WI) OrtizCoyne Johnson, E.B. OwensCramer KanJorski PalloneCummings Kaptur PascrellDanner Kennedy (MA) PastorDavis (FL) Kennedy (Ri) PayneDavis (IL) Kennelly PelosiDeFazio Kildee PickettDeGette Kilpatrick PomeroyDelahunt Kind (WI) PoshardDeLauro Kleczka Price (NC)Dellums Klink RahallDeutsch Kucinich RangelDicks LaFalce ReyesDingell Lampson RiversDixon Lantos RodriguezDoggett Levin RoemerDooley Lewis (GA) RothmanDoyle Lipinski Roybal-AllardEdwards Lofgren RushEngel Lowey SaboEshoo Luther Sanchez

H6320 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

0 1345CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2015,

BALANCED I3UDGET ACT OF 1997Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant

to House Resolution 202, I call up theconference report on the bill (HR. 2015)to provide for reconciliation pursuantto section 104(a) of the concurrent reso-lution on the budget for fiscal year1998.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SOL-

OMON). Pursuant to House Resolution202, the conference report is consideredas having been read.

July 30, 1997

(For conference report and state-ment, see proceedings of the House ofJuly 29, 1997, Volume II.)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH] and thegentleman from South Carolina [Mr.SpRArr] each will control 45 minutes.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15minutes to the gentleman from Wash-ington [Mr. MCDERMOTT] and ask unan-imous consent that he be permitted toyield that time to Members on my sidein opposition.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from South Carolina?

There was no objection.The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

Chair recognizes the gentleman fromOhio [Mr. KASICH].

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself 1 minute. This obviously is thebeginning of a very important debateand the beginning of a very exciting 2days. We bring before the House todayand tomorrow the first real budget inreal terms with real savings startingimmediately, for the first time addingup to a balanced budget for the firsttime since Neil Armstrong, a greatAmerican and fellow Ohioan, walked onthe Moon. It will also be the first taxcuts to provide jobs and to help fami-lies for the first time in 16 years.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are a lotof people out there that still think thatthis is all being done with disappearingink, but at the end of these 2 days andupon the signing of the President ofthe United States, we should have adeal that commences the era that rec-ognizes the limits of Government andbegins to transfer power, money, andinfluence from this city.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to myyoung protege the gentleman from Wis-consin [Mr. NEUMANN] a member of theCommittee on the Budget.

Mr. NEUMANN. I thank the gen-tleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, this truly is a great dayfor America. What an exciting thing tobe a part of out here. The first timesince 1969. I was a sophomore in highschool, the first time since I was asophomore in high school, 1969, that weare actually going to balance the Fed-eral budget. It is about more thanwords. It is about the hopes and dreamsof the children in America today andthe restoration of their opportunity tolive the American dream. That is whatthis is all about today.

In 1995 the American people. Andthey should get credit for this, too, theAmerican people had a mandate. Themandate was get us a balanced budget,get the tax burden off our back and re-store Medicare for our senior citizens.Between today and tomorrow, we aregoing to make good on all three ofthose points.

To the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KA-SICH] the chairman of the committeeon the budget, to the gentleman fromGeorgia [Mr. GINGRICH], the Speaker,to the folks on the other side of theaisle that were so actively involved and

July30, 1997the rest of the Republican leadershipteam, and all the Members and my col-leagues here, this truly is a tribute towhat can be done if we work in a bipar-tisan way for the good of the future ofthis great Nation that we live in.

I think we need to look at why this ishappening. It is equally important asthe fact that it is happening. When wecame here in 1995, we had a vision fora different America. We had just gonethrough the tax increases of 1993, andthe American people rejected those taxincreases. In 1995, we came here with anew mission. The mission was to cur-tail the growth of Washington spend-ing. Spending had been growing by 5.2percent a year before we got here. Ithas been curtailed to 3.2, a 40 percentlowering of the growth of Washingtonspending. That means Washingtonspends less, so they borrow less. Whenthey borrow less, there is more moneyin the private sector, so the interestrates stay down and this is where itgets out of Washington and back toAmerica. When the interest ratesstayed down, people could afford to buyhouses and cars, and when they boughthouses and cars, somebody had to buildthem. So that meant job opportunities.And all of a sudden, the opportunity towork hard and live the Americandream is back available to the Amer-ican people. It is the right way to goabout doing this.

What a great opportunity we havehere today. For our senior citizens,they can go to bed tonight resting as-sured that Medicare has been restoredfor them for at least a decade. Thatjobis done. For the people in the workforce, tomorrow we will pass the firsttax reduction in 16 years, 16 long years,and for the first time that tax burdenon American families, on Americanworkers, it is about to come down.What a great 2 days this is going to be.

Most important of all, for the chil-dren in America today, for our childrenand for our grandchildren, for the firsttime since 1969, the people in this Con-gress are going to do the right thingfor the future of this country. We areno longer going to continue the prac-tice of spending more money than wehave. We are going to fulfill the man-date of 1995 and balance the budget.For seniors, Medicare has been re-stored. For workers, taxes are comingdown, and for their children the futureis once again secure in this great Na-tion that we live in.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Withoutobjection, the gentleman from Con-necticut [Mr. SHAYS] controls the timeon the majority side.

There was no objection.Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.Mr. Speaker, this is the last station

on the track. The train leaving herewill take us to a balanced budget. ButI would never let the occasion to openup pass without recalling exactly whywe are here, what brings us to thispoint where we can say credibly thatwe are within reach of a balanced budg-et.


I have to take us back to 1993. GeorgeBush was about to leave office. Janu-ary 13. He filed his Economic Report ofthe President, and in it he predictedthat the deficit for that fiscal yearwould be $332 billion. That was the def-icit that President Clinton found onthe doorstep awaiting him when he ar-rived at the White House 1 week later.On February 17, he laid on the doorstepof the Congress a plan for dealing withthat deficit.

I would take exception with the gen-tleman from Wisconsin who said this isthe first time we will begin to stand upto this problem. We stood up to it in1993. We passed that deficit reductionbill by the skin of its teeth, and thedeficit went down in 1994 to $203 bil-lion, in 1995 to $164 billion, last Sep-tember 30 when we closed the books onfiscal year 1996, the deficit was $107.8billion. Five fiscal years in a row, be-cause of that legislation, the deficithas come down.

This year, according to today's pre-dictions, this year when the books areclosed on fiscal year 1997, the deficitshould be less than $50 billion; almostcertainly it will be. It will probably beless than $40 billion. We have comefrom a projected deficit of $332 billionin 1993 to an actual deficit in 1997 ofabout $40 billion. That is phenomenalprogress. It is the reason we are here,the reason we are about to claim vic-tory, because of the foundation thathas been laid since 1993. The deficit hasbeen brought down by 80 percent.

Nevertheless, when we started thissession of Congress with a divided gov-ernment, the House and the Senateheld by Republicans, the White Househeld by a Democrat, it was not clear atall that in a divided government wecould mount this effort to finish thejob, balance the budget and say we hadfinally achieved victory. We did it. Weare here today because the Presidentleaned into the problem, he called theRepublicans to negotiate, and they re-sponded earnestly, in good faith. Wesat down to talk, then to negotiate,and finally to hammer out the ele-ments of an agreement which tookmonths and months to accomplish.

That agreement, when it came to thefloor in the form of our budget resolu-tion, drew big support on this side ofthe aisle. One hundred thirty-threeDemocrats, if I recall correctly, votedfor it. That is a margin of nearly 2 to

But when the budget resolution wasput out to the committees of jurisdic-tion, it picked up all kinds of unwantedbaggage, controversial, contentiousthings from medical malpractice tomultiple employer welfare arrange-ments, things that we not only did notsupport, we had resisted and fought foryears. As a consequence, we lost trac-tion on this side. A number of Memberssimply said they would not vote for thebill with those things in it.

I stood here in the well of the Houseand said I am going to bet on the come.I am going to bet we can go back to

H6321conference and recapture that biparti-san agreement that built the agree-ment in the first place and bring bothparties back together behind an agree-ment, a genuine budget agreement thatdeserves the moniker, deserves to becalled a bipartisan budget agreement. Ican say to my colleagues on this side ofthe aisle today, I think we have suc-ceeded to an extent that I was not sureat all when I cast that vote we wouldsucceed.

There are more successes by far thansetbacks as a result of this conference.We call this a deficit reduction act butwe need to remind ourselves that whatwe have here is more than just a deficitreduction bill. What we have ham-mered out in this bill is a plan to bal-ance the budget over 5 years, yes, butit is really more than that. We havenot been so caught up, so fixated onbalancing the budget that we forgotthat the country has got other prob-lems, too. We are wiping out the deficitbut we are also doing more than hasbeen done in years to see that allAmericans have the opportunity to ob-tain higher education. We are takingdown the deficit but we are also takingsteps to see that children in workingfamilies have medical insurance. Wehope to reach at least 5 million of themas a result of this bill. We can all beproud of that.

We are lowering the cost of Medicareand Medicaid because Medicare is thebiggest spike in the budget, the fastestrise. Yet not only are we protectingbeneficiaries, we are actually makingthe program solvent so that they donot have to worry about its solvencyfor 10 years; but we are adding $4 bil-lion in preventive care benefits forthings like annual mammograms, andin time I think they will more thanpay for themselves.

There are still provisions in this con-ference agreement that I do not like. Iwish they were not there. They will behard to swallow. No doubt there aremany on my side who will find manyother things in this agreement towhich to object. But on the whole, Ithink what we have achieved here ac-complishes far more than we on ourside as Democrats could ever haveachieved without a bipartisan com-promise. I am satisfied with the out-come, and I plan to vote for the con-ference agreement today, and I encour-age my colleagues, particularly thoseon this side of the aisle, to do thesame.

0 1400

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I re-serve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3minutes to the gentleman from Califor-nia [Mr. THoMAs] the chairman of theCommittee on House Oversight, a sen-ior member of the Committee on Waysand Means and chairman of its Sub-committee on Health.

(Mr. THOMAS asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

H6322Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to

start off by complimenting everyone.We have a portion of the balanced

budget bill in front of us, and it isamazing what has occurred in a rel-atively short period of time in terms ofeveryone's reaction to making changesin the Medicare portion of the package.

One of my favorite old songs is a songby Dinah Washington: What a Dif-ference a Day Makes. What a differencea year makes, what a difference a will-ingness to sit down and fundamentallyaddress the problem makes as well.

I am very pleased to say that myranking member, friend, and colleaguefrom California [Mr. STARK], and hischief of staff Bill Vaughan have beenwith us on this journey from the begin-ning, through subcommittee, full com-mittee and during conference to makesure that although at times they maynot have been in agreement with whatwe were talking about doing, they wereat least informed. And I cannot helpthat the gentleman's President did notdo what he believes he should havedone during the conference.

I want to thank not only the gen-tleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH], thechairman of the Committee on theBudget, and the gentleman from Texas[Mr. ARCHER], the chairman of theCommittee on Ways and Means, butthe members of the subcommittee onHealth of the Ways and Means Commit-tee who worked long hours to makesure on a bipartisan basis they under-stood not only what needed to be done,but just as importantly what could bedone, and I think the package we havein front of us today, with the able helpof the staff headed by Chip Kahn, is themost fundamental reform in the his-tory of Medicare.

I know we have some friends on theother side of the Capitol who are dis-appointed that we did not go farther,but we have to appreciate how far wehave gone. Oftentimes we judge our-selves by our failures rather than oursuccesses.

Before we started this process we hada Medicare system which was a fee forservice when someone who was sick.When this measure is signed by thePresident, we will have a Medicarewhich is a preventive and wellnessstructured Medicare. It will providechoices for seniors that are available inthe general health area. It provides, aswas indicated, a preventive packagewhich will be expanded, when sciencetells us to expand it and not politics. Itprovides opportunities for choice over abroad spectrum so that people do nothave just one other option, they have anumber of options, and to help them inthose choices we have a handsome edu-cational package long overdue.

So I am here basically not to talkabout what is in the bill, but to thankall those people who worked with us toput together a Medicare package inwhich no one will be afraid to run on inthe next election. We will all embraceit and say this is a handsome first step,obviously we need to do more, we have


a commission built in to do more, butbefore that commission even triggerswe are going to sit down and continueto build a Medicare Program which isbased upon prevention and wellness.The seniors deserve nothing less.

Mr. MCDERMOTT'. Mr. Speaker, Iyield myself as much time as I mayconsume.

The gentleman from South Carolinahas said that the budget deficit hasbeen reducing, begun by the Democratsin 1993, and it would be balanced withina year or so without this whole exer-cise. So make no mistake, what we aredoing here is making cuts in this bill inentitlements in order to give taxbreaks tomorrow. Today, if today didnot happen, tomorrow would not andcould not happen.

Now as I see it, this issue of Medicareis the reason I will vote against the billbecause it is a sugar-coated poison pill,it will taste good going down, every-body will say, well, we are saving Medi-care, but there is no question in mymind that the social insurance prin-ciples on which Medicare was createdare being eroded in this bill. Ratherthan strenigthen the program, whicheveryone says they are doing heretoday, the bill creates a multitieredMedicare Program, one for the superrich, one for the rich, and one for therest of the folks.

Now in Germany when they did thatin their health care program, if some-one wants to opt out of the system, asthis bill will now allow seniors to do,they can never come back. But our wis-dom in this body did not say we willnot let people back. We will let themgo out, take advantage of the system,game it in every way possible, and thenwhen the problem comes they can jumpback into our system. It creates incen-tives for for-profit health care plans tosiphon off America's healthy andwealthy seniors and leave the rest ofthe problem for the Federal Govern-ment. In my view, that is in the longterm not good for the country.

Now also in the area of health care isthe reduction in the DISH payments.For those listening who do not under-stand, DISH means disproportionateshare. It is those hospitals that takecare of a disproportionate share of peo-ple who do not have health care insur-ance. We have 44 million Americans.Nbt one single one of them is better offbecause of this bill, because they arenot getting insurance in it. We are tak-ing away the money that the hospitalsuse to cover those people when theyshow up at the emergency room in acrisis. And my view is that the cityhospitals and the rural hospitals of thiscountry within 2 years will all be in se-rious problems because of the reduc-tions we have made in the dispropor-tionate share payments.

For that reason I think we should notbe passing this bill, we do not need tomake tax breaks tomorrow, the Amer-ican public is not clamoring for taxbreaks, especially tax breaks where 50percent of them go to people making

July30, 1997$109,000 or more, and yet we rush for-ward here today to make these cuts inMedicare and the service that we pro-vide through the disproportionateshare payments.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1½minutes to the gentlewoman fromTexas [Ms. GRANGER], the formermayor of Fort Worth and a member ofthe Committee on the Budget.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I ampleased to rise in strong support of thishistoric bipartisan agreement to bal-ance the budget.

This proposal we consider today ismore than a blueprint to balancing thebudget. It is a blueprint to building thefuture. This budget is not about num-bers or theories. It is about people, realpeople with real dreams for themselvesand for their children, for their par-ents. We owe them, we owe our con-stituents a budget that balances justlike they have to balance themselves.We owe our children a nation that isdebt free, and this balanced budgetcuts off the flow of red ink for the firsttime since 1969; that will be 30 yearsago.

We owe our working young parentsaccess to the American dream of morejobs and home ownership. This bal-anced budget will create more than 4million new jobs and reduce the cost ofa typical new home by more than$30,000. We owe our parents and ourgrandparents a Medicare system thattakes care of them if they become ill,and this balanced budget will protectMedicare and let us keep our commit-ment to our seniors. And finally, weowe the American people somethingmore important and much more pro-found. We owe them our word.

The balanced budget agreement ends28 years of promised balanced budgetsand broken promises. Twenty-sevenyears, 5 Presidents and 14 Congresseshave not balanced our budget. If wepass this budget today, the 105th Con-gress will be different. Today we cansay to the American people, promisesmade, promises kept.

I urge my colleagues to support thishistoric agreement to balance thebudget for our children, our workingparents and our seniors. We now have ablueprint, so let the building begin.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Mary-land [Mr. CARDIN].

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first Iwant to concur in the comments thatthe gentleman from South Carolina[Mr. SPRATF] made a little earlier, andthat is we need to look first to 1993, tothe Deficit Reduction Act that waspassed under the leadership of Presi-dent Clinton and the Democrats inCongress, for why we are able to reachthis point today. I am very pleasedthat the final chapter we are doing ina bipartisan manner, the passage ofthese two bills.

There are many reasons to support it.We are at last going to have a balancedbudget, and we are going to protect thepriorities that are important for thefuture growth of this Nation.

July30, 1997Let me just mention some of the spe-

cifics that are in this bill for why theMembers should support it:

First, the Medicare, we are providingfor 10-year solvency, additional sol-vency of the Medicare system, improv-ing benefits to our seniors in preven-tive health care and access to emer-gency care. Our academic centers willbe getting some badly needed relief tomake sure that we have excellence inhealth care in this country. Twenty-four billion dollars to expand healthcare for our children.

This bill acknowledges the specialneeds of Amtrak and capital involve-ment, and the welfare bill from lastyear has changed to provide more re-sources for welfare to work and to re-move some of the punitive aspectsagainst legal immigrants.

It is a good bill. I urge my colleaguesto support it.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1½minutes to the gentlewoman fromWashington [Ms. DUNN], an electedmember of the Republican leadershipand a member of the Committee onWays and Means.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, today wetake a historic step in reducing the sizeof Federal Government and providingfor a balanced budget in 5 years. We arebuilding a path to the future that re-stores both hope and opportunity forall Americans. Today and for the fu-ture we are dramatically changing thefiscal direction of our country from apath of out of control growth of Gov-ernment to a path of sustained expan-sion of the economy and job creation.

Achieving a balanced budget will pro-vide lower interest rates, higher pro-ductivity, improved purchasing powerfor all Americans, more exports and ac-celerated long term-growth. It willalso, we believe, revive the possibilityonce again for the American dream.Americans can once again look towardtheir children having the chance to dobetter than they.

Our balanced budget is about morethan just accounting and tidy book-keeping. Budget deficits sap private in-vestment, they drive up interest ratesand they provide that the service onthe national debt is a cost to the aver-age taxpayer of $800 in 1 year in taxes.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, Iyield myself such time as I mayconsume.

Mr. Speaker, with this bill we canembark on a new and responsiblecourse by balancing our Nation's budg-et by restoring hope, confidence andopportunity. This balanced budgetagreement is the first in a generation.It represents GOP ideals, and it showsthat a Republican majority at the helmin Congress can and will deliver on itspromises.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to thegentleman from Texas [Mr. BENTSEN].

(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I believethis is a good blueprint to get us into


balance by 2002. We have to rememberof course this is a blueprint, there areno guarantees, but we certainly allhope that that is the case if it does be-come law. It is also far better thanwhat we saw in the 104th Congress.

Just for instance, if we look at Medi-care and Medicaid, we are looking atreductions of $130 billion versus $450billion that we saw in 1995 and 1996 thatled to Government shutdowns. So wehave come a long way; the largest in-crease in education since the Eisen-hower administration and starting toaddress children's health care.

Now, let me address just a couple ofissues very quickly in specifics. Withrespect to disproportionate share forMedicaid, I want to thank the gen-tleman from South Carolina [Mr.SPRArr] the chairman, the gentlemanfrom Ohio [Mr. KASICH], my colleaguefrom Texas [Mr. ARCHER], and the ad-ministration for fixing that program,ensuring that States like mine ofTexas and 12 other so-called high DISHStates are treated more fairly underthis bill than they were when the billleft the House of the other body.

In addition, as the other gentlemanfrom Maryland just spoke, we are fi-nally addressing the needs of the aca-demic medical centers, such as those inmy district, by carving out and requir-ing the managed care companies to payinto medical education through medi-cal education. This is a good com-promise. I hope my colleagues will sup-port it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legisla-tion to balance the Federal budget for the firsttime since 1969. What a difference 2 yearsmakes. In 1995 and 1996, Congress was instalemate over budgets that would gut Medi-care, education, and environmental protection.Now after the American people rejected thatapproach, we have before us a bipartisancompromise that not only balances the budg-et, but improves and strengthens Medicareand makes necessary investments in thehealth and education of our children. This isthe commonsense approach we should havebeen taking aft along.

I especially want to thank the conferees andthe administration for addressing one issue ofspecial significance to my State of Texas, andthat issue is fairness in the way cuts are madeto the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hos-pital [DSH] program. When I voted for this leg-islation on June 25, I did so with the commit-ment of Budget Committee Chairman KASICH,Budget Ranking Member SPRATr, and the ad-ministration that they would address this issuein conference. They have made good on theirword, and I want to thank Mr. KASICH, Mr.SPRATr, the administration, Ways and MeansChairman ARCHER, my cofleagues in theTexas Delegation, and the many others whohave worked to retum some equity to the wayMedicaid cuts are carried Out.

Under this agreement, no State will have itstotal Medicaid funding cut by more than 3.5percent in any 1 year. I want to emphasizethat no State will lose more money than itwould have lost under the original House bill.This agreement is much more fair to Texasand the other 12 so-called high-DSH Statesthat would have had their Medicaid dispropor-

H6323tionate share funding cut by twice as much asother States, while some States had no cutsat aN. High-DSH States would have had theirMedicaid DSH funding cut by 40 percent inthe year 2002, and Texas would have lost$920 million under the House bill and $1.15billion in the even worse Senate bifl.

While not perfect, this agreement is muchmore equitable. It restores Medicaid funds thatTexas hospitals desperately need to providebasic health care to the poorest patients. Thisfunding is especially critical to our public andchildren's hospitals, which have high Medicaidand indigent caseloads.

I also want to call attention to two provisionsin the Medicare reform section of this legisla-tion that I and other Members have advocatedand that would greatly benefit our Nation'shealth care system. These provisions, whichare similar to legislation I have introduced, willhelp ensure that senior citizens have realchoice under Medicare and our Nation contin-ues to invest properly in medica' education atteaching hospitals.

The first provision would give senior citizenswho choose a managed care plan the right tobuy supplemental insurance, or Medigap, topay for prescriptions, copayments, and otheruncovered services if they retum to traditionalfee-for-service Medicare. Many seniors nowfear that if they choose managed care theymay be locked in forever. That is because, ifthey choose later to return to traditional Medi-care, they may not be able to purchaseMedigap. Current law requires insurers to sellMedigap policies to seniors only when theyfirst enroll in Medicare. The agreement re-quires insurers to also sell Medigap to seniorswho, within the first year of enrolling in Medi-care managed care, decide to switch back totraditional Medicare, ensuring real choice inhealth care for seniors.

This agreement will also ensure that Medi-care managed care plans help fund medicaleducation in the same way as fee-for-serviceMedicare. Under current law, the MedicareProgram provides extra payments to teachinghospitals based on the number of fee-for-serv-ice Medicare patients served at these hos-pitals. However, Medicare managed careplans are not required to make such a con-tribution, causing a funding shortfall as moresenior citizens join managed care plans. Thisagreement includes a provision to carve Outgraduate medical education [OME] amountsfrom the Average Adjusted Per Capita Cost[AAPCC] payment to Medicare managed careplans and direct this funding, approximately $5billion over the next 5 years, to teaching hos-pitals. This plan does not increase Federalspending; rather, It recaptures funds from thecurrent Medicare managed care reimburse-ment formula so that all Medicare plans helppay for the cost of graduate medical edu-cation.

This agreement is an important step towardensuring that our Nation continues to supportits teaching hospitals in this era of managedhealth care. It wilt ensure stable, guaranteedfunding to train future doctors and other healthcare professionals and conduct vital clinical re-search. This is an essential step toward ensur-ing that the United States continues to havethe best health care system in the world.

Altogether, the Medicare provisions of thislegislation will extend the solvency of the Med-icare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for 10years, whi'e providing more health care

H6324choices, consumer protections, and preventivebenefits for our Nation's senior citizens. Thisagreement includes $4 billion to provide apackage of preventive benefits for Medicarebeneficiaries, including new or expanded cov-erage for mammography, pap smears, screen-ing for prostate and colorectal cancer, diabe-tes self-management, and the diagnosis ofosteoporosis. It increases the health insuranceoptions available to Medicare beneficiaries be-yond the traditional fee-for-service program toinclude the various managed care optionsgenerally available from private plans. And itincludes important consumer protections forMedicare beneficiaries, including the Medigapprotection I have already discussed. Otherprotections include provisions banning gagrules that restrict what Medicare managedcare doctors can tell their patients; requiringmanaged care plans to have a grievance andappeal process to protect patient rights; andestabilshing a "prudent layperson" definition ofan emergency to ensure patients are coveredby Medicare when they seek care from emer-gency rooms.

Mr. Speaker, I also strongly support the im-portant investments included in this agree-ment, especially in the areas of children'shealth and education.

This agreement makes a $24 billion invest-ment in children's health, which will help endthe nationa' shame that 10 million childrenlack health insurance and access to basichealth services such as immunizations andregular checkups. My State of Texas leads theNation in the number of uninsured children—2.6 million Texas children lacked health insur-ance for at least a month over the past 2years. This agreement will go a long way to-ward helping these children and their families.It will help more children get cost-effective pre-ventive health care rather than more expen-sive care when they get sick.

I also applaud this agreement's investmentin education, which is absolutely the right pn-ority in our global, information-age economy.We must expand access to college becausemore and better education is needed to getahead and earn a good wage in this economy.Together with the tuition tax credits in the taxreconciliation bill, this legislation makes thelargest investment in higher education sincethe G.l. Bill n 1945. It includes the largest Pellgrant increase in two decades; boosting themaximum Pelt grant from $2,700 to $3,000and expanding the program to more poorindependent students.

This legislation is a bipartisan compromisethat, like all compromises, requires each of usto accept provisions we may not support. Buton balance, it is a good bill, a fair and fiscallyresponsible bill that makes necessary invest-ments in our future. I urge my colleagues tosupport the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1½minutes to the gentleman from Okla-homa [Mr. WArrs].

Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speak-er, I am delighted to stand today insupport of H.R. 2015, the BalancedBudget Act of 1997, because my wifeand I have five wonderful, healthy, vi-brant children, and this bill is all aboutthem and all about their future.

D 1415After almost three decades of deficit

spending, finally we see an end to this


generation spending the resources thatbelong to future generations, to ourchildreii and to our grandchildren. Fi-nally, we have taken the first step to-ward reducing our Nation's terribledebt.

Am I 100 percent in agreement withevery provision in this bill? Of coursenot. No, not one Member of this body,Democrat or Republican, is in 100 per-cent agreement with every provision ofthis bill. But I am in 100 percent agree-ment with the fact that we have scoreda major victory for our kids and for ourgrandkids.

We have gone from increasing taxesin 1993 $265 billion to reducing taxes byover $90 billion in this legislation. Wehave scored a major victory for thenext generation of Americans. We havetaken the first step toward passing onto them an America that is not crip-pled by debt or deficits, but liberatedby a responsible government that liveswithin its means.

Vote today for America's kids. Votetoday for America's future. Vote• yes.' I encourage a yes vote, in favorof the Balanced Budget Act.

Mr. SPRA.TT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Virginia[Mr. MORAN].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Presi-dent, nice going; White House staff,nice going: the gentleman from SouthCarolina [Mr. SPRATT], well done; thegentleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH], wehave a good balanced budget agree-ment here.

The most important thing is that itis balanced not Just in terms of dollarsand cents, but in terms of priorities: A$900 billion reduction in deficit spend-ing over the next 10 years, but thehighest increase in higher educationsince the GE bill of 1945, the largest in-crease in children's health protectionsince Medii:aid in 1965, more than 30years ago.

We have got a $500-per-child tax cred-it for 27 million families. We have gotentitlement reform. We have got a lotof the brownfields and empowermentzones tax initiatives, $3 billion for wel-fare to work initiatives. The fact isthat speaking as a Democrat, theWhite House got what it wanted, whichis our priorities—better education andhealth care for our children, tax fair-ness for middle class families, and anend to the legacy of debt we have beendeferring to our children.

This bill deserves to be supported. Itis a fiscally responsible bill, it is a billthat emphasizes our priorities. It is abill that on both sides of the aisle weshould vote for.

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 3 minutes to the gentleman fromCalifornia [Mr. STARK].

(Mr. STARK asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am hav-ing a little trouble. I guess I am theonly person here who does not haveboth arms broken from patting myselfon the back. I am having a little trou-ble understancing this bill.

July 30, 1997Before I explain it, I want to take

this opportunity to thank the chair-man of the Subcommittee on Health ofthe Committee on Ways and Means, thegentleman from California [Mr. BILLTHOMAS] for his open and fair mannerin handling the Medicare portion ofthis bill, which, as the House originallywrote it, was quite good: but the Sen-ate gooped it up and the White Housecaved to the Senate, so we do not havea very good Medicare bill.

But the fact is we have a lousy bill.We would have been better if we hadstayed home. Look, the budget is goingto balance next year without a bill. Inthis bill, it takes 5 years to balance.After it balances, we get deficits again.If we had no budget bill, we would bal-ance and get surpluses. So I say to theMembers, great job. They just stretchout the time and then give us moredeficits.

Medicare, it is going to go to 2007.Hot dog. If we did not have a tax bill,we would have the money to take Med-icare to 2022. So these geniuses havejust cut 15 years off the salvation ofMedicare. Good job again.

What about children's insurance?Super job. They are going to spend$2,500 bucks a kid to insure 2 millionmore kids, and if Members had let italone and used that same money to putthem into Medicaid, they would havehad 5 million kids insured, so I thankthe geniuses for the 3 million kids whoare going to walk around without anyhealth insurance due to this budget.

Here is the perfect example of gov-ernment run amok. They have fixed ev-erything. The Senate bill adds the Kylamendment and others, which will, forthe first time, allow doctors to chargeMedicare beneficiaries an unlimitedamount of money and basically kickthem out of Medicare.

My heavens, how awful, to suddenlyfind that we are going to have Medi-care live up to the Speaker's intentionof withering on the vine because it isgoing to be a two-class system. Medi-care beneficiaries will be able to becharged unlimited amounts for therich. This is the country club healthcare relief act to end them all. Medi-care costs are going to go up $1.5 bil-lion to try out a medical savings ac-count, which will only, again, help thewealthy and the healthy.

So as we go along, we have the right-to-life group who wanted to have thisMedicare amendment that Senator KYLput in there, and it is useless. We weregoing to cut $100 million out of poorinner-city hospitals; save it, as we liketo say. Where are we now? We aregoing to save $600 million out of inner-city hospitals, $500 million bucks moreout of the poorest hospitals in everyone of the Members' districts, thosehospitals that help the needy and theindigent.

Mr. Speaker, this is a lousy bill. Vote"no." Go home and know you are goingto be better off for not having a bill.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1½minutes to the gentlewoman from Ken-tucky [Mrs. NORTHUP], a new Member

July30, 1997to Congress and a very importantmember to the Committee on Appro-priations.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, it is aprivilege to be here today. Before Icomment on this balanced budget, Iwant to thank all of the people whohave come before me that have keptthe hope alive and the belief alive thatit was possible to balance the budget,to cut taxes, to save Medicare, and tomeet the emerging needs of our com-munities.

They were often ridiculed. They satthrough years of where we raised taxes,where we spent more money, and theykept the hope alive for Americans thatIt was possible to change that course.They inspired me, and they inspiredmy community that this was a possi-bility. So for them, I thank them forthe leadership and the lonely days theyspent in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this bill says I love youto our children. For me, it is my sixchildren: David, Katie, Joshua, Kevin,Erin, and Mark. For all the other par-ents who have children that believethat we should restrain our spendingand pass on better opportunities to ourchildren, that is what we are doingtoday when we vote for this bill.

It is a pleasure to be here. It is anhonor to be a part of this. I think morethan the numbers, more than what Itdoes to interest rates, more than whatit does to stop the bleed of red ink, italso helps to reestablish the faith andthe trust that the American peoplehave that this system of Governmentcan address its needs, can come to anagreement, and can reflect what theyhave believed in so long. That is thatwe should balance our budget.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Michi-gan [Mr. LEVIN].

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the basicprinciple of the Democratic Party hasbeen economic growth with equity. The1993 Deficit Reduction Act was instru-mental in promoting economic growth.Despite the overall growth, there werepressures on middle-income families,so this bill includes a child credit andalso an educational tax credit and de-duction. I support both bills.

Let me say a word about the piecethat I worked most on, the human re-source piece. I supported the WelfareReform Act. People on welfare shouldmove from welfare to work. But whenthe President signed the bill he pointedout several inequities. One related tolegal immigrants. He promised to workto provide benefits to elderly and dis-abled legal immigrants who should nothave been penalized in the first place. Ijoined in that promise. Today we arekeeping that promise. It is a much bet-ter bill in that respect than when itleft the House.

The President also promised to workfor a welfare to work provision. Wehave kept that promise. There was an


effort, though, in this House to penal-ize people who move from welfare towork, to treat them as second-classcitizens, to withdraw them from theprotections of Federal law in terms ofwages, in terms of safety on the job.

We have today, in this bill, repelledthat effort. People who work are to betreated as first-class citizens, withoutdiscrimination. We have also repelledthe effort to withdraw from mostly el-derly women the protections of mainte-nance of effort under SSI in terms ofpayments from the State. This is a billthat is a step in the right direction. Iurge broad support for it.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30seconds to the gentleman from Wash-ington [Mr. NEThERCUTF]), a new mem-ber of the Committee on Appropria-tions and the Committee on Science.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gen-tleman for yielding time to me, Mr.Speaker.

One of the many good reasons to votefor this bill, this legislation, is its im-pact on diabetes. This particular billhas a component, a prevention compo-nent relative to diabetes that will im-prove the health of all Americans withdiabetes. There is also a special sectionentitled Special diabetes programs forchildren with Type 1 diabetes." Thereis a funding for special diabetes pro-gram for Indians.

Diabetes is a very serious disease.The gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms.Furse) and I are chairmen of the Diabe-tes Caucus. We have had great supportin this body for the cause of diabetesand curing it. I am delighted to be in-volved in supporting this bill alongwith my colleague, the gentlewomanfrom Oregon.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, in orderto complete the colloquy, I yield 30 sec-onds to the gentlewoman from Oregon[Ms. FuRsE])

Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, like my co-chair, the gentleman from Washington[Mr. NEThERCUTF], I want to see thatthis budget contains good news for 16million Americans, 16 million Ameri-cans who suffer from diabetes, includ-ing my own beloved daughter, Amanda.Thanks to my good friends, the gen-tleman from Florida, [Mr. BILIRAKIS],Mr. BROwN, and the 87 members of theDiabetes Caucus, we have put togethera strong, bipartisan effort that willtruly make a difference to the lives ofpeople with diabetes.

I want to thank the gentleman fromFlorida [Mr. BILIRAKIS], who is thechairman of our committee, and all thediabetes organizations who worked sohard on this.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Florida[Mr. BILIRAKIS], a senior Member ofCongress and the chairman of the Sub-committee on Health and Environmentof the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman for yielding timeto me.

Mr. Speaker, it has been an honor forme to work with the gentleman, mem-

H6325bers of the budget conference and Com-mittee on Commerce and Committeeon Ways and Means members on his-toric legislation which will balance ourNation's budget for the first time, thefirst time since Neil Armstrong walkedon the Moon, and at the same time re-duce taxes, save Medicare and Medic-aid, provide education and other familyincentives and opportunities, and guar-antees $24 billion to provide betterhealth care for children.

In recent years many have said thatwe could not balance the budget andalso reduce taxes. We have done thatand more.

Regarding Medicare, we have savedthe program for the next 10 years with-out hurting beneficiaries in any way.In fact, this legislation contains manyworthwhile changes which greatly ben-efit the elderly. Our legislation givesseniors a choice of coverage throughthe new Medicare Plus Program, pro-vides consumer protections, addressesfraud and abuse, and adds additionalpreventive health benefits. It also cre-ates a commission to make rec-ommendations on how Medicare couldbe preserved for future generations.

Regarding Medicaid, this legislationallows States to provide better andmore cost-effective medical coveragefor low-income people by giving Statesmore flexibility. Under the children'sgrants, States will receive funds to ini-tiate and expand health coverage andservices to uninsured low-income chil-dren.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, must bejudged on its merits, must be judged onits benefits to our constituents today,and to their future, and to the Nationand its future.

This legislation would not have beenpossible, Mr. Speaker, without thegreat work of staffers Howard Cohen,Eric Berger, Patti DeLoache, Ed Gross-man, and others, many others, that putin many hours over the past severalmonths, and I want them to know howmuch I and all Americans appreciatetheir efforts.

D 1430Mr. McDERMOTr. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 1 minute to the gentleman fromChicago, IL [Mr. GUTLERREZ].

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, weare hearing the word 'balance" a lottoday. We applaud ourselves as we bal-ance the budget. It is an important ac-complishment, a difficult accomplish-ment to balance our budget. But I amafraid our Nation is losing its balancein a lot of other areas, like keeping ourpromises to our veterans who are fac-ing cuts in this budget, like protectingour seniors who face an uncertain fu-ture because of this budget, like ac-knowledging the contribution of immi-grants who are still targets for blameand discrimination in this budget, andlike the simple idea of tax fairness thatthe wealthiest in our Nation shouldcontribute a little more to our Treas-ury.

Our budget might be balanced, atleast until the tax cuts explode again

H6326in the future. But we are creating a lotof new deficits. Deficits of keeping ourpromises. Deficits of fairness. Deficitsof equity. Deficits of caring. These arethe deficits I cannot support today, andthat is why I will cast my vote againstthis budget.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentlewoman from NorthCarolina [Mrs. CLAYTON].

(Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend her re-marks.)

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I in-tend to vote for this bill, not because itis a perfect bill. Not because I agreewith all that is in it. There is muchthat I do not agree with, but there ismuch more I do agree with. I think bal-ancing our budget is important for ourcountry. Some of the things I do agreeis that we have made more provisionsfor education. We have made scholar-ships for those families who are goingto college. We have made provisions togive tax relief for families with chil-dren. Also importantly, we have madeprovisions not to take away the work-ing rights for mothers and those whoare on welfare to make sure that theyhave the same opportunities as othersin there.

Yes, there are things in this bill youwish were not in there. But there isalso tax relief for farmers and smallbusinesses which they critically needin my area and also tax relief for edu-cation. On balance it may not be per-fect, but I think it is good for America.I intend to vote for it and I urge mycolleagues to do the same.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Texas[Mr. ARCHER], chairman of the Com-mittee on Ways and Means and thechief architect of this historic budgetagreement between the White Houseand Congress.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thetime.

The conference agreement that wevote on today is a bridge, a bridge thatreaches across to unite generationstoday and tomorrow. It saves Medicarefor this generation of seniors, and itbalances the budget so that we cansave the next generation from thecrushing burden of debt. It says thatWashington has to change its ways sothe American people will not have tochange theirs. It tells the Americanpeople that Congress does not live byspecial rules. We will no longer spendmore than we take in. The Americanpeople understand this.

They know they have to balancetheir family budgets each month. Andso should we. Last year my 12th grand-child was born. When I went to visithim as a little premature baby, and Iam happy to say he survived and he ishome with his parents and doing well,I could not help but think that his prorata share of the interest on the na-tional debt during his lifetime wouldbe $189,000, if he was an average incomeearner. That is unconscionable for our


generation to leave to the coming gen-erations, Today we do something aboutit. I say to Archer Hadley, my littlegrandson, this is for you.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Florida[Mr. DAVIS].

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Iwould like to highlight two portions ofthis conference report that lead me tosupport it today. The first is getting usto a balanced budget. The amount ofinterest that we are paying annuallyright now on the Federal deficit morethan exceeds the total amount of in-come tax payments paid by every indi-vidual west of the Mississippi.

We need to get the budget balancedand then attack the deficit. This spend-ing plan is accompanied by tax cutsthat are paid for while we will still bal-ance the budget. The White House suc-ceeded in keeping those tax cuts af-fordable. That is terribly important.

Second, this budget agreement con-stitutes a massive reallocation of ourresources into education. To encouragemore 'of our high school seniors, morecommunity college students, more uni-versity students to be the best they canbe in school and to succeed in obtain-ing well-payingjobs for themselves andtheir families. Most importantly it willsend another strong message to adultsthroughout our country to engage in alifetime of learning, to go back toschool supported by their employers orsupporting themselves, to further theirjobs skills, to broaden their job skills,to sharpen their job skills to preparefor the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.2015, the Balanced Budget Act, which will bal-ance the budget within 5 years while at thesame time protecting our Nation's commitmentto our seniois, investing in health care cov-erage for children, expanding educational op-portunities for students, and restoring fairnessfor thousands of legal immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the BudgetCommittee I want to first commend my rankingmember, the gent'eman from South Carolina[Mr. SPRATr] for his hard work and dedicationthroughout these long negotiations. Withouthis leadership and his commitment to workingwith both the administration and the Repub-lican negotiators, this agreement would nothave been possible. Our Nation owes a debtof gratitude for all that he has done over thepast 6 months.

H.R. 2015, the spending portion of the rec-onciliation package, is truly a historic bill—his-toric not only for what it does, but also forwhat it represents. This bill demonstrates acommitment by both parties to the principlethat we should not be spending beyond ourmeans; that we must not saddle our childrenand grandchildren with debt; and that weshould balance the budget while protecting ourNation's spendng priorities. Furthermore, thisbill is an example of what bipartisan coopera-tion can accomplish. If we set aside the rhet-oric and work together toward a common goal,we can find areas of agreement and com-promises on those areas of disagreement. Theresult is truly a win for the American peop'e.I hope the spirit of cooperation, embodied inthis Balanced Budget Act, will continue when

July 30, 1997we return from our August recess and as wesit down to tackle other critical issues such ascampaign finance reform.

Specifically, H.R. 2015 includes much need-ed entitlement reforms which would balancethe budget in the near term and lay thegroundwork for long-term reforms as the baby-boomers approach retirement.

The malority of the savings in this packageare designed to preserve and strengthen theMedicare Program by extending the solvencyof the trust fund for at least 10 years. The billwill expand choices for Medicare beneficiariesand protect low-income beneficiaries from pre-mium increases. The Balanced Budget Actalso invests $4 billion in preventive benefits tofight breast cancer, diabetes, and colon can-cer through annual tests and screenings.

Additionally, the bill implements tough newantifraud provisions, many of which are iden-tical to those I introduced earlier this year inthe Medicare Anti-Fraud Act, H.R. 1761. Withrecent revelations over the amount of fraudand abuse in the current system, I believethese initiatives, such as requiring certain pro-viders to post a surety bond, are essential torestoring the integrity of the program.

Furthermore, with respect to Medicare, thisblU will establish a bipartisan commission tomake recommendations on a comprehensiveapproach to preserve Medicare as the baby-boomers approach retirement. Clearly, wemust take steps to address the pending demo-graphic changes in the program and I hopeCongress will approach the recommendationsof the commission, due in March 1999, withthe same bipartisan cooperation that has pre-vailed throughout these budget negotiations.

In addition to protecting Medicare for ourNation's seniors, this agreement will expandhealth coverage to as many as 5 million of ourNation's uninsured children. This unprece-dented investment in children's health care,the largest expansion of coverage since theenactment of Medicaid in 1965, will giveStates flexibility in determining how best to ac-complish this important goal while guarantee-ing that these moneys will be spent solely forthis purpose.

On many issues, this conference agreementrepresents a great improvement over theHouse-passed version, which I supported butwith numerous reservations. For example, I

believe this final agreement offers adequateprotections to workfare participants, guaran-teeing that they will be treated fairly as work-ers. This conference agreement also restoresprotections for both disability and health bene-fits to 350,000 legal immigrants who would bedenied these benefits as result of the welfarereform law of last year. All of these provisionsensure that as we move forward with our planto balance the budget we are guaranteeing anelement of basic fairness for all Americans.

Finally, amid all of the celebrations overwhat this bill will do, I would raise one wordof caution. Just last week, this House rejectedan attempt to include tough budget enforce-ment provisions which I supported that wou'densure that we meet our deficit targets andreach the goal of balancing the budget by theyear 2002. If we are not willing to enact suchenforcement provisions, then we must be evenmore diligent in future years to ensure that theprojections in this bill translate into reality.Only when the budget is certifiably balancedwill we truly be able to celebrate.

Mr. Speaker, I again commend my col-leagues on both sides of the aisle for their

July30, 1997hard work throughout this process and urge allof my colleagues to support this histonc legis-lation.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1½minutes to the gentleman from Ohio[Mr. PORTMAN], a member of the Com-mittee on Ways and Means.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thinkwe need to step back a moment andthink about what a victory this is forthe American people. For the first timein more than a generation we are actu-ally going to balance the budget. Weare going to stop spending more thanwe take in every year, an immoralpractice that leaves the bill for thenext generation.

There has been a lot of discussionabout how we got here. I think it reallyis a tribute to the persistence, to theenergy of a lot of Members. One is thegentleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICI-!]. Hebrought his first balanced budget billto the floor in 1989, before I got here.He got about 30 votes. The next year hegot about 64 votes. The next year hegot about 80 votes, then about 100 votesand so on. Today, this afternoon onthis floor, I think we will have a bipar-tisan majority of about 250 votes.

I want to commend him and com-mend all the Members who haveworked long and hard to get us towhere we are today. It is not legisla-tion that every Member here supports,and all of us would like to see it a littledifferent. But it is a significant stepbecause we are, in fact, doing what wehave Just talked about for the past cou-ple of decades and that is actually bal-ancing the budget for the next genera-tion. I want to pay tribute to them andto this House this afternoon.

Mr. SPRAIT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Indiana[Mr. ROEMER].

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, JusticeBrandeis once said that the best dis-infectant was sunshine. I guess my lit-mus test is how does this several-hun-dred-page bill treat children. Is it fairto children? As I go through the billand read through how it treats chil-dren, I come out with a resounding yes,it shines on children.

We have moved from a $15 billionchildren's health initiative to now, fi-nally, a $24 billion health initiative for5 million children that were not pre-viously covered. We have educationspending at the highest level in 30years since the Great Society. We nowhave disability SSI payments for chil-dren that were not eligible before, themost vulnerable children in our soci-ety. And we have the largest increasein the history of the Pell grant pro-gram to get parents who cannot affordto send their children to college intocollege and come out without a hugedebt.

This is positive for small children,positive for small businesses and smallfarmers and positive for smaller,smarter government.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 4 minutes to the gentleman fromWisconsin [Mr. OBEY].


Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I wanted tovote for this bill, as I indicated earlier.There is much in it that I would like tosupport. I was one of the original spon-sors of the child tax credit, for in-stance, with Vice President Gore some5 years ago. I certainly supported theeducation tax credits. I support whatwe are trying to do for health care forkids. But there are a number of fun-damental tests which this bill fails.

The most important test to me iswhether or not it provides most of thetax relief to middle-income families.The fact is it does not. As this chartwill show, the wealthiest 5 percent ofpeople in this country, those who makeover $112,000 a year, will get six timesas much tax relief as the 60 percent ofall Americans who make less than$36000 a year. I do not describe that asbeing fair.

In fact, the wealthiest 1 percent, whomake more than $250000 a year, willget more in tax relief than the 80 per-cent of American people who make lessthan $60000. That is simply not fair.

Secondly, if we take a look at whathappens with the wealthiest 1 percent,the wealthiest 1 percent will get $16000on average for a tax cut. The poorest 20percent who make on average $8,000will actually have a tax increase of $39.That does not shrink the gap betweenthe wealthy and the poor in this coun-try. It makes it worse. I do not thinkthis Congress should do that. I think itcan do better.

Third, I do not think that we oughtto fail the test of wheth or not thispackage provides the needed invest-ments that we need to make the econ-omy grow over the next 10 or 15 years.The fact is, when Members of thisHouse say that this is going to balancethe budget, that promise is built uponthe promise that we are going to cutSocial Security Administration bysome 25 percent. Does anybody reallybelieve that we are going to extend thewaiting time for getting the Social Se-curity check from 3 months to a year?Is this Congress really going to dothat?

This chart will demonstrate that it isbuilt on the promise that we are goingto cut health appropriations by 16 per-cent over the next 5 years. The billwhich is scheduled to come to the floornext will raise the spending for the Na-tional Institutes of Health by 6 per-cent. Yet this Congress is going to pre-tend that we are going to cut thatspending by 16 percent over the next 5years. I do not think this Congress willand I do not think the American peoplewould want us to.

Are we really going to cut veterans?Are we really going to cut veteranshealth care by 20 percent over the next5 years? Just last week this Housevoted to restore money to the veteranshealth care budget. Are we really goingto tell people we are going to balancethe budget by cutting veterans healthcare 20 percent? Come on. We ought toknow better than that. Are we reallygoing to see a Congress cut agriculture

H6327programs by another 23 percent? Agri-culture programs have already beencut more than any other part of thebudget. I would like to see the Mem-bers from rural districts who vote forthis budget today, who are going tovote to cut agriculture budgets by 23percent over the next 5 years. It simplyis not going to happen.

Last week on the House floor thisHouse refused to cut the science budgetby 3 percent, and yet it is promising inthe budget before us today that we aregoing to cut science by 18 percent overthe next 5 years. Who is kidding whom?Do Members really believe these areanything but false promises? I do not.I have seen this Congress since 1982break its promises on deficit reduction.I do not want to see them break more.That is what we will be doing if wevote for this bill. I urge Members tovoted no."

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1/4minutes to the gentleman from Ohio[Mr. HOBSON], a member of the Com-mittee on the Budget and Committeeon Appropriations and also a majorparticipant in this historic agreementbetween the White House and Congress.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, today theHouse takes another step toward mak-ing budget history. As we consider theconference report on the BalancedBudget Act, we are closing in on themost significant legislative accom-plishment this body has enacted in ageneration and its benefits are going tobe felt for many generations to come.

The Balanced Budget Act is an ex-pression of the responsibility of thisCongress feels to the American people,not only to those who are living todaybut to those Americans who will in-herit our country tomorrow such as mygrandchildren. This budget slows allthe growth of Federal Governmentspending to just 3 percent for the next5 years. That is a savings of $289 bil-lion. In doing this, we are controllingthe runaway growth that threatens toput our country further in debt.

The Balanced Budget Act also savesMedicare from bankruptcy and expandshealth care options for seniors. Mil-lions of seniors have been spared crush-ing poverty with Medicare and I wantthis program to be there for my chil-dren and grandchildren as well. Out-of-control entitlement programs arebeing reined in and States are beinggiven more freedom from Federal bu-reaucrats so they can generate theirown innovative solutions to solvingtheir citizens' problems.

0 1445

In a separate bill that is part of theoverall budget agreement, we are pro-viding the first tax relief Americanfamilies have seen since the mid 1980's.Families will get tax relief to help withthe cost of raising kids and sendingthem to college; and small businessowners, especially farmers like thosein Ohio's 7th District, will get estatetax and capital gains relief.

This budget has been assembled byworking together across the aisles.

H6328This spirit of cooperation demonstratesthat Congress and the administrationcan work together, as they should, tosolve the problems. That same spirit ofagreement, of putting the Americanpeople first, will be seen again in thisconference committee and I am proudto be a part of it.

I urge all Members to join me in bal-ancing the budget, saving Medicare andcontinuing the extraordinary spirit ofcooperation. Support the conferencereport, and congratulations to the gen-tleman from Connecticut [Mr. SI-lAYs]and all the members of the committee,and especially our chairman, the gen-tleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH].

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Maine[Mr. BALDACCI].

Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe ranking member from South Caro-lina for yielding me this time.

This balanced budget agreement is anhistoric opportunity and the first timesince 1969 that we will have an oppor-tunity to do this. I would like to com-mend the administration, PresidentClinton and Vice President Goi, andthose in Congress that supported theagreement that enabled us to be at thisparticular point, that voted for a docu-ment in 1993 which took a deficit at$290 billion and brought it down to lessthan $10 billion today.

It was the work that was done by theMembers of Congress and the adminis-tration that got us to this point. Andthe point that we are at today is an op-portunity to make an investment. Thedocument we are voting on today al-lows us to make an investment in edu-cation. Young people, 36000 families inMaine, do not have the opportunity togo on to higher education because ofthe cost, the financial burden. Thateducation presents the future to them.That is that bridge to the 21st century.

The 100,000 families that are on theearned income tax credits will get atax break because we will reward work.We will not reward not working. Andwith small businesses, family busi-nesses and agriculture, they are goingto get a break, and this is what thisrepresents today.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 11/2minutes to the gentleman from Min-nesota [Mr. GUTKNECHT], who is a veryimportant member of the Committeeon the Budget and also on the Commit-tee on Science.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman for yielding methis time.

We talk about the balanced budgetand this agreement and what it meansin terms of dollars and cents and per-centages and so forth, but in many re-spects this agreement is aboutgenerational fairness.

I represent an awful lot of farmers,and some of the greatest wisdom I haveever heard has come from some of myfarm families. Back in farm countrythey know one of the great parts of theAmerican dream is to pay off the mort-gage and leave our kids the farm. But


what we have been doing here in thisgovernment for the past 40 years is, ineffect, we have been selling off thefarm arid leaving our kids the mort-gage. VVe all know deep down in ourbones that there is something morallywrong with that.

An old farmer told me a couple ofyears ago, and perhaps the best way Ihave ever heard it put, he said theproblem is not that we are not sendingenough money into Washington. Hesaid the problem is that Congressspends it faster than we can send it in,and that has really been true. Andevery time we have raised taxes thedeficit has actually gone up.

Balancing the budget, saving Medi-care and allowing families to keepmore of what they earn is not justsome accounting exercise. Balancingthe budget is about preserving theAmerican dream for our kids. SavingMedicare is about keeping our commit-ment to our parents. And tax relief forfamilies is about making it easier forthose families to pay for their kids'education and save for their future.

This is a glorious day for America. Itis an historic day, and I am glad to bea part of this Congress and this Com-mittee on the Budget.

Mr. McDERMOTT'. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 15 seconds to myself to point outto the last gentleman that every timewe raise taxes the deficit does not goup. In 1993 we raised taxes and the defi-cit came down.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to thegentleman from California, [Mr. WAX-

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, thereare some very good things in this bill.The restoration of benefits for immi-grants and the child health provisionsare two of the most important.

But let us not forget we essentiallyare talking about a flawed bill that theadministration tried to make better.Making a bad bill better doesn't makeit good.

In the area of Medicare, and I wantto talk about some points that I findmost troubiting. We have raised the pre-mium as a result of this legislation.But we have not guaranteed help forlow-income people. We have made somechanges in the Medicare Programs,such as MSAs and a fee-for-service op-tion and private contracts with doc-tors, which I think may undermine theMedicare program, which has a broad-based risk pool. We may well seehealthier and wealthier seniors leavethat risk pool and opt for private in-surance coverage.

In Medicaid, we repeal the require-ment to pay nursing homes and hos-pitals an amount adequate to meettheir costs for decent quality care. Letme underscore that. We do not have topay them what is adequate to providedecent quality care. And we have madecuts in the support for hospitals andhealth care centers which serve as thesafety net for the poor.

Now, why are we making all of thesecuts in areas where it really does not

July 30, 1997make sense from a policy point ofview? We cannot divorce this bill fromthe tax bill. We are doing it so we cangive tax breaks to many people in theupper income bracket. What I amafraid we will see, and I expect we willsee as a result of these tax cuts, will begreater pressure on domestic socialspending. Particularly greater pressureon the Medicare Program as the babyboom generation ages. I think that weare going to run the risk of going rightback into the huge deficits we haveseen in the past.

I congratulate the administration ondoing as good ajob as they could underthe circumstances. For me, it is justnot good enough.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 31/2minutes to the gentleman from Florida[Mr. SI-lAw], a senior member of theCommittee on Ways and Means, thechairman of the Subcommittee onHuman Resources, and the architect ofthe most important legislation to passthis Congress, the welfare reform bill.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank thegentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the gen-tleman from Missouri in a colloquy.Members may be aware of the ongoingdebate in this budget legislation overwhether workiare participants are em-ployees, but they might benefit bysome background on this issue, includ-ing a clarification of the intent of lastyear's welfare reform law.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Missouri.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, lastyear's welfare reform bill was about, inpart, getting welfare recipients intowork. One of the most effective ways todo that is through community serviceand community work experience pro-grams which we generally know asworkiare.

Since the 1960's Federal welfare lawshave allowed States to place recipientsin workiare which requires recipientsto work in exchange for their welfarebenefits. The workiare program createdunder the 1988 Family Support Actspecified public and private sectorworkiare recipients' hours and com-pensation, and included specific healthand safety, nondiscrimination andother protections for workiare partici-pants, but did not treat the workfareparticipants as employees.

I would ask the chairman if that ishis understanding, the chairman of theSubcommittee on Human Resourceswith Jurisdiction over welfare reform.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaimingmy time, the gentleman is absolutelycorrect. That is my understanding.

The 1996 welfare reform law specifiedthat States can continue to operate ef-fective workfare programs, and com-munity service and work experienceworkiare are among the work activi-ties States may count as work. Unlikeprior law, that act did not spell out thecompensation or other rules forworkiare positions, because it was as-sumed that previous distinction in

July30, 1997statutes and case law betweenworkfare and employment would con-tinue to be'recognized.

However, in May of this year the De-partment of Labor issued an out-rageous guide to How Workplace LawsAffect Welfare Recipients" in which itindirectly claimed that most if not allparticipants in workfare programsunder the welfare law would be consid-ered employees under the law.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, if thegentleman will continue to yield, Iwould ask the gentleman if it was theintention of the authors of the 1996welfare reform law that workfare par-ticipants be considered employees, andthus covered under at least 25 laborlaws, including prevailing wages, un-employment compensation, and socialsecurity taxes and benefits, none ofwhich previously applied to workfare?

Mr. SHAW. I say to the gentleman,absolutely not. In fact, section 417 ofthe 1996 welfare reform law specificallyprovides that, and I quote, 'No officeror employee of the Federal Govern-ment may regulate the conduct ofStates under this part or enforce anyprovision of this part, except to the ex-tent expressly provided in this part."So the Department of Labor is usurp-ing congressional authority.

Further, when proposals were putforth in Congress which attempted totreat workfare participants as employ-ees, they were defeated. For example,an amendment offered by the gen-tleman from California [Mr. BECERRA]requiring that workfare participants becovered by labor laws was defeatedright here in this Chamber.

The bottom line is that the legisla-tive history is very clear. Congress didnot intend for the Department of Laborto ruin the welfare reform law by out-lawing work. The Clinton Administra-tion has thrown down the gauntlet,first by issuing an outrageous rulingand then by refusing to go along withour efforts to correct this unwarrantedattack on welfare reform. Congress willreact in an appropriate fashion beforethis session is over to make sure thatfamilies can receive the training andexperience they need to leave welfarefor work and to support themselves.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Califor-nia [Mr. FAZIO].

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speak-er, the same Republicans who said theonly way this Congress could balancethe budget was by amending the Con-stitution stand here today to takecredit for something that they saidcould never be done without that.

The same Republicans who spent 5years attacking our President as ataxer and spender have embraced hisplan to balance the budget. That is thetruth of the matter.

Democrats took this balanced budgetbill and made it ours: and now, as thelong-distance race to a balanced budgetplan passes the grandstand, the Repub-licans want to join us for the last vic-tory lap.


The t'resident and congressionalDemocrats said their top priority wasto put college within the grasp ofworking families, and here is what wegot: A $1,500-a-year grant for the first 2years of college, a lifelong learning taxcredit, an increase in scholarships forlow-income and middle-class families.

The President and congressionalDemocrats said that every kid inAmerica deserves health care whenthey need it, not just when they can af-ford it. This bill does that.

The President and congressionalDemocrats said that Medicare shouldcover preventive health services, suchas screening for prostate cancer andmammography. This bill does that.

The President and congressionalDemocrats said that a balanced budgetand tax legislation should help thosewho need it most, not the richest of therich. This bill does that.

We have scored a major victory for abalanced budget, for fair tax cuts, forour kids, for our future. The winners?Not Republicans and not Democrats.This time, the American people.

I urge my colleagues to put asidetheir concerns, both sides have many,and to follow through on the work webegan in 1993, to honor our colleagueswhose courage made it possible for therest of us to be here today to take cred-it for finishing the job.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2½minutes to the gentleman from Vir-ginia [Mr. BLILEY], one of the seniorMembers of Congress, the chairman ofthe very powerful Committee on Com-merce.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thistime.

Thirty years ago the Federal Govern-ment's budget was in balance. Thirtyyears ago families kept more of theirhard-earned money. Thirty years agoGovernment programs were by andlarge helpful, not hopeless. How far wehave fallen in three decades.

We now face nearly $6 trillion indebt, crushing tax burdens and uncon-trolled spending. The programs wethrow taxpayer dollars at often do nothelp the people they were supposed tohelp, and every day there are morerules and regulations to limit our free-dom as Americans.

0 1500

But today is different, because todaywe are saying enough is enough. Al-though we may not like certain partsof this package, it is the whole thatcounts. And the whole is the first bal-anced Federal budget in nearly threedecades.

But this budget does more thanachieve balance in 2002. Among thebudget's many provisions are a numberof notable achievements crafted by theCommittee on Commerce. We preserveMedicare for the next generation ofbeneficiaries and give seniors morechoices than ever before. We make longoverdue reforms to the Medicaid pro-gram, making It more flexible for

H6329States and more effective for recipi-ents.

We chart a new course in Americanhealth care away from Washington-knows-best control and toward greaterinnovation by establishing a blockgrant to provide coverage and servicesfor poor, uninsured children. And westrengthen America's prohibition onthe use of Federal funds for abortions,making clear that our efforts today areon behalf of all children, born and un-born. Most of all, this budget is an im-portant step in our quest to make theFederal Government serve the Amer-ican people and not the other wayaround.

After this budget is passed and signedinto law, our work will not be finished.We have a duty to remain vigilantagainst wasteful Government spending.We need to reallocate existing re-sources to make sure the taxpayers geta dollar's worth of value for every dol-lar spent. And we need to prepare nowfor the budgetary needs of the baby-boom generation.

I am proud of the first steps we havetaken in this balanced budget plan, andI look forward to building on thisachievement in the months and yearsto come.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Texas[Mr. STENH0LM].

(Mr. STENHOLM asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I amvery pleased to rise in support of thisbudget agreement. The very first year Iran for Congress, I talked about theneed to abolish our Federal deficits.Putting our Nation's fiscal house inorder has been my highest prioritythroughout my career. At long last, itappears we are going to accomplishthat goal.

The efforts of President Clinton andCongress have resulted in 5 consecutiveyears of declining deficits and the low-est deficit this year since the Carteradministration. The agreement buildson this tremendous achievement andcontinues this glidepath to a balancedbudget. While I will personally waituntil the budget is balanced, in fact,instead of projections before I pop thechampagne cork, this is a tremendousstep for the future of our country.

Two years ago, those of us in the coa-lition set out to prove it is possible tobalance the budget while protectingeducation, health care and other im-portant priorities. This agreement is avindication of that effort. This rec-onciliation bill reflects the influence ofBlue Dog budgets in many areas. Thesavings levels and the policies for Med-icare and Medicaid and other programsare quite close to the savings levelsand policies proposed in our budgetthat have bipartisan support.

There are many important featuresof this reconciliation bill in addition tothe promise of a balanced budget. Thechanges to payments to health careplans in underserved areas and the pro-visions allowing health care providers

H6330to form provider sponsored organiza-tions will expand access to health carefor seniors, particularly in rural areas.The formula for DSH payments toStates is improved substantially overthe bill originally passed by the House.

The education and children's healthinitiatives are important investmentsin our future. The funding for localprograms to move welfare recipients towork will help make welfare reform asuccess. Although the budget enforce-ment provisions fall far short of what Ibelieve is necessary, there are someimportant improvements in the area ofbudget enforcement that closes some ofthe loopholes in the current budgetprocess.

Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to sup-port this agreement.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, at thistime, it is our pleasure to yield 2 min-utes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.DELAY], the House majority whip and asenior member of the Committee onAppropriations.

Mr. DELAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank thegentleman from Connecticut [Mr.Si-LAYS] for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of thislegislation that finally balances ourFederal budget. It is about time. I havewaited my entire adult life for it. SomeMembers of the Democrat minorityjust still do not get it. Indeed, if theywere in charge, we would not be cut-ting taxes or cutting spending at all. Ifthe Democrats still ran Congress, thisdeal would have contained more Gov-ernment spending and tax increases in-stead of tax cuts.

We need to look at the big picture,and the big picture shows how we aremoving toward smaller, smarter gov-ernment and greater freedom for ourcitizens. We have to give PresidentClinton some credit. He has rejectedthe left wing of his own party and pub-licly embraced conservative common-sense values of lower taxes and smallergovernment.

But this budget is only a first step.We still have a lot of work to do. Weneed to come up with a long-term planto fix entitlements. If we do not, ourchildren's future might be miserable.

We still need to reform spending. TheFederal Government today is not assmall or as smart as it could be. Westill have too many stupid, harmful,and counterproductive Federal regula-tions. The Federal bureaucracy is stilltoo big and still spends too muchmoney.

But this legislation is a very, verygood start. It will balance the budgetby the year 2002 or even sooner. It willslow the growth of spending for someentitlements and for some discre-tionary programs. But this is a com-promise with the President, who wantsto spend more money. He has consist-ently and persistently fought for moreFederal spending programs.

This legislation reflects the Presi-dent's desire to spend more money. Wehave tried our best, and for the mo-ment our best is only good enough. But


this bucget is not the end of the line. Itis simply another landmark on theroad to fiscal responsibility. Next yearis another budget and more tax cuts.

I urge my colleagues to vote for thislegislation.

Mr. S:pRArr. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Virginia [Mr. SISISKY].

(Mr. SISISKY asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. SISSKY. Mr. Speaker, this legislation isan important step toward improving the healthof our Nation's senior citizens by providingMedicare coverage for colorectal cancerscreening. For the first time, America's seniorswill have access through Medicare to preven-tive screening for colorectal cancer, the sec-ond most deadly cancer disease next to lungcancer. Preventive screening has been provento reduce mortality from colorectal cancer, yet,a large maority of America's senior populationhas never been screened.

I am very glad to see that this legislation es-tablishes an expedited process to assure Med-icare coverage for all colorectal cancerscreening procedures that are currently avail-able and can help reduce the incidence andmortality rate of this disease. The fecal occultblood test, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopyare covered by Medicare upon enactment ofthe legislation, and the barium examination willundergo an expedited review by the Depart-ment of Health and Human Services [HHS]. Adetermination regarding Medicare coverage forthe barium examination wifl be made within 90days.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the HHS inconducting this review and determination toadopt the same approach to evaluatingcolorectal cincer screening procedures as theAmerican Cancer Society [ACS]. The objectiveof the ACS was to maximize the number ofpeople who get screened for colorectal can-cer. In explaining its colorectal cancer screen-ing guidelines, the ACS emphasized that fourcurrently used colorectal cancer screeningprocedures are cost-effective alternatives forcolorectal cancer screening, whose wide-spread use will result in fewer deaths fromcotorectal cancer. The barium examinationwas among the screening options rec-ommended by the ACS.

The approach taken by the ACS clearly re-flects the ultimate goal of colorectal cancerscreening legislation—to provide a basis for asmany Medicare patients as possible to bescreened. It is appropriate, therefore, for HHSto adopt the same approach in evaluatingMedicare coverage of the barium examination.I am confident that, on the basis of this re-view, HHS will determine that the barium ex-amination is a highly effective colorectal can-cer screening procedure, and that the additionof the barium examination to cotorectal cancerscreening under Medicare would increasescreening, save lives, and save money.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reservethe balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SOL-OMON). The Chair will make note of thetime remaining. The gentleman fromConnecticut [Mr. Si-LAYS] has 16 min-utes remaining, the gentleman fromSouth Carolina [Mr. SPRArr] has 11

minutes remaining, and the gentlemanfrom Washington (MCDERMOTr) has 1¾minutes remaining.

July 30, 1997Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1½

minutes to the gentlewoman from NewJersey [Mrs. ROUKEMA], a 9-year mem-ber of the Committee on Banking andFinancial Services and chairman of theSubcommittee on Financial Institu-tions.

(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendher remarks.)

Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman from Connecticut[Mr. SHAYS] for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, when I first heard ofthis Balanced Budget Act, I kind ofdrew a breath and said, this sounds toogood to be true. But, in fact, it wastrue. Apparently, we can work togetherhere in the Congress for the good of thepeople, without a lot of partisan bick-ering. And I am very grateful for that.I support it.

We must understand that, on thewhole, this is a very good package. Notto say that we agree with everything,but we must understand that the Bal-anced Budget Act and the Tax ReliefAct are Joint efforts to put our fiscalhouse in order, and they must belinked together. We must remain mind-ful not to cut spending to the extentthat we may endanger programs thatare vital to our elderly and to childrenin order to provide for tax cuts. I donot believe we have done that here.

For years, I have been advocating asave-and-invest-in-America program,and I will vote on this bill today andthe taxpayers bill tomorrow. However,we cannot ask American people to saveand invest unless we force the Govern-ment to live within its own means.

However, I must say that this is agood bill, but some of the savings doconcern me. The impact of these deci-sions on New Jersey and the outyearsis particularly worrisome in connec-tion with the Medicare payments. ButI have been assured by the responsiblemembers of the committee that we willcontinue to monitor the changes in thedisproportionate share hospital pay-ments on transfer payments to hos-pitals.

New Jersey is in a unique position,and I have been assured that we will betreated equitably in making thosetransfer payment arrangements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support in H.R.2015, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Infact, this sounds too good to be true. Appar-ently, we can work together for the good ofthe people without all the partisan sniping andbickering.

For the first time in a generation, we are onthe verge of crafting a balanced budget. TheCongress and the President have come to-gether to agree on this long held goal to putour children's future on a strong fiscal footing.

On the whole, it is a good package. That isnot to say that I agree with everything. Wemust understand that both the Balanced Budg-et Act and the Taxpayers Relief Act are jointefforts to put our fiscal house in order. Bothmust be linked together. We must remainmindfu' not to cut spending to the extent thatwe may endanger programs that are vital toour elderly and children in order to provide taxcuts.

July30, 1997For years, I have been advocating a save

and invest in America program and the Tax-payers Relief Act, which I will vote for tomor-row, includes many key provisions. However,we cannot ask the American people to saveand invest until we force this government tolive within its own means.

We have a responsibility to our children andthe future. Perpetual deficits threaten to strad-dle our children with crushing debt that couldlead to low paying jobs, economic stagnation,and possibly a lower standard of living.

The need for a balanced budget has neverbeen greater. The national debt is increasingby close to $9,500 per second. In 1996, Amer-icans paid $900 in taxes per person to serviceinterest on the debt. In fiscal year 1997 we willhave spent $248 billion on interest on thedebt, that is 15 percent of all Federal spend-ing. That is money not spent on our children,on education, or health care. It is money thatgoes into the fiscal black hole created by ourcontinued indebtedness.

Our Nation is on the verge of tremendousgenerational change. The baby-boom genera-tion will, in the next decades, begin to retire.With this great influx, the next generation willbe asked to carry on the responsibility of en-suring that their parents are cared for by asystem that is fair and equitable. It is our re-sponsibility, in this Congress, to ensure the vi-ability of worthy Federal programs and to cre-ate a strong and vibrant economy in which ourchildren and grandchildren can thrive, suc-ceed, and enjoy the promise of what Americahas to offer. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997is the first step in this process.

In order to avoid this calamity, the BalancedBudget Act will require everyone in the UnitedStates to share some of the sacrifice associ-ated with reducing the size of the FederalGovernment and reforming spending. This actattempts to reduce spending in the most equi-table manner possible.

Significant savings will come from Medicareand Medicaid. The Federal health care pro-grams for the elderly and low-income respec-tively will be asked to spend over $128 billionless than current CBO projections.

Without question, this area of savings raisesthe most concern, and I must state my healthyskepticism about how much can, or should, beaccomplished in the near-term.

Some of the aspects of this act will receivecriticism for concerned groups. Clearly, strongaction must be taken to ensure that our elderlywill be able to receive necessary medicaltreatment through the Medicare Program, andthat Medicare will be there for many hard-working families who will become eligible inthe next 10 or 20 years.

The Balanced Budget Act will keep theMedicare trust fund solvent for at least thenext 6 years. Most of these savings comefrom reducing payments to hospitals andhealth care providers. I applaud the establish-ment of a special commission to study how tomake Medicare solvent well into the future andsecure for when the baby-boom generationbegins to retire. I have long supported a com-mission and believe that it will offer Congressintelligent and balanced information.

The provision in this act that greatly con-cerns me is the issue of medical savings ac-counts. The bill allows for a pilot program of390,000 accounts to be set up. Mr. Chairman,medical savings accounts are a bad idea forAmerica.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEWe must not let our drive to make Medicare

solvent lead to us to destroy the best ele-ments of that program by moving elderlyAmericans into dubious health plans likeMSA's. We can not lose sight of the quality ofcare that Medicare provides. MSA's are rid-dled with problems. There exists the danger offraud and abuse of poorly informed seniors.MSA's could result in a lowering of the qualityof care of our elderly, an increase in Medicarepremiums for the elderly, and an underminingof the system as a whole, because the healthyseniors will be removed from the system alongwith the more financially secure thereby erod-ing Medicare as an universal system.

I would like to highlight some of my con-cerns in this budget dealing with the hospitalsof New Jersey. I have been concemed aboutthe changes in the disproportionate share hos-pital [DSH] payments to hospitals in New Jer-sey.

I have been assured that no one State willtake a much greater hit than any other State—that a formula has been worked out that takesan even approach in this formula calculation.We must work to ensure that New Jersey andother States do not shoulder an unfair amountof burden.

Also, I have been concemed over changesin the different hospital payments for a transferversus a discharge. While I understand that acompromise has been reached where the newdefinition change will only apply in a limitedcapacity, I am further heartened that this willnot be implemented until after October 1998,and that the Commerce Committee is open toholding hearings and looking further into thisdefinition change. I pledge to work with theCommerce Committee to deal equitably withNew Jersey's unique status.

One last issue of concem I had affecting ourhospitals is over Medicare. I am glad we wereable to work out a compromise which wouldphase in adjustments to the prospective pay-ment system for the first 2 years. By allowinga phase in, the various hospitals affectedwould be able to adjust accordingly. We mustcontinue to work with this Nation's hospitals sothat all people receive the care they need.

In reforming the health care system, wemust make sure that we maintain the qualityof care to those who need it, maintain accessto care, and that all changes are fair and equi-table. We must ensure that those who havethe least do not give up the most. As I havesaid, "let's not be a penny wise and a poundfoolish."

The Balanced Budget Act should be ap-plauded for other important reasons. This actexpands health care coverage to millions ofchildren across the Nation. This is possibly thebest investment we have made in a genera-tion.

I am very pleased about the increase in thecigarette tax and the use of that money to pro-vide for the expansion of children's healthcare. This was one of my top legislative prior-ities this year and demonstrates the best inpublic policy.

I must compliment the conferees for includ-ing panty treatment of mental health coverage.Mental and physical health care for our chil-dren are inseparable. Healthy bodies meanshealthy minds and vice versa. Panty treatmentof mental health coverage demonstrates ourwisdom and compassion. Our children are themost important resource we have.

Indeed, if the truest judgment of a society sthe way they treat their children, then we have

H6331taken a major step to secure that our genera-tion believes that our children shou'd be caredfor in the most comprehensive and compas-sionate manner.

The Balanced Budget Act is the strongeststatement this Congress can make on the di-rection we intend to take in the future. Wemust remember that this is the first time wewill have balanced the budget in over a gen-eration. It is important for us to stay focusedon maintaining a balance and running sur-pluses.

We must avoid the temptation of declaringvictory and leaving. We must continue to bal-ance budgets in the future. We must reformthe entitlement programs to prepare them forthe retirement of the baby boom generation.We must be prepared to enforce our agree-ment in the future. There is much hard workand many tough decisions to make in the f u-ture.

The Balanced Budget Act sets forth our pri-orities. We still protect the programs that pro-vide care for the elderly, the poor, and theyoung. We will create a new program to pro-tect our children who currently have no healthcoverage. And we will balance the Federalbudget and put our fiscal house in order forthe future. It also demonstrates what this bodycan do when it agrees on a goal and is deter-mined to reach an agreement. This Act showsus the result of bipartisan action. Let us usethis as a lesson for future action.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from NorthCarolina [Mr. PRICE].

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr.Speaker, this bill before us today is atruly bipartisan achievement, a vastimprovement on the budget bill ap-proved in this Chamber a month ago,one that we can vote for with greatconfidence. I want to applaud col-leagues on both sides of the aisle whohave brought us to this day.

This agreement includes $24 billionfor our Nation's children. Five millionAmerican children who are not nowcovered will have health insurance pro-tection because of this agreement.

The agreement also protects our vet-erans, ensuring that any shortfalls inmedical care collections do not trans-late into less health care for those whohave fought for our country.

Finally, this agreement protects theelderly of this country. It expands Med-icare coverage for diagnostic and pre-ventive health care services. It extendsthe life of the Medicare trust fund foranother 10 years. And it establishes acommission to ensure the long-termsolvency of the trust fund so our Na-tion's senior citizens are not contin-ually put at the mercy of budget nego-tiators.

I want to thank my colleagues,whose tenacity enabled us to reach asolid bipartisan budget agreement, andI urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Ar!-zona [Mr. HAYWORTh], a new Member inthe class of 1994, a sophomore now, anda member of the House Committee onWays and Means.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, Ithank my colleague from Connecticut,

H6332Mr. SI-LAYS, for yielding to me andthank my colleague from North Caro-lina, Mr. PmcE, for his thoughts onthis bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult at timesfor a career politician to go do this, butI would ask all of us to leave the spincycle in the laundry room. The fact ishistorians and the American peoplewill Judge us on how we arrived at thisimportant date with this importantpiece of legislation.

What we can truly say today, Mr.Speaker, is that this is not a victory ofparty. Quite the contrary, it is a vic-tory for our country. Because we putaside some partisan differences, wetried to reach accommodation on somedeeply held beliefs, and such is the es-sence of our Democratic lifestyle andthe principles we embrace.

It is interesting for me personally,Mr. Speaker, as I reflect back to thesummer of 1969, to the year of the mir-acle Mets and man on the Moon, thesummer before the sixth grade for me,and the last time the American peoplehad a balanced budget. How importantit is that, in waiting a quarter centuryor more, an entire generation, in effect,we now have the chance to embrace abalanced budget. How important it is,too, that we have taken a new look athow we administer the different rulesin Washington, DC, how we are nowwilling to transfer money, power, andinfluence out of the hands of Washing-ton bureaucrats and back closer tohome so that people on the front linescan make decisions, so that parents arefree to save, spend, and invest for theirchildren as they see fit.

Ad how pleased I am, Mr. Speaker,that we join in a bipartisan fashion topreserve and strengthen Medicarethrough the next decade. For my par-ents, who, so youthful in 1969, turned 65this year; we owe it to my parents andother parents to make sure that Medi-care is preserved. This budget agree-ment does just that. We can do no lessand also establishing a framework forthe future as the baby boomers beginto retire.

I thank my colleagues for joining to-gether. I urge passage of this impor-tant legislation.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Min-nesota [Mr. GUTKNECHT] a member ofthe Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman from Connecticut[Mr. SI-LAYS] for yielding me the time. Ialso thank him for appointing me tothe Committee on Ways and Means. Iam actually on the Committee on theBudget and delighted to be so.

Let me talk just for a minute aboutsome things because I know that,among the general public and amongstsome of our colleagues, there is a cer-tain amount of cynicism in terms ofwhether this budget agreement is real,whether we will actually balance thebudget, whether we really will have thediscipline to follow through to makethe tough choices as we go forward.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE

I think those are legitimate ques-tions. But I think Benjamin Franklinmay have said it best when he said,know no lamp by which to see the fu-ture than that of the past."

I would like to remind Members ofwhat we said Just 2 years ago when wepassed our budget resolution, the blue-print, otir 7-year plan to balance thebudget. We said in fiscal year 1997 wewould spend no more than $1,624 billionin fiscal year 1997. That is the year weare in. Two years ago we said we wouldspend $1,624 billion. This year we actu-ally are going to spend in fiscal year1997 $1,621 billion.

0 1515

At a time revenues have increased byover $100 billion, we are spending lessthan we said we were going to spendJust 2 years ago.

Mr. SPJRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4minutes to the gentleman from Michi-gan [Mr. I3ONIOR], the minority whip.

Mr. BONIOR. I thank the gentlemanfrom South Carolina for yielding methis time.

Mr. Speaker, this budget deal helpsAmerica's working families. It cutstheir taxes, it gives health insurance tomillions of children, it offers scholar-ships to students, and extends the lifeof the Medicare trust fund for anotherdecade. So it is for these and othergood provisions in this bill that Ithank my colleagues, the gentlemanfrom South Carolina [Mr. SPRAIT] andthe gentleman from New York [Mr.RANGEL], and my colleagues on thisside of the aisle who worked on thisbill.

This deal also promises to keep thebudget in balance. I say keep the budg-et in balaii-ice because we already bal-anced it with our 1993 deficit reductionpackage. That plan dropped the deficitfrom nearl:y $300 billion then to rough-ly $40 billion deficit this year, and it isstill falling.

So we made tough choices in 1993.Some of my Republican colleagueshave criticized that plan as a tax in-crease. What they do not say is thatthe people whose taxes went up in 1993were the richest 1 percent in America.What they do not say is that we cutspending. And what they do not say isthat we gave a tax cut to 20 millionworking families. I think what gallsthem the most is that our plan back in1993 has worked. The economy hasboomed, the deficit has disappeared.

Today's budget deal builds on thegreat success of that plan. The Chil-dren's Defense Fund told the Washing-ton Post that $24 billion for children'shealth insurance is an initiative thatwill do extraordinary good for millionsof children. Families USA called it themost significant advance in health carecoverage since Medicaid and Medicareprograms were enacted 32 years ago.

This budget deal does other goodthings, too. It provides a $500-per-childtax credit to working families. It pro-vides thousands of dollars in tax cred-its for students to pursue their edu-

July 30, 1997cation after high school. It protectswages, pensions, health care, and itgives tax relief to millions of Americanhomeowners.

But let me caution here. While I sup-port these measures for working fami-lies, my Republican colleagues have ex-acted a heavy, heavy price for them. Inaddition to rewarding the richestAmericans with a huge cut in the cap-ital gains tax rate, they are rollingback the corporate minimum tax. Thatis a $19 billion giveaway to America'srichest corporations. It is an outrage,it has no place in this deal, and I andothers will be fighting it in the future.Because we will be watching to makesure that the tax breaks now going tothe wealthy do not end up costingworking families in the future.

But as I vote for this budget deal, Ithink of its immediate impact on thelives of those working families. I thinkof that young police officer's familynot scrimping so much thanks to thenew child tax credit. I think of all thechildren who are going to get healthinsurance for the first time, 5 millionof them, with the $24 billion program. Ithink of all the young students whowill now be able to afford communitycollege, acquiring the skills to landthem Jobs where they can support theirfamilies. And I think of those peoplewho have lost their jobs, who will beable to go back to their communitycolleges to learn the skills to supporttheir families.

When I vote yes on this budget deal,I am going to vote for them and I amgoing to vote for America's workingfamilies.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Michi-gan [Mr. LEvIN].

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I heard thecolloquy between the gentleman fromFlorida and the gentleman from Mis-souri, and I just want the record to beclear. They are attempting to write abill through a colloquy and you cannotdo that. The reference to 1988 is verymistaken. It was a very different bill.It was not a broad welfare-to-work billas we are now implementing.

I worked hard on the 1993 legislationand no one can get up here and simplygive their gloss on it and expect that tobecome law. But most importantly, theeffort in this House by the majority toexclude people who would be classifiedas employees under FLSA and otherFederal laws from those protectionswas specifically rejected in the con-ference committee. It is not in thisbill. No colloquy can erase that. Peoplewho move from welfare to work havethe dignity of the protection of Federallaw if they are employees.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Arizona[Mr. HAYWORTh].

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gen-tleman from Connecticut for yieldingme this time.

July30, 1997Mr. Speaker, again we see where

there are genuine differences honestlyheld and where there may be othermeasures that have yet to be taken toaddress problems that people on bothsides of the aisle have. But again Icome down to speak on behalf of thislegislation because of the many posi-tive effects we will see, not only, al-though goodness knows it is importantenough to balance the budget for thefirst time in a generation, not only be-cause we preserve and protect Medicarefor the next decade and set up theframework with a bipartisan commis-sion to look at the very serious ques-tions that confront us when the babyboomers start to retire, but also be-cause of the second part of this agree-ment which we will come to tomorrow,the first meaningful tax cuts for work-ing Americans in 16 long years.

Again, it is part of the difference inphilosophy, where we honestly believethat working Americans deserve thechance to hold onto more of their hardearned money and send less of it hereto Washington, and these two measuresfit together like hand in glove. Todaywe deal with spending, tomorrow withtax cuts. The bottom line is a betterfuture for the American Nation.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Min-nesota [Mr. MINCE].

Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, as many ofus have recognized, this agreement andthis legislation have multifaceted ad-vantages, and of course there is alwaysa downside. I would like to emphasizeone of what I think is the most positiveattributes of the legislation. and thatis its recognition of health care needsof Americans.

First and foremost, we are now at-tempting to assist States in providingcoverage to children who do not havehealth care insurance. Second, we areaddressing the imbalance that existsbetween rural health care financingand urban. Altogether too long, Mr.Speaker, the rural portions of ourcountry have been denied the chance toparticipate in managed care because ofhighly discriminatory regional reim-bursement rate structures.

Third, tomorrow we will take up leg-islation that addresses the tax deduct-ibility of premiums for health insur-ance by self-employed individuals.These features together, I submit, areimportant reasons for supporting thislegislation.

Mr. McDERMOrr. Mr. Speaker, Iyield myself such time as I mayconsume. I include for the RECOIm aneditorial from the Washington Postyesterday entitled "Budget Week," asfollows:

BUDGET WEEKAs a country, we seem about to enter a

week of self-congratulatory rhetoric inwhich the president and congressional Re-publicans will celebrate the balanced-budgetagreement they appear to have reached andthat Congress may finally pass as it leavestown for its summer vacation.

The president will say, not without cause.that he was successful in taking some of the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSErougher edges off the initial Republican pro-posal. He will argue that the final productbalances the budget without doing violenceto the values of the Democratic Party, fin-ishes the Job of deficit eradication that hebegan in drawing up in his first budget in1993, provides a steady platform from whichto head into the future and proves that,when there's a willingness to compromise,the political system can work.

The Republicans, for their part, will saythat while they've had some tough timeslately, and while they lost some battles tothe president, they basically won the war.Glossing over the history of the 1980s. theywill claim it is they who have always wanteda balanced budget. With greater cause, theywill say it is they who have been the partyof tax cuts and smaller government. If thoseare now both parties' goals, they win, even ifthe president, in coming their way on the is-sues, has partly shouldered them off centerstage.

But in our view those are the wrong stand-ards by which to judge this deal. They aremostly short-term and political, as is thedeal itself. It will be no surprise to readers ofthis page that we apply a different lens.

(1) The balanced budget, assuming one isachieved. will owe as much to the continuingstrength of the economy as to any policychanges Congress will vote this week. Youcould argue—we would—that the strongeconomy derives in part from some of thepolicy changes for which the president suc-cessfully fought in 1993. The fact is that thisbudget would actually undo some of themost important of those changes. In terms offiscal discipline, it is less the advance itssponsors claim that a retreat from highground that the president himself once occu-pied over Republican objections.

(2) The distinctive element in the deal re-mains the tax cut, for which the rest is most-ly cover and a gloss. The long.erm effect ofthe tax cut will be to add, regressively, to adeficit that the deal will at best only tempo-rarily erase. The president played a doublerole in this, first agreeing to the cut, thenworking to make it a little more palatablearound the edges. But the basic structure isstill wrong. The children's credit. which willbe the costliest provision in the early years,is mostly a political sop for which neitherparty has been able to think up a convincingeconomic justification. In the later yearsthis will be overtaken by large, late-bloom-ing tax cuts mainly for the highest-incomehouseholds in the country. They will beginto drain the Treasury in earnest about thetime the baby boomers retire. There is noeconomic or social justification for most ofthem either.

(3) Meanwhile, even though these are themost propitious of economic times and pos-sibly political times as well in that the nextpresident election is three years off, theplan. by mutual agreement, does next tonothing about the real fiscal problem—theone that will come with the boomers' retire-ment—that everyone acknowledges butwants to defer. Let the next folks do it. Thetax cuts would compound this problem. TheSenate proposed some first steps to cutlonger-term Medicare costs, like askinghigher-income beneficiaries to pay a slightlyhigher share of program costs. They droppedit from the final bill. This is a bill that, inthe name of solving the nation's fiscal prob-lem, systematically avoids and in some re-spects worsens that problem. The wrappingis great; the gift is dross.

The bill has some good features. Medicarewill be a tidier program as a result of its pas-sage. The number of children in the countrylacking health insurance could be reduced(though that could end up an empty initia-tive, also). But most of the things that are

H6333good about the bill are good only in that thealternatives were worse. The legislation re-verses some of the worst features of lastyear's welfare bill and of the original budgetbill that the Republicans put forward thisyear. But the welfare bill should never havebeen signed, and likewise the first draft ofthis year's budget bill is a pretty poor stand-ard on the strength of which to measure vic-tories.

We assume that Congress will pass thispackage: the president and the Republicanleadership are both invested in it. By now alot of other people have larger or small in-vestments in it as well. But this is a lost op-portunity that, on balance and in the longrun, will likely do a fairly large amount ofharm—the tax cuts—for relatively littlegood.

Mr. Speaker, we hear people heretalking about this whole issue asthough it was a long-term fix, but infact if my colleagues read this edi-torial, it says the strong economy de-rives in part from the policy changeswhich were made in 1993 by the Demo-crats, by the Budget Deficit ReductionAct that we passed.

But more important this editorialhas a warning in it. It says the distinc-tive element in this deal remains thetax cut, for which the rest is mostlycover and a gloss. The long-term effectof the tax cut will be to add regres-sively to a deficit that the deal will atbest only temporarily erase. The late-blooming tax cuts, mainly for the high-est income households in the country,will begin to drain the Treasury in ear-nest about the time the baby boomersretire. There are no economic or socialjustifications for most of these cuts.

My concern is we are going to touchdown with a balanced budget in 2002like a 747 doing a touch-and-go landingin learning to fly the plane. The budgetdeficits will take off at precisely thetime the budget will have to face theproblems of baby boomers. People willbe caught between their kids going tocollege and their parents in nursinghomes, and there will be no money inthe Treasury to deal with their prob-lems because we are taking away theessence of the social safety net in thiscountry.

That is why people ought to voteagainst this. It is making a long-termproblem for ourselves for short-termpolitical gains.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SOL-OMON). The time of the gentleman fromWashington [Mr. McDERM0rr] has ex-pired.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1½minutes to the gentleman from Wis-consin [Mr. NEUMANN].

Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I riseto address some of the things that wehave heard from our side of the aisletoday and from both sides of the aisle,some of the concerns that somehowthis is not real. I would like to justbring some of the facts to light here. Ihave heard, for example, that discre-tionary spending, the part of spendingthat we actually control out here, isgoing up under this plan. Let me givemy colleagues the facts. Nondefensediscretionary spending is going from

H6334$281 billion a year to $288 billion a year5 years later. That is less than a one-half of 1 percent increase each year. Ifwe take inflation into account, that isa decrease in nondefense discretionaryspending by about 1.5 percent per year.Yes, this is real, yes, it does what it issupposed to do, putting our financialhouse back in order, yes, it restoresthis Nation so our children can havehope of living the American dream.

I want to give another number. Totaldiscretionary spending, again the partof the budget that we have the mostcontrol over. Total discretionaryspending is going from $549 billion thisyear to $561 billion 5 years later, againless than one-half of 1 percent spendingincrease.

How about the overall spending in-crease? Overall spending increase isgoing from $1,621 billion to $1,889 bil-lion. That is an increase of about 3 per-cent a year, roughly the rate of infla-tion. Yes, this is real, yes, it does whatit is supposed to do. Our seniors cancount on Medicare, our working fami-lies can count on additional tax reduc-tions, and our children can count on usfor a change, the first time since 1969,to do the right thing for this great Na-tion that we live in.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Iowa[Mr. LATHAM], a member of the Com-mittee on Appropriations.

(Mr. LATHAM asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I wantedto obviously stand here in support ofthe Balanced Budget Act and the provi-sions as far as the taxes. But one thingthat is very, very important to theState of Iowa and all rural parts of thiscountry is the reimbursement changesthat are made in Medicare. In my con-gressional district, our reimbursementaverages about $311 per person permonth. In some of the urban parts ofthe country, it is $750 per person permonth. In those areas, seniors have theoption in their health care for eye-glasses, hearing aids, prescriptiondrugs, even memberships at healthclubs. We have none of that available.In this act we finally address the in-equity between rural and urban partsof this country with the base now goingto $367. It is extremely positive. I wantto thank the committee and all thepeople who worked so very hard on thisto address this real problem.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the Bal-anced Budget Act as it comes before thisbody for a vote. Although this bill includessome items that I support and others that I

would have preferred to have been left out, weshould aD recognize the bill as a product of bi-partisan compromise and achievement. I amespecially proud of the work this House andthe Senate have done to increase Medicarechoices for seniors.

Bring equity to seniors from rural areas, likenorthwest Iowa, has been a priority of minesince I've been in Congress. I want to ensurethat seniors in rural northwest Iowa are goingto enjoy Medicare benefits not just in the next


couple of years, but for the next generationand beyond.

The majority party of this Congress has re-peatedly vowed to bring choices to seniors aspart of Medicare reform. One of those choicesthat has been denied up until now has beenmanaged care for rural seniors. However, ful-filling a commitment made in the budget reso-lution earlier this spring, this Balanced BudgetAct makes substantial reforms of the way theMedicare Program pays managed care plans.

Iowa seniors have paid into the MedicareSystem and have every right to expect effi-dent health care coverage. Unfortunately, thecurrent Medicare System has always com-paratively overcompensated urban areas in re-gard to the Medicare reimbursement rate atthe expense of rural States like Iowa. By effi-ciently utilizing our health services in the past,the current Medicare law punishes Iowa sen-iors through low reimbursement rates. Someurban areas receive 21/2 times the reimburse-ment rate per person than rural areas likenorthwest Iowa do.

The budget agreement will immediately es-tablish a payment floor of $367 per month perbeneficiary, which represents a tremendous in-crease for some Iowa seniors who are cur-rently allowed $250 per month. The BalancedBudget Act also includes a 50/50 local/nationalblended payment rate for health plans beyond1998. This blend will gradually bring the reim-bursement rate for rural areas more in linewith the rate of increase in urban areas agoal of fundamental fairness.

Bringing fairness and equity to the MedicareSystem has always been my agenda, alongwith Members from both sides of the aislefrom rural parts of the country. Iowa Medicarebeneficiaries deserve the same options andbenefits as any other seniors in the country. I

am proud to say that the Balanced Budget Actincreases choces for Iowa seniors, and bringsequity to the Medicare Reimbursement Sys-tem.

Mr. SPRArr'. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as she may consume to thegentlewomairi from Texas [Ms. JACK-SON-LEE].

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas askedand was given permission to revise andextend her remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr.Speaker, I rise to support this Bal-anced Budget Act because this bill doesgood things for children's health, wel-fare mothers, and for rebuilding ourschools.

Mr. Speaker, I. rise to express my whole-hearted support for the bipartisan balancedbudget agreemnt that the President and theCongress have agreed on implementing.

This historic agreement will result in the firstbalanced budgot agreement in a generation,with a net savings of $900 billion over 10years.

The Presidents economic plan has cut thedeficit more than 75 percent from $290 billionin 1992 to $67 billion or lower by the close ofthis year. This agreement will finish the job bybalancing the budget in 2002 and puts thebudget in surplus at least through 2007.

This agreement will mean an unprecedented$24 billion for children's health care, a $500per child tax credit for approximately 27 millionfamilies, a $1,500 HOPE Scholarship for thefirst 2 years of college and a 20 percent tuitiontax credit for colisge juniors, seniors, graduate

July 30, 1997students, and working Americans pursuing life-long learning.

As first balance budget since 1969, I knowthat the American public has waited long for arecognition that a budget that is not in balancehurts the economy, and robs our children oftheir future. More important than the agree-ment are the incentives to ensure that regard-less of who has political control the agreementwiil be adhered to by both parties.

The important domestic priorities that wehave agreed should be met are accomplishedunder this agreement. It allows people tomove from welfare to work and treats legal im-migrants fairly. There will be $3 billion to helpStates and local communities move peoplefrom welfare to work, along with $12 billion torestore both disabi'ity and health benefits for350,000 legal immigrants in 2002 who are cur-rently receiving assistance or become dis-abled.

This balanced budget agreement is a victoryfor middle-class parents trying to pay for theirchildren's college and for working people try-ing to upgrade their skills.

We know the level of computer literacy andskills currently he'd by 20 percent of Americanworkers, which is well below the 60 percentthat will be required by the year 2000. Our Na-tion's workers wiH need opportunities to trainfor and acquire new skills to adapt to the neweconomic realities of the next century.

By crafting this agreement we will allowworkers and their families to find greater free-dom through job mobility and higher wagesthrough acquisition of skills that are market-able.

Along with creating opportunity for currentworkers we must also maintain our support foryouth summer jobs programs for future work-ers.

In 1997, Houston Works Summer YouthProgram plans to serve 6,500 young peoplebetween the ages of 14 and 21, with a pro-jected budget of $8.9 million. This fundingwould only allow 3 percent of those who wouldquaHfy to be included in the program. The po-tential number of applications for this impor-tant jobs program is 43,000 young peoplewhich reflects the total number of disadvan-taged youth in the area served by HoustonWorks. Nationwide, there are 4 million youthswho would qualify for this summer jobs pro-gram if funds were available.

Last year Houston Works provided 5,177jobs to youth ages 14 through 21 years, witha budget of $6.5 million.

This program has made a significant dif-ference in the lives and fortunes of Houston'syoung people who were fortunate enough tohave their application accepted.

This balanced budget agreement will alsoaid the environment through a new tax cutplan to clean up and redeve'op Brownfieds.The 3-year Brownfield tax incentive will reducethe cost of cleaning up thousands of contami-nated abandoned sites in economically dis-tressed areas by permitting clean-up costs tobe deducted immediately for tax purposes.

I along with many of my colleagues haveworked hard to find solutions to this country'sbudget deficit and are pleased to see this typeof bipartisan progress.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentlewoman from Con-necticut [Mrs. KENNELLY].

Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr.Speaker, may I take this opportunity


country's financial house in order. In1995, 235 Members voted to get ourcountry's financial house in order, andthe President vetoed that effort. In1996, 216 voted for that, and the Presi-dent vetoed it.

Today we are at a historic point. Weare at a point where this DemocratPresident and this Republican Congresshave come together to get our coun-try's financial house in order and bal-ance the Federal budget.

The President wanted more spendingin certain areas, and this RepublicanCongress wanted tax cuts and changesto entitlements to slow the runawaycosts of entitlements. This has been aneffort of both sides, and this is an ef-fort that needs to be supported.

CALL OF THE HOUSEMr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I move a

call of the House.A call of the House was ordered.The call was taken by electronic de-

vice, and the following Members re-sponded to their names:

July 30, 1997to thank the gentleman from SouthCarolina [Mr. SPRArr], my leader, forhis good work in the conference, theconference report that as a Democrat Iam proud to stand here today and sup-port, although I agree with many of mycolleagues that we should have hadmore time to study the language aswritten. But this legislation really con-tains many Democratic priorities. Tobegin with, it balances the budgetwithout a constitutional amendmentand continues the direction made andbegun in 1993 by that very, very dif-ficult budget vote.

U 1530But that is only the beginning. The

bill also includes the largest invest-ment in our Nations history sinceMedicaid, $24 billion. This funding willhelp States provide health coverage formillions of uninsured children, and Ireally hope I can believe what I heard,that this coverage will be as good asState and Federal workers have.

Furthermore, the legislation restoresFederal aid for thousands of legal im-migrants and provides $3 billion to helppeople make that transition so impor-tant from welfare to work.

These and other changes make goodon the pledge that many of us made,led by the President, to fix the prob-lems in the recent welfare bill, and Ithank the gentleman from Florida [Mr.SHAw] for his hard work in this area.

And, finally, the bill will enhanceMedicare's coverage for preventive careincluding, annual mammograms. Thelegislation also does spend $1.5 billionto help more low income Medicarebeneficiaries pay for that all importantpart B premium.

I also want to applaud the majorityfor agreeing with Democrats to dropearlier provisions on reducing employ-ment protections for welfare workersand on reducing State supplementedSSI payments for 2.8 million elderly.

Mr. Speaker, the bill balances thebudget while protecting democraticprinciples. This is a goal that many ofus have been fighting for for a longtime. I urge support for this conferencereport.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-self 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, a long battle began in1989 when a fairly young Member ofthis House, the gentleman from Ohio[Mr. KASICH], offered an amendment tobalance the Federal budget to get ourcountry's financial house in order.There were 30 Members who supportedhim in that long march. In 1990, 106Members supported him. In 1991, 114Members supported him. He did notoffer an amendment in 1992, but in 1993,135 Members supported JOHN KASICH inhis effort to get our country's financialhouse in order. In 1994, 165 Memberssupported him in his effort to get ourcountry's financial house in order, andthen with the election of 1994 we hadthe dynamic class of 73 Republicanfreshmen who came in and helped thisman and helped this Congress get our

Johnson (WI)Johnson, E. B.JonesKanJorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedy (MA)Kennedy (Ri)KennellyKildeeKilpatrickKimKind (WI)King (NY)KingstonKleczkaKlinkKIugKnollenbergKolbeKucinichLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLantosLargentLathamLaTouretteLazioLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLivingstonLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucasLutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MantonMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcDermottMcGovernMcHaleMcHughMclnnlsMcintoshMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeekMenendezMetcalfMicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (CA)Miller (FL)MingeMinkMoakley

H6335Schaffer. BobSchumerScottSensenbrennerSerranoSessionsShadeggShawShaysShermanShimkusSisiskySkaggsSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (OR)Smith (TX)Smith, AdamSmith. LindaSnowbargerSnyderSolomonSpenceSprattStabenowStearnsStenholmStokesStricklandStumpStupakSununuTalentTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)ThomasThompsonThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTorresTownsTraficantTurnerUptonVelazquezVentoViscloskyWalshWampWatersWatkinsWatt (NC)Watts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWexlerWeygandWhiteWhitfieldWickerWiseWolfWoolseyWynnYatesYoung (FL)

MolinariMollohanMoran (KS)Moran (VA)MorellaMurthaMyrickNadlerNealNethercuttNeumannNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOxleyPackardPallonePappasParkerPascrellPastorPaulPaxonPaynePeasePelosiPeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)PetriPickeringPickettPittsPomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPoshardPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRangelRedmondRegulaReyesRiggsRileyRiversRodriguezRoemerRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushRyunSaboSalmonSanchezSandersSandlinSanfordSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchaefer, Dan

U 1555

AbercrombieAckermanAderholtAllenAndrewsArmeyBachusBaeslerBakerBaldacciBallengerBarciaBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBecerraBentsenBereuterBermanBerryBilbrayBilirakisBishopBlagojevichBlileyBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBorskiBoswellBoydBradyBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BryantBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCappsCardinCarsonCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenClay

[Roll No. 3441ClementClyburnCobleCoburnCollinsCombestConditConyersCookCookseyCostelloCoxCoyneCramerCraneCrapoCubinCummingsCunninghamDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis (VA)DealDeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDellumsDeutschDickeyDicksDingellDixonDoggettDoolittleDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEngelEnglishEnsignEshooEtheridgeEvansEverettEwingFarrFattahFazioFilnerFlakeFogliettaFoleyFord

FowlerFoxFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFurseGalleglyGanskeGeJdensonGibbonsGllchrestGillmorGilmanGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGrangerGreenGreenwoodGutierrezGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamiltonHansenHarmanHastertHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHefnerHergerHillHillearyHilliardHincheyHinojosaHobsonHoekstraHoldenHooleyHornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJackson (IL)Jackson Lee

(TX)JeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)

The SPEAKER. On this rollcall, 410Members have recorded their presenceby electronic device, a quorum.

Under the rule, further proceedingsunder the call are dispensed with.

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2015,BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes

the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr.SI-lAys].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from Florida[Mr. STEAiis], a member of the Com-mittee on Veterans' Affairs, for the

H6336purposes of a bipartisan colloquy withthe gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms.RIvERSI.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleaguefor yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentle-woman from Michigan.

Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, in today'sHouse Action Report analysis of thebill before us relative to the VeteransAdministration, that publication saysthat there is going to be a $2.7 billioncut in veterans' programs over the next5 years.

Unfortunately, this analysis makesno reference to third-party insurers orto this bodys agreement to keep theVeterans Administration whole rel-ative to third-party insurer dollars.This has caused a lot of concern here inthe House, as well as out in the com-munity.

Can the gentleman speak to this?Mr. STRARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want

to thank my colleague from Michiganfor this question. I think it is very im-portant.

As a member of the Committee onVeterans' Affairs and chairman of theHouse Subcommittee on Health, let meanswer by saying we in the Committeeon Veterans' Affairs have agreed withthe proposal to allow the VA to retain$600 million per year, or over a 5-yearperiod it is $3 billion, in collectionsfrom third parties.

But we are also aware of the uncer-tainty among veterans this policy cre-ates. We in the Committee on Veter-ans Affairs have addressed these fearsby developing language in the bill that•would authorize an automatic supple-mental appropriations if collectionsfall short by more than $25 million.

Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman from Florida.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today for the first timein the 15 years that I have served in theHouse, we stand within reach of a bal-anced budget. The question before us iswill we finish the job. We stand herewithin reach of a balanced budget be-cause we stand on the shoulders ofthose who went before us, Democratsin 1993, who leaned into this problem atgreat political cost. We paid for it atthe ballot box. The deficit wasratcheted then at $190 billion and ris-ing. We voted to do something about it.

To frame the context of what we aredoing, I pulled from my office shelf thisafternoon the Economic Report of thePresident filed by George Bush on Jan-uary 13, 1993, 1 week before Bill Clintoncame to office. If Members turn to page69 of that economic report, they willsee that the Bush administration pro-jected that the deficit for fiscal 1993would be $332 billion. The next year,1994, they said it would be $297, thenext year $265, the next year $241, andthis year, $266 billion.

0 1600They had another track. They as-

sumed that possibly we could rise to a


better result if we had higher growth inthe ecorlomy. And in that case they as-sumed 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 inthe House and the skin of its teeth inthe Senate. Guess what? The deficitcame down in fiscal year 1993 to $255billion. The next year when we closedthe books on fiscal 1994, it was $203 bil-lion. In 1995, when we closed the bookson that year, it was $164 billion. Andlast September 30, 1996, the deficit was$107.8 billion. Phenomenal. We cannotdeny it.

We are now looking and confidentlyexpecting a deficit which will be thisyear below $50 billion, probably below$40 billion.

The question is, will we complete thejob? Will we finish what we started in1993 and claim the victory to which weare entitled?

I address now my side of the aisle.This is our legacy, and today we shouldlay claim to it by voting this bill upand by finishing thejob.

When we started this year, it was notclear at all that we would be able tomuster the effort, mount the biparti-san kind of cooperation that would benecessary to bring together a biparti-san agreement and finish the job.

I want to give credit again to Presi-dent Clinton because as in 1993, againthis year he leaned into the problem.He issued a call for us to come to-gether, those of us who are on the Com-mittee on the Budget, to sit and talk,then to negotiate and finally to ham-mer out the terms of a bipartisan budg-et agreement.

And I give full credit to the Repub-lican leadership of the committee andof the House, because they respondedin earnest and in good faith to that callfor talks and for negotiations, and theystood firmly with the process to thevery end. The talks were hard fought,no doubt about it. We can sit here andbelieve thait the product that lies be-fore us was hammered out, hardwrought. Biut throughout those nego-tiations, there was civility and cordial-ity from the beginning to the very end.That is why we come here with anagreement t:hat I think we can call abipartisan agreement.

I noted eadier that when we broughtthat bipartisan agreement to the floorof the Hous in the form of a budgetresolution, in the form that we had ne-gotiated it, 1133 Democrats, nearly two-to-one, voted in favor of it. When theCommittee on the Budget then put theresolution out to the committees ofju-risdiction, nine all together. it pickedup a lot of extra baggage. From myside that baggage contained some bit-ter pills. It was hard to swallow. Welost more than half of our support forthis bill.

I voted for the reconciliation bill,notwithstanding all of those conten-tious provisions that were bitter toswallow for my side of the aisle. And

July 30, 1997when I did it, I said, I am betting onthe come. I have seen the bipartisancooperation that we have had in thenegotiations so far. If it prevails in theconference, I think we can clean outthe bitterness in this bill and bringback to the House a reconciliation billthat a large majority on my side canand should support, because a largemajority of the things in this will bethings that were our ideas, our initia-tives, things for working families whoare our constituents and our support-ers.

I stand before my colleagues today tosay I think we have reached that re-sult. I am not completely pleased withthis legislation, of course not. But Ihave rarely had the occasion to votefor the perfect bill in the 15 years thatI have been in the House. And I thinkthat this conference, in this conferencewe have had far more successes thansetbacks. We have a bill that is as closeto the budget resolution as we couldpossibly make it.

This is called a deficit reduction bill.Most of the focus has been on bal-ancing the budget. But in truth, this ismore than just a balanced budget,more than just a deficit reduction plan.As I have said before and I think itbears saying again, we did not get sofixated on the deficit that we forgotthat other problems exist in this coun-try. Working families need relief. Theyneed help, and we have tried to reachout and help them provide health in-surance, ensure that they have got aneducational opportunity, an oppor-tunity for higher education.

We have taken Medicare and dealtwith Medicare because it is the biggestspike in the budget, fast growing, highspending, we have to deal with it. Wecannot ignore it. We have reduced thecost by a net of $115 billion.

But we protected the beneficiaries,and Democrats can be proud of that be-cause we fought hard for that. We sawthat that had to be in this final pack-age. We have not only protected bene-ficiaries, we have added $4 billion inpreventive care coverage to this finalpackage, which is something, too, thatwe can be proud of.

There are lots of victories in here. Isay to my colleagues on my side of theaisle in particular, count the victories.Count the wins that we have got in thispackage. Count the ideas that are ourideas, that we should lay ownership toand take credit for in the passage ofthis package.

I think this bill achieves far morethan we as Democrats in the minoritycould ever have hoped to achieve act-ing by ourselves alone, even with thehelp of the administration. I ampleased with the outcome. I am goingto vote for it. I urge all of my col-leagues to do the same.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on behalfof the Republican Conference, I veryproudly yield the balance of my timeto the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KA-SICHI, chairman of the House Commit-tee on the Budget.

July30, 1997Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, you won-

der about Ronald Reagan and his wifeNancy in California. This is his legacy,to balance the budget and cut taxes.

The effort to do this, to shake us outof the status quo, has been driven bythe energy of a great Republican Presi-dent like Teddy Roosevelt.

Let me say that there are many,many Members here who are winners.It could not have been done withoutthe gentleman from South Carolina[Mr. SPRATr], working very hard, in abipartisan way, to sell this package.The Blue Dogs and my great friend, thegentleman from California [Mr.CONDIT], who came to the floor on avery tough amendment and gave us thevotes we needed to keep the packagetogether.

The Republican leadership, I lookover at the gentleman from Illinois[Mr. HASTERT] and the gentleman fromTexas [Mr. DELAY] and the gentlemanfrom Texas [Mr. ARMEY] who came tothis Congress to get this done, to bal-ance the budget and cut taxes. OurSpeaker, NEWT GINGRICH, who had thewill at times to lead when it was dif-ficult. The gentleman from Texas [Mr.ARCHER] who has been here for almostall of his adult life trying to balancethe budget and cut taxes and cut cap-ital gains. And there are just so manyMembers, the members of the Commit-tee on the Budget, starting in 1993,Rick May, my staff director, whoworked day and night, along with therest of the Committee on the Budgetstaff. They all deserve credit.

But let me, in a nutshell say to ev-eryone here, starting in the period ofthe Great Depression, my dad was onthe WPA. Roosevelt decided we neededa lot of solutions. And the Americanpeople said, we are willing to sendsome of our power and some of ourmoney and some of our influence to thecentral government. Over the course ofthe last 40 or 50 years, when we add upMedicare and Medicaid and civil rightsand education, so many wonderfulthings happened over the course of thattime.

But let me tell my colleagues wherewe are today, because everything inlife really is a balance. Everything inlife is really a pendulum. What this billrepresents today, a balanced budgetthat is real, the savings start today,what this really represents, along withtax cuts that give people power, it real-ly represents the dawning of a new era.It is an era where we recognize the lim-its of government, and we begin to onemore time count on the strength, theinnovation, the creativity and the pureenergy of the American people, all ofus, every single boy and girl, mom anddad, grandma and grandfather, to beginto heal our country. Because whatAmericans have been saying is, govern-ment did a good Job to get us over a lotof the hurdles and government still hasa job, but what Americans are sayingtoday is, let me get up to the plate, putthe bat in my hand, let me heal myfamily, let me heal my neighborhood,


let me heal my schoolhouse, let meheal my community and let me, work-ing with my neighbors, begin to healmy country on the basis of my individ-ual strength, innovation and ingenuity.

This is not the end of the day, obvi-ously. We face a generational war thatmust be avoided. It is the passing ofthe baton in a great relay race fromone generation to another. We, as thebaby boomers, and we, as those who arenearing the time when we will retire,have a responsibility to our childrenand our grandchildren.

We have to make sure that we canpass that baton and that is work thatlies ahead of us. But what is clear inthis bill is that we are now committingto limiting the power of governmentand enhancing the power of the individ-ual.

It is a start. It started by giving oursenior citizens more choice. It is hap-pening by giving our Governors moreflexibility to design programs to helppeople that fit their model and theircommunities. It is a program that en-hances the power of individualsthrough medical savings accounts. It isa program that puts power in people'spockets by reducing the size of Govern-ment and letting people keep more ofwhat they earn so they can help theirfamily and their community. That iswhat this bill represents.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, I say this toMembers on both sides of the aisle, thethird millennium will not be a time pe-riod where we will talk about thepower of regulators or regulations orlawmakers. The third millennium isgoing to be about the power of the indi-vidual, the spirit that created thiscountry and drives this country.

I want to make one final observationto my colleagues. There are many ofyou on both sides of the aisle that havea burning coal deep inside of yoursouls, whether it is in regard to chil-dren or whether it is in regard to na-tional security or whether it is in re-gard to helping our senior citizens toprosper or standing up for the best edu-cation for a tool for everybody thatbreathes inside this country or forAmerica to continue to be a brightshining light to the world.

I have one message for you: Do notever let your colleagues tell you youcannot get there. Do not ever let yourstaff say, it cannot be done, the moun-tain is too high. If you will maintainintegrity, if you will build a team, ifyou will be inclusive, if you will stayhonest to yourself, I do not care whatyour dream is, you can get it donethrough this House. The message heretoday is that people working togetherwith a great goal in mind, they can besuccessful and that this House works.

Let us support this bill and let ussend a strong message across this coun-try that we are going to win the futureand ignite our country to do even bet-ter.

God bless you.Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it would

be easy to join the administration and friends

H6337on both sides of the aisle in their acclaim fortheir tax and budget agreements, unfortu-nately, I don't believe a "yes" vote is in thebest long term interest of our country.

To be sure, the proposals are better thanwhen the process started. They are more fairand do less long term damage. In fact, thereare some elements I strongly favor: the adjust-ment of capital gains on the sale of residentialproperty, certain adjustment inheritance tax onfarms and smafl business, spending moremoney for education and the repair of obviousflaws in the welfare legislation passed lastyear. These are all worthy goals that I support.

In the final analysis there are still threebasic problems.

First, the tax changes are premature. Wehave not done any of the hard work on bal-ancing the budget. The tax changes are scat-tered and political rather than focused andeconomically driven.

Second, people most in need, students andworking families, don't get enough and thatwhich they do receive is not efficiently deliv-ered. For examp?e, students around Americaare clear that there are far better ways to pro-vide assistance to make sure that young peo-ple get the college education they need. Thetuition credit for tax deduction is an expensiveindirect way to help them.

Third and most fundamentally, the long termstructural problems remain unaddressed. Ourchallenges may be harder because we loseseveral years of potential progress while thelong term problem gets worse. It continues theillusion that budget cuts and entitlement re-form can be done effortlessly and withoutpain.

While acknowledging the good intentions ofthe crafters of these proposals and theprogress they have made, they are still at theircore a short term political adjustment when weneed long term fundamental change. I willcontinue my efforts in supporting any reason-able efforts to achieve that basic goal.

Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker and my col-leagues, I rise today in support of H.R. 2015,the Balanced Budget Act. I am pleased thatthe conference report before the House in-cludes important expanded preventive benefitsin the Medicare Program, including improvedcoverage of diabetes education and suppfles.This is a long-overdue change, one that I haveworked on for 4 years.

My daughter Amanda has diabetes. As afamily, we know that diabetes is the only dis-ease that is managed on a daily basis by thepatient. If a person with diabetes lacks theeducation and/or the proper supplies to man-age their disease, they'll do a poor job. Whenpeople do a poor job of managing diabetesthey end up in the hospital, go blind, sufferheart attacks and strokes. Currently, Medicarewon't pay for adequate coverage of se'f-man-agement training and the necessary tools tomanage diabetes, but it will pay for all theavoidable, preventable, costly complications ofthis disease. This legislation makes these im-portant changes in Medicare and will improvethe quality of life for people with diabetes. It isa remarkable achievement.

My colleague, Mr. NETHERCUIT of Washing-ton State, also has a daughter with diabetes.Eartier this year, Mr. NETHERCUIT and I intro-duced HR. 58 to improve Medicare coverageof self-management training and blood testingstrips. HR. 58, which has the support of over282 members of the House, corrects two criti-cal gaps in Medicare coverage which result in

H6338thousands more emergency room visits, in-creased hospitalizations, and cases of blind-ness, amputation and stroke. I am pleased toreport that the conference report includes im-proved coverage of self-management trainingand blood-testing strips, as well as blood glu-cose monitors. This is a dramatic achievementthat will save billions of dollars and improvethe quality of life for the 16 million Americanswith diabetes.

Numerous studies have clearly dem-onstrated how improving coverage of diabeteseducation and supplies saves money, andmany private sector companies are imple-menting diabetes programs to save precioushealth care dollars. In many ways, the bill be-fore the House today modernizes the Medi-care Program and brings it in line withchanges occurring in the private sector.

I want to thank my colleague on the Com-merce Committee, Mr. BIuRAKIS, as well asMr. BROWN and Mr. THOMAS for their supportof making this change. I also want to againthank my colleague from the Pacific North-west, Mr. NETHERCUTr, who cofounded theCongressional Diabetes Caucus with me. To-gether, as parents of children with diabetes,we have proven that there is no place for par-tisanship in tackling this devastating disease.This is a landmark achievement in the Medi-care Program and I urge all my colleagues tosupport passage of this conference reporttoday.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today insupport of the spending reconciliation bill,which builds upon the past success of deficitreduction agreements made by Congress, andoutlines a plan to lead to a balanced budgetby the year 2002. Each of us could and wouldchange the priorities and adjust the way wearrange the tax expenditures which we will beconsidering tomorrow, but this agreement in-cludes many compromises needed to findcommon ground.

Mr. Speaker, it's been a long hard pathback from President Reagan's 1981 river boatgambte, slashing revenues and lavish Penta-gon spending. Those dark years of annualdeficits punctuated by rhetoric and fingerpointing and constitutional amendments are nosubstitute for a good congressional constitu-tion for the membership. This year the deficitis estimated to be less than $40 billion throughSeptember 30, 1997, the lowest annual deficitsince the late 1960's. While a strong economyhas helped budget numbers, the lower deficitis in large part finally the result of major workdone by the Democratic majority in Congressin 1993 working with President Clinton. Iron-ically, that year we passed a deficit reductionpackage with close to $500 billion in deficit re-duction, more than double the amount we aretalking about today. Not one Republican votedfor that package, but the improved budgetnumbers we are working with now in 1997 areprincipally a result of those tough choicessome made in 1993. The current budget reso-lution builds upon sofld framework and standson the shoulders of the 1993 budget action.Most importantly, none of the 1993 measure isbeing repealed or greatly modified in theagreement being offered as a solution today.That speaks volumes concerning the validityof that 1993 budget achievement.

We have made positive progress in the an-nual deficit, and we must continue to makeprogress without extreme actions. Today'sbudget agreement, hammered Out by Presi-


dent Clinton and the Congress, demonstratesthat we can pursue fiscal balance without cre-ating socal imbalance. It extends the Medi-care trust fund, even while adding several pre-ventative benefits such as annual mammo-grams; protects the Medicaid Program; enactsthe most significant expansion of health carein three decades, and reinstates fair benefitsfor legal immigrants lost in the name of reformin 1996. Without the need of a majority vote,each of us no doubt would change this budg-et. But we must examine and judge this budg-et based on what is possible politically andpractically today, against the backdrop of1995—96, when polarization and the shutdownof the Federal Govemment were employed toachieve the ends that the Republican majorityin Congress sought, those goals were wrong.The public, the President, and political systemrejected the Republican agenda. Today weare acting on an agenda that the public, Presi-dent, and political system will accept, good forour economy and a sound fiscal policy path toa balanced budget.

Certainly one of the most important achieve-ments of t'iis budget agreement is the signifi-cant expalision of health care coverage forchildren. I have been a longtime advocate ofefforts to expand access to health insurancefor American families. This measure takes astep forward by expanding coverage for 5 mil-lion of the 10 million uninsured children in thisNation. This is the largest expansion of healthcare for children since the enactment of Med-icaid in 1965. In fact, the bill before us todayactually goes beyond the original budgetagreement by providing an additional $8 billionOver a 5-yEar period from a new tobacco taxto assure that the child health care insuranceis accompli$hed.

However, while I am pleased that Congressis acting to secure health insurance for chil-dren nationwide, I do not believe that the billincludes an equitable formula for distributingthe funds to States. Minnesota has made pio-neering efforts in providing health care cov-erage for children, so that it currently has thelowest rate of uninsured children in the Nation.However, bocause the bill's formula is basedon the number of uninsured children in eachState, Minnesota is being penalized because ithas already worked to expand children'shealth care. Several of my colleagues and I

attempted to change the bifl so that the for-mula would be based on the number of chil-dren in poverty, but the budget agreementonly allows for partial consideration of the pov-erty rate beginning in the year 2001.

While the Republicans did not sufficientlychange the children's health formula, theyhave withdrawn several other negative policyproposals which were included in this billwhen it originally passed the House. The peaand shell game that was put forth concerningprotections for legal immigrants has been cor-rected; they are now conforming to the impor-tant commitment of the original budget agree-ment to assist low-income seniors with theMedicare part B premiums; they have droppedtheir proposal to exempt some health plansfrom State solvency requirements andconsumer protections; they have deletedchanges to medical liability laws to cap mal-practice damiges; and they have backtrackedon several antiworker provisions, including aprovision which would have undermined basicemployment protections for people on welfare.

The devil of any budget is in the details andPresident Clinton working with our Democrat

July 30, 1997budget leaders excised most of the devilswhich would have derailed this agreement.The numbers and policy recommendations intoday's reconciliation bill reflect the fact thatour country does not need to renege on basiccommitments to the American family and ourconstituents in order to reduce the deficit andbalance the annual budgets. We do not needto create a human deficit in the name of deficitreduction. We can invest in our nation's futurethrough health care, education, Infrastructure,and the environment, and still achieve a soundbudget. In fact my view is that a human deficitwould soon lead to a fiscal deficit especially intoday's global economy.

This budget agreement serves as a fair Out-line for an economic agenda over the next fiveyears while not perfect. Overall, this budgetagreement is a very positive step, the productof compromise, which is necessary in today'spolitical climate and tomorrow's. The budgetbuilds on our past successes in deficit reduc-tion, finishing the job in a reasonable, if not anideal manner. No doubt some adjustmentsand modification will be made as we correctfor economic realities and attempt toreprioritize in the years ahead. It will be impor-tant for us to protect an re-examine the prior-ities important to the American people as wework to craft the bills to Implement the budgetagreement over the long term, but I believethis is a worthy product putting in place. Thepublic policy knowledge at our disposal withthe political symmetry of our national govern-ment into positive action for today, for the ben-efit of the American families we represent.

Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago,when we gained control of the House of Rep-resentatives, Republicans made a commitmentto cut taxes, balance the budget, and saveMedicare.

The spending and tax relief bills we take upthis week represent the fu'fillment of thosepromises. The Balanced Budget Act we areconsidering today is essential to balancing theFederal budget for the first time since 1969.

Of special interest to my constituents whoare senior citizens are the provisions relatingto Medicare. The Balanced Budget Act will re-store solvency to Medicare by saving $115 bil-lion over the next 5 years and implementingstructural reforms. These reforms include giv-ing new health care choices to seniors, includ-ing provider-sponsored networks; a dem-onstration program for medical savings ac-counts, which would permit 390,000 MSAplans; and new benefits, including mammo-grams and Pap smears, screening for prostateand colorectal cancer, and a program to helpwith diabetes management.

Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of news thatreally means something to people. I ampleased and proud that I can go home duringthe August recess and tell my constituentsthat their elected Representatives have takenresponsibility for the fiscal health of this Na-tion—and for the future of their children andgrandchildren—by preserving Medicare, givingthem back more of the hard-earned money,and balancing the budget.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the spendingreconciliation bill before us has a number ofimportant and commendable provisions. At thesame time, like many compromises, it includessome provisions which I consider quite objec-tionable.

On the positive side, the bill represents thefirst major expansion of health care in many

July 30, 1997years by establishing a $24 billion program toinsure our Nation's children. Extending healthcare to as many as 10 million uninsured chil-dren has been one of my most importantgoals, and this bill takes the first step in thatdirection.

The bill also makes useful and important re-forms of the Medicare Program that will ex-tend solvency of the Medicare trust fund, whileexpanding new preventative services and add-ing consumer protections. Similarly, newconsumer protections have been added to theMedicaid Program.

Unfortunately, despite these commendableprovisions, we shou'd not delude ourselvesthat this bill will likely provide a balancedbudget, in part because it uses $24 billion inphony revenues from sale of the public spec-trum. These telecommunications provisionswill give away the public spectrum for pennieson the dollar, and tamper with the public's Uni-versal Service Fund that provides affordabletelephone service to all areas of the country.

In addition, I have serious problems withsome of the Medicare provisions, such asmedical savings accounts and private fee-for-service plans, that threaten the long-term via-bility of Medicare.

I also have strong objections to the provi-sions in this bill that make unnecessary cuts inour veterans' health programs by as much as20 percent. This is undoubtedly the worstplace we could choose to balance the budget.

Any bill that is so comprehensive and filiedwith compromise is bound to have both verygood and very bad provisions, but as a Mem-ber of Congress we must choose either yes orno. In this case, Mr. Speaker, I believe thereare too many important provisions in this bill,particularly in improved health care, to turn itdown.

Therefore, I intend to vote yes to this con-ference report.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH

The most significant achievement in thisbudget, which I have fought hard to achieve,is a $24 billion in new spending for a newheath insurance program for at least half ofthe 10 million uninsured children in this coun-try.

These children in the families of workingAmericans will now have a real chance at ac-cess to vital health services, such as the pre-scriptions they need when they have an ear-ache or a sore throat, and eyeglasses so theycan read the blackboard in school.

There is no better investment that this Con-gress can make than helping children get ajump start on life by giving them access tohealth insurance to give them the opportunityto grow strong and happy.

SPECTRUM

The telecommunications provisions con-tained in this conference report have merelytwo flaws: They will gut vital telecommuni-cations policy goals that have enjoyed biparti-san support for decades. And they will donothing to achieve a balanced budget.

The Budget Committee and the leadershipof this body have made it clear that getting agood score from CBO is more important thangood policy. But this is not the congressionalbaseball game. That was played last night.

Today we are not playing a game wheregood score is the only objective—we are try-ing to do what is best for the American peo-ple.

One only needs to examine a few of thetelecommunications provisions to answer that


question: The bill forces the Govemment toliquidate a valuable natural resource—the pub-lic radio spectrum—for pennies on the dollar.It requires the auction of frequencies used bythe Govemment that experts say will put ourcountry's military operations at risk.

It takes the unprecedented step of tamper-ing with the Nation's universal service fund—a dangerous move that will hold affordabletelephone service hostage to the budget proc-ess from this day forward.

MEDICARE

This bill includes many posftive changes forMedicare-tough new fraud and abuse provi-sions; substantial consumer protections forMedicare-managed care; and exceflentchanges in Medigap.

I also noted that, thanks to efforts by Chair-man BILEY and BIURAKIS, the bill includes anumber of proposals offered by my Demo-cratic colleagues during Commerce Committeemarkup. However, the bill unfortunately in-cludes several proposals that I fear will provedangerous to Medicare.

Specifically, medical savings accounts andprivate contracts between physicians and cer-tain Medicare beneficiaries, for health servicesoutside of Medicare, are dangerous proposals.While this bill includes commendable limits onboth approaches, I continue to believe theyare inherent menances to Medicare.

Also, the conference report includes a rem-nant of a very misguided Senate proposal forso-called private fee-for-service health plans.Even with the limits on beneficiary copay-ments and balance billing wisely included inthe conference report, this is a perilous ideawhich chips into the foundation of Medicareand could lead to the crumbling of that criticalfoundation, brick by brick.

MEDICAID

The conference report includes several vitalimprovements in the Medicaid Program: It pro-vides individuals with a choice of managedcare programs; it establishes a prudentayperson definition of medical emergencies,so that people experiencing chest pains can-not be denied payment for emergency roomservices; it requires Medicaid plans to havegrievance procedures for people who havebeen denied services; and it providesconsumer information on managed care plans.

I am pleased that payments to Communityhealth centers have been preserved over thenext 6 years. I intend to keep a close watchover these payments, so that we do not putthese important health centers at risk.

I am concerned, however, by the repeal ofthe requirement of adequate payment to nurs-ing homes, which I believe will threaten impor-tant protections of seniors.

Finally, while there was much in this rec-onciliation process which precluded a carefuldebate on these issues, I do want to expressappreciation to my colleague and chairman ofthe committee, TOM BLILEY and his excellentand hard-working staff for their willingness towork with members of the minority and ourstaff, to hear our concems, and include ourstaff in important drafting sessions. I commendthe committee staff for their professionalismand their cooperation. I also want to thank thehard efforts of our Democratic staff on this bill,and for their many hours of work on this bill.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I risetoday in support of the Balanced Budget Actof 1997. AChieving a balanced budget hasbeen a major priority of mine since I first ran

H6339for Congress. I am very pleased that today wewill vote on a measure that will balance thebudget for the first time in 28 years.

In addition to balancing the budget, impor-tant headway is made with this legislation inseveral areas. The Medicare Trust Fund ispreserved to the year 2007. The package Con-tains structural reforms and expands choicesfor seniors. The bill includes preventive carebenefits for mammographies, pap smears, dia-betes, prostate, and colorectal cancer screen-ing, vaccines and others. Tough, new anti-fraud measures will increase accountabilitythrough stiff penalties for those in violation ofthe law. Medical Savings Accounts [MSA'sJwill allow tax-free annual contributions to anindividually controlled account and can beused to pay for qualified medical expenses.The project will Cover 390,000 seniors andwould be combined with a high-deductible in-surance policy to provide protection againstcatastrophic injuries or illnesses.

This bill also increases the freedom and op-tions available to beneficiaries. Patients wiil fi-nally be allowed to privately pay for servicesnot offered by Medicare. Additionally, Medi-care can no longer restrict providers' advice tobeneficiaries about medical care or treatment.Beneficiaries will also be given a voice via anew toll-free number to report fraud and billingirregularities directly to the inspector generalof Health and Human Services.

While I am in support of the provisions thatwill preserve Medicare to the year 2007, I alsounderstand the need for continued reform.With this legislation, a National BipartisanCommission on the Future of Medicare will ad-dress Medicare's long-term solvency crisis andmake recommendations to Congress on howto preserve the Medicare Program.

In addition to the Medicare provisions, theMedicaid portion of the bill projects savings of$13 billion over 5 years and increases Stateftexbility, allowing States to provide morecost-effective medical Coverage for low-incomepersons. The legislation also reforms the dis-proportionate share hospital [DSHJ paymentsthrough a revised formula designed to protectStates from excessive reductions.

There are many positive provisions in thisbill in addition to the ones I have mentioned.However, there are also a variety of provisionsthat I do not support. For example, I do notsupport increasing taxes and do not believethis increase is the appropriate forum to dealwith the question of tobacco. I also have Con-cerns about the children's health provisions.While I definitely want to see every child re-ceive necessary medical attention, I do not be-lieve that the Federal Government can orshould replace parents in caring for children. I

am also disappointed States like Texas willnot be permitted to use nongovernmental per-sonnel in the determination of eligibility for cer-tain benefits. As this Congress strives toachieve a fiscally responsible government,programs like the Texas Integrated EnrollmentSystem need to be given every opportunity torun as efficiently and effectively as possible.

In this bill, there is good and bad legsIation.Ultimately, the good outweighs the bad. Forthe first time in 28 years, Congress will bringsome fiscal responsibility to the Federal budg-et. Additionally, preserving the Medicare TrustFund is critical to seniors and action is nec-essary immediately. For these primary rea-sons, I support the Balanced Budget Act of1997.

H6340Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to op-

pose the balanced budget agreement. Thisdeal is praised as a bipartisan victory—that wehave balanced the budget and increasedspending for some social programs. Nothing isfurther from the truth.

This balanced budget deal was achievedprimarily by drastic cuts—$115 billion fromMedicare—the major health program for theelderly, and $13 billion in savings from Medic-aid—the major Federal program providinghealth care for poor people. The budget getsbalanced by cutting Medicare payments todoctors, hospitals, and other health care pro-viders. The budget deal freezes Medicare pay-ments to hospitals at the fiscal year 1997level—even though we all know that the de-mand and costs are rising. And this deal re-duces Medicare and Medicaid payments forhospitals that serve a disproportionate numberof low-income patients—the very poor—theuninsured. These include public hospitals likeCook County Hospital in Chicago and the Uni-versity of Chicago Hospital in the First Con-gressional District. And the cuts also hurtthose whose very breath depends on homeoxygen. The budget cuts payments for oxygenand oxygen equipment. This budget deal waspaid for with another deal—generous tax cutsthat favor those who are better off. Only aquarter of these cuts go to people making lessthan $100,000 a year. Thirty-six percent ofthese cuts go to the top 1 percent of incomeeamers.

With due respect to the President, and mycolleagues on both sides of the aisle-thisbudget does contain some hard-won prov-sions—but lets not forget they were fought forand won-—by poor people, working people,and advocates for children and immigrants.This bill does include expanded health insur-ance for poor children. The bill restores bene-fits to legal immigrants who become disabledand it guarantees minimum wage and work-place protections to workfare participants. But5 million children who need health insurancewill not be covered. Legal immigrants will notreceive food stamps. And our Nation's schoolsthat need serious rebuilding so they can moveour children into the 21st century and get con-nected to the information superhighway do nothave the funds they need.

Last spring, I cast my vote for the Congres-sional Black Caucus [CBC] Budget. I wasproud to vote for that budget. That budgetboth balanced and fully funded vital safety netprograms like WIC and Head Start. The CBCbudget protected the constituents of the FirstCongressional District. I represent a districtwhere 20 percent of my constituents live inpoverty. Thirty-six percent of the childrenunder 18 in my district live in poverty. Howcould I vote for a budget deal like this whenmothers in my district like Grand Boulevardwatch their babies die at three times the na-tional average?

My decision to vote 'no' on this budgetagreement is not a close call. I befieve it is adisgrace. It is a betrayal of our basic demo-cratic ideals.

Mr. DOYLE. I rise today to support thisspending package, H.R. 2015. This proposal,combined with the tax package we wiI con-sider tomorrow, establishes a frameworkwhere, for the first time since 1969, our Nationwill achieve a balanced budget by the year2002.

Past efforts in Washington to achieve thistype of fiscal balance have been met by par-


tisan gridlock and an unwiUingness to com-promise. This left the American people with abudget problem and no solutions, with a budg-et deficit rowing larger each year.

During this most recent effort, however,Members of Congress and the President notonly listened to our constituents and other af-fected parties, we also listened to each other.The resull of this effort is the balanced budgetproposal we are considering this week.

H.R. 2015 represents the spending portionof this bipartisan budget package, which out-lines an intelligent solution to not only bringthe budget into financial balance, but also toimplement other initiatives that improve thelives and health of our most vulnerable citi-zens.

It is never easy reforming a program, suchas Medicare, that so many people depend onfor essential services. However, if left un-touched, by the year 2001, the Medicare Pro-gram would no longer be able to pay for theservices it provides to eligible beneficiaries. It

is because of this financial instability that Con-gress took action to develop a proposal thatextends the solvency of the Medicare Pro-gram.

The majority of the reforms included in thebill primarily affect health care providers bymaking changes to reimbursement rates or themethod Medicare uses to reimburse theseproviders. This bill also expands coverage ofpreventive care for senior citizens, includingservices related to diabetes, osteoporosis, andcertain types of cancer, and it includes provi-sions to further reduce fraud and abuse in theprogram. Additionally, to respond to an in-creasing use of managed care entities in theheafth care system, the bill institutes importantconsumer [Drotections for Medicare bene-ficiaries, enuring that seniors who enroll inmanaged care plans are provided adequatemedical services.

This Iegi&ation will not only ensure contin-ued access to health care services for Penn-sylvania's seniors, but it also protects theCommonwealth's youngest residents by set-ting aside $24 billion over 5 years to providehealth coverage for uninsured children. Thisimportant initiative would provide essentialhealth coverage to as many as 5 million chil-dren who ase currently living without healthbenefIts.

These initiatives will help secure a healthierfuture for our Nation, and, at the same time,ensure that our Nation's financial health im-proves as well. I am pleased to support H.R.2015, which will balance the Federal budget ina manner that is fair and equitable to all Amer-icans.

Mr. SNOWI3ARGER. Mr. Speaker, I stronglysupport the main intent of this bill, namely torestrain entitl3ment growth and balance theFederal budget. That is why I voted for thebudget resoIuion in May as well as for this billwhen it was approved by the House earlierthis month. Since that time, however, so muchhas been added in the form of increasedspending and increased taxes that I cannotvote for passage of the conference committeereport.

As I have said many times, I did not cometo Washington to raise taxes, whatever thesource may ba. I know that tobacco compa-nies are an inviting target for those who areconstantly seeking additional sources for gov-ernmental revenue. But the issue is not wherethe money conies from. I am no fan of the to-

July 30, 1997bacco industry. In fact, I have voted in theKansas Legislature for increases in the Statetobacco tax and, since coming to Congress, Ihave voted against subsidies for the tobaccoindustry. Moreover, I have never accepted adime of tobacco money in my seven cam-paigns for public office. The issue here iswhether the Congress should raise taxes withone hand even while it reduces them with theother.

To put it simply, the Federal Government al-ready has too much money. It does not needmore. Although this tax is ostensibly to fundincreased health care availability for kids, theHouse earlier this month passed, with my sup-port, a far more responsible version of this bill,fully funding the program at the level re-quested by the President without a tax in-crease.

Furthermore, the increase in the tobacco taxruns the risk of robbing States of Medicaid re-imbursement from the tobacco industry. I amtold that this tax on the tobacco companies iscredited against the obligations under theiragreement with the States' attorneys general.I have repeatedly inquired whether the to-bacco companies may be able to avoid someportion of their obligations under the agree-ment to compensate the States for Medicaidpayments. Because no one has been able toassure me this is not the case, I am reluctantto risk taking this hard-won money away fromState Medicaid programs.

This biil also contains unacceptable in-creases in Federal spending. While purportingto reduce and reform entitlements, it actuallycreates a new entitlement for children's healthcare, costing $24 billion over 5 years, a full $8billion more than even President Clinton re-quested.

Finally, the bill reverses the welfare reformapproved by Congress just 2 years ago. It sig-nificantly increases food stamps and otherwelfare spending, sets up yet another Federaljobs program costing $3 billion over 4 years,and extends SSI and Medicaid eligibility tonon-citizens even while benefits for Americancitizens are being curtailed.

There are, of course, many laudable provi-sions in this bill. Reforming of some entitle-ments and slowing the growth of governmentspending are crucial elements to balancing thebudget. But my support for these positive ele-ments does not require that I accept every de-structive provision inserted at the demand ofthe other body or the White House. Unfortu-nately, what was a good bil! when it left theHouse has simply been loaded up with unnec-essary taxes and spending. It stands in starkcontrast to the conference report on the taxportion of this balanced budget, which to agreat extent remained faithful to our pledge ofless govemment and lower taxes. When theHouse considers the conference committee re-port on the tax bill, I will proudy support it.

Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today insupport of the conference report on the bal-anced budget agreement. I would also like tooffer my praise and congratulations to all ofthe House and Senate members, as well asPresident Clinton and his administration, whoworked so hard to reach this momentousagreement. Throughout my tenure in theHouse of Representatives, I have championedbalancing the federal budget, and I am proudthat this often elusive goal has finally beenachieved. Although this agreement is not ex-actly as I would have drafted it, nor is it likely

July30, 1997to precisely mirror the priorities of any onemember of Congress, it is nonetheless a goodbudget which will provide significant benefitsto every American. In addition, I applaud theremarkable spirit of bipartisanship which hasgenerally characterized the long and com-picated path that led us to this point.

Of particular importance to myself and myconstituents are the provisions of this budgetregarding health care and education. I ampleased that more meaningful education taxcredits than ever before will be available toAmerican parents struggling to send their chil-dren to college. In addition, the increase inPell Grant funding will enable more studentsto receive critical financial assistance as theypursue their education. Congress has dem-onstrated through this agreement its dedica-tion to educating the youth of this nation, andI hope this will prove to be the beginning of alasting bipartisan effort to help families ofevery income level afford higher education fortheir children.

I also believe that this budget agreementrepresents a victory for rural health care. As amember of the Rural Health Care Coalitionand its co-chair for the last three years, one ofmy foremost priorities has been to restore eq-uity to the AAPCC, which determines howMedicare reimburses health plans. This bill en-acts an adequate minimum floor and, most im-portantly, a 50/50 blend over six years, whichwill provide rural seniors with increased healthcare options. In addition, this agreement es-tablishes a Iimted-seMce hospital model thatwill allow rural hospitals to remain financiallyviable. We have also taken steps in regard torural referral centers, including permitting themto be reclassified for the purposes of dis-proportionate share hospital payments. All ofthese provisions were included in H.R. 1189,the Rural Health Care Improvement Act of1997, which I co-authored. These, combinedwith numerous other valuable provisions, rep-resent a significant step forward for our ruralresidents.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I am proud that thisCongress will have the honor of reaching anagreement to balance the federal budget forthe first time in decades, and I urge my col-leagues to vote in support of it. It is a victoryfor our children and grandchildren and a mon-umental achievement for us all.

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today inopposition to H.R. 2015, the Budget Reconcili-ation Spending Act Conference Report.

I am no stranger to the tough, courageousdecisions that must be made to balance ourbudget. In 1993, when faced with a record$290 billion deficit, Democrats, including my-self, stood tall and—without a single Repub-lican vote—passed the original "BalancedBudget Plan," which has reduced the deficitalmost 90 percent. As a result of the 1993budget, the deficit has been reduced everyyear for five years in a row for the first timesince Harry Truman was in the White House.In fact, many economists project that the 1993Budget Plan will balance the budget next yearif no other plan is passed.

While the Majority Leader prefers to creditthe free-spending economic policy of Presi-dent Reagan, the Congressional Budget Officeprojects that—without the 1993 Budget Plan—we would be facing a deficit of $319 billionright now, and a whopping $519 billion by theyear 2002.

Instead, today our deficit stands at $30 bil-lion—it's lowest point in three decades, and


we are on the threshold of balancing thebudget. All that remains is to take the finalstep. Unfortunately, this plan is a step in thewrong direction.

Mr. Speaker, this spending plan wouldachieve most of its saving through deep cutsto two programs—Medicare and Medicaid. Infact, the $115 billion being stripped from Medi-care is, by far, the single largest cut in theplan.

Unlike many, I am not consoled by the factthat other, more devastating provisions havebeen eliminated from the plan. Until recently,this budget included proposals to means-testMedicare, raise the eligibility age, and set adangerous precedent by requiring copaymentsfrom seniors for benefits that have alwaysbeen fully paid for by Medicare. While theseplans may have been tabled for now, H.R.2015 would create a commission that will un-doubtedly revisit these issues again in thecoming years.

Dropping a few irresponsible, misguided at-tacks on the Medicare Program has not blind-ed me to the fact that this budget raises sen-iors Part B premiums $275 a year by 2002.Abandoning plans to raise the Medicare eligi-bility age does not hide the fact that thisscheme attempts to privatize Medicare.

It is ironic that on the 32d anniversary of thecreation of Medicare, we are considering legis-lation that would dismantle the program. Sim-ply put, Medicare works. It is one of the mostsuccessful programs in American history,guaranteeing health care coverage for everyAmerican in their golden years. And it worksfor one very simple reason—everyone paysinto Medicare, and everyone enjoys the bene-fits, regardless of income.

Instead, provisions in this budget will de-stroy the universality of Medicare by allowingsome Americans to opt out of the program.These provisions create Medical Savings Ac-counts (MSA5) and private fee-for-serviceplans that wiH give the healthiest and wealthi-est beneficiaries the option to abandon the tra-ditional Medicare system, leaving behind low-income and chronically ill seniors. Once thehealthy and wealthy seniors have left the sys-tem, health care costs will skyrocket, quality ofcare wifl deteriorate, and Medicare will—asSpeaker Gingrich predicted—"wither on thevine."

Other spending cuts that will undermine So-cial Security and Medicare are much more di-rect. This budget cuts 61 percent of the totaladministrative funding from Social Security,Veterans Benefits, and Medicare, cripplingtheir ability to run these vita! and importantprograms. I am told it currently takes betweensix months to a year to process a Social Se-curity claim. These cuts would bring that al-ready slow pace to a virtual stand-still, incon-veniencing thousands of beneficiaries who relythese services for their sole source of income,and emergency health care needs. Clearly,this budget is not concerned about the healthand welfare of America's veterans and seniorcitizens.

But seniors and vets aren't the only oneswho bear the brunt of these spending cuts—hospitals that serve the neediest children andfamilies will also take an enormous hit. The$13.6 billion in Medicaid cuts that this budgetcalls for would come primarily from dispropor-tionate share hospital payments (DSH). Thesecuts would hurt only those hospitals that servethe sickest and neediest among us. In addi-

H6341tion, the multi-level cuts contained in this billmake it impossible for struggling, nonprofithospitals to shift the burden of the cuts andwill eventually force them to close their doors.Those hospitals that are able to remain openwould face the same burdensome cuts infunding, while being expected to absorb thepatients formerly served by the closed hos-pitals.

The obvious result of this plan would be asharp decline in the quality of care, inevitablejob losses, and the closing of many hospitalsin my district. Since nearly 15 percent of myregion's economy depends directly on provid-ing health care, these cuts would have a rippleeffect that would be felt in every sector of theloca' economy.

Mr. Speaker, the Third District of Pennsylva-nia is home to over 101,000 senior citizens,making it the 20th oldest district in America.Well over half of all hospital admissions in mydistrict are dependent entirely on either Medi-care or Medicaid. Clearly, substantial cuts tothese important programs would have a pro-found impact on the hospitals' ability to pro-vide quality care to my constituents.

Few, if any, districts in the nation will be hitas hard as mine by these devastating cuts toMedicare and Medicaid. The absence of HI-considered provisions into Medicare thatwould completely gut these important pro-grams does nothing to soften the crushingblow this budget will deliver to the sick, theneedy, and the elderly in my district.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot, in good conscience,vote for a budget that takes money from thepockets of senior citizens, turns its back onthe uninsured, and threatens to undermine theintegrity of the Medicare Program. For thatreason, I must oppose this budget.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in op-position to the conference report on this legis-lation to balance the federal budget by 2002.Let me stress that I am committed to bal-ancing the federal budget, but I cannot votefor this compromise budget package.

I believe my ten-year voting record speaksto my commitment to balance the budget. Infact, last week I was one of 81 members whovoted for the Budget Enforcement Act. Clearly,this was not a very popular vote, but it dem-onstrated my dedication to balancing thebudget. Similarly, I have cosponsored andvoted for Constitutional amendments designedto impose a balanced federal budget. I under-stand the benefits to the economy, my con-stituents and their families' futures of a bal-anced federal budget and debt reduction. I be-lieve we need to balance the budget as soonas possible, and I disagree with too many ele-ments of this compromise to be able to sup-port it today.

In my opinion, there are several major short-comings in the budget deal just finalized byCongressional leaders and the White House.Specifically the deal allows spending in-creases for existing non-defense discretionaryprograms—and the creation of new pro-grams—which were required to ensure Presi-dent Clinton's support and signature. Thesespending increases will lead to an expansionof the federal bureaucracy and an expectedincrease in the deficit until 2001 when it finallywill begin to drop. While the spending in-creases are promised in the short run, thespending cuts that are required to bring thebudget into balance are what we call 'backloaded," meaning that they will not be madeuntil near the final years of the agreement.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 30, 1997

Paul Sanders TiahrtPayne Sanford TownsPombo Scarborough VelazquezRahall Serrano WatersRangel Shadegg Watt (NC)Rohrabacher Smith, Linda WaxmanRoyce Snowbarger Weldon (FL)Rush Stark YatesRyun StokesSalmon Taylor (MS)

NOT VOTING—4Forbes SchiffGonzalez Young (AK)

0 1643Mr. 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.

GENERAL LEAVEMr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-

imous consent that all Members mayhave 5 legislative days within which torevise and extend their remarks and in-clude extraneous material on the con-ference reportjust agreed to.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman from Con-necticut?


H6342Finally, the new tobacco taxes are unac-

ceptab?e to the overwhelming majority of myconstituents. Under this agreement, tobaccowill be hit with a complicated new tax scheme

GeJdensonGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmor

LivingstonLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucas

RoemerRoganRogersRos-LehtinenRothman

which among other things will mandate an ad-ditional 10 cents per pack tax in 2000 and an-other 5 cent one in 2002, As you can see, an

GilmanGingrichGoodlatteGoodllng

LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)Manton

RoukemaRoybal-AllardSaboSanchez

additional 15 cents a pack will be levied bythis budget deal. I believe that this is an unfairattack on a legal product, one that would hurt

GordonGossGrangerGreen

ManzulloMartinezMascaraMatsui

SandlinSaw'erSaxtonSchaefer, Dan

nearly 45,000 tobacco farmers in North Caro-lina (including over 4,000 in the 10th districtalone), and more than 31,000 workers in relat-ed industries in my district and the state.

GreenwoodGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)Hamilton

Mccarthy (MO)Mccarthy (NY)McCollumMccreryMcDade

Schaffer, BobSchumerScottSensenbrennerSessions

Moreover, this excise tax is regressive, hittinghardest those who can least afford this tax in-

HansenHarmanHastert

McHaleMcHughMclnnls

ShawShaysSherman

crease.In sum, although I could not vote for the

Hastings (WA)Hayworth

McKeonMcKinney

ShimkusShuster

compromise balanced budget package, I willcontinue to work to balance the federal budg-et. However, we can and must do so without

HefleyHefnerHergerHill

MeehanMeekMenendezMetcalf

SisiskySkaggsSkeenSkelton

all the unnecessary spending, unfair taxes andbudget tricks included in this particu'ar pack-age. In fact, estimates show that we could bal-ance the federal budget in just a few short

HincheyHinoiosaHobsonHoekstraHolden

Millender-McDonald

Miller (CA)Miller (FL)Minge

SlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (OR)Smith (TX)

years if we hold down spending. Why waituntil 2002, if we don't have to?

HooleyHornHostettler

MolinariMoran (VA)Morella

Smith, AdamSnyderSolomon

0 1615HoughtonHoyer

MurthaMyrick

SouderSpence

The SPEAKER. Without objection,the previous question is ordered on the

HulshofHunterHutchinson

NealNethercuttNeumann

SprattStabenowStearns

conference report.There was no objection.The SPEAKER. The question is on

HydeInglisJackson-Lee

(TX)

NeyNorthupNorwoodNussle

StenholmStricklandStumpStupak

the conference report.The question was taken; and the

Speaker announced that the ayes ap-peared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a

JeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson (WI)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamKanJorski

OlverOrtizOxleyPackardPallonePappasParkerPascrell

SununuTalentTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (NC)ThomasThompson

recorded vote. Kasich Pastor Thornberry

A recorded vote was ordered.The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were—ayes 346, noes 85,not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 3451

KellyKennellyKildeeKimKind (WI)King (NY)Kleczka

PaxonPeasePelosiPeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)PetriPickering

ThuneThurmanTierneyTorresTraficantTurnerUpton

AYES—346 Klink Pickett Vento

Abrcrombie Buyer DeLayAckerman Callahan DeutschAderholt Calvert Diaz-BalartAllen Camp DicksAndrews Campbell DingellArcher Canady DixonArmey Cannon DoggettBachus Capps DooleyBaker Cardin DoyleBaldacci Carson DreierBarcia Castle DuncanBarr Chabot DunnBarrett (NE) Chambliss EdwardsBarrett (WI) Chenoweth EhlersBartlett Christensen EhrlichBass Clayton EmersonBateman Clement English

KIugKnollenbergKolbeLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLantosLathamLaTouretteLazioLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinski

PittsPomeroyPorterPortmanPoshardPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRamstadRedmondRegulaReyesRiggsRileyRiversRodriguez

ViscloskyWalshWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (PA)WellerWexlerWeygandWhiteWhitfieldWickerWiseWolfWoolseyWynnYoung (FL)

Becerra Clyburn EnsignBentsen Collins Eshoo NOES—85Bereuter Combest Evans Baesler Dickey KilpatrickBerman Condit EverettBilbray Cook EwingBilirakis cooksey FarrBishop Costello FattahBlagojevich Cox Fawell

BallengerBartonBerryBlumenauerBlunt

DoolittleEngelEtheridgeFilnerFrank (MA)

KingstonKucinichLargentMarkeyMcDermott

Bliley Coyne Fazio Bonilla Gephardt McGovernBoehlert Cramer Flake Borski Goode McIntoshBoehner Crane FogliettaBontor Crapo Foley

BoucherBryant

GrahamGutierrez

McIntyreMcNulty

Bono Cubin Ford Burr Hastings (FL) MicaBoswell Cummings FowlerBoyd Cunningham FoxBrady Danner Franks (NJ)

ClayCobleCoburn

HillearyHilliardIstook

MinkMoakleyMollohan

Brown (CA) Davis (FL) FrelinghuysenBrown (FL) Davis (VA) Frost

ConyersDavis (IL)

Jackson (IL)Jones

Moran (KS)Nadler

Brown (OH) Deal FurseBunning DeGette Gallegly

DeFazioDelahunt

KapturKennedy (MA)

OberstarObey

Burton DeLauro Ganske Dellums Kennedy (RI) Owens

SENATE DEBATE

OF CONFERENCE REPORT

JULY 30, 1997

S8314 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE July 30, 1997

BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997—CONFERENCE REPORT

The Senate continued with the con-sideration of the conference report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whoyields time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I sug-gest the absence of a quorum and askunanimous consent that it be chargedequally.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.COATS). Without objection, it is so or-dered.

The clerk will call the roll.The bill clerk proceeded to call the

roll.Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I un-derstand Senator GRAMS would like tospeak for up to 10 minutes. I yield himthat time off the bill from our side ofthe 10 hours.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Minnesota is recognized tospeak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want togive my congratulations to the chair-man of the Budget Committee and allthe others who have worked so hardover the last couple of weeks to workout an especially very important taxpackage, which I believe is going to bea step in the right direction of reliev-ing some of the tax burden placed onAmerican families over the last severalyears.

So with that, Mr. President, I rise toexpress my strong support for the taxrelief package that will be coming be-fore the Senate tomorrow. I want totake this opportunity, again, to com-mend and thank the majority leader,

Chairman DOMENICI, Chairman ROTH,and the negotiators for the administra-tion for all of their efforts to bring usto this historic point here today.

S8316 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from New Mexico.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, thankyou for recognizing me.

I want to make an announcement forSenators. The bill—the very large billthat you have seen kind of appear onthe desk—is available to those whohave access to the Internet. You canview the bill through a link in theBudget Committee office. You can do itin your own offices on the Budget Com-mittee home page, and the bill will behere no longer than a half-hour fromnow in sufficient numbers for thosewho want to view it in its entirety.

As you know, the House is voting onthe bill now—debating and voting onit. Then it will officially be transmit-ted to us. We have decided to start de-bating this so that we could all use thistime during the day and not have to behere all night to get this done in atimely manner.

Mr. President, I want to make a fewobservations. Obviously, Senator LAU-TENBERG will have his, and then Iwould like very much to say to Sen-ators that we are using time out of the10 hours allowed.

I understand from our majority lead-er that we intend to get this bill done,if possible, tonight: if not, clearly to-morrow morning. So that means we aregoing to spend a lot of time here on thefloor between now and the time we quittonight.

So, if Senators have comments theywould like to make, or if they havequestions, I would particularly suggestif you have questions with reference tothe Byrd rule—one of the rules thatapply to these bills that do not applyanywhere else because it has to do witha special test for extraneousness—Iwish they would talk with us, or talkwith Senator LAUTENBERG's staff or ourrespective leadership offices about theByrd rule violations that we are awareof and kind of documented now. Wewould all like to have a chance to worktogether on them. When it comes tothat issue, I would like to make thefollowing statement so that everybodyunderstands. I am sure my friend, Sen-ator LAUTENBERG, will concur.

The White House has been involvedfrom the very beginning in the prepara-

July 30, 1997tion of this legislation. And from timeto time both the Republicans and theWhite House have been involved withDemocratic legislators. But let memake it very clear. This is a historicdocument in another procedural con-text because last evening the WhiteHouse staff stayed until late in theevening—in fact, until the early morn-ing hours—before they would sign offon this. They read every single word oflegislative language. And, indeed, theyread every word in the accompanyingreport language. Frankly, I have beenaround here a long time and workingwith administrations and the WhiteHouse with legislation up here, and Ithink this may be the first time thathas ever happened.

I only say that because, obviously, itwas hard to put this package together.In the process there are manywordsmiths, and there are many thingsthat have to be put together in termsof language. But every bit of it, includ-ing those few instances where there areByrd rule violations—and that soundsrather ominous, but it really meansthat we have a technical rule that saysyou ought not be legislating in thisbill. You ought to be doing deficit re-duction. And on some occasions it ishard to keep that altogether and notfall into something that is legislativein a 1,000-page document.

So let me stop the process part, andjust remind Senators who would like tospeak today if you have some thoughtsand things that you want the public tohear from the floor of the Senate, assoon as you can start calling us fortime, we would be very, very glad toaccommodate. And I think we can ac-commodate most people on a rathershort notice because from my stand-point I have said an awful lot. I don'tintend to be here on the floor saying alot more. I am just trying to get thisbill completed.

But let me start by saying this morn-ing that the headline in the Washing-ton Post, which has not been very sup-portive of this, used five very nicewords. They said, This is a Big Deal."Maybe they don't like the 'big deal,'but it is nice that they recognize whatall of us know—that this is a big dealfor the American people. It carries outa bipartisan budget agreement that initself was historic between the Presi-dent and the leadership of Congressback in May. It is a big deal in thistown when we could do what the Amer-ican people asked us to do, and that isto work together to live by our com-mitments, to reduce spending and re-duce taxes, and get our work done.

So it is pretty obvious that this is abig deal. It balances the budget for thefirst time in 30 years. And I know thereare many who will continue to be skep-tical until that day arrives. Frankly, Iam here saying I am a pretty goodbudgeteer. I understand all of these nu-ances about budgeting, and how theeconomy impacts on it—how inflationimpacts, how the growth in the econ-omy impacts. But absent a real major

July30, 1997catastrophe, which nobody can planfor, this budget will be balanced.Frankly, it is because of a number ofthings. The economy is doing splen-didly. That could change. But it lookslike things are in place like theyhaven't been for a long, long time interms of those things that make aneconomy go into recession or into aninflationary cycle. And we are notgrowing out of control. It is kind of ameasure of good solid growth.

So I think we are entitled to use con-servative estimates for the next 5

years, which we have done, Mr. Presi-dent. The economics in this bill's pro-jections for the future are not overlyoptimistic. So when you add it up, forthose who say we have some new pro-grams and we spend some money, thatis correct. For some there isn't enoughby way of cutting the budget in this—cutting the expenditures. But I will getto that in a minute."Just remember, it is a DemocraticPresident elected by the people and aRepublican-controlled Congress withDemocrats in the minority who had toput a package together that did some-thing significant, or spend the next 3½years, in my opinion, doing nothing.We would have been around here fight-ing. We would have at every junctureon every bill have had stalemates. Wemight have even closed down Govern-ment again.

So from my standpoint, if you lookat 10 years—and I am not saying every-thing in these 10 years is locked instone, but 5 years of it is—we reducewhat we would have otherwise spent byabout $1 trillion. This time we have notincluded in that estimate the savingsthat will come from debt service be-cause as you reduce the amount thatyou borrow you take off of that base-line that had calculated in it interest.

Yes, this balanced budget is a bipar-tisan budget agreement. We followed itas well as any differing groups couldfollow it. We put it together with a dif-ferent group than had to implement it.So that is not easy, for they alwayssecond-guess us and claim they shouldhave been in. I wish everybody in theSenate could have been in on the nego-tiating. I wish every chairman couldhave been. I guess as I wish it I speakthe truth—that had they we wouldn'tbe here. That is the reality of trying todo this kind of thing.

But we said in that agreement thatwe were going to spend $24 billion. Wedid agree to provide $24 billion in newspending for children's health pro-grams for insurance. We also agreed tomake changes in last year's welfare re-form, which results in some additionalnational spending.

I want to correct myself. The biparti-san agreement said $16 billion in newspending for child health care cov-erage. The U.S. Senate voted in $24 bil-lion, and the Senate version prevailedin the final outcome of negotiations.

I note on the floor of the Senate now,along with Senator LAUTENBERG, is thedistinguished Senator from Delaware,Senator BILL ROTH.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

Let me make sure that everybody un-derstands that his chairmanship andhis committee made this the big dealthat it is. I say to the Senator, I Justcommented th3t finally the Washing-ton Post, after being against this budg-et, at least recognized one thing. Theysaid, "It Is a Big Deal." And I am say-ing there would have been no big dealwithout the Senator from Delawareand the marvelous bipartisan commit-tee that he ha;. I thank him right herepublicly for that.

Let me Just go on through. AfterSenator LAUTENBERG speaks, our dis-tinguished chairman of the FinanceCommittee, 'which had jurisdictionover about 85 percent of this bill, wantsto speak. I want to yield quickly.

I want to say, however, that Repub-licans for a long time said we ought tobalance the budget. It has now becomeeverybody's :ry. The President wantsit. Many Democrats want it. But I takea great deal cf pride in behalf of Repub-licans in my capacity as chairman andranking member of this Budget Com-mittee.

I have been trying to get there for along time. And I think we have done agreat job as Republican leaders inpushing this, That is not trying to de-tract from t.hose who have Joined us,including the President of late. We alsowanted some tax cuts.

Many of us thought American fami-lies were in desperate need of somehelp—especially middle-income Amer-ican families with kids. We have donethat. Again, even though most of thatoriginally started on our side of theaisle, I don't tend to, nor do I want to,denigrate the fact that it has broadsupport on the other side, and thePresident of the United States is sup-portive of it.

The capital gains differential hasbeen part of what Republicans thoughtwe should have in this Tax Code fordecades. As a matter of fact, it is veryinteresting that we got a capital gainsdifferential in this bill. We joined theindustrial nations of the world withcapitalist societies that have movedthat way already, and I think thatbodes well for the future.

Everybody knows the other provi-sions that my friend, the chairman,will speak to. But I just wanted tomake the point, for those who seemfrom time to time to give up on causesand to be for them for a few years andsay we can't get them done, I believeRepublicans ought to be proud of thefact that we have stood pretty fast forthose issues, the ones I just described,and some others, and most of them arecoming true here.

That is not to say some issues thatthe Democratic Party and this Presi-dent have pushed very hard for are notin this bill, also. I am sure, knowingmy friend, Senator LAUTENBERG, hewill rem[nd us—and that is what heought to do. And those are some thingsI want, t:oo. I am not running aroundapologetic about trying to cover chil-dren thai; do not have health insurance.

S8317I am not sure we know how to do itquite right yet, I say to the occupantof the chair, who shares that concernwith me, but I think we have to getstarted, and we have done that.

One last thing is we all know theMedicare Program for the seniors ofAmerica—39 million of them almostright now—we know that program is,for many of them, something theybuild their confidence on as they getolder and as some of them get sick, andas they get sick, they know they havethis great hospitalization program.Now, there is no one who ought to beanything but proud of the fact that wehave taken a system that is fallingapart financially, and we fixed it for 10years. It probably would have gonebankrupt in 2, maybe 2½ years, so wefixed it for 10 years.

Now, I am kind of tempted to saythat is a big deal. But I think it is.Now, it is not fixed permanently. Itstill continues to have big problemsout there in 15 years, 20 years, but,frankly, I am not apologizing that abudget resolution and essentially thisplan did not solve that. Actually, I donot believe it could have. I believe it issuch a big issue in and of itself that itwill be solved only when a bipartisannational commission, which is providedfor in this bill, goes out into Americaand tells everybody the problems andcomes up with some solutions that arebipartisan that Presidents and Con-gress will support. We started thathere.

But I believe in the meantime we hadto make that program more efficient.We have done that. In fact, we made it$115 billion more efficient by changingthe rules of the game. In the mean-time, we are trying to give seniors thebest of health care at the most reason-able prices, putting some competitioninto the program, and that is there,alive and kicking and strongly voicingitself in this bill—competition.

So there are HMO's, there are profes-sional provider organizations, there areprivate fee-for-service programs, andthere are PSO's. It also has a dem-onstration program, a medical savingsaccount of 390,000 beneficiaries.

Now, when you put all that together,along with a new $4 billion preventiveprogram that I am not going to discussin detail, we have done fairly well bythe people who pay for Medicare, theworking people, and pretty well by theseniors. You package this all to-gether—a balanced budget, whichmeans we are not going to have ourchildren paying our bills too muchlonger. That is what a deficit and adebt are. It is asking our kids and ourgrandkids to pay our bills. A balancesays we are not going to do that any-more.

Now, it is a long time coming, and weowe a lot of money, so we cannot standup and say to our kids they are notgoing to pay some of our bills, becausethe debt is so big we cannot get rid ofit. But at least we can stop it. So thatwas No. 1.

S8318No. 2 was fix Medicare, and I have de-

scribed it.No. 3 was to make sure that we had

a tax bill that was fair to the Americanpeople. Frankly, after all the bickeringon the edges—and that is what it allwas, on the edges. All this argumentabout how many children are coveredand how far down do you go were reallyon the edges, small, small things, smallnumbers. The people that need tax cutsand tax breaks are the American peo-ple earning between $25,000 and $30,000and $110,000. They are the middle-in-come Americans, two jobholders, twoprofessionals, two people working, andthey are paying the taxes, they are fol-lowing the rules, and they haven't hadanything from their Government say-ing we would like to make it a littleeasier for you—until this bill.

Now, they have three very significantnew things they can look to. It isn'tlike we are giving them a present. It issaying to them, keep some of your ownmoney and let Government grow lessand let you make your decisions onwhat you do for your children ratherthan have us build a bigger and biggerDepartment of Education. Those arethe kinds of tradeoffs that are going tooccur and are starting to occur, al-though, when it comes to education,this bill is strong on college education,strong as anything you can have. Whenit comes to the new programs appro-priations, we have been very generous.We have been very generous to the edu-cation programs that our country has.

I am not sure before we vote on thisthat I will have another chance tothank everyone, so Ijust wish to thankSenator LAUTENBERG, and I thank ourdistinguished Republican leader—hedid a great job—Senator RoTh, and allthe other chairmen, our House counter-parts, including Representative KA-SICH.

But I want to make one statement onthe floor. It might seem it ought to bedone on the House floor, but I want tomake it here, and I think my friend,Senator RoTh, would concur. TheSpeaker of the House, NEwT GINGRICH,in negotiations from the beginninguntil the end, was absolutely a fantas-tic leader. I have to say to those whodoubt, because he was under a lot ofpressures, I did not notice for a minutethat had anything to do with his sin-gle-mindedness, his tremendous intel-lect and the way he could put thingsback together and get us moving in thedirection of getting things done. So mycompliments to the Republican leader-ship in both Houses from my side, andobviously we had great support fromDemocrats.

At this point I am going to yield thefloor.

Mr. ROTH. Could I ask the distin-guished chairman to yield just for aminute?

Mr. DOMENICI. Of course, yes.Mr. ROTH. There are many people

who are responsible for bringing to-gether this important piece of legisla-tion, and I strongly agree with what

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE

the distinguished Senator from NewMexico said about the Speaker and themajority leader. They provided notonly strong leadership but ideas, wereable to move ahead, and I have to sayI could not agree more that the Speak-er showed every ability of providingthe kind of leadership we needed fromthe House in order to get this complexpiece of legislation through.

I would just like to say to my distin-guished friend and colleague, SenatorDOMENICI, that the legislation wouldhave gotten nowhere if it had not beenfor him. I know no one in the Senate,or House for that matter, that has abetter understanding of the budgetaryprocess, knows the issues with whichwe are dealing and who has devoted,what is it, 7 or 8 months' time to get-ting this job accomplished.

I would also like to say in the samecontext I think Bill Hoagland has beena tremendous strength for this wholeprocess.

I, too, join the Senator in congratu-lating the ranking member, my col-league and friend from New Jersey, forhis outstanding work.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senatorvery much.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Sen-ator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from New Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, Iam pleased to join the chairman of theBudget Committee, Senator DOMENICI,in supporting the conference report onthis budget reconciliation bill, which,along with the conference report on thetax bill, will finally implement a bipar-tisan plan to balance the budget.

I have to ask Senator DOMENICI, be-cause he talked about the five wordsthat appeared in the Washington Post,I wonder whether it read like this. Iheard him say, This is a big deal." Ordid it say, "This Is A Big Deal?" Iwasn't sure quite where the emphasiswas. But I assume it was the way itwas intended.

Mr. DOMENICI. The way I said it.Mr. LAUTENBERG. The way the

Senator read it himself as opposed to,This is a Big Deal?"I want to say to Senator Rom, who

was pulled from so many directions, Iwas amazed to see him arrive in onepiece each day. He listened with greatpatience—great patience and great in-terest. Everybody is pleased. I willspeak about it from the Democraticside. People don't realize, when there isa majority and a minority, the minor-ity doesn't always get a chance topresent their views. But BILL RoTh,Senator BILL ROTH of Delaware, isknown as someone who is a fair-mindedperson, and while he would not alwaysagree, he would almost always listen. Ihave never found him to say "no," andI appreciated that. I think it produceda very good product. It is, under thecircumstances, I think, perhaps thebest that could have been gotten. All ofus wish there were other things inthere—everybody. If you ask any Mem-

July 30, 1997ber of the Senate whether they did notthink there was another thing thatshould have been in or another thingthat should have been out, they wouldhave, I guarantee, a menu of thingsthey would like to select from.

I am so pleased that we are joined inthe Chamber by the ranking member ofthe Finance Committee, my goodfriend and colleague from New York,Mr. MOYNIHAN. Senator MOYNIHAN is aman with vast knowledge about somany things that I often say I wouldenjoy, even with all my white hair,going to college with Professor Moy-NIHAN and hearing his views on things.But there is always a background of in-formation that adds so much to the di-alog and the debate, and I congratulatehim for his role and for his willingnessto hear the arguments and to work totry to get a consensus in the legisla-tion which we now have in front of us.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senatoryield without losing his right to thefloor?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Be happy to.Mr. DOMENICI. I note the presence

of Senator MOYNII-IAN, and I had notsaid anything about him in his ab-sence. I would like now to say there aremany points, as you look at the last 7½months, when you would say this iscritical, this is where it might end.And I believe the thing that gave usmomentum to get it done was the Fi-nance Committee's bipartisan address-ing of most of the issues in this bill.

Now, I am sure the Senator from NewYork didn't get everything he wants,but I believe it was one of the big turn-ing points when the Senator joinedwith Senator Rom and between thetwo of them had such a large cadre ofSenators from both sides supportingsome very, very powerful things, and Ithank the Senator personally for that.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President,might I thank with great gratitude thesenior Senator from New Jersey andmy friend from the day I entered thisChamber, the chairman of the commit-tee. They speak to what I think is animportant fact. But, of course, the per-son who made it possible was SenatorRom, the chairman of the committee.I was with him in this regard and proudto have been. I thank Senators.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, couldI say that under the rule under theBudget Act somebody is designated tomanage, and I am it for today, but Ican give that to someone else. I amgiving that to Senator RoTh until I re-turn, and he will be our floor leadernow. I thank the Senator.


Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, Iwill continue to extend congratula-tions to some who are not here. I haveto take my time to salute the efforts ofSenator DASCHLE, who was ever presentin his encouragement to get this jobdone—let's see what we can negotiatetogether, let's see if we can make thisadjustment or that adjustment, ortalked to his counterpart on the other

July30, 1997side. And I want to say for SenatorLorr, the majority leader, he, too, wassomeone who wanted to get this bill be-hind us, get this job done, and he hasshown his interest in doing that as heruns the Senate from the majorityleader's position that we do movethings along. There were Members onboth sides of the aisle who also helped,too numerous to mention, but I thinkit is fair to say that those whom wehave talked about had a significantrole.

PEm DOMENICI and I were among thefour elected representatives to be nego-tiating, and we were often closeteddays at a time. Though the atmospheregot stuffy, I think neither one of usdid, and we were able to continue talk-ing in a civilized fashion.

The bill before us is the culminationof those many months of intense effortand people of both parties deserve to beproud of this accomplishment. Thisbudget proves that when leaders withgood will come together, we can over-come partisan divisions and find com-mon ground. That is good news for allAmericans.

I will say this. We have gotten a lotof salutations, a lot of complimentsabout getting this job done. Threadedthrough those comments were thekinds of remarks that might surprise,like: Finally, the bickering hasstopped, there is no partisanship in-volved; hurrah, the Senate and theHouse are working to get our interestsput up front. I think that was kind ofa noteworthy thing. It's not that wespend all of our time in the boxing ringhere. But sometimes, when people's po-sitions on legislation get too en-trenched, they lose sight of the factthat we have to stop the argument andget on with producing a product. So, Ithink the Nation is going to be betteroff because of this.

The budget agreement is not perfect.It is not drafted exactly as I, as I said,nor any other Senator would have writ-ten it. But it is an honorable com-promise that, on balance, is an enor-mous step forward. It will lead to thefirst balanced budget in this countrysince 1969. It invests in education andhelps ordinary Americans afford col-lege. It provides health coverage formany of America's uninsured children.And it provides tax relief for middle-class families. It provides importantprotections for kids and legal immi-grants, people who were invited tocome here and who later became dis-abled. And it helps accomplish some-thing that President Clinton has hadon the agenda for a long time—to movepeople from welfare to work, and toprovide the means with which to makethat transition.

More generally, it shows we can bothbe fiscally responsible and true to ourhighest values as a nation. This budgetagreement will produce roughly $900billion in net deficit savings over thenext 10 years. It will give us the firstbalanced budget in a generation. It willbuild on President Clinton's tremen-


dous success iii reducing the deficit.And one cannot ignore—and SenatorDOMENICI knew this was coming—onecould not ignore the incredible accom-plishments, economic accomplishmentsthat have been made since PresidentClinton has been in office—with abudget deficit that was at $290 billionwhen he took over in 1993, and at themoment looking like it is going to besomething less than $50 billion for theyear 1997. It 'vill build on PresidentClinton's tremendous success in reduc-ing that deficit. It will build on thesuccess that we have had in gettingnew jobs for people in our country—12million new jobs created. And thestock market-—one can't help but no-tice that inchcator. I noticed today,after hearing the news and yesterdayafter hearing the news, the marketcontinued to move upward. Inflation isin check. People feel very good aboutthe strength of the United States, lead-ing the world's most developed coun-tries in competing in the marketplace.That is a terrific record upon which tobuild.

This balanced budget amendment isan extension of all of those goodthings. But I think the President is duea lot of credit for having brought thatdeficit down to where it was, based onhis hard work and, yes, a turn of verygood events at the same time. But itwas his foresight and his planning thathelped enabl€ us to get to this point.

The budget agreement, also, willmove our Nation into the 21st centuryby providing the largest investment ineducation in 50 years. I, as a recipientof the benefits of the GI bill—I servedin the war. I don't always like discuss-ing which one. Sometimes people askme if it was the Spanish American? Itwas not. It was World War II. But,without the GI bill, my widowed moth-er, age 36 when my father died, and thepoor circumstances in which our fam-ily found ourselves when I was dis-charged from the Army—never, neverwould have enabled me to get a collegeeducation and get a start on a careerthat has been very satisfying for meand, I hope, worthwhile for the coun-try. So I saw the value of helping some-one get a head start in life, someonegetting an education and being able tocontribute to our society. That is whatI want to see us do and the Presidentcertainly led us to that point.

The tax bill we are going to be con-sidering also will include a $1,500 taxcredit to make the first 2 years of col-lege universally available. There willbe a tuition tax credit for all workingAmericans who want to pursue lifelonglearning, continue to learn. That en-riches the mind, enriches the body, andenriches the quality of life. That iswhat we have seen in so many cases. Ifyou look in the universities and re-search laboratories and so forth, yousee the people who continue to learnand who gain vitality and youth, evenas they dc that. These provisions arecritically important to the future ofour economy.

S8319In addition, the budget agreement

also includes $24 billion for children'shealth care, the largest increase inchildren's health care since the enact-ment of Medicaid in 1965. This will helpprovide health insurance to millions ofuninsured children and it is a tremen-dous achievement.

The budget agreement also protectsMedicare and extends the solvency ofthe Medicare trust fund by roughly an-other 7 years. Unlike earlier proposals,it does not ask senior citizens to bearunfair burdens and it doesn't threatenthe quality of their health care. In-stead, it reforms and modernizes theprogram and includes significant newpreventive benefits.

We all know there is going to be amore thorough review of Medicare inthe years ahead, to see whether we cancomprehensively make changes thatwill guarantee that solvency for aslong as one can imagine.

In addition, the agreement providestax relief for the middle class. As wewill discuss when we turn to the taxbill, the agreement provides a $500 taxcredit for children under the age of 17,to help families to be able to bring uptheir children in the fashion thatwould provide them with sustenanceand direction, and perhaps help themget started on their education. Impor-tantly, that credit will be available toworking families with lower incomes.This sounds a little mysterious butthere are people whose incomes aresupported by assistance from the Gov-ernment, earned-income tax credit, inwhich a family that is below a certainlevel of income gets a stipend or a taxrefund from the Government. It oftenmakes their lives livable. But therewas a huge debate about whether ornot this credit would be available forpeople who do not pay taxes in the firstplace. But we know they are workingfamilies and they do pay payroll taxesand we decided, jointly, that it wouldbe appropriate to give some credit onthose payroll taxes that they pay.

We, the Democrats, made that a pri-ority. With support from our Repub-lican friends we won an important vic-tory for millions of ordinary Ameri-cans.

The conference report also restores abasic level of fairness for people whohave come into this country legally,who have obeyed the law, paid theirtaxes, and then fate delivers them adisability whether through accident orjust sickness. Last year the Congresspulled the rug out from under thesepeople and eliminated their disabilitybenefits; for some, the only provisionthat they have that enables them toget along. But today we are restoringthat basic safety net. It is the rightthing to do. As the Senate sponsor ofthis amendment I am particularlypleased that it will be enacted into law.

Another important section of theconference report will protect 30,000disabled children who otherwise wouldlose Medicaid coverage. This corrects aserious defect in last year's welfare

S8320legislation and will make a huge dif-ference for these children and theirfamilies. I am also pleased that thebudget agreement includes a renewedcommitment to environmental protec-tion. We will be enacting new incen-tives to clean up thousands of contami-nated, abandoned sites in economicallydistressed areas. That not only will im-prove the environment, but it will helpencourage redevelopment of theseareas, known as brownfields.

I have seen it in towns in New Jersey,industrial cities that had a gloriouspast but now suffer from the delin-quency that often results from indus-trial pollution. Some of these commu-nities have had these sites, dormantsites, small sites that were unused, yetwith people begging for work notblocks away, able to get there; peoplebegging for retail facilities—they arenot used. We have seen, in New Jersey,where we have cleaned up a few ofthese sites, good retail activity—in onesite in Hackensack, NJ, with a coupleof hundred people working in a dis-count store, a marketplace that peoplecan go to, to get their goods, buy theirfood. It has been a miracle, almost, tosee these things. And it is, often, forvery small sums of money.

So we now have brownfields that Iworked very hard on. It's now in place.Its a win-win approach that will makea difference for communities aroundthe Nation.

Additionally, the conference reportincludes important provisions to movepeople from welfare to work as I men-tioned. One million long-term welfarerecipients stand to benefit from thisinitiative. And the Nation as a wholewill benefit, as more Americans leavewelfare and become productive mem-bers of our economy, lift their headshigh, lift their spirits, provide some vi-sion for themselves and their families.It is a wonderful vision and I ampleased to see we are putting the re-sources there to make it happen.

Mr. President, I am going to leave toothers the discussion on some of theother details of this legislation. But Ionce again take the opportunity tocongratulate the President, PresidentClinton, for his outstanding leadershipin this effort. We are here today on abipartisan basis only because the Presi-dent decided it could happen and hewanted to make it happen. His peoplewere all over the place, working alikewith Democrats who occasionally dis-agreed and Republicans who occasion-ally disagreed. He brought us all to-gether and we are grateful for that. Ithink his commitment will be ac-knowledged for many years to come.

Mr. President, I don t think, as I saidearlier, there is anyone who would saythey are 100 percent happy with thisagreement. But, while no one sees it asperfect, everyone should see it as good.It is fair, it is balanced, and it willserve our country well. It will balancethe budget. It will invest in educationand training. It will provide tax reliefto the middle class. It will protect


Medicare. It will provide health carecoverage to millions of children. It willthrow a life vest to disabled legal im-migrants. It will invest in environ-mental protection, move people fromwelfare to work, and will make life bet-ter for millions of ordinary workingAmericans.

So I urge my colleagues to put asideas much challenge as they can. Yes, ev-erybody in this place is free to maketheir statements, to say what theywant. But I hope in the final analysisthey are going to support this budgetagreement enthusiastically, because itsends a message to the American peo-ple. It will say yes, this wasn't some-thing that was nurtured through aninch at a time. This is something thatwas supported by people across theroom from different States and fromdifferent parties. That is the way itought to be. It is the right thing forAmerica and I am proud to have been apart of it.

With that, Mr. President, I yield thefloor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.GREGG). Who seeks recognition?

Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Delaware.PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent that Rick Werner, adetailee to the Finance Committeefrom the Department of Health andHuman Services, be granted the privi-lege of the floor for the duration of thedebate on this conference report.


Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the budgetreconciliation conference between theSenate and House has come to an end.All sides have weighed in. The processhas been long and involved, around theclock, through the weekends. But Imust say the result is well worth theexercise.

What we have achieved is a balance,a carefully crafted compromise be-twéen the Senate and the House, be-tween Republicans and Democrats, be-tween Congress and the White House. Ican say with certainty that no Sen-ator, no Congressman, not even thePresident got everything he or shewould have liked. Undoubtedly thereare specifics in this final package thatI would prefer to have seen written dif-ferently. But I can say that, whilethere were necessary compromises toachieve balance and to deliver thebudget reconciliation to the Americanpeople, there was no compromise onprinciple. Differences? Certainly, but Icannot remember the last time I sawsuch a positive, bipartisan willingnessto work together in a budget effort.

This, I believe, is because there hasbeen a profound change in the natureand character of Washington. Two re-cent proclamations demonstrate thischange. The first was President Clin-ton's declaration in his State of theUnion Address that the era of big Gov-ernment is over. And the second came

July 30, 1997from our distinguished colleague, Sen-ator DASCHLE, when, during this de-bate, he agreed that the question inCongress is no longer whether or nottaxes should be cut, rather a questionof how much they should be cut.

Cutting taxes and achieving a bal-anced budget have long been Repub-lican objectives. For years now, wehave advocated the need to change theway Washington does business. NowPresident Clinton and the distin-guished minority leader demonstratethe growing bipartisan consensus onthese objectives, objectives that under-score this reconciliation package.

It is a strong first step. It signalsthat the era of big government is over.Certainly government has its place.There are moral and contractual obli-gations that the Federal Governmentmust maintain with the American peo-ple. Many are enumerated in the Con-stitution. Others, like Medicare andMedicaid, are more recent and have be-come critically important to those whodepend on them now and to those whorely on them for the future.

Having said this, I believe a clear andgrowing majority realizes that the Fed-eral Government is not the answer toall that challenges us. In fact, in somecases, the Government is shown to bethe problem, particularly when itcomes to waste, fraud, abuse, ineffi-ciency, and a top-heavy, unresponsivebureaucracy. The ability of both sidesto compromise on this bill dem-onstrates that Washington acknowl-edges this reality and that Washingtonis responding to the attendant frustra-tion and legitimate concerns felt byAmericans everywhere.

Beyond signaling an end to big andinefficient government, this packagemeets several other shared criteria. Itplaces us squarely and honestly on theroad to a balanced budget by the year2002. We all know how important thisis. The United States has not balanceda Federal budget since 1969. This, de-spite the fact that our Founders madeit clear that saddling future genera-tions with debt is immoral. Accordingto Thomas Jefferson, the question ofwhether one generation has a right tobind another by the deficit it imposesis a question of such consequence as toplace it among the fundamental prin-ciples of government. Jefferson saidthat we should consider ourselves un-authorized to saddle posterity with ourdebts; we are morally bound to paythose debts ourselves.

This budget reconciliation package isthe first in years that puts us backwhere we must be. It is balanced. It be-gins to address the dilemma of big gov-ernment's licentious legacy, a legacythat burdens every man, woman, andchild with almost $20,000 in public debt.I am happy to say that our majorityleader, Senator Lorr, made it clear atthe beginning of the 105th Congressthat balancing the budget in 5 yearswould be one of our top priorities. Mr.President, we have delivered on thatpromise.

July30, 1997Our third objective has been to

strengthen the programs that would beinfluenced by our actions. The reformsto entitlement that are contained inthis package are, indeed, historic. Wemake significant and importantchanges to Medicare and Medicaid. Westrengthen assistance to children. Wereturn authority and means to ourStates so they can better meet theneeds of their citizens. It was notenough to simply change entitlementprograms to reduce their rate ofgrowth. We sought in the process toimprove, to strengthen them, to pre-serve them, and, again, we succeeded.

Let me give you the specifics. But be-fore I do that, let me reiterate that wewere able to accomplish these signifi-cant objectives because of a growingconsensus on both sides of the politicalaisle, and because of our willingness tocompromise, compromise not on prin-ciples but for principles.

In our effort to control spending, thelargest program we addressed was Med-icare. Our objective here was not justto control its spending, but tostrengthen the Medicare Program forthe long term, and we did this. We didthis by increasing choice and competi-tion within the program. Choice withinthe Medicare Program will give bene-ficiaries myriad options. It will allowthem to participate in HMO's, PPO's,PSO's and private fee-for-service pro-grams. We have based our expansion ofchoice in the Medicare Program on thesuccessful Federal Employees HealthBenefits Program. Through these op-tions, seniors will be able to obtain im-portant benefits, like prescriptiondrugs, that are not covered by tradi-tional Medicare.

These changes and the money theywill save also allow us to expand Medi-care coverage for certain importantpreventive services, including mam-mography, prostate colorectal screen-ing, bone mass measurement, and dia-betes management. Beyond increasingchoice and competition within Medi-care, we strengthen and preserve theprogram by slowing its rate of spendinggrowth. Our measures save Medicarefor another 10 years, while still in-creasing program spending per bene-ficiary from $5,500 this year to $6,800 inthe year 2002.

Beyond encouraging choice and com-petition, this bill introduces importantinnovations into the Medicare Pro-gram, innovations that could go a longway toward strengthening the programfor future generations.

One very important innovation is thecreation of a demonstration projectthat will explore the advantages ofhaving medical savings accounts avail-able within the Medicare Program.This demonstration project will allowup to 390,000 Medicare beneficiaries toopt into an MSA program, a programthat will allow them to choose a high-deductible Medicare choice plan.

I believe medical savings accountswill be an important component ofMedicare's long-term viability, and to


study and recommend other innova-tions, our legislation creates a nationalbipartisan commission on the future ofMedicare. Senator MOYNIFIAN and Icalled for this commission back in Feb-ruary as we realized that to realizelong-term solutions for the program,we needed a commission that would beabove politics. This will be a 17-mem-ber commission established for a littlemore than a year. Its task will be tomake recommendations to Congress onactions necessary to ensure the long-term fiscal health of the Medicare Pro-gram. It will report back to Congresson March 1, 1999, and these changes toMedicare will result in a net savings of$115 billion over 5 years, savings thatwill not only help us balance the budg-et, but savings and reforms that willpreserve the Medicare Program whileensuring that it continues to servethose who depend on it now.

Concerning Medicaid, we were able toachieve a total savings of $13 billion.This savings will come largely from areduction in disproportionate share, orDSH payments, and by giving ourStates more flexibility in how they runthe program.

For more than a decade, there hasbeen a tug of war between the FederalGovernment and the States over Med-icaid. Each ;ide has tried to assert itswill over the other. From the mid-1980's and through the early 1990's, theFederal Government imposed mandateson the States and, in turn, the Statesshifted costs to the Federal Govern-ment. The result was devastating to allof our budgets as Medicaid routinelygrew at a double-digit pace, reaching ashigh as a 29-percent increase in 1992.

This legislative package marks a newbeginning, a new trend. It marks achange in the Washington mindset thathas sought, since the days of the NewDeal over (30 years ago, to centralizepower in this city. With this sub-stantive change in the Medicaid Pro-gram, we are offering our Governorsthe tools they need to control this pro-gram. This, I believe, is the way thingsshould be done.

With this bill, they will be able tomove more individuals into managedcare without waiting years for waiversfrom the Federal Government. Theywill be able to contract with selectedprovider for services. The States willbe able to ask families to take some re-sponsibilit.y for the decisions theymake when seeking health care serv-ices. This power at the State level willgo a long ways toward stretching Gov-ernment health care dollars.

As I said, beyond making significantand important changes to Medicare andMedicaid, we have strengthened assist-ance to our children to meet the healthcare needs of the most vulnerableamong us. It became clear through theconferenc:e that both sides of the aisleare equally committed to increasingaccess to health care for as many chil-dren as we can. Both sides of the aisleare committed to finding an answer tothe problem of uninsured children in

S8321this country, and this legislation rep-resents an important agreement in thisarea. It creates a new program, a pro-gram that covers low-income, unin-sured children. The process of provid-ing insurance and health care coverageto vulnerable American children iscomplex. As I have said before, of the71 million children in the UnitedStates, more than 86 percent are al-ready covered by some type of healthinsurance. Two-thirds of our childrenare covered by insurance through theprivate sector. Twenty-three percent ofall children in the United States underage 18 are covered by Medicaid, and an-other 3 percent are covered by otherpublic insurance programs.

Our plan provides $24 billion over thenext 5 years to be used by States in amanner that provides them flexibilityin how they will expand health carecoverage to our children.

Our States will have two mechanismsof establishing programs. They can ex-pand their Medicaid coverage or theycan create their own program to ad-dress the particular needs of the chil-dren in their States. And while theGovernors are given certain flexibilityin the way they can use this money,our bill requires that they meet spe-cific standards regarding health carecoverage for children.

Expanding Medicaid is certainly achoice States have made. Thirty-ninehave expanded Medicaid eligibility forpregnant women and children beyondthe Federal requirements. But Statesare also developing other strategies forincreasing coverage of children as well.There are already public-private part-nerships in more than half of ourStates. There are successful programssuch as New York's Child Health Plusand Florida's Healthy Kids. These in-novative programs and programs likethem can grow with these additionalresources provided by this legislation.

These, Mr. President, are the majorprovisions of this legislation. They sig-nal a new beginning in Washington—real reforms to make programs morecost-effective, more efficient, more re-sponsive to the needs of our people andour States. Great care has been takento assure that the most vulnerableamong us are protected, and this in-cludes our provision to restore benefitsto all legal noncitizens who were re-ceiving Social Security when lastyear's welfare bill was signed into law.

With this legislation, we also restorethe ability to receive benefits to legalnoncitizens who were residing in theUnited States as of that date shouldthey become disabled in the future.These protections, however, are han-dled appropriately and in keeping withour overarching goal of restoring fiscalresponsibility to Government.

With this reconciliation package, wehave establish the first balanced budg-et since 1969. We have met the criteriongiven us in the May 2d budget com-promise, and we will give Americansthe first real tax relief package thatthey have had in 16 years.

S8322Did we accomplish everything I

would have liked to accomplish? No. Iwould have preferred to see some deep-er, more significant fiscal restraint. Iwould have preferred to see a few othermajor reforms to Medicare. reformsthat would have gone a long way to-ward strengthening the program, andthese include the provisions that werein the original Senate package.

But recall. Mr. President. the historyof the balanced budget debate; recallCongress' effort in November 1995 tobalance the budget by the year 2002; re-call the consequent Government shut-down and Bill Clinton's veto: recall thePresident's 10-year balanced budgetplan and Congress insisting that bal-ance could be achieved 5 years earlier.

Keep the history in mind, and thesuccess of this legislation becomesclear. We have a balanced budget. Thatbalanced budget will be achieved in 5years, not 10. And we have achieved itwithout acrimony, without Govern-ment shutdowns, and without vetoes.

This is a bipartisan effort. It is an ex-cellent beginning. And I am grateful tomy colleagues on both sides of the aislefor their work, for the spirit of co-operation that existed on the FinanceCommittee, on the floor of the Senate,and throughout the conference.

I am especially grateful to my friend,PAT MOYNU-IAN, for his wise counsel, hisleadership. and cooperation in helpingto bring about the success of this pack-age. I am also grateful to the profes-sional staff members on the Senate Fi-nance Committee, as well as the Sen-ate Budget Committee.

Likewise. I want to thank the staffsof the Congressional Research Serviceand the Congressional Budget Office.the Office of Legislative Council in theSenate, the Prospective Payment As-sessment Commission, the PhysicianPayment Review Commission, the Gen-eral Accounting Office, and all otherswho have worked long and hard for thispackage. The list of names is too longto read here, but I ask unanimous con-sent that these names be printed in theRECORD.

There being no objection, the nameswere ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

FINANCE COMMITFEE

Lindy Paul!, Julie James, AlexanderVachon, Gioia Bonmartini. Dede Spitznagel.Dennis Smith, Donna Ridenour, Alexis Mar-tin. Mark Patterson. David Podoff, FayeDrummond, Rick Werner. Kristen Testa, andDoug Steiger.

SENATE LEGI5LATIVE COUNSELJim Fransen, Mark Mathiesen, Ruth Ernst.

John Goetcheus, Jane!! Bentz, and the restof the Legislative Counsel's Office.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

Murray Ross, Tom Bradley. CyndiDudzinski. Jeanne De Sa, Anne Hunt, Jen-nifer Jenson, Jeff Lemieux, Robin Rudowitz,Kathy Ruffing. Paul Cullinan. Sheila Dacy.Joe Antos, and Pete Welch.

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

Celinda Franco, Beth Fuchs. Tom Gabe,Jennifer O'Sullivan, Richard Price, RichardRimkunas. Kathy Swendiman. MadeleineSmith, Melvina Ford, Jean Hearne, Jennifer

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

Neisner, Pat Purcell, Vee Burke, ChristineDevere. Larry Eig. Gene Falk, Carmen Solo-mon-Fears. and Joyce Vialet.

PHYSICIAN PAYMENT REVIEW COMMISSION

Lauren B. LeRoy. David C. Colby. Anne L.Schwartz. John F. Hoadley. ChristopherHogan. Kevin Hayes. Katie Merrell. MichaelJ. O'Grady. David W. Shapiro. Sally Trude.and Christine M. Cushman.

PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT ASSESSMENTCOMMISSION

Donald A. Young. Laura A. Dummit, andStuart Guterman.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President. it is myhope that the spirit of bipartisanshipthat carried us through this effort con-tinues as we now consider the finalpackage and send the bill to PresidentClinton for his signature.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

seeks time?Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time?Mr. KERREY. I yield myself such

time from the Democratic side.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Nebraska is recognized.Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I come

to the floor and offer what I would callmy reluctant support for this budgetagreement.

Today. the subject at hand is thespending portion of this bill. And Iwish it was completely different. Imust say, than what is in here.

Yesterday, I spent most of the day inmourning for the loss of the provisionsrelating to structural changes in Medi-care that would have added $8 billionto the HI hospitalization trust fund byimposing very reasonable and progres-sive change in the premium—it wouldhave added $40 billion a year in spend-ing relief in the year 2030 by accommo-dating this tremendous change in thebaby-boom generation between 2010 and2030—and other provisions. I spent theday grieving those. I have overcomemy grief, and I am prepared to supportthis because I believe it does balancethe budget by the year 2002. I believe itfinishes the job that we started in 1990and 1993. I voted for both of those bills,and I find myself compelled once againto come and vote for a bill that I amnot altogether pleased with.

In this morning's New York Timesthere was an op-ed piece written byWilliam Safire talking about an age-old problem in the West where cattle-men, because they had an interest inkeeping the range open, and sheep-herders, because they had an interestin keeping the range fenced in. were atconstant odds and warring with one an-other. Their animals had differentneeds. They, as the guardians of thoseanimals, went to war in order to pro-tect the needs of those animals.

It was not until just recently thatthe people who manage these rangeanimals have come together. Theycame together as a consequence of acommon enemy, in this case, a ratherpesky weed called leafy spurge that hasroots that can go down as deep as 150

July 30, 1997feet, impossible to. by any reasonableestimate, get rid of once it is in thegrassland. It will spread and take overthe entire prairie.

So the cattlemen are out there say-ing the leafy spurge will eliminate thegrass. "I'll have nothing for my cattleto graze on. What am I going to do? Noherbicide is effective. No burning is ef-fective. Nothing seems to work." Untilone day they discover that what worksis to put a few hundred sheep out onthe grassland. As a consequence of thesheep's appetite for the leafy spurge,the sheep eliminates the weed, andthus is joined a battle between thecattlemen and the sheepherders. Sud-denly they come together as a con-sequence of the common enemy.

I am impressed that Republicans andDemocrats have come together withthis bill to address a common enemy—the deficit. I wish that the 1993 bill hadbeen bipartisan. I believe that if we hada few more spending cuts in 1993, thatmight have been possible. We missedan opportunity. It was bipartisan in1990. It was not in 1993. And it is today.I am impressed with it.

I believe the Nation wants us to bebipartisan. I believe the Nation makesour greatest progress when we set asidenot only our partisan differences, butwe are able to find a common oppo-nent, in this case, the deficit, a com-mon objective, and we say that we arewilling to risk a bit—in some cases,risk it all—for the larger goal.

I must say. after having made thatobservation, and to be specific. praisingthe distinguished chairman of theBudget Committee, Senator D0MENICI,the ranking Democrat, Senator LAU-TENBERG, and on our Finance Commit-tee, Senator RoTh of Delaware, SenatorMOYNIHAN of New York, they haveworked hard to say we have a commonenemy—in this case. the deficit.

We see the connection between defi-cit reduction and jobs. We believe thatjobs. and good jobs. can solve almostany problem that we have. And thus,we are willing to join forces against acommon enemy.

I am reluctant to become enormouslyenthusiastic about this, as I say. be-cause I do not believe it is asking ofAmericans the sort of tough decisionsand choices that would enable us to saythat we are tasking the American peo-ple to do something that is truly great.

We will balance the budget. It is true,we are reforming Medicare to give sen-iors more choice. I think the FederalEmployee Health Benefit provisions inthis bill will have long-lasting impact,give seniors more comfort as theymake a choice to buy alternative care.The provisions for increased coveragefor children, the provisions having todo with welfare reform. all these aregood provisions and deserve attention.

We have. in addition, a lot of provi-sions—and I thank all four of the Mem-bers who have been involved with thisfor their assistance in making surethat rural America has an adequate re-imbursement rate under managed care,

July30, 1997that we are able to take advantage ofmanaged care and see increased pene-tration in rural America. I appreciate,as well, the change to increase budgetenforcement to tighten some of theloopholes that were in law.

There are a lot of things in this bill,in short, that are good. It does, itseems tO me, represent a successfulcompromise between Republicans andDemocrats, and we have produced apiece of legislation that all of us, ormost of us, anyway, are going to beable to come down and be enthusiasticabout.

There are four things, Mr. President,that I would like to discuss which Iwould put in the category of unfinishedbusiness. First is entitlements. I appre-ciate that there is a commission in thisbill. I believe it is 20 months that theyhave. I can save them a lot of time. Wehad a bipartisan entitlement commis-sion, Senator Danforth and I. The dis-tinguished occupant of the chair wason that commission as well.

There are a limited number ofchoices that one can make. There areroughly 10 or 15 choices you can make.They are all ugly. They are all dif-ficult. And they all accommodate a de-mographic problem, not a problemcaused by secular humanists or byPhyllis Schlafly or Ronald Reagan orGeorge McGovern. This is not an ideo-logical problem. It is a problem ofbirthrates during the period of time1945 to 1965, and the birthrates follow-ing that. It is called the baby-boomgeneration.

Seventy-seven million Americanswill begin to retire in 2010. And whatwe attempted to do, with what I con-sider to be a relatively modest changein the law with eligibility age andmeans testing and a copayment onhome health care, was to accommodatethat large generation of people. Thesooner you do it, the better. You do notdo them any favors by saying, we willdo a commission for 2 years and per-haps do something in 1999. Then youhave a Presidential campaign going.You will probably have to wait until2001. The longer you wait, the harderthe choices are.

As I said, the choices are fairly lim-ited. If you do not like moving the eli-gibility age, if you do not like doingsome means testing, the only thing youcan hope to do is get some increases inthe revenue stream, proposing to in-crease taxes or increase the premium.If that is your choice, make it now, be-cause the longer you wait, the morelikely it is that the people you are try-ing to help are going to pay a lot more.They are going to pay a bigger price.They have not been warned.

We missed an opportunity, and I amhopeful that by surfacing this in thedebate and getting strong support, bi-partisan support here in the Senate, wecan keep these issues alive.

In addition to the long-term problemof entitlements is another problemwith entitlements inside of our budget.Yes, it is true, we will have taken the


final step to balance the budget withthis bill, although I note parentheti-cally that one of the curious thingsabout this particular proposal is we aregoing to balar ice the budget by rathersubstantially increasing spending insome areas and lowering taxes in oth-ers. It is an exciting proposition. Weare going to balance the budget, it istrue, but the budget has another bigproblem, and that is the growing per-cent of that budget that goes for man-datory programs.

Many of my colleagues have comedown to give great, impassionedspeeches about why we should not doall of these things. But the questionthat needs to be asked in a very calmenvironment is, what are you going todo about these numbers?

In this budget agreement, theamount of money we allocate for man-datory, plus interest, will go from enti-tlements, plus interest, the mandatoryportion from about 66 percent, as I un-derstand it—I haven't seen the finalnumbers—to about 70 percent in 2002.The Senator from New Mexico is shak-ing his heatd, but it does unquestion-ably increase. I do not know if it goesto 70 percent, but it increases, and itcontinues to increase. And it will in-crease even more when the babyboomers retire. It is not a flat number.

The head of the Congressional BudgetOffice, June O'Neill, prepared a reportsome time ago that shows how the costof these programs continues to go up asa percent of our overall budget, andthey are squeezing out our capacity tokeep our defenses strong, our capacityto invest in education or infrastruc-ture, or research, and all the othersorts of things that are being done inthe other part of the budget. One of thereasons it; was made easier to do ourappropriation this year is, we put a lit-tle more money in the appropriated ac-counts in this fiscal year than you aregoing to 5ee in the outyears.

So I alert Members that see the ap-propriations bills sailing through thisyear and are wondering why, there ismore money this year than there willbe next year and the year after thatand the year after that. In years 4 and5, we will have very tough decisions tomake in discretionary spending—fartougher than I believe people realize.Thus, there is the second problem ofthe growing cost of entitlements insideof the budget. It sets up tough choices.It doesn't set up easy choices. It setsup very difficult choices that we haveto make.

The second big area for me is, I mustsay, with the economy growing theway it is—and one of the great piecesof news for me in this budget debate isthat as a result of the growth in theeconomy, I think there are very fewpeople left that don't understand that,in addition to defending the Nation asthe first order of business, whatever wedo with our taxes, regulatory policy,and spending policy, we do need to askourselves: will this create jobs? Be-cause if the economy is growing, it is

S8323producing jobs, and there is a demandfor labor as a consequence of a growingeconomy. Lots of things get solved in ahurry. Not only does the Treasury havelots of revenue that makes our jobeasier, but the gap between rich andpoor narrows, the number of people onwelfare is reduced. A lot of problemswe have get solved quickly if our econ-omy is growing. If we recall from therecession of 1991, the problems aremade a lot worse if you have the oppo-site in place.

So this growth we have out there inthe economy is exciting. My view isthat this is the time when we need tobe investing in that public infrastruc-ture—research, the transportationbase, education, and all those thingsthat will produce increased productiv-ity and increased economic growthsometime out in the future. We maynot get an immediate benefit from it,but we will benefit somewhere out inthe future. It connects with this enti-tlement problem. For my friends onthis side of the aisle who love to get upand get fired up and tell me why wecan't do anything about entitlements,the question occurs: If you don't wantto do that, Senator, where are yougoing to get the money to make thesepublic investments?

I haven't heard many people that areenthusiastic about a tax increase. Ihave heard them being enthusiasticabout going in the other direction. Theonly way you can find the resources toinvest in the long-term growth of thiscountry is by containing and control-ling the pace of growth of entitle-ments. It is a question of whether ornot we are going to endow the future,or are we going to convert the FederalGovernment into an ATM machine, en-titling the present solving of the prob-lems of me, me, me, now, now, now, butnot solving the problems of future gen-erations.

The third issue I speak of today ishealth coverage. I am of the opinionthat the additional $24 billion that is inthis particular budget is going to covera lot fewer people than leading advo-cates predict. I don't believe that it isgoing to be a terribly efficient way toincrease coverage. Again, I don't thinkyou are going to be able to get the kindof increased coverage that is necessary,unless you come to grips with the ris-ing costs of these mandated programs.For all the terrible things that wereforecast and said about the proposal toadd a $5 fee for home health, to add ameans-tested and an income-relatedpremium on Part B and increase theeligibility age, you thought we werenot spending any money at all on Medi-care.

No account in our budget grows asfast as Medicare. It will go up, on aver-age, $24.5 billion per year for 10 years.Nothing grows that fast. We are allo-cating more and more of our gross do-mestic product into Medicare and otherentitlements. Now, I am prepared to domore for low-income seniors, and helppeople who are in serious trouble out

S8324there, having a tough time paying thebills. But the choice that we have tomake, not only when it comes to in-vesting in our future, but also beingable to provide additional coverage, isbetween one group of Americans andanother, or allocating $24.5 billion ofadditional money for children over 5years and $24.5 billion per year for 37million people over the age of 65.

Now, I think that is the kind of de-bate we need to have on this floor. It isa tough debate, and it involves tellingthe American people and, very often,giving them the facts. And the factsmay be painful and difficult for us toface, but they are the facts. I, for one,as I said, am skeptical that $24 billionover 5 years is going to result in thekind of increased coverage projectedfor children. I must say again that Ithink the only way we are honestlygoing to be able to increase the cov-erage for Americans is to get after en-titlements. There is a question of thelegitimacy not only of the means test,but we must ask ourselves fundamentalquestions about requiring an eligibilitytest on age, another program basedupon poverty, the veterans programs,saying if you get blown up in a war, wehave a good program for you. The finalone, of course, is the income tax deduc-tion.

The fourth problem that I think thiscountry faces, which is not in this bill,but it will be taken up in the tax billand I will talk about it later, but Ithink it's a big problem. We have awindow into the problem of looking atthe estate tax issue, and that is the dif-ficulty Americans are having generat-ing wealth. I will talk about it atgreater length when we get on the taxbill. But income and wealth are not thesame thing. It is not uncommon topick up a newspaper and hear a storytalking about this tax bill does this orthat for the wealthy, and what they aretalking about is income. They are notthe same thing. I can have a half a mil-lion dollars a year in income and haveno wealth, just as I can have $20,000 inincome a year and if I save a little bit,I can get wealth. The estate tax debateis focused on about 2 percent of Ameri-cans who have estates at $600000 orover. I believe estate tax relief is rea-sonable. I support doing that in the taxbill. But there are 98 percent of theAmerican people that do not havewealth in excess of $600,000. It wouldnot take much of a change in the So-cial Security program to enable some-body in the work force, indeed from themoment they were born, to have a sav-ings account that enables them to saythat when it comes time for me to re-tire, as I look forward to growing old,I know that in addition to some kind ofan income transfer I am also going tohave the opportunity to have securityas a result of wealth. I think wealthdistribution, identified as a problem re-peatedly, cannot be solved by simplytransferring, income. It can only besolved by establishing that we aregoing to try to help working Amen-


cans acquire the wealth and use theprincipal retirement program, SocialSecurity, that we have in place to getthat done.

Mr. President, I close by saying thatI intend to vote "yes" on this bill, andI intend to vote "yes" on the tax reliefbill that follows. I wish it had doneconsiderably more. I have great praiseand great appreciation for the workdone by the chairman of the BudgetCommittee, by the ranking Democrat,the chairman of the Finance Commit-tee and the ranking Democrat on thatcommittee as well. They set the tone ofbipartisanship, which must be set ifyou are going to deal with these con-troversial issues, if we are going to beable to go after the common enemy,not Just of deficit spending but othertempting, irresponsible things thatmight produce a round of applause, butmight not be good for the UnitedStates of America.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senatoryield?

Mr. KERREY. I am pleased to yield.Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, first let me

make an observation, perhaps not aseloquently. I believe the Senator fromNew Mexico could, someplace or an-other in the United States, make avery similar speech. I think most ofwhat you talked about I agree with.But I would like to make sure that ev-erybody knows just how much you cando in a budget resolution and in a billthat is forced by a budget resolutionand how difficult it is to try to do morethan fits the bill. I want to say to theAmerican people that while I agreewith your statement wholeheartedlythat we have to do much more with theentitlements—and lets be very precise,the one that is really, really in need ofa long-term fix is Medicare—not be-cause anybody wants to deny anyoneanything, but the stark fact is that it,by itself, can break this country in an-other 15, 20 years all by itself.

Frankly, I never believed that wecould fix Medicare in its totality in abudget resolution and a bill that wasthrust by a budget resolution. SenatorGRAMM is chairman of the Subcommit-tee on Health. I think he would agreewith me that, while we probably couldhave done better, and should have, onthe three items that would havehelped, we can't force the total changeof Medicare in a bill like this under abudget resolution format. First of all, abudget resolution is only applicable for5 years. You are permitted to projectfor 10. I assume when Senator GRAMMstarts that reform, he is going to startbeyond 10 in terms of the real dollarimpact, because that is when it is introuble. It is not in trouble in the next5 years. One might have a different mixas to how you get it to a state of sol-vency.

Senator, I would like you to know Inever thought that we could do muchmore in Medicare. But I think thethree changes you made in the FinanceCommittee, with your support, if wecould have held them, it would have

July 30, 1997been a good first step. I still believe thespirit of getting this done may get us,within the next 2 or 3 years, to facingthe issues for major, permanent reformof the entitlement programs. I amhopeful you are not giving up becausewe cant do it in this budget bill, be-cause it is a very, very big issue thatrequires much debate in the Senate. Idon't know exactly how that debate isgoing to be framed, but I don't think itis going to be framed in a reconcili-ation bill with no debate to speak ofand no amendments to speak of. Thatis Just the U.S. Senate's way of doingthings. I thank you for yielding. Maybeyou can comment on that.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first ofall, I say that the man who taught meabout entitlements is the distinguishedSenator from New Mexico. I recallcoming to the floor, I believe it was ona budget resolution that the distin-guished Senator from New Mexico andthe now-departed Senator from Geor-gia, Senator Nunn, when they had thefamous Nunn-Domenici amendmentthat controlled the growth of entitle-ments. The first time he proposed it, Ivoted against it. I listened to the oppo-nents of it and said, "That makes senseto me; this is not a good amendment,so I will vote no.

Then I started looking at the facts,and I was very uncomfortable to haveto conclude that I voted wrong. Thenext time the Senator brought it up, Ivoted for it and I became interested inthis issue as a result of both you andSenator Nunn and your elaborationsand your education that you did 3 or 4years ago.

The point that I am trying to make,which I am afraid is sometimes lost, isthat the longer you wait, the harderthe choice is. This is not a problemthat you can avoid forever. The moretime you let expire, the more difficultthe choice is—that is, on Medicare. Thesame is true on the budget item whenit comes to Social Security. We havepeople under the age of 40 who will bebeneficiaries out in the future, 26 and27 years from now, under current law,for whom we have to say, are we goingto be able to keep the promise that'son the table? We have to say no. SocialSecurity Commissioner designate Shir-ley Chater, in 1996, when asked aboutit, said, "You can expect Social Secu-rity to have to be reduced by 30 or 40percent in benefits, unless some changeoccurs."

Well, there is a presumption thatthose of us who proposed altering theseprograms today are proposing cuts. Butthe truth is, if you do nothing, that iswhat is going to happen; only the cutisn't going to occur to a future bene-ficiary, it will occur to a current bene-ficiary. Long after the time has passedwhen you can plan and make adjust-ments, suddenly the Congress is goingto pop up and say, "Sorry, folks, wehave to cut the programs big time,' inorder to be able, as the Senator said, tosave either the fiscal health or the pro-gram itself.

July30, 1997So my fear is that we missed an op-

portunity when the distinguished Sen-ators from New Mexico and Georgiawere down here. I recall people comingin the one year and pulling off veteransfirst, and once the floodgates wereopen, it was "Katie bar the door," ev-erybody got down here and got exemptand there was nothing left. There wasno group that is entitled to paymentleft, and they were all exempted andthere was no real reform that occurred.

So I am not going to give up on theissue. I am not going to stop talkingabout the need for these long-termchanges. But I am just saying to theAmerican people, especially those whounderstand the importance of Medicareand these entitlement programs, whoconsider it a victory that the confereeswere unable—and I know the Senatorfrom New Mexico fought for thesethings, but the conferees were unableto hold these provisions. There aremany people who are advocates ofthese programs that consider that avictory. It is not a victory. It weakensthe program long term. And some bene-ficiary out in the future is not going tothank us for this action. Maybe itgains a few votes in elections. I doubtit. I believe the American people oncethey hear the facts of the matter willbe persuaded.

Anyway, it is a much longer answer.I know the Senator from Texas is notvery appreciative of the fact that theSenator caused me to talk longer thanI intended to.

But I want to underscore in closingthat I do appreciate the fact that theSenator from New Mexico, SenatorNunn, and others led on this thing. Itprobably torments the Senator now tosee his student come back here speak-ing in this fashion.

I just close by saying that I am pre-pared to vote for this agreement on thebalanced budget. I believe that is goodfor the economy. I wish and hope thatwe are able in a bipartisan spirit to domuch more, if not this year sometimerelatively soon.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whoyields time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Iyield to Senator GRArvIM as much timeas he may desire.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Texas is recognized.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let mefirst thank our chairman for yielding.

I would like to begin by congratulat-ing some people and thanking them fortheir leadership.

First of all, I want to thank SenatorDorNIcI for his leadership. I have hadthe opportunity to serve with SenatorDOMENICI now for 13 years. I have beenon the same side as Senator D0MENICI.I have been on the opposite side of Sen-ator D0MENICI. I have noticed thatwhen we are together we generally win.I wish Senator D0MENICI could be rightmore often.

But I want to congratulate him forhis leadership. I don't have any doubtin my mind that Senator DOMENICI will


go down as one of the great legislatorsof this era, and that I will always beproud to tell my grandchildren that Iserved with him. I want to congratu-late him for his great work on this bill.

I also want to congratulate ChairmanRoTh. This is the first full term thatSenator Roiii has been chairman. Hebecame chairman in the middle of thelast Congress. And I think he has donea terrific job in chairing the FinanceCommittee and in building bipartisan-ship to a level that I would not havethought beginning this process that wecould have ever had on the tax bill. Iwant to congratulate Chairman Romfor his leadership, which I really thinkhas been outstanding, having had theopportunity to be in committee, to beactively participating in the debate onthe tax bill on the floor, and havinghad a chance to be in much of the con-ference.

I think our colleagues ought toknow, or at least hear someone saywhat a great job that Chairman RoThdid.

I also believe that our Democraticcolleagues, especially Senator M0Y-NIHAN, have made a great contributionto this bill. Whether you like the prod-uct, or whether you do not like any-thing else we do—it is as thick as thispackage that many like and many dis-like—I think you have to clearly saythat a tremendous amount of work hasgone into the process.

Let me begin by talking about whatI believe in this bill is unambiguouslypositive, and what is clearly going tobe greatly appreciated by the Americanpeople—some of it immediately, andsome of it over time—as people cometo undersL and it.

I would like then to talk about thedisappointments I have about someparts of the bill—opportunities lost,things done. And then I would like toconclude by simply talking about thefuture in the next 5 years as we try toimplement what the Congress is clearlygoing to adopt, and then say a little bitabout balancing the Federal budget. SoI will try to do those things.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senatoryield?

Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to.Mr. DOMENICI. I must leave the

floor. I will tell the Senator that I lookforward to reading the Senator's re-marks. I think the Senator knows thatI mean that. I believe what he has out-lined is so typical. I mean the Senatoris going to state the good things,things that are' not as good as theycould be, and he is going to lay themout with clarity. I say thank you forthe generous remarks which the Sen-ator made about me. But I also want tosay I reciprocate.

It doesn't matter in the U.S. Senatewhether you agree with another Sen-ator half the time, all the time, ornone of the time. What is important isthat you respect them. That is all wecan get; in this place—is that somebodyrespects what we are doing. I want totell the Senator from Texas, whether it

S8325is his way and I am not right enough,or whether it is my way and he iswrong too often, it doesn't matter. Youcan't be in the Senate and serve withPHIL GRAMM of Texas without respect-ing him. The Senator has a great mind,and he has learned to apply it to ourproblems in a way that really meanssomething to a lot of us. It strikes ourminds, and makes us think. I don'tthink the Senator from Texas can ex-pect to do more, and he wins plenty ofthem because of the clarity and thephilosophy, and the way he digs intothe issues.

There are many things that we areexperimenting with in this bill thatmay not work, and the Senator isgoing to certainly find them and tell uswhy. And they have an awful lot to dowith the child health care package.The Senator is going to say somethingabout that. And I am not trying to pre-empt him because I know there areproblems there. I don't believe the peo-ple who say if it had gone straightunder Medicaid that it would have cov-ered many, many more. I don't believethat at all. The Medicaid Program thathas not worked well in the past that wehave been struggling to fix ought notbe mimicked. It ought to be changed.And if you can, you ought to do thesame thing in a different way. That isthe theory of the Senator from Texas,and he has said that from the begin-ning. We are trying. But we are notthere yet, and many other things.

I want to tell you, we struggledmightily on the welfare side, on theFair Employment Labor StandardsAct, and whether the myriad of lawsshould apply to trainees. And the Sen-ator is going to speak about that. ButI want to tell him, I couldn't win. Icouldn't get it done. That is all there isto it. Everyone now knows, includingthe White House—and they will admitit—that the welfare program will notwork in terms of the people that mostneed the training without some relieffrom some of the laws that applyacross the board to people permanentlyemployed in companies that makeenough money to get by and have topay them. And there is no doubt thatthe issue has been framed in a falseway.

It is not a minimum wage issue. Wehave already agreed to the minimumwage. I heard the President yesterdayspeak of minimum wage again. That isnot the issue. The issue is the rulesthat are going to govern a nonprofit or-ganization that we asked to train 10people. Isn't that right? They are goingto say, "Why should we do that?"Every law on the books governs thesetrainees, and we didn't even pick them.You picked them for us.

So I am aware of those and manyothers. But I think the Senator isgoing to also say that there are somegood things in this bill.

I thank the Senator very much foryielding.

Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Senatorfrom New Mexico.

S8326Mr. President, let me begin with the

tax cut.First of all, I think if you are going

to judge what has been done, you haveto first begin by looking at the factthat we are cutting taxes by approxi-mately 1 percent. The tax cut on aver-age over the next 5 years will lower thetax burden on the American people byslightly less than 1 percent.

So for all of those who are saying,"Well, the Tax Code becomes morecomplicated, the changes that aremade are piecemeal," all of that wasdriven by the fact that with the bipar-tisan nature of this bill and the factthat we have a President who was ada-mantly opposed to cutting taxes until 3years ago, who only endorsed the con-cept of trying to balance the budget 2years ago, that we had a very limitedamount of resources. Obviously, forpeople who have listened to much ofthis debate and have gotten the ideathat we are talking about a huge taxcut, they are going to be disappointed.But there are some people who aregoing to be directly affected, and in avery positive way. Right at the top ofthe list will be people who have fami-lies and who have children. Nearly allof the $85 billion net tax cut we have inthis bill goes directly to families withchildren.

Why single them out? I am sure thereare people who say, "Well, children areimportant. Families are important.But why such a focus of this tax bill onchildren?" Let me explain why.

In 1950, the dependent exemption—the amount you got to deduct fromyour income because you had a depend-ent—was $500. As a result of that $500dependent exemption for children in1950, 65 percent of all income of the av-erage income working family was notsubject to income taxes in the averagefamily of four in America. Today thedependent exemption is $2,500. But tocover the same expenses and to protectthe same level of income that it did in1950, it would have to be twice that big,or $5,000 per child.

So what has happened since 1950 isthat the real dependent exemption interms of letting working families keeptheir money to invest in their ownchildren has effectively been cut inhalf.

If you look at the Tax Code, what hashappened is this: In 1950, rich peoplepaid a lot of taxes. And today rich peo-ple pay a lot of taxes. In 1950, poor peo-ple didn't pay any income taxes tospeak of. And today poor people do notpay any income taxes to speak of. Butthe explosion of Government between1950 and today has been almost totallyfunded by a massive growing tax bur-den on working families with children.And we have literally starved the oneinstitution in America that reallyworks—the family.

So our primary focus—first, in theContract with America, then the budg-et 2 years ago, then the budget a yearago, and now the budget this year—hasbeen to give a $500 tax credit per child


and to let working families invest intheir own children, their own family,their own future, recognizing that thebest housing program, nutrition pro-gram, and education program is to letworking families keep their ownmoney and invest in their own chil-dren, their own family, and their ownfuture.

Second, in this tax cut bill we beginthe long process of eliminating thedeath tax. People work a lifetime tobuild up a farm, or a small business, orto build up assets. And they do it fortheir children and their future. Andthey make the country rich in theprocess. But when they die, eventhough they pay taxes on every pennythey earned along the way, when theytry to pass these assets on to theirchildren, the Government comes in andtakes up to 55 cents out of every dollar.

So it routinely happens in Americaevery day that parents die, and thentheir children have to sell the fruits oftheir lifetime labors—their business,their farm, their home, their assets—inorder to give Government 55 cents outof every dollar of its value.

Republicans believe that is wrong.We believe you ought to tax incomeonce, and not twice. And I think thechanges we made in this area, espe-cially for small businesses and familyfarms, is very, very important.

I believe that people who are tryingto educate their children will be bene-ficiaries of this program.

Quite frankly, my favorite part ofthe tax bill in the area of education isnot the President's initiative. It is in-stead an initiative that came from Sen-ator RoTh. That is the initiative thatlets people when they get out of schooltreat student loan interest paymentsas a business expense. Think about itfor a minute. If you go out and buy atractor, you can depreciate that trac-tor—write its value off against your in-come. But if you invest in going to col-lege, or graduate school or medicalschool by borrowing a bunch of moneyon a guaranteed student loan, whenyou get out of college and you start towork with that big heavy burden ofdebt, none of the expenses you incurredin getting the education that econo-mists call "human capital' can bewritten off as a business expense.

So our society's Tax Code has his-torically discriminated against invest-ing in our own people.

One of the provisions of this bill thatis critically important is the provisionthat for the first time will let a youngwage earner who has gotten out ofschool, who has a big guaranteed stu-dent loan, to write off that interestagainst the income they are earning asa result of the earning power they gotfrom going to college, or graduateschool, or professional school. And I be-lieve this is going to encourage peopleto go to school longer and to accumu-late greater human capital.

There are a lot of provisions in thetax bill. I believe the tax bill is basi-cally a good bill, and the American

July 30, 1997people are going to benefit from it. Noteverybody is going to benefit. The top5 percent of income earners pay 50 per-cent of the taxes. They are going tobenefit from none of the general taxprovisions. They will benefit margin-ally from the death tax change. Theywill benefit from the capital gains tax.But the focus of our benefit, quitefrankly, with simply a 1-percent cut intaxes, is where it ought to be—onworking middle-income families.

We have had a long debate with thePresident, and the President has wonthe debate in this bill. But what is theold saying? He, convinced against hiswill, is unconvinced still. And let mesay I think it is a fundamental error,even though I am going to vote for thetax package, it is a fundamental mis-take in a tax bill that only provides $17billion of tax cuts a year, it is fun-damentally unfair to take part of thattax cut away from working two-incomefamilies in order to give a tax cut topeople who do not pay income taxes. Ibelieve that tax cut bills should beaimed at cutting taxes for people whopay them. In any case, that is where weare in the tax bill.

Let me turn now to the spending bill.The best provision in the spending bill,from my point of view, is expandedchoice on Medicare. Medicare hasgrown by 12 percent a year in cost inthe last 20 years. No major programhas ever grown that fast before, and, asa result, even with the reforms we haveinstituted even under the best of cir-cumstances, Medicare is destined to be-come the largest and most expensiveprogram in the history of the AmericanGovernment. But by letting our seniorcitizens have more choices, by encour-aging competition, by allowing a broadrange of choices between the tradi-tional HMO and fee-for-service medi-cine, we are going to for the first timebring the forces of competition to bearon controlling the cost of Medicare.

Since 1965, we have tried to use Gov-ernment regulation to control Medi-care costs, and it has been a total andabsolute failure. We are now going totry the forces of competition. I believethat they are going to be successful,and I believe that the most remem-bered part of the spending bill that isbefore us will be the expanded choicesthat we provide under Medicare. If weallow each of these choices to develop,if we continue to refine them and pro-mote competition, I believe we can andwill over time drive the cost of Medi-care growth down to roughly the costof medical care in the market system.

Last year, the cost of medical care inthe private sector of the economy actu-ally grew less than the Consumer PriceIndex. Medicare continues to outpaceinflation by a wide margin. I believethat by bringing the forces of competi-tion to bear, we have made a fun-damental change in at least part of theMedicare problem. Our failure to dealwith the long-term Medicare problemis my greatest disappointment with thebill before us.

July30, 1997Someone said in the newspaper this

morning that the subtitle of this billought to be "Opportunity Lost." Iagree with that. I believe that we havemissed a golden opportunity to beginthe reform that will be required tokeep Medicare solvent. I am proud ofthe Senate. I am proud of the threevotes we cast to keep provisions in ourbill that would have raised the eligi-bility age on Medicare to conform toSocial Security, that would have askedvery high-income retirees to pay theirfull part B premiums, that being thevoluntary part of Medicare that youdon't pay a penny for during yourworking life, and finally to have a sim-ple $5 copayment for home health care.

Home health care is the fastest grow-ing part of Medicare. The Presidenthad a 10-percent copayment in his na-tional health insurance bill. The Demo-cratic leader, Senator MITCHELL, whenhe offered the final version of thePresident's plan 3 years ago, proposed a20-percent copayment. Prior to 1972, wehad a 20-percent copayment. And therejection of a simple $5 copayment totry to induce people to be cost con-scious was, I believe, a sad com-mentary on the lack of leadership bothat the White House and in the Con-gress. I believe we missed a real oppor-tunity to reform Medicare, and I be-lieve that each and every one of thesethings will be done.

Going back to a point that our col-league, Senator KERREY from Ne-braska, made earlier, the longer wewait to institute these reforms, themore difficult it is going to become tomake these reforms work because theproblem is going to get bigger.

Some people are encouraged by thefact that we have set up a commissionin this bill. Forgive me for beingunderwhelmed at setting up yet an-other commission. We have already hadan entitlement commission. It has al-ready reported. We know what the situ-ation is.

Let me just summarize it. Under thebest of circumstances, if everythinggoes right, if the economy staysstrong, if we have the best possible cir-cumstances that we could expect overthe next 25 years, our current policy onMedicare and Social Security will re-quire the payroll tax to double from 15percent to 30 percent on every workingperson in America. Under the best ofcircumstances, if we do not change pol-icy, we are going to have a doubling ofthe payroll tax in 25 years, and nobodydisputes it. Under the pessimistic sce-nario of lower growth, we are going tohave to triple payroll taxes.

Let me remind you what that means.It means that a low-income workerwho is paying 15 percent of his incomein taxes and 15 percent in payroll taxeswill go from a 30-percent marginal taxrate to a 45-percent marginal tax rate.What it will mean, if we do not dosomething to reform Medicare and So-cial Security, is that, with absolutecertainty, 25 years from today the av-erage working American will be paying


over 50 cents out of every dollar theyearn in payroll taxes and income taxes.

For those people who said, do notmake these hard choices in Medicare,they are the people who are going tohave to explain why we are doublingpayroll taxes over the next 25 years.

I believe we have a crisis in this area,and let me say the first week we areback, as chairman of the Medicare sub-committee, we are going to hold a se-ries of hearings on Medicare. SenatorKERREY and I are going to reintroduceour reforms as a freestanding bill, andwe are not going to let this issue die. Iam also going to expand our hearingsto begin to look at private investmentsand ownership of assets especially byyoung workers as a way to guaranteethat they have Social Security benefitswhen they retire- and as a way of guar-anteeing that they have Medicare bene-fits.

If we do not change this program,with the baby-boom generation retir-ing in 14 years, we are going to have ageneration of Americans that will bepaying 30 percent payroll taxes to paybenefits to retirees who will never getbenefits out of these programs that arein any way related to what they paidin. Only if we begin to reform theseprograms now and only if we begin torestructure the system so when ayoung person is setting aside moneyfor their retirement, it is not going tosome phantom account with the SocialSecurity Administration but where itis going in a real investment in some-thing they own and can depend on andtrust, until we collateralize orsecuritize the Social Security and theMedicare contributions of our youngpeople, their retirement is not going tobe secure.

Senator DOMENICI said that I wasgoing to talk about the welfare reform,and I am. One of my biggest dis-appointments in this bill is that, as itis currently structured, we have gone along wasy toward killing welfare re-form, and let me explain why. First ofall, we made some tough decisionsabout denying benefits, setting higherstandards and saying, especially to im-migrants, you come to America. Youhave to come with your sleeves rolledup ready to go to work. You cannotcome to America with your hand heldout ready to go on welfare. We havepartially reversed that in this bill, andwe are going to spend tens of billions ofdollars providing benefits to peoplewho are denied benefits under our wel-fare bill, but that is the smallest partof the problem.

As a result of the administration re-sponding to special interest groups, es-pecially organized labor, we now haveprovisions that will make it virtuallyimpossible for States to require welfarerecipients to work, and let me explainwhy.

If a State has a mandatory work re-quirenlent, and let us say they want torequir welfare recipients who areyoung mothers who have one skill, andthat kill is taking care of children,

S8327and let us say they set up in Govern-ment housing projects a day care cen-ter, and they ask some welfare recipi-ents to do part of the baby-sittingunder supervision, under the provisionsof this bill and under the new require-ments that have been set by the admin-istration, we would have to pay mini-mum wage. We would have to providefringe benefits. We could not count allthe welfare benefits they are gettinglike Medicaid and housing subsidies aspart of those wages. And so it is goingto cost States substantial amounts ofmoney to put welfare recipients towork where they would acquire skillsthat would let them go out in the mar-ketplace and work.

The net result is going to be that weare in reality coming very close to kill-ing the very welfare reform bill thatwas the greatest achievement of thelast Congress.

These are trainees. They are peoplewho are receiving public benefits, andto ask them, in return for those bene-fits, to do productive work is the mostreasonable thing imaginable. It wassomething that a large percentage ofSenators and Congressmen on a bipar-tisan basis agreed to last year, and yet1 year later, with administrative ac-tion by the President and through thisbill, we are going to make it virtuallyimpossible for the States to have awork program for welfare recipients.

Now, I am hopeful that we can in thefuture come out with a bill that will atleast let the States count all the bene-fits that are received by people who arereceiving welfare in calculating whattheir effective wage is by working. Butthis is a very, very serious matter.

I am also very concerned about thismassive new program to give health in-surance to children. Who can be op-posed to health insurance for children?Nobody. Bismarck once said, neverdoes a socialist stand on firmer groundthan when he argues for the best prin-ciples of health. And I would just para-phrase Bismarck by saying, never doesa socialist stand on firmer ground orhigher ground than when he argues forthe best principles of health for chil-dren.

But here is the problem. We startedoff with a bill that had a broad consen-sus and it was a bill where we weregoing to spend $16 billion to try to helpthe States get access for health cov-erage for children from very low-in-come families. What happened in theprocess is that the piling on of the to-bacco industry got caught up in this,so, whereas the President started outwith $16 billion, it has now alreadygrown to $24 billion before we adopt thebill, and does anybody believe that thisprogram is not going to explode in thefuture?

Here is the problem. Once you get upto roughly 200 percent of poverty, 82percent of the children are covered byprivate health insurance. So, unless weare very fortunate, what is going tohappen to us in this bill is that we aregoing to end up having four children

S8328who will give up, through their fami-lies, private health insurance, for everyone new child we get covered. So 80percent of our money will simply dis-place private health insurance. Andhow can you blame them? If you havea moderate-income family, havingtrouble making ends meet, and we aregoing to give their children privatehealth insurance, what rational par-ents are going to continue to pay for itthemselves?

So, we have the very real specter,here, of spending a tremendous amountof money and covering almost no addi-tional children. Let me say, I totallyagree with Senator DOMENICI. I thinkthe worst choice we could have madewas simply going through Medicaid,when all 50 Governors, 2 years ago, toldthe Congress that they could do whatMedicaid was doing for 30 percent lessif we would let them do it. But I thinkwe have to be very concerned aboutthis program. I hope we are as commit-ted to monitoring what we are doing aswe are to doing it. If it becomes clearthat all we are doing is displacing pri-vate health insurance, I hope we will bewilling to go back and try to adjustthis program to try to prevent thatfrom happening.

I am also very concerned about all ofthese new benefits. Again, they are notbenefits anybody can be against. Weare cutting the copayment for out-patient care under Medicare. We areadding a whole bunch of new benefitsto Medicare. The problem is, Medicareis going broke as quickly as it can gobroke. The only reason we can claimwe have saved it for 10 years is we, inthe process, were forced to give in tothe administration's demand that wetake the fastest growing part of Medi-care and take it out of the trust fundand put it into general revenue. As Isaid when we first debated this, I canmake Medicare solvent for 100 years bysimply taking hospital care out of thetrust fund. But have we changed any-thing by doing it? The answer is no.

I am concerned that, by creatingthese new benefits, all of which arepopular, that we have to look and seewhether, in fact, we made the problembetter or worse. I am very skepticalthat cutting reimbursements to doc-tors and hospitals will really savemoney. The reason I am skeptical isthat, as we have gone back and lookedat our reforms in the past, that has notbeen a very effective way to savemoney. Because what tends to happenis that doctors and hospitals—basi-cally, doctors are smart people or theywouldnt be doctors; hospitals tend tobe run by smart people—what they dois they figure out how they can changethe billing so they end up billing formore and getting the same amount ofmoney.

So, I am concerned about these add-on benefits. I am worried that thesenew programs are like little baby ele-phants, they are little and pretty now,but if we are not careful they are goingto all grow, each one, into a big ele-


phant. And, as we talk about balancingthe budget, the final subject I wantedto talk about, this could be a problemfor us.

Finally, let me talk about balancingthe budget. I have been involved inbudget debates since I first came to theHouse of Representatives. We have, onmany occasions, claimed to have bal-anced the budget. Many of us on var-ious occasions have thought we hadreally done it. And I think, on bal-ancing the budget, it is important toremember an adage that ABRAHAM Lin-coln used to be fond of. ABRAHAM Lin-coln once said, The hen is the wisestof all birds. She never cackles until theegg is laid."

I believe that a lot of work is goingto be required to make this budget ul-timately produce a balanced budget.Much of this budget is based on as-sumptions about a strong economy—which today is very strong. Obviously,we all want it to stay strong and weare going to try to make it stronger. Itis also based on the premise that theseprograms are not going to grow beyondthe levels we have set out in our budg-ets, even the new programs, and thatwe are going to live up to these discre-tionary spending caps. Obviously, it ishard to live up to them. As everybodyknows, we pass emergency appropria-tions bills for $8 billion, and we end upbreaking the budget, not only in theyear we are in but for the next 3 or 4years. We don't write money for emer-gencies into the bill, knowing we willhave an emergency bill. ILis going totake a tremendous amount of con-certed, bipartisan effort to live up tothe commitments we made on discre-tionary spending. I hope our colleaguesare as committed to living up to thisbudget as they are to adopting it. Ithink, if they are, we might have afighting chance. But clearly, balancingthe budget is not something you buy ona one-time payment. You buy it on theinstallment plan.

And the weakness of the program isit is based on the assumption that thisvery strong economy is going to con-tinue into the future. It may and itmay not. We are in the second-longestpeacetime expansion in American his-tory. I think it is highly improbablethat we would go 5 years without anadjustment. But we could still balancethe budget with a minor recession if wecould control the growth of these pro-grams. I wish, as I said numerous timesduring the budget debate, we couldhave done more to control spending. Iwish we could have bought more insur-ance.

But, in conclusion, let me say thatthe reforms in Medicare, the expandedchoices, represent a fundamentalchange in policy. And I believe we willall benefit from them. I think we didabout as good a job, given that we hada Democrat President who had verystrong goals in the tax bill, especiallya belief that you can't cut taxes forpeople who pay taxes unless you givemoney to people who don't pay income

July 30, 1997taxes. I think, given that we had 1 per-cent of taxes to deal with and we had aPresident who didn't share our fun-damental goal, I think overall we did apretty good job on the tax bill and Ithink we have reason to be proud ofthat.

I think the reforms and choice onMedicare are good reforms. But I thinkthere is really reason to be concernedabout what we have allowed to happenon welfare reform, and much of ourbudget is assuming that the progresswe have made on reducing the welfarerolls is going to continue. I think wehave to be concerned about growth, es-pecially in these new programs. Wehave to enforce the discretionaryspending caps to have any chance ofbalancing the Federal budget.

So my message today is that there isa lot of work to be done. I look forwardto participating with Senator DOMENICIand with our colleagues to try to getthat work done.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

HUTCHINSON). The Senator from NewMexico.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Sen-ator KENNEDY has been waiting. I amonly going to take a minute, Senator.

I did not get to hear SenatorG1MM's entire remarks. I pledged tohim before that I would read them intheir entirety, and I will. But let memake just a couple of quick observa-tions.

I think everybody knows—my goodfriend from Texas said—you can't get abalanced budget overnight. You do buyit on the installment plan. When youbuy it on an installment plan that is 3years, 5 years, or 10 years, you have tomake some assumptions. I think, dis-tinguished economist that he is, hewould know that.

The Senate should know we did notuse optimistic economic assumptions.In fact, we used CBO's very modest eco-nomic assumptions. There is no way wecould provide an assumption, outright,that, if we have a serious recession,that we provided for it. But CBO's eco-nomic assumptions versus others, moreoptimistic, at least build into theirmodel that, indeed, there could be aslowdown and, thus, they take some-thing off the growth edge. So I dontthink we have an unduly high one.

Senator, I am agreeing with you thatunless we seek to look at the new pro-grams we created, in terms of are theyperforming as we expected, we won'tmake it. And, second, I am not terriblyinterested in being the enforcer on ap-propriations caps—which are verystrenuous after 1998. In fact, I will giveyou the number. The baseline for dis-cretionary, if we did nothing, is $2943trillion. Under this bill it is $139 billionless, which means for a period of timeit is going to grow very little, in factfive-tenths of 1 percent.

But I am not going to run aroundbeing the enforcer if entitlements aregoing wild again. You might, and Iwould respect you for it. But, essen-tially, we cannot balance the budget on

July30, 1997the appropriations accounts. We haveto make sure we control the entitle-ments and I think you agree with that.You are not agreeing with me that weshould not worry about appropriations.I would worry less than you about cor-rect appropriations. But what the Sen-ator has said about making sure we getthere, and making sure we do somethings to assure that this commitmentand this path is, indeed, realized—which is what you are saying. I be-lieve—I think thats correct.

I think—so long as everybody leavesknowing that, in terms of making surewe don't let things within this slip andsay, "Oh, well, $10 billion didn't mat-ter, we thought it was that but we arewrong." and just pass those tens of bil-lions by—we will get there. And thatsnot an exceptional thing to expect of agroup which is out claiming a bal-ancing budget. Would you agree? Weare out there claiming it. We ought tobe willing to say we will do what's nec-essary. And I think if we do what's herethat's enough. We don't have to do alot more over the next 5 years, but ifwe are going to do less, it is not goingto be enough and we are all going to beashamed.

I thank the Senator for those obser-vations which prompted me to say thisbecause I believe that's absolutelytrue. I yield the floor and I yield toSenator KENNEDY.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President. I yieldmyself such time as I require.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator is recognized.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this isa great day for America's children.With this agreement, we have taken agiant step toward giving all Americanchildren the healthy start in life theydeserve.

The establishment of a new, $24 bil-lion program to provide low and mod-erate income families the help theyneed to purchase health insurance fortheir children is a landmark achieve-ment. It represents the most far-reach-ing step that Congress has ever takento help the Nation's children and themost far-reaching advance in healthcare since the enactment of Medicareand Medicaid a generation ago.

The funds provided under this bill aresufficient to assure that every Amer-ican family has access to affordable in-surance for its children.

President Clinton deserves tremen-dous credit for his leadership in achiev-ing this milestone. His fight for healthsecurity for all Americans in the first 2years of his administration laid thefoundation for the progress we made inthe last Congress and for today's agree-ment.

The Kassebaum-Kennedy legislationenacted in the last Congress guaran-tees that workers can change jobswithout losing their health insurancecoverage, or being denied coverage be-cause of a pre-existing condition. Thevast majority of Americans obtain


health insurance for themselves andtheir families through their jobs. andending insurance discriminationagainst thosi in poor health was a sig-nificant step toward greater health se-curity for al1 families.

Todays expansion of health insur-ance coverage for children could nothave happened without President Clin-tons strong support. The Presidentfought hard to include a $16 billioncommitment for children in the budgetagreement. And it was his unwaveringsupport that assured the additional $8billion added by the Senate was in-cluded in the final bill.

I also commend several others whocontributed to this victory for chil-dren. Mrs. Clinton has made the issueof good health care for children a life-time of commitment, and I thank herfor her strong support. SenatorHATCH'S courageous leadership in thebattle for health insurance coverage fi-nanced by a cigarette tax was abso-lutely critical. Senator ROCKEFELLER,Senator CHAFEE, Senator JEFFORDS,Senator KERRY, Representatives NANCYJOHNSON, BOB MATSUI, and MARGE Rou-KEMA and others were effective leadersin reaching this bipartisan goal.

Among many outside groups thatworked to make this day possible, theCampaigri for CHILD Health Now, co-chaired by the Children's Defense Fundand the American Cancer Society. wasindispensable in its tireless efforts toinform and mobilize the public in sup-port of children's health insurance.Marian Wright Edelman, as always,was outscanding in these efforts.

When Senator HATCH and I intro-duced our children's health insuranceproposal in March, we said that itwould help guarantee good health carefor millions of children who have beenleft out and left behind. These childrencome from hard-working families.Their parents work 40 hours a week, 52weeks a year—but they still cannot af-ford the health care their childrenneed. Whether the issue is eyeglasses,or heanLng aids, or asthma, or prescrip-tion drugs, too many children do notget the care they need for the healthystart in life they deserve.

The agreement today brings newhope to these children and their fami-lies. It means that they will have a bet-ter opportunity to achieve a long andhealthy life. It means that our countryhas at last given children's health thehigh priority it deserves.

I am also pleased that there will bean increase in the cigarette tax, but Iam disappointed that the cigarettecompanies still wield sufficient powerin the back rooms of Congress to rollback 1:he tax below the 20-cent increaseapproved by an overwhelming biparti-san vote in the Senate. A higher to-bacco tax is an effective means to dis-courage children from smoking. Thisissue will not go away, and I expect theSena:e to return to it later this year,either in the context of legislation onthe l:obacco settlement or as part ofother bills.

S8329Finally, it is gratifying that the

agreement drops the harsh and ill-thought-out proposals on Medicare,such as raising the eligibility age, im-posing a means test on premiums, andrequiring copayments for home healthcare that would have penalized the old-est, sickest, and poorest senior citi-zens. Long-run reforms are needed tokeep Medicare strong. but any reformworth the name deserves careful delib-eration by Congress. not the short-circuited consideration imposed by thestrict rules on budget bills.

Finally, I express my very personalappreciation for the strong leadershipthat was provided by Senator DASCHLE,on our side, and for his strong commit-ment on health care. Senator DASCHLEhad indicated that health care for chil-dren was going to be one of our Demo-cratic strong priorities in this Con-gress. His unflagging strength andcommitment and support for this pro-gram was invaluable in seeing itsachievement.

Mr. President, I yield the floor andsuggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the time becharged equally to both sides.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection. it is so ordered. The clerkwill call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro-ceeded to call the roll.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, It is so ordered.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wantto take a few moments to talk aboutthe budget agreement. and this rec-onciliation bill in particular.

Let me begin by complimenting thedistinguished majority chairman, Sen-ator DOMENICI, and the ranking mem-ber, Senator LAUTENBERG, for theiroutstanding work in this whole effort.As has been said now by many Mem-bers, this would not have been possiblewere it not for their effort and theleadership they have demonstrated.

Let me commend the administra-tion's negotiators—Secretary Rubin,Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, JohnHilley, and others—for the extraor-dinary effort they have made in work-ing with us on the President's behalf.

The majority leader deserves a greatdeal of credit. This would not havebeen possible without his direct par-ticipation. He ought to take greatpride in this agreement's accomplish-ments.

Many others on both sides of theaisle have worked diligently over thelast several weeks to bring us to thispoint, and they too deserve credit. I amvery appreciative of their efforts. Thisagreement is one of the most extraor-dinary accomplishments achieved, atleast since I have been leader and per-haps since I have been in the Senate.

I think the message in the last elec-tion on the part of the American peopleall over the country was very simple:

S8330We want Republicans and Democrats tocooperate, to work on major problemstogether, to address the major prob-lems in a way that gives them andgives us hope that there is a better fu-ture, a stronger future. They recognize,as we do, that the deficit is a majorproblem and has been a major problem.I think this agreement—as spelled outin both the spending and tax reductionbills—is clear evidence that we under-stood that message and have respondedas consequentially and as sincerely aswe possibly can.

This agreement is the final downpay-ment on a budget process that has nowbeen underway for several years. Infact, it goes back to the vote of 1993, assome of my colleagues have already ar-ticulated.

This chart, Mr. President, very clear-ly illustrates from where we have comeand what we have left to do. The pro-jected deficits prior to the enactmentof the 1993 economic package are rep-resented in the top line.

In 1993, we made the tough choices,the very critical decisions in 1993. As aresult, we have been able to reduce theactual and projected deficits by $2.4trillion over the period from 1993 to2002. Were we to stop at this point anddo nothing, annual deficits for the next5 years are currently projected to re-main in the range of $100 billion. If, asI expect, we pass this bill by week'send, we will have completely elimi-nated the deficit no later than the year2002. In other words, the net savingsover the next 5 years that will be gen-erated by enacting this budget agree-ment will total over $200 billion.

So we will achieve our goal of a bal-anced Federal budget by the year 2002,if not sooner, as a result, first, of adop-tion of the 1993 budget agreement, and,second, enactment of the 1997 budgetagreement. Passage of these two piecesof legislation will bring us to a bal-anced Federal budget for the first timesince 1969.

There were many fears expressedabout what would happen to our econ-omy and the deficit if we were to enactthe spending and tax policies containedin the budget agreement of 1993. I willnot belabor the point or go over thosefears at this time. Instead, I will sim-ply concentrate on what has been saidabout the economy since the passage ofthe 1993 package by people outside ofthe Senate, in particular the Chairmanof the Federal Reserve Board, AlanGreenspan.

Heres what he says about the stateof our economy since the adoption ofour 1993 budget plan: we are "now inthe 7th consecutive year of expansion,making it the third longest post-WorldWar II cyclical upswing to date."

In addition, he said:This strong expansion has produced a re-

markable increase in work opportunities forAmericans. . . . Our whole economy willbenefit from their greater productivity.

Finally, he said:Consumers are also enjoying low inflation

financial markets have been buoyant


in a relatively stable. low-Inflation envI-ronment.

That is about as optimistic a seriesof statements as I have ever heard theChairman of the Federal Reservemake. He has a reason for makingthem—the economy is strong, we havebeen able to reduce the deficit, and wehave an optimistic outlook about ourfuture. And it is universally held.Whether we turn to the Chairman ofthe Federal Reserve Board, or Membersof Congress, or the business commu-nity, or members of labor, the responseis the same: Our country is strongertoday.

There can be no doubt that we arestrong.

Unemployment and inflation rightnow are at a combined rate of 8.7 per-cent. That is the best since LyndonJohnson was President of the UnitedStates.

Inflation is at a 2.8 annual percent-age rate. That is the best since JohnKennedy was President.

The employment picture, with 12 mil-lion new jobs, is the best employmentsituation our country has faced in itshistory. Construction jobs are strongernow than at any time since I was born,since Harry Truman was President.

Consumer confidence has increased 14percent in the last 4 years, which is thebest we have seen since President Ei-senhower.

Deficit reduction has been reduced tounder 1 percent of gross domestic prod-uct in 1997. That is the best we haveseen in all the years that I have lived.One would have to go back to HarryTruman's Presidency to find a timewhen it was this good.

Home ownership has increased from63 percent to 65 percent, the best ever.Never in our Nation's history have two-thirds of all Americans lived in theirown homes.

The stock market has gone from 3,500to more than 8000, a growth recordthat has been matched only once, andthat was during World War II.

Median family income is up $1,600since 1993, the best since Lyndon JOHN-SON was President of the United States.

So, Mr. President, we feel very goodabout the circumstances and about theeconomic progress and performance ofthe last 4 years.

At the same time, we have said re-peatedly over the last several monthsthat there are four categories by whichwe would judge any agreement thatwould attempt to make furtherprogress on the deficit: fairness, fiscalresponsibility, education, and how wetarget the investments that we willmake as a result of this legislation.Those are the four criteria. How fair isit? How responsible is It fiscally? Howgood an educational program can weachieve? And how well are we going tobe able to target our investments?

Let us take the first category. Howdo Americans do under this agreementon the issue of fairness? Many of ustalked for some time about how impor-tant it was that we benefit all income

July 30, 1997categories, not just the top income cat-egory, but those working families inthe $20,000 to $30000 income categories.people who pay a portion of their in-come to income taxes but an evengreater portion to payroll taxes. Arewe going to be able to provide tax reliefto families such as those?

We will provide a child tax credit to27 million working families. Familieswho pay thousands of dollars in payrolltaxes, families who pay income taxes,families who try to make ends meet,each and every week, each and everymonth, those families are going to ben-efit very directly as a result of what wewere able to do with the child tax cred-it.

And $24 billion has been committedin the first 5 years for a children'shealth program, which is the largestsingle investment in health care sincethe passage of Medicaid in 1965. That isjust the beginning, because we havealso committed another $24 billion inthe second 5 years. For the first timein history, thousands of South Dako-tans and millions of Americans aregoing to benefit from a Federal healthprogram that for the first time willprovide meaningful health care to chil-dren who are not getting it today.

And $1.5 billion is going to be com-mitted to low-income seniors to helppay for Medicare premiums.

So, Mr. President, from a fairnesspoint of view, there can be no doubt,when it comes to health, when it comesto the array of opportunities that wepresent working families, this bill de-serves our support.

Mr. President, we also, as I indicated,made a very important point of argu-ing the need for targeted investment.Indeed, this legislation provides oppor-tunities for targeted investment in en-vironmental cleanup, in enterprisecommunities, and targeted job taxcredits, ensuring that family farms andfamily businesses are going to be pro-tected as one generation transfers itsproperty to the next.

Employer tax deductions are going tobe made available for employee edu-cation and training.

In a number of ways, we say we aregoing to take the resources availableto us and target them to where theycan be used to the greatest advantage—on environment, on communities, onjobs, on farms and small businesses. Weprovide an array of opportunities inthat regard to do what Democrats saidwas very critical: provide the kind oftargeted investment that is so essen-tial to ensuring that all aspects and allelements of our American society bene-fit from what we are doing today.

The third criteri we spelled out wasfiscal responsibility. How well do we doin that regard? We said at the very be-ginning, we do not want to see an ex-plosion of deficit in the outyears. Wewanted to be absolutely certain that,regardless of what else we do, we didnot want to pass a tax cut we cannotafford and place ourselves back in thesame box we created for this country in

July 30, 1997the 1980's. We did not want to relivethe bad old days of those extraor.dinarily high deficits. Instead, we nowrecognize that achieving a balancedbudget in 2002 is only the first step inmaintaining a balanced budget in theyears beyond 2002.

So we do not index capital gains. Weput income limits on individual retire-ment accounts. We do not index the es-tate tax exemptions, simply because wewere afraid of the extraordinary explo-sion in outyear deficits that thesechanges would trigger.

I recognize the fact that we did notgo as far as some of us would haveliked to ensure fiscal responsibility, toensure with a high degree of confidencethat we will be able to maintain a bal-anced budget. However, I also believewe took a number of steps that allowfor some confidence that once we havebalance the Federal budget, it will staybalanced in the years 2003, 2004, 2005,and beyond.

Mr. President, the last category isone that is probably of greatest impor-tance to many working families be.cause they are trying to make endsmeet and still send their children tocollege. In this information age, it isimportant that we do all we can tomake available to working families thetools and the resources necessary toallow every child who graduates fromhigh school the opportunity to getmore education. So this bill providesthe single largest investment in highereducation since Harry Truman passedthe GI bill almost 50 years ago.

We provide a $1,500 HOPE credit inthe first 2 years of college and a 20 per-cent tuition credit for college juniorsand seniors and lifelong learning oppor-tunities. There are families of all ageswith many different sets of circumstances involving children whowant to go to college, involving aspouse who may want to get additionaleducation. An array of different chal.lenges confront all working families asthey attempt to cope with the cir-cumstances we are facing in this infor-mation age. We provide that mecha-nism and those tools to working fami-lies in ways that we have not done inmore than four decades.

So, Mr. President, as a result of thisPresident's advocacy, we are commit-ting resources to education that wehave not done in the period I haveserved in the Congress.

There are no Pell grant reductions.There are opportunities for people touse other tools as well and not be pe-nalized for using the credits that wenow make available.

In the end, Mr. President, it allcomes down to real names and realfamilies, people that are truly going tobe affected. While there are many fami-lies who have come before us over thecourse of the last several weeks to de-scribe their situation, and talk abouttheir circumstances, I think the Rich-ards family in Sioux Falls, SD, whotalked to us via television camera justa couple of days ago, is a clear example


of what this legislation means for atypical American family.

Charlie Richards is a teacher. He isnot only a teacher: he has two extrapart.time Job5. There are many peoplein South Dakota who work not just onejob, but two and three jobs in order tomake ends meet. Charlie Richards isthat kind of an individual, hard work-ing. He believes that his family musthave the very best that he can providethem, and he is willing to commit theextra time and effort and hours to seethat provides his family with a qualityof life that he now only dreams of.

His wife Karen is pregnant with theirsecond child. Their income is about$24,000 a year. As a result of what weare doing this afternoon and what wewill do this week, Charlie and Karenwill get a $975 child tax credit. This figure was zero under the legislationoriginally drafted and passed by theHouse. Both children, once the secondchild is born, will get health care cov-erage, perhaps for the first time. Bothchildren will be eligible for HOPE cred-its when they are ready for college.Both children will be eligible forKidSave arid other individual retire-ment accounts when savings increase.

For the first time, Charlie and Karenwill be able to perhaps set a littlemoney aside for savings, maybe to buya home, maybe to improve the homethey are living in now, maybe to givetheir family just a little bit more hopethat they are going to be able to makeends meet and do the kinds of thingsthat every family dreams of doing, notJust with t:he one child they have now,but with two.

So to Charlie and Karen, and to fami-lies Just like them across the country,let us sa today that we give themhope of a better future, a brighter andmore realfistic opportunity of achievingtheir goals.

We heard our constituents last yearwhen they told us we have got to worktogether to solve problems, when theytold us it. is important that they havethe kind of economic strength and se-curity that they want so badly, whenthey told us we have got to continue towork and put our best effort forward toreduce the debt. We heard them on allthese fronts. As a result of the extraor-dinary leadership and work done onboth sides of the aisle, we are respond-ing today in a way that makes me veryproud.

I yieldi the floor and suggest the ab-sence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded t:o call the roll.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The FRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STE.VENS). Without objection, it is so or-dered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from New York.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, thisconference report comes before the

S8331Senate in an atmosphere of near eupho.na. While I have signed the conferencereport—I was a Democratic confereefrom the Finance Committee on thesematters—and while I will vote for eachof the bills, I cannot share the elation.I say this with the greatest respect forthe Senators who managed thisthrough the Budget Committee and, ofcourse, for our own revered chairmanof the Finance Committee—SenatorROTH—and others who have worked sovery hard on the legislation. Surely,there is much to applaud in both bills.But the agreement does little to ad-dress, in a serious way, either short runor long.run budget problems.

In the short.run, the Federal budgetis already on the verge of balance. Thisis due to a strong 7-year economic expansion. The expansion is attributable,in part—very probably in large part—to the budget decisions made by thePresident and this side of the aisle inthe Senate in 1993. Indeed, my re-spected colleague, BOB KERREY, sug-gests that the Omnibus Budget Rec-onciliation Act of 1993 be renamed theBalanced Budget Act of 1993. The defi.cit reduction brought about by OBRA93, as our usage has it, is expected toreduce the deficit by a cumulative $924billion through 1998. That is almost atrillion dollars.

I stood on the floor at this desk, withmy great and good friend, Senator Sas-ser, as the chairman of the BudgetCommittee at that desk. I was chair-man of the Finance Committee. In theend, we enacted that measure by onevote, which has brought us to where weare today. I don't know that the Na-tion, having heard so much for so longabout deficits, had been properly con-cerned about them so much and for solong. It is not easy to grasp the possi-bility that the deficit for this fiscalyear, which will end September 30, willcome in under $30 billion. That is aboutone-third of 1 percent of gross domesticproduct—an insignificant number. Ifthe present trends continue, we couldwell be in a surplus in a year's time—the first such surplus, if I rightly re-call, since 1969.

And then having reached the pointwhere we have free resources, we wouldbe in a very proper position to turn toquestions of, do we want to cut taxes,which clearly we might do? I wouldmuch prefer to see tax rates reduced—and I will talk about that tomorrow—or to provide new benefit programs ofthe kind that we are providing, but notbefore we have done what we said wewould do first, which was to balancethe budget.

Over the long run, too, this legisla-tion does less than many of us on theFinance Committee would have liked.Indeed, I can say, sir, that all of us onthe Finance Committee would haveliked, as the measure I am referring to,passed unanimously in the FinanceCommittee, 20 to 0, on June 18. In particular, we chose to confront the long-run issues in Medicare. We are toldthat our two major retirement pro-grams—Social Security and Medicare—

S8332are in grave difficulties. That is not soclear in the case of Social Security.

Four rather simple steps would bringus into actuarial balance for a full 75years—the usual way solvency is meas-ured for the Social Security program.It could be done by four simple meas-ures.

Construct an accurate cost of livingindex—rather than a consumer priceindex—in the manner that has beenproposed by the chairman of the Fed-eral Reserve Board, the previous direc-tor of the Office of Management andBudget, Dr. Rivlin, and the BoskinCommission established by the FinanceCommittee when Senator Packwoodwas chairman—he and I jointly didthat.

Tax Social Security retirement bene-fits in the way that all other pensionsare now taxed.

Include all workers in the Social Se-curity system. To this day, in a kind ofexasperating holdover from the 1930's,there are several million State andlocal government employees who arenot in the Social Security system asgovernment employees, but who ac-quire the benefits, in any event,through part-time work outside.

Increase the computation periodfrom 35 to 38 years.

Just take those four measures, and afew other odd things, and we put SocialSecurity in fine fiscal condition intothe second half of the next century.

This is not the case with Medicare.Medicare is a health program, and itprovides health care to a populationthat grows older and does so in the set-ting where medical science grows evermore successful in the treatment of thediseases associated with aging. Butthose treatments are, of necessity, evermore expensive. There is a true prob-lem in Medicare. We have made manychanges in the present program, so asto provide another 10 years of trustfund solvency. But in fact, sir, since1992, the revenues from the Medicarepayroll taxes have not equaled the out-lays. And we have used general reve-nues to fund the shortfall, and sincethe Federal budget has been in a deficitsituation, we have had to borrowmoney to do it. We can say, if you like,that we have 10 years of solvency.There is not now and there won't beuntil we do very important things.

We began that effort in the FinanceCommittee on June 18. We took the de-cision to increase the age of eligibilityfor Medicare from 65 years to 67, invery gradual steps over the next quar-ter century, and bringing it into linewith the increased age of eligibility forSocial Security benefits, provisionsadopted in 1983 in the aftermath of acommission, headed by Dr. Greenspan,on which Senator Dole and I served,among others. That measure just re-sponds to the age profile, the demo-graphic profile of the American people.We are living longer. And I would say,Mr. President, also, while we are livinglonger, we are retiring earlier. The ma-jority of Americans now retire at age


62, when a reduced benefit on SocialSecurity is available, and some 70 per-cent have retired by age 65. It is notentirely clear why. Some have suffi-cient resources and they simply wantto stop working, and others have notgotten work, or others find the work nolonger possible for them. But the factis that most people now are retired be-fore age 65, and on actuarially reducedbenefits, so the trust funds are left un-affected. We proposed to do that withMedicare.

If there is a problem of interim insur-ance from the time you leave employ-ment to the time you are retired, well,we can resolve that problem. We couldbe thinking about it right now, interms of those who retire early on So-cial Security. The problem of healthcare insurance does not deter, so far aswe can tell, persons from doing that. Itis not an admirable fact; it is a dis-tressful fact that the last time the So-cial Security Administration did a sur-vey asking persons the reasons whythey retired early was about 15 yearsago. The Social Security Administra-tion is very slow in providing the kindof information we would like to have tomake these decisions.

We also, in the Finance Committee,unanimously agreed to increase thepart B premiums for upper-incomebeneficiaries. That is to say, to reducethe part of the Medicare Program paidfor by general revenues. When the pro-gram was begun—and I was involved ifnot peripherally, but with some meas-ure of consequence as an Assistant Sec-retary of Labor for Policy Planningand Research in the Johnson adminis-tration—we provided that this pro-gram, Part B, should be paid for half bypremiums paid by beneficiaries andhalf by general revenues. Over theyears, as a technical result of havingconstrained the increase in premiumsto the same percentage increase in So-cial Security benefits, while the cost ofmedical care increased faster than theconsumer price index—which itself wasan inadequate measure of the cost ofliving—that 50/50 share dropped to 25percent for beneficiaries and 75 percentfor the Government.

We would simply provide that per-sons with higher incomes would paymore than the simple 25 percent thatthe great majority of persons wouldpay. We are talking about a very smallnumber of people—about 6 percent ofall beneficiaries—but the principle isthat if you have the income, you don'tneed the subsidy. Indeed, the overallsubsidy would still be much greaterthan it was originally envisaged in1965—with the Federal Government fi-nancing 72 percent of program costsout of general revenues. The time hascome to do that.

Equally, the time has come to pro-vide some measure of copayment forhome health care, which has beengrowing at extraordinary rates, andwhich is evidently subject to seriousabuse. This was widely reported in thepress just this week. These items have

July 30, 1997come to be known as the big threeMedicare changes. They were adoptedon June 25 here on the Senate floor bya vote of 73 to 27. However, they arenot included in the conference agree-ment. The House was not willing to dothis, and I can only regret that we havenot done so. I stand here and say, how-ever, that the Senate has led the wayand has shown you can do it. The re-sponse in public opinion has been quitemoderate. The comment in the presshas been almost unvaryingly support-ive.

These are necessary, sensible thingsto do. And it is time we set about doingthem. There is an opportunity that wewill not miss, particularly if the Fi-nance Committee—under the leader-ship of Chairman RoTh—continues towork in a bipartisan manner.

About 80 percent of the savings inmandatory programs in this bill beforeus, this extraordinary large bill—Iwould hate to see it dropped on any-one's foot—about 80 percent of thosesavings came from actions by the Fi-nance Committee. The 5-year savingsfor Medicare are $115 billion. That is adecrease in the increase, in a mannerwe have come to be familiar with, and,as I have said, the trust fund will be intechnical balance for about 10 years.

This does buy us time for an impor-tant provision in the bill, the provisionfor the creation of a national biparti-san commission on the future of Medi-care—time for such commission to doits work. The statute provides that itissue its report by March 1, 1999, a yearand a half from now.

The commission is required, in thefirst instance, to review and analyzethe long-term financial condition ofthe Medicare Program, which is not aneasy matter because we are talkingabout the long-term progress of medi-cine in an age of discovery that hasproved extraordinarily creative andfruitful but equally and notunsurprisingly costly, and to identifythe problems that threaten the finan-cial integrity of Medicare, includingthe extent to which Medicare updateindexes do not accurately reflect infla-tion.

If I could say parenthetically, Mr.President, we have had a great deal oftalk about the accuracy, or inaccuracy,or sufficiency, or insufficiency of theConsumer Price Index. The fact is, wehave at least four distinct price indexesin our present statutes and in our prac-tices. They are spread all over the Gov-ernment. One of them indexes Medicareexpenses in ways that it seems to meprobably overstate inflation.

Next the commission is asked tomake recommendations regarding thefinancing of graduate medical edu-cation, including consideration of al-ternative broad-based sources of fund-ing for medical education. This couldnot be a more important matter. Thequestion of medical schools and medi-cal education is absolutely essential aswe begin the process of economic ra-tionalization in the provision of health

July30, 1997care, as we do in this measure makinga wide range of HMO's available toMedicare beneficiaries and Medicaidrecipients.

In this regard, Mr. President, might Ijust go back to 1994 when the FinanceCommittee was taking up the healthcare proposal sent to us by the admin-istration in the last days of the firstsession of the 103d Congress. I was inNew York City and asked the distin-guished head of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York—Dr. Paul Marks—if he would arrange aseminar to bring me up to date on thethinking of medical deans and medicalacademic researchers in the area ofhealth care generally. We met onemorning in a conference room in Janu-ary at 10 o'clock. And at about 10:20,one of the deans, who comes from an-other part of the country, said, "Youknow, the University of Minnesotamay have to close its medical school."That was said to me and I knew I hadheard something important. Minnesotais the kind of State where they openmedical schools. They don't closethem. I asked, "How could that be?'They said, "Well, managed care ismaking its way from the west coast tothe east coast. It has reached the highplains, and is now widely used in Min-nesota."

Persons enrolled in managed careplans are not sent to teaching hospitalsbecause they are, by definition, moreexpensive. If you do not have a teach-ing hospital, you can't have a medicalschool. And, indeed, the teaching hos-pital at the University of Minnesotahas since merged with another healthcare institution.

We are dealing with something pro-foundly important. An ancient practiceof medicine goes all the way back tothe Greeks. The establishment of medi-cine doesn't go backJust to the Greeks,but the idea of a profession of medicinewith a code of ethics, a Hippocraticoath, certain responsibilities, certainimmutabilities in medicine—somethingof a mystery, something of a guide. Inmy youth, doctors would prescribemedicines taken from drugstores in ahandwriting that was illegible to thelaymen. Only the pharmacist couldread it. All of that is disappearing.

In our hearings in the Finance Com-mittee, Msgr. Charles J. Fahey, a pro-fessor at Fordham University said tous, "What you are seeing is a'commodification' of medicine." Thereis a striking image here on the Senatefloor. For generations, we have arguedthe issue of whether labor is a com-modity. Finally, in the Clayton Anti-trust Act of 1914, we said labor is not acommodity. Well, medicine is becom-ing one.

The next week, Dr. Raymond G.Schultze, at the time the head of theUCLA Medical Center volunteered, andsaid, "Can I give you an example ofthat?" We were discussing It with ourwitnesses, saying that is a new idea. Hesaid, "In southern California, we nowhave a spot market of bone marrow


transplants." Well, when you get intothat, that is good. It keeps control onprices. It brings rational decisionmak-ing into this market. But it doesn'tprovide for the public good. Marketswon't provide for the public good thata teaching hospital and a medicalschool constit:ute.

So our commission must pay specialattention to these institutions.

Finally, we ask the commission tomake recommendations on modifyingthe age of eligibility for Medicare sothat it corresponds to the changes inthe age of eligibility for Social Secu-rity. I wouldi simply suggest that thisprovision—the instruction to the forth-coming commission to deal with thismatter of age of eligibility—obviouslyreflects the decision in the FinanceCommittee and the Senate that itought to be 'increased to be in harmonywith that of Social Security.

The Medicaid changes in this legisla-tion will save about $10 billion over 5years by providing greater flexibilityto the States, and at the same time, asI have remarked earlier, the Medicaidrecipients will be encouraged to par-ticipate in HMO's just as Medicare re-cipients do. When we began Medicaidand Medicare, there were very few ar-rangements which we now call healthmaintenance organizations. Fee-for-service medicine was almost the uni-versal experience. So, naturally, whenpeople retLred, they continued It, andMedicaid recipients took it up. Thathas changed with the general popu-lation and ought to change with thispopulatiorL as well.

To the one bit of really strikinglygood news in this measure, we havetaken acl:ion to provide health cov-erage for uninsured children, $24 billionover 5 years. This will be the largestexpansion. in Government health insur-ance since the enactment of Medicareand Medcaid in 1965. We have donesomething that has not been done in ageneration, and something that isneeded. It will be financed by an in-crease in the cigarette tax that willeventually reach 15 cents per pack.Both of these measures were also aninitiative of the Senate Finance Com-mittee.

I would also note that the conferencecommittee, even prior to our commis-sion, includes provisions to ensure anadequate stream of Federal funding forteaching hospitals. Financing of healthcare continues to undergo dramaticchange. We will have a more com-prehensive proposal from our commis-sion. But we have done some things inthis bill..

Medicare payments to HMO's now re-flect the higher cost of providing carein teaching hospitals. Under the legis-lation before us, these payments willbe carved out, as we say, and sent di-rectly to the teaching hospitals, there-by ensuring that the money will gowhere :Lt is intended.

In addition, while payments for medi-cal education have been reduced aspart of the overall reduction in pay-

S8333ments to hospitals and physicians thatare inevitable in a deficit reductionbill, the conference report includes theSenate language which limits the cutsto about $5.5 billion rather than $6.5billion recommended by the House.

Again, sir, I would say that had wenot decided to go for a large tax in-crease, which we will talk about to-morrow, we wouldn't have had to makesome of these reductions which I thinkwe will find difficult, if not indeedpainful.

Finally, It should be noted that thisbill sensibly increases the statutorydebt limit from $5.5 trillion to $5.95trillion, which will be sufficient totake us through December 1999—amuch smaller increase would be re-quired if we decided simply to stay thecourse that we set in 1993.

So, Mr. President, I will support thisconference report. It is the product of along and difficult effort to reach com-promise between the Congress and thePresident. It was characterized by ex-traordinary unanimity in the FinanceCommittee, where 80 percent of themandatory program reductions are tobe found, and by very large majoritieshere on the Senate floor.

I think that speaks to the sincerityof the participants and, I hope, to ourknowledge. If I consult my hopes inthis matter, there is no real alter-native. And, in the meantime, we havedone some things that we surely can beproud of.

I see my friend, the Senator fromWest Virginia, is on the floor. I knowwhat particular pleasure he will takein the provision of $24 billion in healthinsurance for children, the largest suchincrease in health care in a generationsince the enactment of Medicare andMedicaid was done.

With that, Mr. President, and seeingthat there are other Senators present, Iyield the floor.

I thank the Chair.

S8340

Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to askthe Senators, we have now been on thisbill since 12 o'clock, which has been for5 hours, 25 minutes, all of which I be-lieve is counted against the 10 hours. Ivery much wonder what Senatorswould like to do with reference to thebill.

Are there more Senators who wouldlike to speak? The bill is not subject toamendment. There is a list of BYRDrule violations that is around. It is nothidden. I just am wondering what thepleasure of the Members is. I thinkthat most of the Byrd rule violationshave been clearly worked by Demo-crats and Republicans and are consist-ent with the bill and should be waived.But we cannot do that without confer-ring with a number of Senators, includ-ing the distinguished Senator BYRD, indue course.

There is a conference going on, so Isuggest the absence of a quorum.



Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appre-date the indulgence of the chairman ofthe Budget Committee. I was preparedto make a point of order, a Byrd rulepoint of order, on this universal serviceprovision. I am persuaded that makinga point of order, in which the Par-liamentarian would likely rule thatthis provision is not violative of theByrd rule, would put us in the positionof having a ruling by the Chair blessingan approach that I think deserves not ablessing but condemnation. So I amnot going to proceed to make the pointof order.

I am persuaded to decide that by thefact that the Senator from Arizona, the

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thankthe distinguished Senator. I have aquestion. Under the rule with respectto extraneous material, I read an ex-cerpt therefrom:

The Committee on the Budget of the Sen-ate shall submit for the RECORD a list of ma-terial considered to be extraneous under sub-sections b(1)(A), b(1)(B), and b(1)(E) of thissection to the instructions of the committeeas provided in this section.

Is that list available?Mr. DOMENICI. Senator BYRD, that

list is not only available, it has beensent to the desk in accordance with thestatute.

Mr. BYRD. May I see a copy of it?Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, indeed. This is

the list that we submitted.Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished

Senator. Now, I have been supplied bythe minority with a list of extraneousprovisions, and it appears that, on acursory examination, they are not thesame; the two lists are not in agree-ment on all fours.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, we don'tknow what might be different, but weare certainly willing to look and seewhat is different. We have been in con-tact with them and working together,as you might suspect.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I think ifthere is going to be a list, it should bea complete list, and I am only raisingthe question because I have been sup-plied with two different lists—one listby the minority and one by the major-ky—and there may be some of thesame things on both lists, but I am notsure. It appears to me that some of theitems on the minority list are not onthe majority and perhaps vice versa.

Could we have a clarification of thismatter?

S8341Mr. DOMENICI. Staff for the minor-

ity is approaching. I will ask him thequestion.

Could I get a quorum call?Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I sug-

gest the absence of a quorum.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.The assistant legislative clerk pro-

ceeded to call the roll.Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Iyield to the other side.

Mr. REED addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Rhode Island is recognized.Mr. REED. Mr. President, I request

such time as I may consume from theSenator from New Jersey.


Mr. DOMENICI. Could the Senatorkind of guess? How much; 15 minutes?

Mr. REED. No. Close to 5 minutes.Mr. DOMENICI. Why doesn't the Sen-

ator ask for up to 10?Mr. REED. I ask for 10 minutes.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, It is so ordered.Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Presi-

dent.Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor

of this bill. As one who voted againstthe Senate version of this legislation, Iam especially pleased today to be ableto support this initiative—an initiativethat, among other things, provides 10years of solvency to the Medicare Pro-gram, and makes a substantial invest-ment in the health care of our children.I would like to remind my colleaguesthat we were able to craft this agree-ment because of the tough vote that Iand others cast in 1993 for PresidentClinton's deficit reduction plan—a planthat has reduced the deficit from al-most $300 billion to approximately $40billion or perhaps lower.

I am particularly pleased that thisbill makes a remarkable investment inthe health care of our children by pro-viding $24 billion to States to spend forchildren's health care. This new pro-gram represents the most significantand far-reaching expansion in our so-cial programs since the passage of Med-icaid and Medicare in the mid-1960's.These children's health provisions willgive our children the healthy startthat they deserve, and the healthystart that is necessary to help youngpeople become effective students andhelp these students become effectiveworkers, and help all of us raise a gen-eration of American citizens who willserve this country and lead the world.

Congress is committing significantresources to children's needs. And nowwe must turn our attention to the daysahead to ensure that these resourcesare used wisely. I remain cautiousabout this new initiative. As with anyinvestment of our taxpayer's dollars,

July 30, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

S8342the Federal Government needs to en-sure that the investment is well spent.The plan which is being offered todayprovides a wide array of options andbenefit plans with a high degree offlexibility. And it is crafted in a such away that it could perhaps be gamed—not for the benefit of the children butfor the benefit of those who will be en-riching themselves from the system. Asthis program is implemented, we needto provide adequate oversight to ensurethat the children are the beneficiariesof this program, and that they receivethe benefits they need, that theirhealth care is protected, and that we asa Nation can prosper. The Secretary ofthe Department of Health and HumanServices, along with the Congress, hasher work cut out for her. And togetherwe must ensure that this program isimplemented wisely and benefits thechildren that we so desperately and ap-propriately want to serve.

In addition, this conference agree-ment makes significant changes in theMedicare Program. Most importantly,this bill brings 10 years of solvency tothe Medicare Program—a program thatmore than 30 million Americans dependupon, and that more than 170,000 RhodeIslanders depend upon.

Like the amendment I offered duringthe debate on the Senate version ofthis bill, this legislation does not in-clude the provisions which I believetake the wrong approach to solving ourMedicare problems—provisions likeraising the eligibility age, means test-ing for the part B premiums, and ahome health copayment for homehealth services. This legislation strikesthose provisions, as my previousamendment struck those provisions.

A home health care copayment wouldhave negatively impacted the sickestand poorest of Medicare beneficiaries.And an increase in Medicare's eligi-bility age is a step in the wrong direc-tion. Simply put, raising the eligibilityage for Medicare increases the ranks ofthe uninsured. Already, 13 percent ofthe 21 million people age 55 to 64 lackhealth insurance. It makes no sense atall for Congress to eliminate Medicareas an option for seniors who have no-where else to turn, These and other is-sues will be debated in the context oflong-term Medicare reform as we ad-dress the problems faced by Medicarefor the next generation.

During the Senate debate on this bill,as I indicated, I offered an amendmentto strike these provisions. My amend-ment failed. But I am glad to see thattoday we have reached an agreementwhich protects Medicare, extends thelife of the program for at least 10 yearsand does not attempt an ad hoc ap-proach to structural reform.

This bill includes many improve-ments to Medicare. For example, it hasexpanded preventive health care bene-fits for mammography, pap smears, di-abetes, prostate, and colorectal cancerscreening, bone density measurements,and vaccines. This bill also requires theMedicare Program and managed care


plans to give more information tobeneficiaries about their choices andtheir coverage, and the quality of thatcoverage. All of these are welcome developments.

I am also pleased that this bill con-tains $1.5 billion for protecting low-in-come Medicare beneficiaries against anincrease in Medicare premiums. How-ever, I am disappointed that this comesin the form of a block grant to theStates that ends after 2002. This ap-proach has the potential to fall short ofproviding real protection for low-in-come Medicare beneficiaries. Any in-crease in Medicare premiums can re-sult in significant hardships for low-in-come seniors, and these individuals de-serve a permanent guarantee of protec-tion.

This bill also includes numerouschanges in Medicare reimbursementpolicies—changes that will have agreat impact on those individuals andinstitutions that provide health care toMedicare beneficiaries. I will keep avigilant eye on the implementation ofthese changes, paying particular atten-tion to their impact on the access toand quality of care provided to Medi-care beneficiaries.

This legislation also establishes a bi-partisan national cbmmission to exam-ine the long-term solvency of the Medi-care Program. The creation of thiscommission lays an important founda-tion to work on long-term reforms andsolutions, and to tackle those issuesthat are not suitable for the narrowconfines of a budget debate. Such re-form is needed to address the chal-lenges that the Medicare Program willface as members of the baby-boom gen-eration become recipients of Medicare.This commission provides that frame-work, and I am encouraged that thecommission is established by this legis-lation.

I am prepared to vote in favor of thisbill. As with any piece of legislation, itis not perfect. Indeed, many individualswill benefit from various provisions ofthe bill. Medicare beneficiaries willhave the security of an additional 10years of solvency in the program. Thefamilies of uninsured children will nowhave new State programs to turn to.Medicare beneficiaries will have newchoices and increased preventivehealth care benefits.

But this is no time to rest on our lau-rels. To ensure that Medicare bene-ficiaries continue to have access tohigh-quality care in the face of con-strained payments to providers, to en-sure that the $24 billion for children'shealth care is well spent, and to ensurethe long-term viability of the MedicareProgram, we will need continued vigi-lance on the part of many, includingthe Congress, the Secretary of Healthand Human Services, and those personsserved by the Medicare and MedicaidPrograms.

We also must recognize that withinthis budget, as we continue to drawdown discretionary spending over thenext several years, harder and harder

July 30, 1997choices will ensue. We have to ensurethat we make the right choices. Wehave to ensure that the spirit today—aspirit that reaches out to help our chil-dren, a spirit that reaches out to helpand maintain our seniors—will be thespirit that dominates our future budgetdeliberations as it has ennobled ourpast efforts to strengthen America.

I yield the remainder of my time.Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Indiana.Mr. COATS. Mr. President, on behalf

of Senator DOMENICI, I yield myself upto 15 minutes. I don't believe I willtake that long.

But I also ask that the Senator fromMontana be allowed to take a minuteto introduce legislation.


Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend fromIndiana.

(The remarks of Mr. Bu1Ns pertain-ing to the introduction of 5. 1090 arelocated in today's RECORD under"Statements on Introduced Bills andJoint Resolutions.")

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. COL-LINS). The Senator from Indiana.

Mr. COATS. Madam President, Idon't believe I will take all 15 minutes.

I want to express, however, the rea-son I am voting against this budgetagreement. When the budget resolutioncame before the floor of the Senate ini-tially, I voted against it because it didnot contain the entitlement reforms—the structural reforms that I felt wereabsolutely necessary if we are evergoing to have a sustained, consistenteffort at balancing our budget. Clearly,we all know that the entitlements—themandatory spending—have not beenstructurally reformed for a long, longtime, and we are on a collision coursewith their ability to meet the demandson those funds in the future. Somechanges were made in this bill. I wantto talk about those in a minute. Butthey were not the structural reforms.

Then when the budget reconciliationbill came before the Senate, I sup-ported the budget reconciliation billbecause the Senate had the courage tostand up to the plate and address theneed for entitlement reforms. I doubtthat there is a Member of this Con-gress, House or Senate, or anyone elsewho has paid attention to this issue,that doesn't recognize that this issomething that we have to do. We areon a collision course with bankruptcyfor Medicare.

We hear all of this wonderful talkabout preserving Medicare for the ben-efit of our elderly. Yet, the quality ofMedicare services continue to declinebecause we continue to impose re-straints and restrictions on the provid-ers, and it squeezes the quality of care.And we fail to have the will to step upto the plate and deliver any kind ofstructural reform in the program—evenreform that takes place well into thenext century. The Senate addressedthat issue. The Senate by a fairly sub-stantial vote passed legislation which

July 30, 1997would begin that process of structuralreform. So I supported the bill on thatbasis, hoping that it would survive con-ference. Due to a number of factorswhich I will talk about, it didnt sur-vive. And it is back here now withoutthose reforms.

All the wonderful promises and rhet-oric about addressing the Medicareproblem is more of the same that wehave been promising for the last sev-eral budget resolutions, most of whichhas not come to fruition.

So I approach this conference spend-ing bill with a sense of sadness andfeeling of resignation—a sense of sad-ness because I know that the Senatorfrom New Mexico and others who havebeen involved in this process haveworked very, very hard to put togethera bill which moves us toward a bal-anced budget. They have incorporateda number of provisions in here which Ibelieve are important provisions, andprovisions which I support; but a senseof sadness because we have dropped inthe negotiations what I think were themost important parts of this budgetreconciliation bill—the structural re-forms and entitlements.

It is entitlements that are eating upour revenues. It is the entitlements,were it not for a booming economywhich is pouring revenues into our cof-fers for the present time—it is the enti-tlements which would be squeezingother aspects of the budget, whetheryou are for education, or roads or safewater, or environmental issues, or awhole number of other things. Thoseare being squeezed because we donthave the political will and courage toaddress the entitlements.

It is resignation that I feel becauselasting structural reform of Govern-ment spending seems to be beyond theability of the Congress and the execu-tive branch.

The measure before us today is sig-nificant not for what it contains butfor what it does not contain—commit-ment to fundamental institutionalchange. And that failure is most obvi-ous, as I have said, when we look at theentitlement parts of this bill.

Here, for whatever reason—probablya lack of political will—we havedropped the three measures whichmaybe signaled the best hope of futureability to contain entitlement growth.Instead, we have what is estimated as a$115 billion reduction in Medicarespending, but this is an evasion, not areform, because these projected savingsare achieved by the typical way wehave done this: decreasing payments toproviders. It has been tried over andover again, and it has failed. Costshave continued to rise under reducedpayment schemes while the quality ofcare has decreased.

The plan also shifts the home healthcare program, the fastest growing partof Medicare, from Medicare part A topart B. That is a shift, at taxpayer ex-pense, by the way, that simply delaysthe overall failure of this program bynot reforming its faults but simply


making it sustainable. In addition, themeasure drops the Senate provisionsthat would have set the stage for fu-ture reforms, measures that, as I said,were adopted as a result of the leader-ship of Senator GRAMM, who offered theamendment, and support on a biparti-san basis—Senator KERREY of Nebraskaand others—for these reforms. The Sen-ate bit the bullet. The Senate exercisedthe political will. The Senate put itselfout on a limb only to see all of thesereforms dropped in these negotiations.

Means testing provision dropped, theincrease, very gradual increase in eligi-bility from 65 to 67 that would not af-fect anybody 46 years of age and older,and the increase in copayments forhome health care service dropped, allkilled, and along with that any hopefor meaningful reform.

The President bears some of this re-sponsibility, a lot of this responsibil-ity, because we all know that we can-not accomplish this without Presi-dential leadership, and that leadershipwas tepid at best. There was no sus-tained active involvement on the partof the executive branch and the Presi-dent to bring about these reforms. Andsupport from the House, not this body,but support from the House was weak,and I regret that. It falls on the shoul-ders of both parties.

Left unchecked, CBO projects thatMedicare spending will explode to $470billion a year by the year 2007, rep-resenting an average annual increase of8 percent over the next 10 years. This isa growth rate of nearly double the esti-mated growth of the overall economyfor the same period. In the period from2010 to 2030, when 80 million babyboomers move into retirement, Medi-care's expenses are expected to surge to14 percent of our gross domestic prod-uct as compared with 2.5 today. Thiscannot be sustained. This is a traincoming down the track headed for awreck, and yet time after time aftertime, as we are faced with the prospectof that train wreck, we blink. We passit off to the next Congress and the nextCongress, and we defer and pass thatdebt off to future generations.

The $115 billion in promised reducedpayments does nothing to avert thislong-term disaster. By dropping the re-forms passed by the Senate, budget ne-gotiators have brought the loomingcrisis one step closer to reality. Andjust yesterday in the Washington Post,there was an article entitled, in fact,"Billions Wasted, Medicare AuditSays." The article opens by statingthat nearly 40 percent of the homehealth care services provided to frailelderly Americans under the MedicareProgram are unjustified either becausethe service is not necessary or theagency administering the care is notsanctioned to do so or the person is notcovered—40 percent. I think the figurewas $23 billion a year in fraud andwaste and abuse of one part of the Med-icare system.

We had a provision in the bill thatbegan to address the problem, and we

S8343passed on it. We could not even turn toseniors and say that the program whichbenefits you, home health care—and Iused that for my father when he washome in need of that health care—theprogram that benefits you is so fraughtwith waste and abuse it is jeopardizingthe entire Medicare system. And yet,the Congress refuses to even imposethe most minimal of corrections to tryto address that problem.

So what do we offer our seniors? Aso-called bipartisan commission tostudy the problem. Madam President,there is nothing left to study. We havestudied this thing to death. The prob-lem is not a lack of knowledge. It is alack of political will. Confronting theMedicare crisis will take political cour-age and it will take sacrifice. But thesevalues, which should come easier in atime of economic growth and prosper-ity, are absent in the spending plan.That is to say nothing about Social Se-curity. That is another problem thatwe don't even touch here and we alsoneed to address.

All of this, as I said, is deeply dis-turbing, but then when you add to thata new entitlement program, a $24 bil-lion health care entitlement, paid forwith a tax hike on cigarettes and to-bacco, you compound the problem—notbecause we do not need a health careprogram for children; we do, but be-cause this one was designed with no ra-tional basis. It was created without anassessment of the need. The level offunding was arbitrary. We were throw-ing figures around here—how much canwe add? How much can we subtract?Pulling figures out of thin air in amindless bidding war rather than hav-ing an adult policy debate.

We are creating in this measure fu-ture entitlement problems that we can-not even imagine because we have nottaken the pains to consider those prob-lems.

I am not speaking against the needfor health care for children. I am say-ing let us determine what the need isand tailor a program that addresses thespecific need without just throwing anew entitlement program in place thatwill probably go the way of all otherentitlement programs and that willgrow beyond our means to check it,and we will not be able to put reformsin that either.

What is absent from this agreementis any type of fundamental, lastingstructural reform in our Governmentand its spending. That reform is nowpossible because of the strength of oureconomy. This is when we ought to beputting these reforms in place.

We always hear that we cannot makestructural reforms during times of eco-nomic slowdown, because that wouldhave too muchnegative impact on oureconomy. And now we hear the argu-ment that we cannot make reformsduring economic prosperity because itis too difficult, because a strong econ-omy signals to us that we do not needto make reforms. We will just reap thebenefits of the new revenues that are

S8344coming in. And so when the economy isdown, we cannot do it because it hurtsthe economy, and when the economy isdoing well, we say we do not need to doit; there is no sense of urgency any-more.

Our entitlement crisis is lurkingaround the corner, just below the sur-face of this strong economy. The sameirrational and bloated bureaucraciesthat choke our economy in hard timeshide in the shadows of economic boombecause this legislation does nothing toreform and limit the Federal Govern-ment.

Sooner or later the economy is goingto slow. I wish it would not, but it will.And when it does, the reckoning will beeven more severe. We have squandereda unique opportunity—a President whois not running again, a Congress led byRepublicans who are willing to walkout on a limb again for entitlement re-form, who will support a President ifhe would just provide leadership on en-titlement reform, a prosperous econ-omy where people are at work, reve-nues coming in.

Is there ever going to be a bettertime to bring entitlement reform toour budget process? I doubt it. And yetwe are squandering this marvelous op-portunity to make changes now thatwill be incremental and small in naturebut will provide great dividends andgreat benefits for the future. Instead,in the interest of political expediency,we postpone those tough decisions to afuture Congress, to future generations,and we look myopically at the imme-diate election consequences, what weperceive them to be. I do not believethey are there. I think people are look-ing for politicians who will exercise po-litical will, make the tough decision,step up and do what is right, and Ithink they will be rewarded in thepolls. Instead, we say let us pass onthis one more time.

We will never have a better moment.We will never have a better oppor-tunity. We will never be in a positionwhere we are 3 years out from a gen-eral election, more than a year outfrom the next off-term election, withan Executive who does not ever have tostand for election again in his life, witha Senate that has already made the de-cision to go out on the limb. We willnever be in a better position, and yetwe have squandered this moment.

For that reason, for all of the hardwork that the Senator from New Mex-ico and others have put in this agree-ment, for all of the benefits in thisagreement and the positive things inthis agreement, I cannot support thisresolution, because my litmus test, as Istated when I voted against the budgetresolution and for the budget reconcili-ation, included entitlement reforms.But now, because they have been drawnout, that litmus test was not met.

That is a minimal litmus test. I waswilling to accept minimal reforms,


anything, anything that moved us in apath of structural reform, addressing aproblem that we know is going to im-pact negatively on the people of thiscountry and the economy of this coun-try. We know it passes on debt to fu-ture generations. We know it placesour elderly people in a precarious posi-tion for the future of Medicare. Andyet at this golden time, which may notcome again, for political expediency orwhatever reason—I wasn't in the budg-et negotiations—we once again pass,we once again take a powder on thisand say we will do it another time;let's form a commission; lets study Itsome more; let's have some more rec-ommendations.

How many studies, recommendationsand conditions do we have to put inplace to keep telling us what we al-ready know?

So, Madam President, I know I am askunk at the party here, the celebra-tion for the passage of this so-calledbalanced budget agreement, and I hopeit does balance the budget, and it may,mostly, I think, not because of newspending we put in place but becausethe economy is roaring along and pour-ing money into the coffers of the Gov-ernment. I wish we could get more ofthat money back to the people whohave earned that money. Instead, weare creating new entitlements. Wepassed on the opportunity to reformexisting entitlements, and I Just regretthat very much.

So I may be a lonely voice in thisvote, but I cannot for the reasons Ihave stated support this resolution.

I yield back whatever time I have re-maining.

Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from South Carolina is recognized.Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I

have spoken with the distinguishedchairman of our Budget Committee. Hehas allocated 20 minutes. I think I willtake far less.

Madam President, when Alice inWonderland asked the cat where theywere headed, the cat replied, "beforeyou decide where you are going, youmust first decide where you are."

And as we look at this so-called Bal-anced Budget Act of 1997, we shouldlook to see, before anything is enacted,exactly where we are. At this veryminute, we have a pretty good esti-mate from the Congressional BudgetOffice.

We know, Madam President, that asof May 19, CBO estimated the deficitfor this year, 1997, to be $180 billion. Wealso know that both the CBO and theOffice of Management and Budget haveagreed that this years revenues arenow exceeding their original estimatesby as much as $40 billion. So, the Au-gust estimate for 1997 will be revised toshow a deficit of about $140 billion.

The idea is to balance the budget andremove the deficit. If you are going to

July 30, 1997remove your deficit, you have to do itone of two ways—or both ways; name-ly, you have to cut back on your spend-ing and you have to increase your reve-nues or do both. The present BalancedBudget Act of 1997 proposed increasesin spending, rather than cuts in spend-ing. And, instead of increasing the rev-enues, it reduces revenues by some $90billion.

So, Madam President, I have studiedthis document, and I have to standhere as a matter of conscience, becauseI have been the chairman of the BudgetCommittee. I have been in the commit-tee itself since its institution in 1974. Icannot mislead the people with a votethat would approve what this budgetresolution is all about. I could go atlength as to the various smoke andmirrors, backloading, excessive spec-trum auctions and other deceptionscontained in this bill, but let me go toone that is not just a simple smoke ora simple mirror. The fact of the matteris, it is an illegal smoke and an illegalmirror. Why do I say that? We hadsome struggle during the original en-actment of the Greenspan Commissionreport in 1983. Social Security wasabout to go broke, but its bankruptcywas avoided by the National Commis-sion on Social Security Reform. I holda section of the report, dated January1983, in my hand.

Section 21 of the Greenspan Commis-sion report recommended taking SocialSecurity off budget. That is the core ofthe misunderstanding—or the under-standing. We stated categorically, inaccordance with the Greenspan Com-mission, that when we were calculatingdeficits, whether or not we were in thered or in the black, that we would notinclude Social Security trust funds.

I ask unanimous consent at thispoint to have printed in the REcoID atable of the various pension fund mon-eys that have been expended and, sothere will be no misunderstanding, Iwould also like to include the "BudgetReality" table that I referred to earlierwhich contains the CBO figure of a $180billion actual deficit this year.

There being no objection, the tableswere ordered to be printed in theREcoID, as follows:

TRUST FUNDS LOOTED TO BALANCE BUDGET

By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]

1996 1991 2002

Social SecurityMedicare:

550 629 1095

fl 126 116 —58SMI 21 22 34

Military Retirement 111 126 113

Civilian Retirement 394 422 561

linemptoyment 54 61 11

Highway 21 23 40Airport 8 5 —28Railroad Retirement 11 18 20

OUw 60 62 18

Total 1314 1484 1992

Truman:194519461947194819491950195119521953

Eisenhowe19541955195619571958195919601961

Kennedy:19621963

Johnson:1964196519661967

19681969

Nixon:19701971

197219731974

Ford:

19751976

Carter197719781979

1980Reagan:

19811982198319841985198619871988

Bush:1989199019911992

Clinton:19931994199519961997

S8345

195.6 12.3 -2.8 -15.1 380.9 19.3

210.2 4.3 —23.0 —27.3 408.2 21.0230.7 4.3 —23.4 —27,7 435.9 21.8245.7 15.5 —14.9 —30.4 466.3 24.2269.4 11.5 —6.1 —17.6 483.9 29.3

332.2 4.8 —53.2 —58.0 541.9 32.7371.8 13.4 —73.7 —87.1 629.0 37.1

409.2 23.7 —53.7 —77.4 706.4 41.9458.7 11.0 —59.2 —70.2 776.6 48.7

503.5 12.2 —40.7 —52.9 829.5 59.9590.9 5.8 —73.8 —79.6 909.1 74.8

678.2 6.7 —79.0 —85.7 994.8 95.5745.8 14,5 —128.0 —142.5 1137.3 117.2808.4 26.6 —207.8 —234.4 1371.7 128.7851.8 7.6 —185.4 —193.0 1,564.7 153.9946.4 40.5 —212.3 —252.8 1,817.5 178.9990.3 81.9 —221.2 —303.1 2,120.6 190.3

1003.9 75.7 —149.8 —225.5 2346.1 195.31064.1 100.0 —155.2 —255.2 2601.3 214.1

1143.2 114.2 —152.5 —266.7 2868.3 240.91252.7 117.4 —221.2 —338.6 3206.6 264.71323.8 122.5 —269.4 —391.9 3598.5 285.51380.9 113.2 —290.4 —403.6 4002.1 292.3

1408.2 94.3 —255.0 —349.3 4351.4 292.51460.6 89.2 —203.1 —292.3 4643.7 296.31514.6 113.4 —163.9 —277.3 4921.0 332.41560.0 154.0 —107.0 —261.0 5182.0 344.01622.0 110.0 —70.0 —180.0 5362.0 359.0

Mr. HOLLINGS. Fortunately—and weare all enthused about it—the deficit isgoing to come down to about $140 bil-lion this year. It may come down to$135 billion, but I doubt that. I havetalked to the authorities. But we knowwe are spending over $100 billion morethan we are taking in. We cannot,under the law, use Social Securitytrust fund surpluses to mask this defi-cit. The Senate voted on October 18,1990, by a vote of 98-2, to take SocialSecurity off budget. It took us quite awhile in the Budget Committee, but wefinally got it done. That is a law, sec-tion 13301, signed by President Bush, totake Social Security off budget.

So, this was a very deliberate act. Iam not just trying to impassion seniorcitizens or any of that nonsense. I amtrying to inflame the intellects and theconsciences of the Senators. Becauseevery Senator present here today whowas here in 1990, voted and said, I be-lieve in that particular policy. No Sen-ator since 1990 has tried to change that;there has been no amendment or bill or

otherwise. We had the policy itself re-affirmed in the Retirement ProtectionAct of 1994 which barred businessesfrom using the pension moneys to paythe debt.

Then, the Senate passed an amend-ment in the budget bill, barring cor-porations from pension misuse, knownas the Pension Reform Act of 1994.

Madam President, when I look at thisparticular budget, I say how in theworld, if you are spending over $100 bil-lion more than you are taking in, canyou remove the deficit by increasingspending and decreasing revenues? It isquite obvious it cannot be done, exceptunder subterfuge, misuse, misappro-priation or other fraudulent acts. Be-cause the Balanced Budget Act of 1997—and we have examined the documentnow—uses $465 billion of Social Secu-rity trust funds to make it appear bal-anced.

There is no gimmickry here aboutGovernment moneys and buying bonds.When you spend the money out of thefund—and that is what we are doing be-

cause we don't have it—then it has tobe replaced. Under the chart I includedearlier, you can see that over $600 bil-lion from the Social Security trustfund has already been expended, andnow they will spend an additional $465billion in this bill. This means that bythe year 2002 we will owe Social Secu-rity over $1 trillion.

They say, 'Oh, it's the baby boomersin the next generation that are goingto bankrupt Social Security." No, notat all, my colleagues. It is the seniorcitizens, the adults on the floor of theU.S. Congress that are decimating So-cial Security. It is going on. It contin-ues to go on. It is absolutely fraudu-lent. It is absolutely illegal.

I ask unanimous consent to have sec-tion 13301 printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:SEC. 13301. OFF-BUDGET STATUS OASDI TRUST

FUNDS.(a) ExCLUSION OF SOCIAL SEcURITY FROM

ALL BUDGETS—Notwithstanding any other

July 30, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

HOLLINGS BUDGET REALITIES

tin bIIions of dollars)

BWdPresident and year U.S. Budget

trust funds

Unified def-Ct with

trust funds

Actual (JfjCit

trust funds

Nationalkinual in-eases inspenthng

f interest

—10.9+ 13.9

+5.1—0.6—4.3+1.6

—3.8—6.9

92.7 5.4 —47.655.2 —5.0 —15.934.5 —9.9 4.0

29.8 6.7 11.838.8 1.2 0.642.6 1.2 —3.145.5 4.5 6.1

67.7 2.3 —1.576.1 0.4 —6.5

70.9 3.6 —1.268.4 0.6 —3.070.6 2.2 3.976.6 3.0 3.4

82.4 4.6 —2.892.1 —5.0 —12.892.2 3.3 0.397.7 —1.2 —3.3

260.1

271.0257.1252.0252.6256.9255.3259.1

266.0

—4.8 270.8—3.6 274.4+1.7 272.7+0.4 272.3

—7.4 279.7

—7.8 287.5—3.0 290.5—2.1 292.6

106.8 3.2 —7.1 —10.3 302.9 9.1

111.3 2.6 —4.8 —7.4 310.3 9.9

118.5 —0.1 —5.9118.2 4.8 —1.4134.5 2.5 —3.7157.5 3.3 —8.6178.1 3.1 —25.2183.6 0.3 32

—5.8—6.2—6.2

—11.9—28.3

+2.9

316.1 10.7

322.3 11.3328.5 12.0340.4 13.4368.7 14.6365.8 16.6

Historical Tables, Budget of the US Government FY 1998; Beginning in 1962 CBOs 1997 EconomiC and Budget Outlook. May 19, 1997.

S8346provision of law, the receipts and disburse-ments of the Federal Old-Age and SurvivorsInsurance Trust Fund and the Federal Dis-ability Insurance Trust Fund shall not becounted as new budget authority, outlays,receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposesof—

(1) the budget of the United States Govern-ment as submitted by the President.

(2) the congressional budget or(3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency

Deficit Control Act of 1985.(b) EXCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET—Section 301(a) ofthe Congressional Budget Act of 1974 isamended by adding at the end the following:"The concurrent resolution shall not includethe outlays and revenue totals of the old age.survivors, and disability insurance programestablished under title II of the Social Secu-rity Act or the related provisions of the In-ternal Revenue Code of 1986 in the surplus ordeficit totals required by this subsection orin any other surplus or deficit totals re-quired by this title.".

Mr. HOLLINGS. Then, Madam Presi-dent, I refer to the document itself.They do not have to list in this rec-onciliation bill the annual deficits, theoutlays. budget authority, and the debtitself. But the document of last month,the conference report, does—and I referto Mr. KASICH's bill: "From the com-mittee of conference submitted on theconference report on the concurrentresolution on the budget for fiscal year1998."

If you turn to page 4—and I am goingto ask the first 15 lines, just those 15lines, be printed in the RECORD at thisparticular point. I ask unanimous con-sent to have that printed.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

(4) DEFICITS—FOr purposes of the enforce-ment of this resolution, the amounts of thedeficits are as follows:

Fiscal year 1998: $—173.000,000,000.Fiscal year 1999: $—182.200.000,000.Fiscal year 2000: S—183.200.000,000.Fiscal year 2001: $—157. 100.000,000.Fiscal year 2002: $—108.300.000.000.(5) PUBLIC DEBT—The appropriate levels of

the public debt are as follows:Fiscal year 1998: $5,593,500,000,000.Fiscal year 1999: $5,841,000,000,000.Fiscal year 2000: $6,088,600,000,000.Fiscal year 2001: $6307.300.000.000.Fiscal year 2002: $6,481,200,000,000.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President,on line 1 it says, "fiscal year 2002"; line2, subsection 4, it says "deficit."

Then you look down on line 8 at "fis-cal year 2002," and you will not see abalance, but a deficit of $108,300,000,000.

The reason it shows this deficit is be-cause of section 13301, which says youcannot include Social Security trustfund surpluses.

But, if you go down to line 15 and seethat the fiscal year debt, from year2001 to 2002, goes up, not into balance.The debt doesn't go into balance fromthe year 2001 to 2002. Instead, the debtincreases $173.9 billion. This is not abalanced budget.

It's a tragic thing that you can't getthis reported. It is a matter of fact. Itis a matter of law. It is a matter ofconscience. We should all come to-gether and say we won't use pension


funds to pay off our debt. We passed aformal rule here some time ago for allcorporate America which made this il-legal. Denny McLain, the Cy YoungAward winning pitcher for the DetroitTigers, when he got out of baseball, be-came the head of a corporation, and,unfortunately, used the corporate pen-sion fund to pay off the debt. He wassentenced to 8 years in prison. Tell ourfriend Denny, if you can catch him inwhatever prison, to please run for theU.S. Senate because, rather than send-ing us off to prison here when we usethe pension funds to make the debtlook smaller, we get the Good Govern-ment Award. Everybody is standing upwith the President and the Speakerand the majority leader and saying,"How wonderful, boys. It is Christmasin July." It is a total fraud, absolutefarce, and everybody ought to know it.Because what we are doing is breakinginto the airport trust fund, the high-way trust fund, the military retirees'pensions, the Civil Service retirees'pensions, and everything else I have in-cluded in the record. There it is. I havehad it typed up.

As a matter of conscience I cannotengage in this deception. I was alwaystaught, some 50 years ago when I gotinto public service, in 1948—that publicoffice was a public trust. I believe So-cial Security is a public trust. I thinkthe consummate 98 Senators said weought to make it a public trust. Theysaid, not only for us but for corporateAmerica, we ought to make certainthat some fast-moving merger artistcan't come in on a takeover and ab-scond with the pension funds to paythe debt and pay himself a good bonusand leave everybody else hanging.

So we have it in formal law, we haveit in formal policy. But, when it comesto us, we run around and say "unified,unified." There is nothing unified. It isexpended moneys in violation of theformal statutory law of the UnitedStates of America, section 13301 of theBudget Act.

I can't vote to violate that law and,therefore, will have to oppose the bill.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Rhode Island is recognized.Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would

like to offer my congratulations to theleaders on both sides of the aisle, thechairmen and ranking minority mem-bers of the Finance and Budget Com-mittees. for all of their hard work inconsummating this very significant, bi-partisan budget agreement. While thisbill is not everything I had hoped for,it is an important step toward gettingour fiscal house in order.

Moreover, it is grounded in a philoso-phy that I strongly believe in—that bi-partisanship is the key to making gov-ernment work. On difficult nationalproblems, such as balancing the budg.-et, neither party alone can get the jobdone, nor garner the public consensusneeded for such action.

Indeed, this was the genesis behindestablishing the so-called Chafee-

July 30, 1997Breaux centrist budget coalition,which I believe deserves considerablecredit for advancing the terms of de-bate on the issue of long-term Medi-care reform. Regrettably means-testingof the part B premium, increasing theage of eligibility from 65 to 67, and the$5 home health copayment weredropped from the final package. How-ever, the credit for getting them intothe Senate version of this bill belongsto the centrist budget coalition. Eachof these provisions was added to theSenate bill with a big, courageous bi.-'partisan vote—something which wouldhave been unthinkable just a few yearsago.

As a result of these pioneering Sen-ate votes and the growing nationalconsensus on the need for long-term re-form, President Clinton has nowpledged to stand with those Members ofCongress who vote for means-testing ofthe part B premium, an important steptoward creating the political environ-ment which will be needed to securethis program for future generations ofretirees.

I would further urge the President, aswell as Democratic party leaders, todisavow and distance themselves fromcandidates who resort to mediscaredemagoguery in their future politicalcampaigns. The American people de-serve a responsible debate on this dif-ficult subject, and the centrist coali-tion will be working to see that thishappens.

This bill does include a number ofhelpful changes for Medicare bene-ficiaries, low-income children, andlegal immigrants which I would like tobriefly highlight.

Medigap provisions included in thisbill, which I was pleased to author ear-lier this year, will do for Medicarebeneficiaries much of what the Kasse-baum-Kennedy health insurance billdid for working Americans: It vastlyimproves portability and bans preexist-ing condition limitations for Medigappolicy holders.

This bill also improves access toemergency services for Medicare bene-ficiaries enrolled In managed careplans, which is derived from legislationSenator GRAHAM authored and I wasglad to cosponsor earlier this year.This provision establishes a prudentlayperson definition of emergency med-ical conditions to ensure that emer-gency services are properly covered.

This legislation also includes ex-panded preventive health care benefitsfor Medicare enrollees, including mam-mography, colorectal and prostate can-cer screening; testing for osteoporosis;and improved coverage for diabetes andother important prevention measures.These enhanced services will be helpfulto the more than 174,000 Medicare bene-ficiaries in Rhode Island.

One of my most important priorities.that of expanding access to health in-surance for low-income children, isalso addressed in this bill. I am espe-cially pleased that we are providing $24billion for this purpose. This is a criti-cal step forward for Rhode Island's

July 30, 1997children, 19 percent of whom live inpoverty. Many of these poor children—38 percent—live in families where atleast one parent is working, yet theyare still poor. These funds are targetedto help these families especially.

While I would have preferred greaterspecificity in terms of the benefits tobe provided to children under this pro-gram, the final package is a significantimprovement over some of the earlierproposals. I want to thank and ac-knowledge Senator ROCKEFELLER forhis leadership and expertise in workingto advance the cause for children'shealth insurance. He was a strong part-ner in helping to make this a strongerand better program than it otherwisewould have been.

I also want to thank Senator RoThfor helping me to ensure that Rhode Is-land can take full advantage of thefunding provided under this program tocontinue its children's health initia-tives. The Finance Committee chair-man was very responsive to the prob-lems this legislation posed for States,like Rhode Island, that have alreadyexpanded coverage. We were able towork together to ensure that Rhode Is-land will not be penalized for choosingto expand coverage on its own.

This bill also gives States criticalnew flexibility by allowing them to en-roll Medicaid beneficiaries into man-aged care without obtaining a waiverfrom the Department of Health andHuman Services. At the same time, thelegislation includes important safe-guards for these beneficiaries, many ofwhich were contained in legislation Iintroduced earlier this year. For exam-ple, disabled children, children in fos-ter care and special needs children whohave been adopted are protected frommandatory enrollment in managedcare. Women enrolled in Medicaid man-aged care programs will continue tohave the freedom to choose their fam-ily planning provider, even if that pro-vider is not part of their managed careplan.

This bill also restores Medicaid cov-erage to thousands of children whowere removed from the SSI rolls as aresult of eligibility changes made inthe 1996 welfare reform law. This willbe enormously helpful to many low-in-come families whose children may nolonger be considered statutorily dis-abled but who nevertheless have sig-nificant special health care needs.

Let me take a moment to describethe provisions of this bill dealing withlegal immigrants. As my colleaguesknow, the 1996 welfare reform lawplaced severe restrictions on the Fed-eral benefits that legal immigrantsmay receive. Among these restrictionswas a complete and immediate cut-offof supplemental security income [SSI]and food stamp benefits, not only forfuture immigrants but for those al-ready in this country legally.

For the elderly and disabled legal im-migrants who last August were in theUnited States—including nearly 4,000in my own State of Rhode Island—the


new SSI ban represented nothing shortof a crisis. For many, the loss of thiscritical Federal aid would mean losingthe ability to live independently. Inturn, this would present a serious com-munity and fiscal challenge to Stateand local governments, as immigrantswho had lost benefits and faced destitu-tion turned to nursing homes or othercostly facilities for support.

I was sorely troubled by these re-strictions on immigrants, and pledgedto do what I could to mitigate the mostharsh of these during this Congress. Iam delighted to say that in this regard,we have been successful. The con-ference report before us now is iden-tical to the Senate-passed bill on whichI and others of my colleagues workedvery hard.

It restores benefits to those legal im-migrants who were receiving SSI as oflast August. It also allows immigrantswho were in the United States last Au-gust and who may become disabled inthe future to receive SSI. For myState, this means that 3,753 currentlyelderly and disabled Rhode Island resi-dents—and many others who may be-come disabled in the future—will beable to receive basic SSI assistance toallow them to live with dignity.

Now, the immigrant provisions ofthis bill are not perfect. And I am dis-appointed that it does not contain theChafee-Graham amendment on legalimmigrant children and Medicaid, orthe provision dealing with SSI forthose too disabled to naturalize. Butthe bill before us goes a long way to-ward restoring fair treatment for thethousands of legal, tax-paying immi-grants who were in the country andplaying by the rules when welfare re-form was enacted.

I want to commend SenatorsD'AMATO, FEINSTEIN, DEWINE, and GRA-HAM for all of their hard work in help-ing to solve this problem. Since the in-troduction of our Fairness for LegalImmigrants Act in April, we have beenworking as a united team toward fairtreatment for legal immigrants. Withpassage of this bill, our efforts willhave met with success.

In closing, I am hopeful that we canbuild upon the bipartisanship that wasnecessary to make this bill a realitywhen we turn to the more challengingtask of advancing long-term budgetand entitlement reforms in the future.

I particularly want to address the en-titlement reforms I strongly believeare necessary for Medicare. Althoughthe provisions we worked hard on—means testing the part B premium, in-creasing the age of eligibility from 65to 67, the $5 home health care copay-ment—were dropped in the final pack-age, nonetheless, I think it behoovesall of us to continue our work on eachof these measures, and certainly I willdo everything I can to advance them. Ithank the Chair.

Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Idaho is recognized.Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself such

time as I might consume.

S8347The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator is recognized.Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I

rise to address the Balanced BudgetAct of 1997.

This is an important moment. Thisbill represents the triumph of the ideathat we must get our national accountsin order. This is an idea that Repub-licans, with the help of many Demo-crats, have labored for years to put atthe top of the national agenda.

Finally, it is close to being done.As a member of the Finance and

Budget Committees, and as a BudgetCommittee delegate to the conference,I have been deeply involved in the con-sideration of this bill. And I have beenin a position to witness the dedicationSenator Rom, Senator DOMENICI, andSenator Lorr hve brought to the dif-ficult task of giving birth to this bal-anced budget legislation. I want to con-gratulate them on the success of theirefforts.

I would particularly like to thankChairman DOMENICI, Chairman Rom,Senator LOT!' and the other Senateconferees for protecting a number ofexcellent Senate provisions in the con-ference committee. Believe me, MadamPresident, it wasn't easy.

The Medicare portions of the bill willbring about very positive changes inthe program.

The bill calls for necessary savings inMedicare, and thereby will help putMedicare, and particularly the Medi-care hospital trust fund, on a sounderfinancial footing. The bill also containsa number of innovations that I thinkwill improve the Medicare Program.

First and foremost is the new Medi-care Plus Choice Program, reformingMedicare managed care.

From my perspective, representingthe State of Iowa, the inclusion in thisbill of a 50-50 local/national blendedrate for Medicare managed care reim-bursement is extremely important.Also critical is the bills inclusion of aminimum payment of $367 in 1998, withannual updates thereafter.

The opportunity for additional typesof health plans, other than HMO's, toparticipate in the Medicare Choice Pro-gram will open additional opportuni-ties to Medicare beneficiaries. Basedupon what I have been hearing fromIowa, I think the reformed paymentsystem and the additional types ofplans should truly broaden choice forMedicare beneficiaries in Iowa.

These provisions together should go along way toward giving Iowans thesame kinds of choices Medicare bene-ficiaries in other parts of the countryhave.

I also want to thank the chairmanand my colleagues on the Senate Fi-nance Committee and the House andSenate conference committees for in-cluding many provisions contained in5. 701, legislation I introduced earlierthis year regarding Medicare managedcare standards. I am especially pleasedto see that, beginning in 1998 and annu-ally thereafter, beneficiaries will re-ceive comparative user-friendly charts

S8348listing health plan options in theirarea. The only way to foster consumerchoice and competition is by informingMedicare beneficiaries of their optionsand their rights under the MedicareChoice Program. The lack of informa-tion currently distributed to Medicarebeneficiaries is astonishing.

The Medicare conference agreementwill ensure that beneficiaries have theinformation they require to make theright health plan choice for their indi-vidual health care needs.

Another important protection forMedicare beneficiaries is a fair appealsprocess. I have been advocating for anobjective review of health plans' deci-sions to deny care.

I am pleased that the Medicare con-ference agreement adopted my provi-sions to provide Medicare beneficiariesincreased protections during the ap-peals process. Now, all Medicare bene-ficiaries will have the assurance thatthe Medicare program will provide anindependent review of all denials ofcare by health plans prior to bene-ficiaries appealing to the Departmentof Health and Human Services.

This increased protection will holdhealth plans more accountable in theirdecision making process regardingmedically necessary care and will givebeneficiaries greater confidence inMedicare managed care, if they choosethis option.

Madam President, I am also verypleased that we have preserved in theconference agreement rural health pro-visions that I have been working on forseveral years.

These provisions include:My Medicare dependent hospitals

bill, which will help a large number ofrural hospitals in Iowa suffering fromnegative Medicare margins:

Senator BAUCUS' bill on critical ac-cess rural hospitals, on which SenatorROCKEFELLER and I have been close col-laborators;

Reform of the Medicare dispropor-tionate share hospital program, so thatdeserving hospitals will be treated fair-ly whether they are located in urban orrural areas—

Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senatoryield on that point?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator,

I have been listening to your remarksand analysis.

I want to tell the Senate, and any-body interested, if not for CHARLESGRASSLEY, the Senator who has beenspeaking, we would not have gottenthat provision. That is a fair provisionbecause those parts of America—yourState, my State, and others—that havedone a good job of keeping costs waydown, can't make it if we build the pro-gram on keeping them down while thevery expensive States do not comedown. And this is a formula we did notget exactly what we wanted, butthanks to your efforts we came veryclose to something that you can say isfair and much better for your people.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. I thank theSenator from New Mexico for his kind


remarks. And he has spoken betterthan I can on that issue. But basicallywhat his constituents do not realizeand my constituents do not realize, isthat we have a very cost-effective de-livery of medicine in rural America,very high quality by the way, but be-cause of the historical basis for the re-imbursement of Medicare, based uponthat cost-effective medicine, we are ata very low level, and the options thatmetropolitan areas have will not cometo rural America; but the provisions ofthe legislation he just described willmake that possible now.

And so I can say this, that in 1995, itwould not have been included in thelegislation without the intervention ofthe Senator from New Mexico, eventhough it was my basic legislation.And he helped us this time at a very,very critical time in the negotiationsbetween the House and the Senate. SoI may have authored this legislation,but the fact that it is in the final pack-age is a tribute to the leadership ofSenator DOMENICI.

I will continue on and say that wehave also for rural areas the provisionsfor:

Expanding the existing telemedicinedemonstration project, in order to im-prove the delivery of health care to un-derserved areas;

Reform of the eligibility require-ments for rural health clinics, enablingthis vital program to operate as origi-nally intended; and

My legislation assisting rural refer-ral centers.

I am also pleased to finally see mylegislation to provide direct reimburse-ment at 85 percent of the physician feeschedule to nurse practitioners, clini-cal nurse specialists, any physician as-sistants is finally going to become law.Similar measures were included in thePresident's Medicare proposal and inthe House Ways and Means Medicarebill and were part of the BalancedBudget Act of 1995.

Senator CONRAD and I introducedthese bills in the last three Congresses.We reintroduced them again in thisCongress and were successful in gettingthem included in the Senate FinanceCommittee bill. This legislation willreform Medicare policies which, undercertain circumstances, restrict reim-bursement for services delivered bythese providers.

Direct reimbursement to these non-physician providers will improve accessto primary care services for Medicarebeneficiaries, particularly in rural andunder served areas.

There has been much deliberation inthis Congress over proposals to addressthe problem of uninsured children inour Nation.

I am very pleased that the bill beforeus today includes a strong bipartisanpackage addressing this matter. Thisbill includes a total of $24 billion to bespent on children's health insuranceinitiatives for those who are not cur-rently enrolled in Medicaid or who donot have access to adequate and afford-

July 30, 1997able health care coverage. This is $10billion more than the President's origi-nal proposal.

We should view this achievement notonly as an important piece of healthcare policy, but also as a giant step to-ward improving the quality of life forour Nation's children. I commend theSenate leadership, particularly Chair-man ROTh and Chairman DOMENICI, fortheir leadership and commitment tothis important matter.

These funds will be provided toStates in the form of block grants.States are allowed considerable flexi-bility in designing health insuranceprograms, yet States must meet impor-tant Federal guidelines in their effortsto provide quality health care cov-erage.

I am confident that this proposal willbe successful in meeting our goals tocover our Nation's uninsured children.

Yet, it is important that Congress re-main committed to this goal and wemust closely monitor the developmentsof the proposal set forth in this legisla-tion.

This budget bill includes a number ofimprovements to the Medicaid Pro-gram to ensure that high-quality ofcare is provided to our Nation's mostvulnerable population. And, this billreforms Medicaid to give States muchmore flexibility in managing their pro-grams.

In recent years, States have under-taken numerous initiatives to controlspending in Medicaid. As a result, Med-icaid spending has slowed significantly.This budget saves a total of $13.6 bil-lion in the Medicaid Program over 5years. Most savings are achievedthrough new policies for payments todisproportionate share hospitals.Funds have been retargeted to hos-pitals that serve large numbers of Med-icaid and low-income patients.

Other improvements made to theMedicaid Program include changes tolast year's welfare reform law so thatbenefits are restored to legal immi-grants needing long-term care services.Also, a number of important reformswere made to managed care policies forMedicaid programs serving children,people with disabilities, and otherAmericans.

Of course, I do have a number of con-cerns, Madam President. Does this billrepresent a long-term solution to theproblems facing the entitlement pro-grams? No, it most certainly does not.But I note that the proposal of Sen-ators Rom and MOYNIHAN to establisha Medicare Reform Commission is in-cluded in the conference agreement.We will look to the work of this com-mission to make proposals for reformand to help us produce the consensuswe need to act to put the Medicare Pro-gram on a sound footing for the retire-ment of the baby-boom generation.Make no mistake: we will need to domore. But on balance, I believe that wehave made a good start.

I want to conclude by again thankingSenators ROTh and DOMENICI and their

July30, 1997hard-working staffs for the efforts theyhave made, for several years now, tobring us to this point.

REsTORING BENEFITs FOR LEGAL IMMIGRANTsMr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the

balanced budget agreement representsmajor progress in restoring benefits tolegal immigrants. The harsh welfarelaw passed last year wrongfully deniedaccess by legal immigrants to mostFederal assistance programs. It perma-nently banned them from SSI benefitsand food stamps. It banned them for 5years from AFDC, Medicaid, and otherprograms. And it gave the States theoption of permanently banning themfrom these programs.

Americans across the country wererightly concerned about these unfairprovisions, and Congress soon agreedthat the legislation had gone too far.

If the provisions of last year's wel-fare law remain in effect, many elderlylegal immigrants would be forced outof nursing homes. Legal immigrants in-jured on the job and those with dis-abled children would lose assistance.Some 500000 legal immigrants whowere already living in the UnitedStates would have been affected. InMassachusetts, 15,000 elderly and dis-abled legal immigrants would have losttheir SSI benefits.

Some said in last year's welfare de-bate, 'Let the immigrant's sponsorsupport them." But, Congress now real-izes that legal immigrants often do nothave sponsors. Refugees, for example,do not have sponsors. In cases of manyolder immigrants, their sponsor hasdied or is no longer able to provide sup-port.

Immigrants affected by last year'sharsh cuts are individuals who came tothis country legally. Many are closefamily members of American citizens.They play by the rules, pay their taxes,and serve in our Armed Forces. Theyare future citizens trying to maketheir way in this country.

The $12 billion restored for legal im-migrant assistance over the next 5

years in this bill is urgently needed. Itwill allow most legal immigrants whocurrently receive SSI benefits to stayon the rolls. In addition, legal immi-grants who were in the United Statesat this time last year's welfare bill wasenacted in August 1996 can receive SSIin the future if they become disabled.These changes will help a very largenumber of people hurt by the welfarelaw.

Unfortunately, those who are too dis-abled to go through the process of nat-uralization to become citizens are leftout of the final bill. I proposed anamendment, which was accepted by theSenate, to receive SSI benefits aftertheir first 5 years in the United States,and I hope we can revisit this impor-tant issue in the near future.

I had also hoped the final budgetagreement would allow legal immi-grant children to continue to receiveMedicaid. Currently, they are bannedfrom Medicaid for 5 years. Some Statesmay even act to ban legal immigrant


children from Medicaid forever. TheSenate bill included a Chafee-Grahamamendment to enable these children toreceive Medicaid benefits, and I regretthat it was dropped from the first bill.

There is still much more to be doneto correct the problems created forlegal immigrants by last year's welfarebill. The Senate version of this bill re-stored less than 50 percent of the cutsmade last year in their benefits. We aremaking worthwhile progress in thislegislation, and I intend to do all I canto see that additional progress is madein future legislation.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

seeks recognition?Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Idaho.Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does

the Senator desire? Fifteen minutes?Mr. CRAIG. Yes.Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 15 minutes to

the Senator.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Idaho.Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me

thank the chairnian of the BudgetCommittee for yielding, and let mealso recognize him this evening and thechairman of the Finance Committee,Senator ROm, for the work that bothSenators have done with their rankingmembers over the last good manymonths to craft the legislation that isbefore us today, tomorrow, andthrough the balance of the week deal-ing both with the budget and with taxcuts.

I rise in support of H.R. 2015, the Bal-anced Budget Act of 1997.

Madam President, in 1993 and 1994, wehad a President who said balancing thebudget probably was a bad thing to do.We had a high administration officialwho actually had written a book thatsaid it was a loophole whenever chil-dren could inherit some of their par-ents' money. Congress had increasedspending and joined with the Presidentin the passing of the biggest tax in-crease in the history of our country.That was not a decade ago. That wasjust a few years ago.

Then came November 1994. And whata difference an election makes. What agreat transformation of the mind andthe political thought can occur whenthe American people have spoken andsaid, We've had enough."

We asked the Congress to changetheir thinking. And we changed theCongress to think differently. And thefirst Republican Congress in 40 yearsbegan in 1995, with promises to do sev-eral very important, necessary things—to reform welfare, to cut back bureauc-racy, to balance the budget, and to pro-vide some tax relief for American tax-payers who work hard, have families,and create jobs.

In 1996, the voters rewarded a Con-gress and President who accomplishedthe first two of these items and whopromised to bring about the rest.

This week, the Republican majorityin Congress, joined by now many re-

S8349form Democrats in a bipartisan major-ity, will deliver on those promises.

Madam President, this week, as weconsider the Balanced Budget Act, andespecially the Tax Relief Act of 1997,we are talking about more freedom formore of America's people.

Freedom is not something that theGovernment gives the people. Our Na-tion's founders knew that the people'sfreedom is, in the words of the Declara-tion of Independence, "self-evident,'unalienable," and "endowed by their

Creator."Freedom comes from limiting Gov-

ernment to its necessary functions.Freedom is what remains when Govern-ment is not excessively burdensome orcoercive.

This week, we take modest but verysignificant steps toward restoring free-dom to the American people—freedomfrom the most severe tax burden onfamilies in our Nation's history, free-dom from an oppressive national debt,freedom from the growth of an ever-larger, ever-more intrusive FederalGovernment.

A couple from Idaho and their fourdaughters visited my office just thisweek and we discussed taxes, and par-ticularly death and inheritance taxes.They told to me they run a small farmin Idaho that their great-grandparentshad established in 1882. And they re-minded me that people turned to Gov-ernment to take care of them when theGovernment, usually through taxes,takes away their ability to take care ofthemselves.

And as Ronald Reagan said: A Gov-ernment big enough to promise you ev-erything you need is a Government bigenough to take away everything youhave.

The Tax Relief Act that we will begindebating tomorrow, combined with bal-ancing the budget, will help more fami-lies take care of themselves the waythey want, by keeping more of theirown hard-earned money; by bringingabout the ability to save more for theirretirement, their children's education,and other priorities they have; by mak-ing it easier to own your own familyfarm or small business or home; bymaking it easier to do the kinds ofthings that Americans like to do, with-out having to think twice or threetimes whether they can afford to, orworry whether the Government willtake more of their money; by creating,in other words, the economic atmos-phere that will allow Americans to in-vest in creating more and better jobsfor themselves, their children, and thefuture of our country.

The bills we will pass this week markthe triumph of the principle that theFederal budget should be balanced andshould stay balanced.

In 1994, when the American peoplespoke so clearly about changing the po-litical thought in this country and thepolitical attitudes, the Dow Jones washovering at about 3000. Today, it is at8000. We have, by these efforts to bal-ance the budget and provide tax relief,

S8350unleashed a dynamic of this economythat is, without question, historic.

We are now seeing the reverse ofwhat happened about 40 years ago,when an elite group of liberal econo-mists sold liberal politicians on theidea that you could promise your vot-ers a free lunch. Their intellectual jus-tification was the so-called enlighteneddiscovery that unlimited borrowingcould pay for unlimited social spendingwithout much consequence.

It's easy to understand the politicalappeal of this proposition. What is in-credible is that anyone really believedIt, or that they would follow it fornearly 40 years and create a $5 trillionborrowed debt—almost beyond under-standing.

But that is where we are today. Thatis clearly why the American peoplehave spoken, and that is why this Con-gress and this Senate finally said wehave to change the way we do business.

You can't borrow your way to pros-perity over the long term. We tried andwe saw our economy grow even moresluggish. We saw people become evenmore dependent on Government lar-gess. Thank goodness, Americans, en-lightened as they always are, recogniz-ing that they are the Government,took charge and said, 'No more."

A huge national debt means our Gov-ernment has spent the last generationmortgaging the future for the next gen-eration.

That is not a matter of green-eye-shades accounting; it really is an im-moral assault on the well-being of ourchildren and their ability to producefor themselves and their prodigies.

Balancing the budget is not aboutnumbers, it is about people. Balancingthe budget means more and betterjobs,making it more affordable to buy ahome, and more families affording agood education for their children with-out having to come to the Governmentand say, please help me. They can domore of it for themselves. Balancingthe budget means that essential Fed-eral programs like Social Security andMedicare will be there for those whoneed it and not become a liability anda burden on future generations.

There will be more freedom becauseof a balanced budget, because peoplewill get no more Government thanthey are willing to pay for. Balancingthe budget means Americans—allAmericans—win. And we have the ac-tions of the last 3 years now—an econ-omy responding to spending restraintand real efforts to balance the budgetand cut taxes—to demonstrate thatwhat I am talking about tonight has avery strong foundation of truth.

I want to pause for a moment and re-view one critical reason why we arehere this week passing legislation thatpromises to balance the budget by fis-cal year 2002. This die was cast whenCongress, by the narrowest of margins,defeated the balanced budget amend-ment to the Constitution.

Only the threat of the ultimate legalsanction—a constitutional amend-


ment—and the overwhelming publicsupport for that amendment finallyconvinced Congress, most important,some of my colleagues and some in theadministration, that we had to quittalking the talk and start walking thewalk.

In other words, I have heard so manyon the other side throw up their handsand say, we do not need a constitu-tional amendment to make us balancethe budget; all we have to do is do it;all we have to do is exert fiscal respon-sibility. But we also have to have thisprogram and we have to have that pro-gram, and we have to spend here andthere. And 2 years running, by onevote, the people almost began to takecontrol of their Government again. Itfrightened the Congress.

A President who once said a balancedbudget is a bad idea is now out strut-ting around talking about his balancedbudget and all of the wonderful thingsthat will be reaped by it. Well, It is al-ways surprising to me that people likeour President think the American pub-lic has such a short memory. Theydon't. His record suggests he doesn'tbelieve it is a good idea. He also knowspolitically that he has to do it. Andthere are some in Congress who some-times choose to do something dif-ferently than we otherwise may like todo, but who know what they have to dobecause the American people expect it.Balancing the budget has always beenthe right thing to do. We are here to-night because it is now also, at last,the politically correct thing to do, andI suggest that that vote occur.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senatoryield?

Mr. CRAIG. No, not at this time. I'dlike to finish my thoughts. I know that2 years running, with the House havingpassed a balanced budget amendmentand this Senate missing by just onevote—finally, It is recognized by all ina bipartisan gesture that, the closerthe people come to changing their Con-stitution and exerting that controlover Congress, the more motivatedCongress becomes in doing it, doing itourselves, and that is exactly what isoccurring here. I believe that, withoutthe constitutional discipline, we willalways risk the return to more spend-ing and more borrowing. Ultimately, tosafeguard the future, the balancedbudget amendment to the Constitutionmust come into place.

Some may suggest that passage ofthis year's balanced budget agreementmeans we no longer need the constitu-tional amendment. I suggest that isnot true. One balanced budget in 30years hardly means that we have fixedthe system or that we have system-ically changed the attitude of somewho serve here. It will never be easierthan it is right now to balance thebudget.

In the past, the temptation alwayswas to put off the hard choices; Mem-bers have thought, it will be easier inthe future than it is now. But in fact,it will never again be as easy as it is

July 30, 1997right now to begin that long march toarrest the growth of a $5 trillion na-tional debt.

That is what the long-term economicand demographic trends tell us. Thisyear's budget discipline and hardchoices are nothing compared to whatCongress must wrestle with in just thenext few years.

For what we have committed our-selves to tonight and for the balance ofthis decade will not be easy choices. Itwas difficult enough to arrive at theagreement that we now have, and I willsay, even though I differ sometimeswith the President and others, thatthis is now a bipartisan effort, and I ac-cept that and I honor them in theirrecognition that, finally, they are will-ing to offer to the American peoplewhat the American people have askedfor.

When we finally pass this balancedbudget and then the balanced budgetamendment and send it out to theStates for ratification—and I believethat will occur in my lifetime andprobably within the decade—we willshow we understand, as the Americanpeople clearly understand, that a na-tion so indebted ultimately cannot sur-vive, and that to clean up our debt, tobalance our budget was ultimately thenecessary thing to do.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is amixed bag. I don't support every por-tion of it. I have reservations aboutsome of it.

It creates new social spending; itlocks in, in the form of entitlements,that social spending. It could usestronger enforcement provisions. Forexample, I continue to support the ideathat caps on spending should extend tospending overall and not only to an-nual appropriations. It does not ad-dress the long-term economic and de-mographic trends that drive entitle-ment spending and cry out for reform.

The chairmen of our committees andsome Senators tried hard to get thosereforms. That was bipartisan. Somepartisans on my side, too, could not ac-cept that. But, ultimately, we will getthere. We have to get there. I don'twant my grandchildren turning to meand saying, Grandpa, we love you dear-ly, but we can't afford you and affordto provide for ourselves. We want tobuy our own home, educate our chil-dren, and we cannot afford the amountof money that would come from ourpaycheck to go to the Federal Govern-ment because that government prom-ised to provide for everyone's future. Idon't want that to happen, and thechairman doesn't want that to happen.The future demands that we address it,that we help people prepare themselvesfor it, and that we will try to do.

Today, annual discretionary appro-priations make up only one-third of thetotal budget, and that share will con-tinue to shrink. The Kerrey-Danforthentitlement commission of a couple ofyears ago estimated that in just 14years, 2011, entitlement spending andinterest payments will consume all

July30, 1997available tax revenue. That means wewill either have to borrow incredibleamounts for deficit spending; or gowithout defense, highways, law en-forcement, parks, forestry, education,science, and medical research; or raisetaxes to ruinous levels.

We are not going to do that. We aresmarter than that. More important, wewouldn't be here to do it if we tried, be-cause the American people won't toler-ate it. They will demand reform beforewe get to that point, and if we can'tgive it to them, they will find the can-didate willing to do so.

While this bill before us today doesestablish another commission to ad-dress the need for long-term entitle-ment reforms, we have already hadthat kind of commission, chaired bySenator KERREY of Nebraska. We al-ready know what the current trendsare and have some idea of what needsto be done.

But there is also considerable good inthis bill. It does accomplish more inthe way of spending control and enti-tlement reform than many thoughtpossible even a year ago. There are sig-nificant repairs to the Medicare Sys-tem. Medicare will be solvent for atleast another decade and will continueto be there for seniors who need it.

Last, we will begin the process of in-jecting consumer choice into the sys-tem. Why should our seniors not havesome of that? The Medicare System,based on market principles, means bet-ter care and more economic care. I amalways amazed when the bureaucracythinks it can outperform the market-place. We know it can't, we know itnever has, and, in this instance, we fi-nally recognize that by putting somemarket principles in.

The fundamental reforms in lastyear's historic welfare reform bill willremain in place. We continue to movetoward a system that rewards work andallows the States the freedom to de-velop new and better approaches.

Enforceable caps on discretionary ap-propriations spending—virtually theonly thing out of the 1990 budget agree-ment that worked—will continuethrough the year 2002.

Overall, the growth in spending willslow by $270 billion over the next 5years and $1 trillion over the next 10years, a saving that will be locked inby permanent law and not be subject toyear-to-year political whims.

New spending will be accomplishedwith a minimum of bureaucracy and amaximum of State flexibility.

This is far from the ideal balancedbudget bill. But it takes the first majorstep away from demagoguery and to-ward genuine entitlement reform. Itdelivers on and locks in the promise ofa balanced budget, something I havedemanded and worked for my entiretime here serving the State of Idaho.

Why do I demand that? Because thecitizens of my State know that a gov-ernment that continually spends be-yond its means, a government thatmounts a $5 trillion debt, a government


that allows interest on debt to rapidlymove toward becoming the largest sin-gle item in its budget, is a governmentthat cannot sustain itself. That we rec-ognize. The chairman of our BudgetCommittee and the chairman of our Fi-nance Committee recognize that. Weall recognize that. That is what ourparty has stood for. That is what themajority here in Congress has de-manded because the citizens of ourcountry have said it is a requirementof government.

I must say that the Balanced BudgetAct of this year and the Taxpayers' Re-lief Act of this year are responses todemands of the American people. I amproud to have been a part of helpingcraft them. I look forward to the op-portunity to vote for them, to causethem to become law, and to see thiseconomy remain dynamic, create jobs.and provide opportunities for this gen-eration and generations to come.

I yield the floor.Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. AL-

LARD). The Senator from New Mexico.Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me

say to my friend, Senator CiIG, per-haps if we had adopted what he hasbeen recommending for many years—aconstitutional amendment to balancethe budget—we wouldn't be here withthe kind of circumstances thatconfront us.

I don't think the Senator from Idahohas to stand up here, or with his peo-ple, and talk about where he stands interms of overspending by our NationalGovernment because his record is ex-cellent in that regard. I think his re-marks today indicate that, when youhave a Democrat President, a Repub-lican Congress. and a strong Demo-cratic minority in both Houses, youcan't get everything that you want. Asa matter of fact, the Democrats differfrom their President, and the Presidentdiffers from us.

What we have done, I think, is bor-derline on being a miracle. The onlything that keeps me from saying thatis that I don't know whether the prod-uct deserves being labeled a miracle.But in terms of getting it put together,coming here today and getting it fin-ished and voted on tomorrow—I amsure we are going to get in excess of 75votes tomorrow—that is pretty good.

As I said this morning when I openedup, even the Washington Post finallysaid, "That Is a Big Deal." I think it is.

I am very glad that the Senator fromIdaho is going to support it and that hehas been helping us as much as he has.I thank him for that.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thankthe Senator from New Mexico. I recog-nize the bipartisan nature in whichthis was created, and I support that. Ihope that we can sustain that in yearsto come to truly get our budget in bal-ance and to do so in a way that re-mains or creates or participates in a vi-brant economy.

There is no question that this effortwas accomplished not by us alone but

S8351in a bipartisan effort. Certainly theranking member, who stands here thisevening, was a major contributor. AndI recognize that.

I am always a bit surprised when forthe 17 years that I have been here Ihave always heard, "Oh, we don't needto worry about that. We can balancethe budget. We have the will to do it."Well, we didn't have the will until theAmerican people demanded it of us.Now we do have that will. It will onlycome by a bipartisan effort. I recognizethat this evening. I appreciate it. Ithink it is a great accomplishment,and the Senator from New Mexico is tobe congratulated for it.

I thank both Senators.Several Senators addressed the

Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from New Mexico.Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I

mentioned that this was a 'big deal."Every time I say that I want to makesure that I say, "and a good deal for allAmericans" because that is what is im-portant—not that it is big, not thatpeople think it is a big deal, but that itis good for our people. And that it is.

I yield the floor. Senator LAUTEN-BERG wants to speak.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Just for a fewminutes, Mr. President.


Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, inthe almost afterglow of feeling prettygood about things. we worked hard, ev-erybody together. There were no fin-gers pointed.

I chided the chairman of the commit-tee this morning when he excerptedfrom the headline of the WashingtonPost. He said that the headline in fivewords said, "This is a Big Deal." Iasked a question. Was the intonationproperly affixed, or did it say, This isa good deal?" It is quite a differentmeaning.

Mr. DOMENICI. We read the story.They were saying it is a "big deal."

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is a big deal: agiant deal. I think, without breakingour arms or patting ourselves on theback, there was a lot of goodwill thatwas injected into the discussion andinto the debate.

My colleague from Idaho, who is aman who has a way with words, kind oflaid it on us and included the Presidentin there as someone who did buy intothe balanced budget notion but wasdragged kicking and screaming.

Mr. President, I wish it was 1 o'clockin the afternoon and we were all ener-gized and we had a chance to talk a lit-tle bit. But I will not prolong the proc-ess except for a minute or two to say,since it took what I thought was aslight partisan turn—it makes me un-happy when things have gone this wellthis way to say that I have been herelong enough to remember PresidentsReagan and Bush. I like them both.They are nice people. But people ontheir watch, as we say. who managed tohave this deficit of ours skyrocket

S8352right up into the air—turn up the taxcuts and let the deficits run. That iswhat they did.

When our President and the Demo-cratic Party took over in 1992, 1993, heinherited a deficit that year of $290 bil-lion without a balanced budget amend-ment but with the interest that wasgenerated. Yes, we were profligates,and we spent too much money, and per-haps we did a few things wrong. But itwas an honest try all the way. And theassertion or the insinuation that theseguys didn't care or those guys didn'tcare, it is not a way to do business. Idon't care if we never get a balancedbudget amendment. I want to tell youright now. As a matter of fact, I hopeyou don't. I love the Constitution, andthe Constitution loves America, and itis the best document ever written. Thefact that we have altered it so fewtimes is a testimony to the strengthand the wisdom of the Founders andthose who have written amendments.

The only time we wrote an amend-ment that kind of restricted our activ-ity was prohibition, and it was sooncanceled. It is a wonderful prescriptionfor how a society should function, pre-serving individual rights and makingsure that the freedoms as much as pos-sible are extended to every citizen inour country.

So I just felt like I had to respond.No one worked harder than the man onmy right, the distinguished chairmanof the Budget Committee, Senator Do-MENICI. I didn't always agree with him,but nobody worked harder, and nO oneassembled a more honest attempt to doit in a bipartisan fashion. There werethings that he wanted that we on myside of the aisle didn't want. But hewas willing to explain them and willingto take a deep breath when necessarynot to fight them. I have gained greatrespect for him, as well as personal af-fection, honestly.

Mr. President, I just want to changethe tone for a minute, and let off a lit-tle steam and say that I hope we willmove on to pass this document intolaw and make sure that everybody un-derstands there was a good attempt byeverybody working in this place to getit done with, to get on with the taskthat we have a very good start on be-cause of the shape of the deficit thatwe see now.

So, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Iknow the Senator from New Mexicohas a UC that he would like to propose.I hope that we will have a chance tohear that.

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from New Mexico.Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note

the presence on the floor of the juniorSenator from Oregon. Might I ask, didhe desire to speak on the budget?

Mr. WYDEN. On the budget.Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if I could

propose a UC regarding the budget.When I am finished I will try to workin an exception for him.

How long does the Senator desire tospeak?


Mr. WYDEN. Fifteen or twenty orminutes would be plenty.

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Senate re-sume the pending conference report at9:15 a.m., Thursday, and that the re-maining hour be equally divided be-tween the chairman and the rankingminority member of the Budget Com-mittee; and that, at 10:15 a.m., the Sen-ate proceed to vote on adoption of theconference report without any inter-vening action. I further ask consentthat this evening Senator WYDEN of theState of Oregon be allowed 15 or 20minutes on the bill after which we willbe finished for the evening.

Is that satisfactory with the Sen-ator?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection? Without objection, it is soordered.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, therewill be no further votes tonight.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Oregon is recognized.Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Presi-

dent.Mr. President, first, let me say to my

good friend, Senator DOMENICI, thechairman of the Budget Committee, Ijust want him to know how much Ihave appreciated the chance to be amember of his committee. I think thisis a historic occasion and a chance towork very closely with him on a vari-ety of issues. Coming to the Senate hasbeen a special pleasure.

I also want to commend our goodfriend, Senator LAUTENBERG of NewJersey, who in my view has done yeo-men work in terms of keeping thiswhole effort together and keeping it bi-partisan.

Mr. President, the balanced budgetagreement that will be passed thisweek has been a long time in coming. Ithink our challenge is to now makesure that actually getting a balancedbudget takes a shorter period of time.

I do believe that we are finally on theright track becaUse this budget pro-vides an opportunity for the FederalGovernment to get its fiscal house inorder while still making a handful ofextremely needed investments in thepeople of our country and in U.S. pro-ductivity.

Most importantly, I am of the viewthat this is a historic moment becauseit has been achieved by working to-gether. If ever there was an issue thatrequired bipartisan cooperation, this isit. It seems to me that this is an exam-ple of what can happen when you putdown forjust a few moments the politi-cal cudgel and focus on the needs of ourcountry first.

Let me also say that I would like tomake a special effort in the days aheadto address the Medicare provision ofthis legislation. In my view, in the 21stcentury, Medicare is not just going tobe a part of the Federal budget; it isgoing to be the Federal budget. Thereis no program in America. growing at

July 30, 1997

the rate of Medicare. I think it is wellunderstood that in the 21st century ourcountry will be faced with a demo-graphic tsunami. We are going to haveupwards of 50 million baby boomers re-tiring, and it is quite clear that effortsmust be made row to modernize Med i-care and get this program ready for the21st century.

I sought to begin those efforts by in-troducing 5. 386, the Medicare Mod-ernization and Patient Protection Act,in the spring. And the fundamentalprinciple of that legislation was tomake sure that Medicare began to in-troduce the kind of competition andchoice and emphasis on quality forolder people that is available in privatesector health care.

What we are seeing in our countrytoday is that Medicare has essentiallybeen engaging in purchasing practicesand management practices that theprivate sector threw in the attic yearsand years ago. In much of the UnitedStates, Medicare has been rewardingwaste and penalizing efficiency, and weall saw that emphasized again thisweek when the Inspector General of theUnited States indicated that more than$20 billion is lost each year in the Med-icare Program due to fraud and waste.

The issue of inefficiency and the re-wards for waste that you see in theMedicare Program are particularly im-portant to those I represent at home inOregon. We have gone a long way to re-inventing the health care system inour State, particularly in the metro-politan areas. We have competition. Wehave extensive choice for older people.We do not have the gag clauses in themanaged care plans where physiciansare restricted from telling older peopleabout their options. We have done a lotto come up with a health plan for sen-iors that will be good for older peopleand taxpayers in the 21st century.

The reward to Oregon for doing theheavy lifting to reform Medicare overthe last few years has been lower reim-bursement collection. In effect, whatthe Federal Government told the peo-ple of Oregon over the last 10 years isyou would have gotten higher reim-bursement, you would have receivedhigher payments, if you had gone aboutthe process of offering wasteful, ineffi-cient health care. And so what happensin much of my State, an older person,say, in the Klamath Valley will calltheir cousin or their sister in anotherpart of the United States and ask themabout their Medicare. And a senior inanother part of the country wherehealth care isn't provided so efficientlywill say to the Oregonian, you know,my Medicare is great: I get prescrip-tion drugs for free: I get eyeglasses ata discount; I get all these extras thatare not covered by Medicare.

Seniors in Oregon and other Stateswhere health services have been effi-cient say, I pay the same into Medicareas seniors in those States. Why don't Iget the same benefits?

Medicare is a national program. Whyshouldn't the senior in Oregon get the

July 30, 1997same benefits as the senior in anotherState, which on top of everything elseis offering care that is more costly andinefficient?

The reason for this bizarre situationis a very technical reimbursement sys-tem, an eye-glazing concept known asthe average adjusted per capita cost.And the long and short of it is that itrewards waste, penalizes efficiency andin parts of the country like mine hasmeant that many of the health pro-grams have difficulty even providingthe basic benefits to older people letalone some of the additional benefitssuch as prescription drugs.

Under this legislation. because of ex-ceptional bipartisan work—and here Iwant to particularly commend SenatorGRASSLEY of Iowa, the chairman of ourAging Committee, who has workedvery closely with me, for his persever-ance in correcting this inequity. As aresult of the work of our bipartisan co-alition, this reimbursement system isgoing to change. We will see all coun-ties in our country get a minimumpayment for these health care plansthat are holding costs down while giv-ing good quality, and over a period oftime there will be a blending of reim-bursement rates to consider both localreimbursement patterns and nationalpatterns.

What this means is that areas likeOregon that have held costs down whilegiving good quality will get higher re-imbursement, and my constituents,older people, are pleased because theywill be in a position to get better bene-fits. But what is especially importantis this is the kind of reimbursementchange that is essential to save thisprogram in the 21st century.

I would submit that what will happenas a result of the bipartisan work tochange the Medicare reimbursementprocess—Senator GRASSLEY, myself.and others have spent so much time—is we will start seeing competition andchoice come to health care programs inparts of the country where there is nocompetition and there is no choice. Sowe are talking about a change that, inmy view, is going to really pay off forour country and pay off greatly in theyears ahead.

Mr. President, I want to turn verybriefly to the question of the otherchanges in Medicare that the Senatehas debated and we are going to haveto tackle in the days ahead. Particu-larly now I turn to the question of rais-ing the age of eligibility for the Medi-care Program and the question of ameans test or some sort of ability-to-pay test being incorporated into Medi-care.

I have long felt that Lee lacoccaought to be paying more for his Medi-care than should an older woman whois 75 and has Alzheimer's and has an in-come of $10000 a year. So I think it isclear there is going to have to be anability-to-pay feature added to theMedicare Program. But it is extraor-dinarily important that this be doneright and that this be done carefully. I


and other Members of the Senate feltthat to try to do this over just a fewmonths with so many questions abouthow this would be administered wasprecipitous action. But it must bedone. Let us make no mistake about it.That change is going to have to be apart of 21st century Medicare. It has tobe done fairly. My constituents wereconcerned that at a time when alreadythey did not get a fair shake under theMedicare reimbursement formula, theywere going to be asked to pay more im-mediately under Medicare.

So there are some real questionsabout how to do this and do it fairly.But I want it understood I am of theview that there will have to be an es-sential change, and I am very hopefulthe Senate will not wait for a biparti-san commission to make recommenda-tions but with the completion of thislegislation will start on that issue aswell.

With respect to the question of theage of eligibility for the program, here,too, there are very important technicalquestions of how it is done and how itis done fairly. There have been a num-ber of analyses of late that have shownthere is a significant increase in thenumber of uninsured Americans be-tween the age of 55 to 64. So if thatgroup of uninsured individuals is grow-ing, to then add more, those betweenthe ages of 65 and 67, would cause ahardship. So what I and others hopewill be done as this effort to examinethe age of eligibility is addressed isthat there will be a buy-in opportunity,an opportunity for those individualswithout insurance in that age group tobe able to buy into the Medicare Pro-gram on a sliding scale.

Again, I think this is an opportunitythe Senate ought to examine carefully,ought to look at in a bipartisan way,and not wait for a commission to makerecommendations as to how it ought tobe done.

Finally, Mr. President, let me saythat as these significant changes inMedicare are made, beginning with thereimbursement formula changes thatare being made now, changes that willbring fairness and competition andchoice to the program, at every step ofthe way we have to keep the focus onprotecting the rights of the patient. Inthis body Senators AKAKA, KENNEDY,and myself have led the push to bangag clauses from managed care healthplans. Health care is a complicatedissue, we could all agree. But one issuewe all should agree on is that patientshave a right to know all the informa-tion about the kind of medical servicesand options that would be made avail-able to them.

Under this legislation, that signifi-cant protection for patients is in placeand I think it is just the beginning ofthe kind of new focus that should beplaced on patients' rights and the pro-tection of quality health care whicholder people deserve. At a time whenthe health care system and Medicarespecifically are in transition, protec-

S8353tion for the rights of the patients iseven more important than ever. At atime when there is a focus on morecompetition and choice, it ought to bemet with an equal emphasis of protect-ing the rights of the patients. and thathas begun in this legislation as well.

Mr. President, I come from a part ofthe country that is proud to have ledthe Nation in the cause of health carereform and efficiency. Under the lead-ership of our Governor, Gov. JohnKitzhaber, we have reinvented the Med-icaid Program with the Oregon HealthPlan.

For more than a decade, as a resultof work done by Democrats and Repub-licans and older people and health careprofessionals, we have reinvented theMedicare Program in much of ourState. So there is a new emphasis onchoice and quality. What this legisla-tion does is it removes the penaltiesagainst those programs that have beencreative, those programs that have ledthe Nation in reforming Medicare andMedicaid. It is high time that thosechanges are made.

Mr. President, I think those changeslay the foundation for the other criti-cal changes that are going to be neededto strengthen health care services inthe days ahead. I look forward to work-ing with our colleagues on a bipartisanbasis to achieve those changes.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Pennsylvania.Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent I may speak for10 minutes.


Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.Mr. President, I wanted to make a

couple of comments also on the budgetbill that we have before us here thisevening and that we will be voting on,I guess, tomorrow morning.

I come here excited in a sense thatwe are finally doing something thatwhen I first ran for office back in 1990I pledged to do, which was to come hereand try to balance the Federal budget.Not to put schemes out there that say,well, we will target this and we will ad-just to this number when we get there,but actually pass a law that will get usthere without Congress having to doone more thing.

I think that is what we have accom-plished here in this legislation. We willpass the changes, the needed reforms,in the entitlement programs that willget us to a balanced budget, that willsave an estimated $270 billion over thenext 5 years, will require no furtherFederal action other than just passingour appropriations bills under the lim-its we have set, and we do a prettygood job at that. If there is anything Ican say Congress has done in the pastfew years it is that we have kept to thebudget caps. I do not anticipate thatbeing a problem. In fact, I think manyof us would advocate trying to come inbelow those caps. So I think this bill

S8354will accomplish what we set out to do,balance the budget by 2002. And hope-fully, if we do not have any kind ofmajor recession, we will be able to bal-ance it sooner than 2002.

So, I am very excited about that. Wehave been able to face that problem,and we have been able to deal with it ina responsible fashion.

I must admit, though, that I amsomewhat disappointed at some of thethings we did not accomplish here thatwe, in fact, passed in the Senate bill.We took, I think, some courageous po-litical stances here in the U.S. Senatein dealing with the issue of Medicare.The Senator from Oregon was talkingabout that just a few minutes ago,some of the changes that were notmade that he believed in. In fact, someof them, even though I notice he didn'tsupport them, need to be made.

Senator GRAMM, during the debatehere on the budget last month, talkedabout the demographic cliff that we aregoing to fall off in the year 2011. I sharethat with you again this evening. Inthe year 1995, in fact for the years pret-ty much throughout the 1990's, roughly200,000 people will turn 65 per year—200,000 people. In the year 2011, 1.6 mil-lion people will turn 65. That is just acliff. That is 1.6 million people goinginto a system, no longer paying intothat system, into a system that todaycannot absorb 200,000 a year. It is goingbankrupt absorbing 200,000. We are ask-ing that same system, that same pro-gram, to now absorb eight times thenumber, and that is not Just a blip. Itis not 1.6 million in the year 2011 andthen back down to 200,000. No; it's 1.6million and then it levels off to about1.5 million a year throughout the yearsof the baby boom generation and theirretirement.

It has been estimated that if we don'tchange Medicare and Social Securityin the next few years, the payroll taxwill double within a generation. Thatis from 15 percent of every dollar thatis earned in America up to $60,000 forSocial Security tax and 1.45—actually 3percent if you take the employee andemployer share for every other dollar,irrespective of income. We are going tohave to double that payroll tax. That'san optimistic projection. Pessimis-tically, we will have to triple the tax ifwe keep Medicare and Social Securityjust the way they are.

So, to the people who run around andsay, 'We don't need to fix Medicarenow, we don't need to fix Social Secu-rity now, everything is fine; those peo-ple who want to change Medicare andSocial Security are just out to get theelderly," I would Just suggest this:Anybody who is not talking aboutlong-term structural changes to thosetwo programs is out to get the elderlywho are yet to be elderly, who arewaiting to be elderly, because those arethe folks who are going to pay—andbig. I think it is only fair that wespread this out a little bit and we beginto make changes now.

The two major things I wanted to seedone that were not done were, No. 1, as


the Senator from Oregon talked about,means testing part B benefits. This is achip shot. I mean, this is a layup. Ican't think of any other term. This isan easy one. This affected about 4 per-cent of the population of seniors in thiscountry who were the highest income-earning seniors. What were we going todo? For Medicare, part A, part B—thereare two parts to Medicare. Part A ishospitalization, major medical; part Bcovers sOme of the other things. It is avoluntary program. It covers some out-patient, labs, doctors, things like that.It's a voluntary insurance program.You don't pay one penny into Medicarepart B over the course of your earningsbefore you turn 65. But when you turn65 you can opt into this, in a sense,public insurance program. It is vol-untary. If you choose to get into partB, you pay a premium. It is about $45 amonth.

That $45 only covers 25 percent of thecost of the program. Who picks up theother 75 percent? Mr. and Mrs. Tax-payer. That's fine if you are a seniorwho needs subsidies from the FederalGovernment to be able to afford insur-ance, but in my mind it's not fine togive a subsidy to people who don't needa subsidy. I am not someone who comesto the floor on many occasions andtalks about class warfare. I don't be-lieve in that. I don't believe in a lot ofthe arguments that the rich don't paytheir fair share. I think a lot of it isjust hooey, and in fact class warfare.

What we are talking about here is weare talking about subsidizing people ata higher income. I am not for that. Iam not for taxing them more, but I amnot for subsidizing them, either. So, tothe extent that we subsidize, we said,Look, if you are earning over $70,000

as a couple, you are going to pay a lit-tle bit more for your Medicare part Bpremium." It's still a good deal. It's apretty big group, and you get a nicegroup rate.

We should have done that in this bill.I can tell you, I have been to seniorcenter after senior center after seniorcenter, and I have gotten up and Italked about this. I have never heardan objection. No one has ever objectedto this. They thought that's pretty rea-sonable. We should not be subsidizingRoss Perot in his Medicare part B pre-mium. It's crazy. He doesn't need it.Most of these people don't need it, andthey probably wouldn't want it if theyrealized what it was costing the Fed-eral Government to do it and what itwas costing their children and grand-children. So that's one of the things wemissed, in my opinion. It's unfortu-nate.

The second—I know this is a tougherissue—and that is raising the eligi-bility age for Social Security. I knowthis is not a very popular issue, but Ican tell you we got 62 votes here in theU.S. Senate, I will say very proudly, ina bipartisan vote. The eligibility agefor Social Security, to be able to qual-ify for full Social Security benefits, isgoing up. Most people in this country

July 30, 1997don't know that, but it is. It is goingup. In 1983, when they passed the SocialSecurity reform, they did a couple ofthings. They raised taxes and theyraised the eligibility age from 65 to 67.They didn't start doing it, though, for20 years. The first people who turn 65who are going to be affected by thisraise in the eligibility age are peoplewho retire in the year 2003, 20 yearsafter the bill passed.

You will hear the people who werehere in the Congress who said, "Wewaited 20 years to enact this so peoplecould prepare for this time." It isfunny, because I talked to a lot of peo-ple who are planning to retire who areabout that age, in their fifties rightnow, who are going to be retiring, latefifties, retiring in 2003. Most of themdon't know the retirement age is beingmoved back. I talked to most youngerpeople, and they have no idea the re-tirement age is being moved back.These people, as far as I am concerned,who passed this thing in 1983 and put itoff 20 years, put it off 20 years becausethey will be gone in 20 years, most ofthem, and so they won't have to takethe wrath of the American public, ifthere is going to be some. I hope therewill not be, once they understand theproblem of having to deal with theissue. I think we should deal with theissue now.

We should tie the Medicare eligi-bility age to Social Security, whichphases up over a 20-year period. Itdoesn't hit 67 as a retirement age untilthe year 2025. We should tie the two to-gether, because most people, mostlower and middle income people, arenot going to be able to retire prior tobeing eligible for Social Security, sothere should not be much of a problemwith tying in Medicare because theyare going to retire when they hit theretirement age for Social Security.That will also be the retirement age, ina sense eligibility age, for Medicare.

For those who can afford to retiresooner, they probably are more welloff, by and large, or they may have adisability. But in that case they qual-ify for Government benefits throughdisability. But, for those who are morewell off, then we should create an op-tion for them to buy in at age 65, theycan buy into Medicare if they can'tcontinue their private insurance.

There was a way to work this outthat I think would have been, again,the right thing to do for the long termfor Medicare. If you really care aboutproviding a health safety net for thefuture, those were two things that werereally missed opportunities. It is unfor-tunate we missed them.

I will say, overall, we have taken apositive step here. I think we missed anopportunity to do something reallylasting, really significant. We stood upand made a courageous vote, a votethat, frankly—if Members would go outand take the time to talk to people andexplain the demographic problems thatwe have, the fact that people are livingsubstantially longer and they are sub-stantially healthier, that these kinds

July30, 1997of changes only make sense to makesure that future generations have theseretirement security programs likeMedicare and Social Security to relyon for the future.

So, I am disappointed that weblinked, the White House was not sup-portive, and frankly our colleagues inthe House were not supportive. I thinkthat is unfortunate for both of thoseentities. I stand with particular prideat the U.S. Senate, that it had thecourage to look ahead, to not make de-cisions just based on short-term fixes.Frankly, the Medicare provision here isa short-term fix. We had long-termfixes in the Senate bill and we didn'tfollow through, and I think that is un-fortunate.

We did do a lot of other positivethings in this bill, and I will support itas a result of that. But I think thispiece of legislation, given what theSenate did in their courageous actionby going out on Medicare and settingthe course, missed a tremendous oppor-tunity.

One final comment. There is an addi-tional concern I have about a provisionin the welfare bill. There is welfare re-form—or, in my opinion some of it is abacktracking on reform from the lastbill. We have some positive things inthis bill with respect to work, but wealso have a provision in there that isvery worrisome for me, as far as theability for work programs, workfare, towork in the States. This gives thePresident and the Department of Laborthe opportunity to designate people onworkfare in an employment setting asworkers covered by the Fair LaborStandards Act, the minimum wagelaws, and all the other laws that applyto all other employees. The problemwith that is that you get into a wholehost of complex things that drive upsignificantly the cost of providing awork slot for someone on welfare.

If you believe, as I do, that the mostimportant thing for most of the peopleon welfare today is to get them intothe workplace, to teach them the valueof work, to give them the sense of pridewhich so many millions of Americansfor the first time are feeling now, toget off the welfare rolls and get theminto the workplace where they aredoing positive works, where they aregetting positive reinforcement for thethings that they are accomplishing,where they are learning the ability toget up, get their children off to schoolor to day care or to a relative and getto work, keep those hours, work hardand come back home and manage theirlife—those are important life skills. Ifwe put the barrier too high for theStates, we are going to limit the num-ber of work spots available for, really,millions of people and, I think, destroya lot of the tremendous progress thatwe have made in creating an environ-ment under this welfare reform billthat we passed last year for people torise out of poverty, to get the kind ofexperience necessary to get the senseof accomplishment and self-pride thatis necessary to rise out of poverty.


I am very concerned about that. Ihope the administration does not pullthe trigger. They are getting immensepressure from the unions to do so be-cause the unions want to protect theirpiece of the pie when it comes, particu-larly to the public sector spots thatwill be filled in some cases by welfarerecipients.

So, I hope the President does not bowto the unions at the expense of millionsof people who want to get out of wel-fare and who need these work opportu-nities to be able to do so.

S8383

S8355

ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, JULY 31,1997

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Iask unanimous consent that when theSenate completes its business today, itstand in adjournment until the hour of9:15 a.m. on Thursday, July 31. I fur-ther ask unanimous consent that onThursday, immediately following theprayer, the routine requests throughthe morning hour be granted, and theSenate immediately proceed to theconference report accompanying H.R.2015, the Balanced Budget Act, as underthe previous order.


PROGRAMMr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, to-

morrow morning, from 9:15 a.m. to 10:15a.m. the Senate will conclude debateon the conference report to the Bal-anced Budget Act. Under a previousorder, at 10:15 a.m., the Senate willproceed to vote on the conference re-port. Following that vote, it is the in-tention of the majority leader that theSenate will begin debate on the con-ference report to the Taxpayer Fair-ness Act. As Members are aware, thereare 10 hours of statutory debate timein order to this conference report.Therefore, Members can anticipate ad-ditional rollcall votes following the10:15 a.m. vote. As always, Memberswill be notified as to when rollcallvotes are required.

SENATE DEBATE.

OF CONFERENCE REPORT

JULY 31, 1997

S8386SCHEDULE

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on be-half of the leader, I will make the fol-lowing statement.

This morning the Senate will imme-diately resume consideration of theconference report to accompany theBalanced Budget Act, with 1 hourequally divided between the chairmanand the ranking member of the BudgetCommittee. Following the conclusionof debate on the conference report, atapproximately 10:15 a.m. the Senatewill proceed to vote on the adoption ofthe conference report.

Following that vote, it is the inten-tion of the majority leader that theSenate begin debate on the conferencereport to the Taxpayer Fairness Act.As Members are aware, there are also10 hours of statutory debate time inorder for this conference report. There-fore, Members can anticipate addi-tional rollcall votes following the 10:15a.m. vote. As always, Members will benotified as to when those rollcall voteswill be ordered.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

THE BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF1997—CONFERENCE REPORT

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.BROwNBACK). Under the previous order,the Senate will now resume consider-ation of the conference report accom-panying H.R. 2015, which the clerk willreport.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

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

The Senate resumed consideration ofthe conference report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Therewill now be 1 hour remaining equallydivided between the chairman and theranking minority member of the Budg-et Committee.

Who seeks recognition?Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if my

friend from New Jersey has no objec-tion, why don't we just agree that timewill expire promptly at 10:15 so every-body will know the vote will start at10:15.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No objection.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the

Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from New Jersey.Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will speak for a

couple minutes.There is a sense of the historical sig-

nificance of what it is that we areabout to do. It is not simply the ac-complishment of having put in place abalanced budget. It goes further thanthat; that is, to note that this agree-ment has been developed, if I might usethe word "hammered" out, by biparti-san cooperation. My friend and col-league, the chairman of the Budget


Committee, Senator DOMENICI, and Iand others, of course, labored long andhard to help present the views of all ofour colleagues into an understandingand a package that would be acceptableas a consensus product.

So we are here at this moment, andwithin 1 hour it is believed that we willhave passed this reconciliation bill andwill embark upon the work of passingthe second reconciliation bill whichwill complete the task.

I think we have set some'records herethis year, not only because we willhave achieved a balanced budget, whichis the best belief of all Members herewho will be supporting this, but I tooka moment, I say to Senator DOMENICI,to check on where we stand with ourappropriations bills. There were 9, I be-lieve, that have been completed, andperhaps a 10th one ready. That is quitefantastic, not yet August and havingdone those.

I want to say to all of my colleagues,I am proud that we were able to getthis job done under fairly stringentconditions. We do not have as muchmoney as we were accustomed to hav-ing in the past, but with what we hadwe made it do very well. We have cov-ered lots of things that needed atten-tion, child health care, assurance ofthe solvency of Medicare, an oppor-tunity for kids to get an education, tobe investing in research in our society,a number of things that are very posi-tive outcomes, again, within the con-text of the resources we had available.

All Members of both parties deserveto be proud of our accomplishment. Wehave shown America something, thatwe can work together for the commongood, and at the same time we can befiscally responsible and we can helpprepare for the next century, which isaround the corner.

This agreement will lead us, I think,to a positive path as we prepare toenter the 21st century, investing in allkinds of good things, as I have said,and education, particularly, I think asthe cornerstone for the development ofour society.

The agreement shows that it is notinconsistent to be both fiscally respon-sible and progressive. There is nowbroad consensus that we simply haveto live within our means, but there isalso appreciation that the future willnot simply take care of itself. It takeswork.' We have to prepare for it, invest-ing to make sure that our people areready for it.

That is what we are doing in this leg-islation: getting our fiscal house inorder. We are investing in our children.We are extending the educational op-portunities for millions of Americans.In short, we are getting ready, and ourchildren and grandchildren will reapthe rewards in decades ahead.

So, Mr. President, I am proud to behere as this balanced budget legislationis approved. We want to see it get tothe White House. It is a moment in his-tory, and I hope it will be regarded asa very positive moment in the record

July 31, 1997books years from now. I am gratefuland proud to have been a part of theprocess.

I yield the floor.Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from New Mexico.Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the

distinguished Senator, Senator THUR-MOND, has asked me if he might speakas in morning business for 3 minutes. Iask unanimous consent that he be per-mitted to do that and it come out ofmy time on the bill.


(The remarks of Mr. THURMOND per-taining to the submission of S. Res. 111are located in today's RECORD under"Submission of Concurrent and SenateResolutions.")

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from New Mexico.Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will

save a few remarks until just beforethe vote. Certainly, if anybody else onour side wants to speak, they are wel-come. Nobody is bound to speak, but ifthey would like to, we have 15, 20 min-utes on our side.

I would like to make just a few com-ments about some of the processes wehave been involved in and thank a fewpeople.

Mr. President, I do not believe 15

years ago that anybody assumed theBudget Act could be used to balance abudget as we are doing it here today.The reconciliation instruction andthen the reconciliation bill arestrange-sounding words and a strange-sounding name for a bill. But essen-tially we have, by evolution and devel-opment and some changes in the law,permitted a budget resolution whichdoes not involve the President; it in-volves just a majority vote in bothHouses. We permitted it to be used toforce the passage of reform legislationor tax bills such as the one we have be-fore us.

I think everybody should recognize acouple of very interesting historic evo-lutions as this process developed. Oneis the adoption of the Byrd rule by theU.S. Congress as part of the law thatapplies to the Senate of the UnitedStates. And, obviously, one need notsearch as to where that came from. Itcame from Senator ROBERT BYRD.

Essentially, one of the Parliamentar-ians has praised it this way, that theByrd rule limits our ability to ride thebudget horse into passing all kinds oflegislation that have little to do withthe budget.

I am very pleased to say, and I wasable to say to the distinguished Sen-ator BYRD yesterday, that when youput a bill together as large as this,with as many committees and as manyinnovative minds, you cannot help buttry to ride the budget horse beyondwhat it ought to be used for. Therewere many, many, I would say scores oflegislative language that violated thisrule as this process was evolving and

July31, 1997these bills were getting developed, be-cause the rule is a tough rule and it hasgreat, great impact in that those provi-sions are stripped from the bill if theyare subject to a Byrd rule. Then wewere able to bring down the scope andnumbers to a very, very small numberthat remained as of yesterday, and Iam very pleased, working together, ev-erybody has come up with the conclu-sion, from what I can tell, that what-ever Byrd rule language or violation ofByrd rule language is in this bill hasbeen thought by almost everyone to benecessary and something that we canleave in the bill. I am very pleased withthat. I must make sure everybodyknows that there were many, manymore before we exerted the power andpressure of the Byrd rule. And I thinkthat bodes well in terms of not abusingthe process.

Having said that, Mr. President,again, I yield the floor. If anyone elseon our side would like to speak, time isavailable to them. I suggest that if noone is speaking, the time be chargedequally, and I suggest the absence of aquorum.



Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.


LIMITED TAX BENEEITS IN RECONCILIATIONMr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as re-

quired by the Line-Item Veto Act, theJoint Committee on Taxation has in-formed the conferees that the con-ference report on H.R. 2015, the Bal-anced Budget Act of 1997, contains onelimited tax benefit. It can be found insection 5406 and concerns the treat-ment of services performed by certaininmates. As required by the Line-ItemVeto Act, section 9304 of the conferencereport specifically designates section5406 as a limited tax benefit and assuch, it is therefore subject to thePresident's cancellation authorityunder the Line-Item Veto Act.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today rep-resents an enormous accomplishmentfor me and for the Republican Party.The budget agreement now before us isthe culmination of years of hard workand concerted effort. I want to espe-cially commend Chairmen DOMENICIand Rom for their hard work and dili-gence. I have thoroughly enjoyed work-ing with Chairman DOMENICI on theSenate Budget Committee and com-mend him for his extraordinary effortsto broker this agreement. My staff af-fectionately calls him the legislativewarrior" and I agree. He has fought amajor battle for the Republican Partyand the American people this year—abattle to balance our Federal budgetand to eliminate our Federal deficit.

Three years ago, as I campaignedacross the State of Tennessee, I lis-tened to the concerns of the peoplethat I met and I made some promises


to them. These men and women wereconcerned about the amount of moneythey were able to bring home afterUncle Sam had taken his share. Theywere outraged by a government thatwas unable to live within its means.They were worried about their retire-ment and the continued existence ofMedicare and Social Security.

I promised the people of Tennesseethat we would do something aboutthese concerns. I promised them thatwe would give them tax relief, so thatthey would be able to keep more ofwhat they make and decide for them-selves how to spend, save, or investtheir hard-earned money. I promisedthem that we would pass a balancedbudget—the first since 1969—and elimi-nate our Federal deficit. And I prom-ised them that we would protect, pre-serve, and strengthen Medicare and So-cial Security to ensure that these pro-grams would still be around for theirchildren and their children's children.

I am proud to be able to return toTennessee and tell my friends, rel-atives, and neighbors that we havemade good on two of these promisesand have taken the first steps towardfulfilling the third. The bills that wewill pass over the next couple of dayswill give hard-working Americans thelargest tax cut that they have seen in16 years—over $90 billion. This tax re-lief will benefit Americans of all agesand in all tax brackets. We have in-cluded tax credits for children and foreducation and capital gains and estaterelief. Almost 80 percent of these bene-fits go to families earning less than$75,000 a year.

Over 43 million parents will owe $500per child less in taxes. Taxpaying stu-dents and nearly 5 million parents ofkids in college will owe $1,500 less perstudent in taxes as a result of the col-lege tuition credit.

Last year, 2.4 million Tennesseansfiled tax returns with the Internal Rev-enue Service. Over the last 16 years,these taxpayers have not seen one taxreduction—only increases. As the costof raising a family and sending kids tocollege has become increasingly expen-sive, the value of the personal exemp-tion has dropped dramatically. In 1948,the average American family paidabout 3 percent of its total income tothe Federal Government in taxes.Today, that family is paying closer to25 percent.

The Federal Government claims ap-proximately 19 percent of every pay-check that an employee in Knoxville,TN who makes $22,000 a year takeshome. That $22,000 figure doesn't meanmuch to her—she sees only $17,820—andthat's before State and local taxes taketheir bite. The time has certainly cometo give these hard-working people somemuch-needed tax relief.

In addition to the $500 per child taxcredit and the $1,500 college tuition taxcredit, the tax package will cut thecapital gains tax rate from 28 to 20 per-cent for the highest bracket and from15 to 10 for the lowest. It will raise the

S8387exemption for taxable estates and fam-ily-owned businesses and farms. And itwill expand the options for individualretirement accounts.

Despite the belief that a capital gainstax cut is only for the rich, in 1995,more than 226,000 Tennesseans paidcapital gains taxes to the tune of $2.65million. More than half of these—160,786 to be exact—had incomes of$75,000 or less. And 40,000 of those whopaid tax on capital gains actually hadan income of less than $15,000.

This budget package will also bal-ance the budget by 2002 and restore fis-cal responsibility to our Federal Gov-ernment. For years, Republicans havecalled for a balanced budget and an endto the reckless spending for whichWashington to famous—or rather infa-mous. A balanced budget will lower in-terest rates, and generate higher eco-nomic growth—including more jobs andlower inflation. An article in thisweek's Washington Post touted thatthe "Deficit Effort Really is a BigDeal'." Benjamin Friedman, a HarvardUniversity economist, noted:

For every dollar that the governmentdoesn't have to borrow, there's an extra 50cents invested in new plant and equipmentby American businesses. And experienceshows that investment eventually raisesprofits, wages and the U.S. standard of liv-ing.

The challenge before us now is tokeep the Federal budget in balance—and I am committed to ensuring thatwe do that.

The third promise was one to protectMedicare and Social Security. We havemade a first step toward strengtheningMedicare by cutting $115 billion tohealth care providers and extendingthe life of the Medicare trust fund for10 years. But I remain deeply dis-appointed that the Senate-passed pro-visions that would have enacted struc-tural changes in the Medicare Programwere excluded from this conferenceagreement. I have spoken many timesabout the need for entitlement reform.And unfortunately, this budget doesnothing to address it. If we do nothing,entitlement spending and interest onthe national debt will consume all Fed-eral revenues by 2012—leaving not asingle dollar for important Govern-ment priorities like roads, education,national defense, and medical research.

The Medicare trust fund will becomeinsolvent in 10 years. Real, structuralreforms are absolutely necessary topreserve Medicare for our children andour children's children. In 2010, thecash flow of the Social Security trustfund turns negative and by 2029, the So-cial Security trust fund will be bank-rupt. This must be the next priority ofthe U.S. Senate.

For years, our focus has been to bal-ance the budget. Today, we haveachieved that goal. I join with my col-leagues to congratulate the Congressand the White House on working to-gether, in a bipartisan fashion, to bringreal fiscal responsibility back to Wash-ington.

S8388But we must look ahead to tomorrow

and pay close attention to the impend-ing fiscal disaster that lies ahead if wedo not make some hard choices to re-form our entitlement spending. Today,200000 Americans turn 65 every year.By 2011, 1.5 million Americans will turn65 every year. Today, 3.3 workers payfor the benefits that every retiree re-ceives from Medicare and Social Secu-rity. By 2025, there will be only twoworkers to pay for each beneficiary. Itis clear that something must be done.

Mr. President, I am delighted that wehave made a considerable downpay-ment on our promises to the Americanpeople with this budget package and Ilook forward to the challenges ahead.

cLARIFIcATION OF TWO PROvISIONS IN THEBUDGET AGREEMENT

MR. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Iwould like to clarify two items of con-cern in the budget agreement.

Last year, when Congress passed thewelfare reform bill, it granted Statesthe authority to deny State and localpublic benefits to certain immigrants.Included in that bill was a provisionthat exempts nonprofit charitable or-ganizations from verifying immigra-tion status.

The conference report on the budgetbill explicitly grants the States au-thority to require immigrants to pro-vide proof of eligibility for State andlocal public benefits. This new provi-sion allows States to "require an appli-cant for State and local public benefits(as defined in section 411(c)) to provideproof of eligibility". Section 411(c) re-fers to the definition of State and localbenefits in title IV of the welfare bill.

It is my understanding that this pro-vision does not grant the States au-thority to require charities to conductimmigration verification for State andlocal public benefits. The nonprofit ex-emption in section 432 of the welfarebill explains that a nonprofit charity,in providing "any State or local publicbenefit (as defined in Section 411(c))* * * is not required under this title todetermine, verify, or otherwise requireproof of eligibility * * ." As Congresshas plenary power in the immigrationarena, it seems that States may notadd a requirement for charities to ver-ify immigration status without expressauthority from Congress. States werenot granted that authority in lastyear's welfare bill, and States are notgranted that authority in this budgetbill.

Since the clarification of State ver-ification authority is being insertedinto title IV of the welfare reform law,the nonprofit exemption applies. Au-thority, if any, to require charities toconduct immigration verificationwould have to be found in a distinct,express grant of Federal authority out-side title IV of the welfare bill.

I would also like to clarify thatunder the conference report on thebudget bill, refugees, asylees, and cer-tain other immigrants currently re-ceiving SSI will not lose their eligi-bility for SSI.


Section 402 of last year's welfare lawinstituted a bar on SSI for certainqualified aliens. Section 402(a) (2) (A)created an exception to this bar for ref-ugees. Refugees can receive SSI bene-fits for five years from the date theyare admitted into the United States.

The conference report on the budgetbill modifies these provisions in twoways. First, the conference report ex-tends the refugee exception from 5years to 7 years. An additional, sepa-rate provision of the conference report,section 402(a)(2)(E), creates a new ex-ception to the bar on SSI benefitswhich reinstates SSI benefits for quali-fied aliens receiving benefits on August22, 1996.

For refugees, these are two independ-ent sources of SSI eligibility. It is myunderstanding that refugees not receiv-ing SSI benefits on August 22, 1996 willqualify for SSI through section402(a) (2) (A) for a period of 7 years. Ref-ugees already receiving SSI benefits onAugust 22, 1996 will be eligible to keepthose benefits, even after their 7 yearshas expired, under section 402(a)(2)(E)without regard to the 7 year cutoff.

Thank you for letting me brieflyclarify those two points, Mr. President.

July31, 1997

July31, 1997year. This bill weakens the work re-quirements. It builds in more flexibil-ity to the work program. In Washing-ton, flexibility is a code word for weak-ening, and that is what we have done tothe work requirements for food stamprecipients.

Not only have we weakened the wel-fare law, but we have restored $11 bil-lion in welfare benefits for noncitizens.We seemed to have forgotten that wel-fare was and is a failure. Putting morepeople on welfare doesn't help society.But that is what we have done in thisbill. We have increased the welfareroles, and we have added people whoare not even American citizens. Thevery fact that non-citizens are receiv-ing welfare is testimony to a systemthat has gotten out of control. Welfareis also prone to great fraud. Why elsewould we have to clarify that a non-citizen who is receiving welfare fromthe U.S. Government must actually beresiding in the United States. Can youimagine that we would be paying wel-fare to people who are not even livingin the United States.

Mr. President, we have also created anew program regarding welfare. We arespending $3 billion to put welfare re-cipients to work. Welfare reform wassupposed to save money and now weare spending money to reform welfare.Again, this kind of backward logic onlyseems to work in Washington. I amsupportive of helping move welfare re-cipients to work—but another Govern-ment jobs program is not what weneed.

Mr. President, as I said, there aremany good aspects to the bill, but itviolates the fundamental promises Imade to the people of North Carolinawhen I ran for the Senate regardingwelfare and taxes. I will not break myword to the people that supported mein 1992, and I will not vote for this bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ampleased to be able to support the con-ference reports on the Balanced BudgetAct and the Taxpayer Relief Act. To-gether, these bills will bring us to abalanced budget by the year 2002, whileproviding vitally important invest-ments in education, in children'shealth, and in economic development.

I believe that my job as the Senatorfrom Maryland and the Senator forMaryland is to save jobs, save lives,and save communities. I believe thesebills will help us to do all three.

These bills address the day-to-dayneeds of America's families, and theykeep faith with America's seniors.They open the doors to opportunityand give help to those who practice selfhelp.

Mr. President, I am particularlypleased that the conferees rejected theunnecessary and harmful structuralchanges in the Medicare Program. Asmy colleagues know, I adamantly op-posed the means testing of the Medi-care program, and the change in theage of eligibility for Medicare from 65to 67. Such major changes should notbe considered without Presidential


leadership and a national discussion. Iam pleased that these changes were notincluded in the final budget package. Ibelieve the commission established bythis agreement is a better way of ad-dressing the long-term solvency con-cerns of Medicare.

There is much good news for seniorcitizens in the Medicare portions ofthis budget. We have ensured the sol-vency of the Medicare Program for atleast the next 10 years. We have pro-vided funds for critical new preventivecare benefits, by expanding coveragefor mammography and colerectalscreening, and by improving self-man-agement of diseases like diabetes.These are investments that will payoff, improving the health of Medicarebeneficiaries and saving lives.

Having said that, however, I am dis-appointed with other cuts that thesebills make in the Medicare Program. Itis disturbing that the Federal guaran-tee of adequate reimbursement rates tonursing homes has been abandoned. Ibelieve this will put nursing homes in abudget squeeze and will have a nega-tive effect on the quality of care thatwe provide to our most fragile elderly.I am also disappointed with the exces-sive cuts in the reimbursement ratesfor such key services as home oxygentherapy. I believe seniors will be hurtby this change. I hope that we willhave an opportunity to revisit these is-sues in the future.

This legislation also will provide atremendous investment in the healthof America's children. The $24 billionprovided for health care for uninsuredchildren in this bill is the single larg-est increase for children's health ef-forts in over 30 years.

Mr. President, there are 10 millionuninsured children in this country; 1 in8 of the children in my own State ofMaryland have no health insurancecoverage. It is really shameful that wehave allowed so many children to be atrisk.

I believe we have to do all we can toensure that no child goes without ade-quate health care. I wish we could havereached every uninsured child with thisbill. I pledge to do all I can to work to-ward that goal. While it does not reach100 percent coverage for our children, Ido believe that this bill makes tremen-dous strides in the right direction.

Over 5 million children who currentlyhave no health care will now get theirimmunizations, early screening, andother health care services. We havetaken a great step in ensuring healthychildren who are ready to learn andready to succeed.

I like this budget package because italso opens the doors to education foryoung people and to people seeking tofurther their education. The $1,500HOPE scholarship contained in this billwill help to make available to everystudent the first two years of college.The tuition tax credit the bill providesfor juniors, seniors, and graduate stu-dents will enable thousands moreyoung people and returning students to

S8389get the education and skills they'llneed to succeed in the 21st century.

The tax provisions of this packagewill provide much needed tax relief forworking families, for family-ownedbusinesses and farms, and for thosewho have invested in their homes andcommunities. This bill is good forthose who work hard, play by the rules,and pay their taxes.

The child tax credit will provide re-lief to some 27 million families. Whenthe credit is fully phased in, familieswith children under 17 years of age willbe able to claim a $500 per child credit.We ensure that working families whoqualify for the earned income tax cred-it—who may not pay income taxes butwho do pay payroll taxes—will alsobenefit from the child tax credit. Thatmeans we will provide help to familieswith incomes below $30,000—from thefirefighters in Baltimore County to thewatermen on the Chesapeake Bay.They work hard, they contribute to oureconomy and our communities, andthey deserve our help.

This bill rewards investment andthrift. It will allow Americans whohave invested in their communities bythe purchase of a home to be able to re-coup their investment when they sellthat home, without being subject toonerous capital gains taxes. It ensuresthat people who have built a familyfarm or a small business with a life-time of hard work can pass that enter-prise on to the next generation.

It encourages savings. The bill's newIRA provisions will reward those whopractice self help, by increasing accessto IRA's, and by allowing withdrawalsfrom IRA's for the first-time homebuyers and for educational purposes.

Mr. President, this budget packagedoes not provide everything I wouldlike, and I do not like every provisionof this package. But I believe overall,this is an agreement well worth sup-porting.

These conference reports finish thejob the Congress began in 1993, whenthe President and congressional Demo-crats passed the deficit reduction bill.In 1992, our deficit was $290 billion.This year, it will be less than $45 bil-lion. This historic economic plan start-ed us on the road to elimination of ourdeficit. The bills we are passing thisweek will finish the job we began in1993.

This is a victory for fiscal respon-sibility. It is a victory for America'sfamilies. It keeps faith with our sen-iors, opens the doors of opportunity tothose seeking an education, protectschildren's healthy and rewards thosewho save and who invest. I am proud tosupport it.

July 31, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S8399for our nation. This legislation rep-resents a real victory for all Ameri-cans. Children, students, families andsenior citizens will all benefit from ouractions today. This budget not onlyputs us on a financially responsiblepath but also protects the Federal so-cial safety net.

This legislation is built on consensus,and no plan built on compromise canmake everyone happy. There are cer-tain provisions that I wish were in thisbill and there are other provisions thatI feel could have been changed. Overall,though this budget package providesbenefits that will strengthen our econ-omy, reduce the tax burden on individ-uals and families, and eliminate spiral-ing deficits.

The measure provides tax relief tofamilies and children, with a perma-nent $500 per child tax credit under theage of 17. The bill creates incentives forsavings and investment with expandedindividual retirement accounts, reduc-ing capital gains and increased deduc-tions for small business. But most im-portantly. this legislation furthers ourefforts to provide health care and edu-cation for all children.

This conference report will establisha new $24 billion health care coverageprogram for as many as 5 million unin-sured children. I would like to expressmy special appreciation to SenatorRoTh and Senator L0TI' for includingin the children's health initiative aprovision that will allow States, likeVermont, whose Medicaid coverage forchildren already extends beyond 200percent of poverty, to cover childrenwith incomes 50 percentage pointshigher than their Medicaid cutoff. Ifeel this section will give these pio-neering States the necessary flexibilityand resources to continue moving for-ward toward the goal of ensuring thatall children have access to qualityhealth care.

With $35 billion in education tax in-centives, the bill will ease the burdenon students and families paying forhigher education. These tax incentiveswill help families save for college, paytuition costs while students are in col-lege, and repay funds borrowed to payfor college. The bill's education tax in-centives are not limited to college ex-penses. The bill has a life-long edu-cation tax credit to help workers whowant to brush-up on their job skills orlearn new employment skills.

In addition, the children's tax creditin this bill will result in meaningfulsavings for families. For a family withtwo children, this bill will result in a1999 tax bill that's $1,000 less than theywould have otherwise owed.

This agreement also recognizes thecritical relationship between educationand our national economic well-being.In a day and age beset by downsizing,when job skills are constantly becom-ing outmoded by technological ad-vances and break-throughs in learning,education will be a lifetime endeavor. I

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the am happy that the bill recognizes this,impending passage of this balanced and makes lifetime learning more eas-budget agreement is a historic moment ily affordable. Aid to education is not

S8400limited to tax incentives; the tax in-centives are supplemented by meaning-ful spending increases for scholarshipgrants and literacy programs.Throughout my years in the Congress,first on the Education and Labor Com-mittee in the House, and now as chair-man of the Senate Labor and HumanResources Committee, I have workedto make education more readily afford-able and more easily accessible. Thisbill represents an important step inthat direction.

During my tenure in Congress I havetried hard to put our fiscal house inorder while protecting programs thatare important to the nation. I ampleased to cast my vote in favor of thisagreement, which I believe does justthat. Today. this body is taking a giantstep closer to insure the future eco-nomic security of our children and thenext generation.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I havesought recognition to comment on thehistoric legislation we are consideringtoday, which will have profound effectsthroughout our Nation as we near thefirst balanced Federal budget since1969. As a longtime supporter of thebalanced budget constitutional amend-ment and the line-item veto, I am par-ticularly pleased to have this oppor-tunity to reflect on the significance ofthis occasion.

I think the 5-year glide path to a bal-anced budget is very important forAmerica. I think the two big prioritiesfor America today are education andhealth care. I like what is being donehere and in the tax reconciliation billwe will be considering, but I remain alittle worried about our seniors. Wemight have to make some modifica-tions for their benefit in the futureafter we see how some of these changesare implemented. I will be keeping aclose eye on this issue as I travel inPennsylvania's 67 counties, where wehave more than 2 million senior citi-zens.

From the beginning, I have said thata balanced budget could only becomereality with support from the center.There is now a feeling around Congressthat the American people are sick ofall the bickering and they have askedus for action on the issues that meanthe most to them, chief among thembalancing our Nation's budget. Since1995, I have worked with the Chafee-Breaux centrist coalition to try to rec-oncile the differences between the twoparties on the major entitlement andtax issues which we needed to addressif we were going to achieve a balancedbudget. I was proud of my associationwith this group of 22 Senators, whichgot 46 votes for its substitute budgetresolution in 1996 and showed thatthere was bipartisan support for a cen-trist-oriented plan.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 rep-resents what I have been saying forseveral years, that the budget can bebalanced without leaving a bad taste inthe minds of the public toward Repub-licans. It can be done without appear-


ing insensitive toward the poor, elder-ly, children, and without appearing un-concerned with education, health care,and the environment. The budgetagreement reflected in this legislationrepresents the traditional Republicanobjective of balancing spending andrevenues and reflects my approach ofmoderation within fiscal conservatism,or what has been termed compas-sionate conservatism.

I would not further that this legisla-tion reflects my preference for cuttingwith a scalpel, not a meat ax. As chair-man and ranking member of the Labor,Health and Human Services and Edu-cation Appropriations Subcommittee,in the past 2 years Senator HARIUN andI have succeeded in terminating 126programs totaling $1.4 billion usingthis scalpel approach. The patiencethat has been demonstrated by ourBudget Committee chairman, SenatorPETE DOMENICI and the other key budg-et negotiators reflects their action toachieve the level of savings needed tobring the budget into balance.

Throughout the budget process, Ihave sought to work with my col-leagues to protect programs and fund-ing which was particularly importantto groups of Americans least able tofend for themselves. In particular, I ampleased to note that the Conference Re-port includes the $1.5 billion in Medi-care premium subsidies which are es-sential for the estimated 3.2 millionAmerican seniors who earn in the areaof $9000 to $12,000 annually. I initiatedan effort with several of my Republicancolleagues to restore these funds whenthey were initially left out of this billas reported out of the Finance Commit-tee. After five of us wrote MajorityLeader TRENT Lorr to urge that thefunds be restored to the bill, the lead-ership accepted our request and addedthe $1.5 billion. Once the funds were re-stored, however, I still had some con-cerns about the allocation of thesefunds and whether the subsidies wouldcontinue as long as the premium in-creases. During Senate floor consider-ation of the bill, I was pleased to offeran amendment cosponsored by SenatorROCKEFELLER, SANTORUM, SNowE, COL-LINS, and CAMPBELL to make the pre-mium subsidies permanent as is thepremium increase. Although a major-ity of Senators voted with us, theamendment only received 52 of the 60votes needed to meet certain BudgetAct procedural requirements and thusfailed to be accepted.

Among the reforms I supported in theMedicare Program is the expandedarray of choices from which bene-ficiaries can obtain coverage. Thesenew Medicare Plus plans will includetraditional fee-for-service, providersponsored organizations, medical sav-ings accounts, private plan/healthmaintenance organizations, and pre-ferred provider organizations. Bene-ficiaries will be given the freedom tochoose the option which best meetstheir health care needs. I have alsosupported the addition of $4 billion in

July 31, 1997preventive health services to the Medi-care benefit package, such as coverageof annual screening for breast, pros-tate, and colorectal cancer, bone den-sity screening, and diabetes self-man-agement services that would includenutrition therapy and blood testingstrips.

This legislation is designed to pro-tect the solvency of Medicare for 10more years. I view this program as partof our social contract with our seniorand believe that we must keep ournoses to the grindstone to develop ameans of permanently protecting Medi-care so that it remains available toprovide adequate health care for futuregenerations of American seniors.

Another group of Americans I havesought to help in the budget processare children who do not have access toadequate health care. I am quitepleased that the $24 billion child healthprogram included in this legislationhas the potential to cover over 5 mil-lion children of the working poor whocurrently lack health insurance. MyHealthy Children's Pilot Program Actof 1997 [5. 435] was the first Republicanbill introduced in the 105th Congresswhich sought to bridge this glaring gapin the Nation's health care system. Al-though I believe that we could haveprovided such coverage through a dis-cretionary spending program that re-lied on the States to implement cre-ative new programs, I fully support theprogram established under the Bal-anced Budget Act, which will direct $24billion over 5 years to States for thepurpose of providing health care tochildren in low income families whoearn too much for Medicaid, but toolittle to be able to purchase health in-surance. One specific concern of mineas Congress crafted this legislationcentered around ensuring that Penn-sylvania's vanguard Caring andB1ueCHIP children's health programswere protected rather than supersededby a new Federal bureaucracy. I ampleased to see that this bill specificallygrandfathers Pennsylvania's programs,recognizing them as examples of suc-cess and innovation.

During consideration of the Senateversion of this legislation, there wereseveral provisions I could not supportand I am pleased that the BalancedBudget Act of 1997 does not containthem. In particular, these were the pro-visions to extend the Medicare age ofeligibility from 65 to 67, to impose newcopayments on Medicare beneficiariesreceiving home health services, and tomeans-test Medicare premiums. As thefinal compromise legislation dem-onstrates, it is possible to reach thegoal of a balanced budget while alsoprotecting access to quality healthcare, affordability, and choice in theMedicare program. This bill will alsobegin what I hope is a bipartisan proc-ess to address the long term implica-tions of the baby boom generation forthe Medicare program by establishing a

July31, 1997Medicare Commission which will re-port to Congress with recommenda-tions on how to ensure Medicare pro-gram solvency well into the 21st Cen-tury.

Another issue which I have workedon is preserving funding for Pennsylva-nia under the Medicaid Disproportion-ate Share Hospital Program, which re-imburses States for their payments tohospitals for medical treatment for lowincome Americans. Of particular im-portance to Pennsylvania were the pro-posed restrictions on the use of fundsby States to reimburse Institutes ofMental Disease [IMD's]. While we wereable to convince Chairman RoTh todelay the restrictions by 1 year duringSenate floor consideration of the bill, Icontinue to be troubled that this legis-lation unfairly penalizes Pennsylvaniaby limiting its ability to spend Federalresources on IMD's. I have worked withCoy. Tom Ridge and Senator RICKSANTORUM to seek modifications tothese legislative provisions and wouldnote that Pennsylvania faced losses ofas much as $1.7 billion under an earlydraft of the Medicaid reform proposaland will instead face reductions in thearea of $131 million. I am not satisfiedwith the proposed reforms in this pro-gram and, since the IMD restrictionsdo not go into effect until fiscal year2000, I will work closely with GovernorRidge and Senator SANTORUM to seewhat we can do to ensure that Penn-sylvania receives its fair share of Med-icaid DSH funds in the outyears.

In closing, I would note that as withany comprehensive reform legislation,it will take some time to determinewhat, if any, modifications will beneeded to ensure that we protect sen-iors, children, and others who rely onthe Federal and State programs thatconstitute our social safety net. How-ever, on the whole, this is a good pieceof legislation which moves us towardthe goal of balancing the Federal budg-et by 2002.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, the bal-anced budget agreement before us is anhistoric document. The agreement putsus on the path to a balanced budget in2002, the first balanced budget since1969.

The agreement contains significantchanges for Medicare, Medicaid, andwelfare. The Children's Health Insur-ance Initiative is also a momentousmove toward ensuring all children inthis country will not want for lack ofhealth care.

This was my first year as a newmember of the Senate Finance Com-mittee. The committee spent manyhours debating and considering themyriad of issues involved in developingthe Medicare and other health areas ofthis budget bill. These issues were com-plex, the debate long, and decisionsvery difficult to make. As with any far-reaching legislation, no one, includingmyself, agrees with every provision in-cluded.

NEW MEDICARE CHOICES AND BENEFITSNew choices are provided for Medi-

care beneficiaries to choose how they


would like to receive their health care.These choices include: continuing thetraditional fee-for-service Medicare;provider sponsored organizations whichare similar to HMO's, except they areoperated by medical providers ratherthan insurance companies; private fee-for-service; preferred provider organi-zations which allow beneficiaries tochoose doctors outside their HMO net-work; continuing current private planHMO's that generally provide morebenefits, including prescription drugcoverage, than traditional Medicare, ata lower cost. A medical savings ac-count combined with a $6,000 high-de-ductible policy option will be tested asa demonstration project limited to390,000 participants. This $6,000 deduct-ible is nearly three times as high as themaximum deductible allowed in lastyear's health care reform law. I sup-ported the Senate version which wouldhave limited the demonstration to100,000 participants, and established acap on out-of-pocket expenses of $3,000,which were not accepted in the finalbudget agreement. With the bill's highdeductible, there is serious concern re-garding whether any but the most af-fluent Medicare beneficiaries will beable to choose this option, and if theydo, what the impact of the loss of thosegenerally healthier and younger bene-ficiaries will be on the traditional Med-icare fee-for-service option expenses.

Medicare beneficiaries' future healthwill be improved with the inclusion ofnew preventive health care services.These new services include mammog-raphy, PAP smears, diabetes, prostateand colorectal screening, bone densitymeasurement, and vaccines.

MEDICARE FRAUD AND ABUSE PREVENTION

This budget bill also builds on effortsto reduce Medicare fraud and abuse ef-forts included in last year's Health In-surance Portability and AccountabilityAct. A new toll-free telephone numberis established to allow Medicare bene-ficiaries to report fraud and billingirregularities directly to the InspectorGeneral of the Department of Healthand Human Services. It is hoped thetoll-free hotline will encourage bene-ficiaries to be even more diligent in re-viewing their Medicare bills, and re-porting any discrepancies. Addition-ally, Medicare beneficiaries will begiven the right to request an itemizedbilling statement for their Medicareservices.

Suppliers of durable medical equip-ment must provide information as topersons with an ownership or controlinterest in the company. These suppli-ers, and home health agencies, com-prehensive outpatient rehabilitationfacilities and rehabilitation agenciesare all required to post a surety bondof $50,000. These are efforts to ensureonly legitimate Medicare providers arecertified, and to reduce the incidencesof fraud and abuse in these services.

The Secretary of Health and HumanServices will be able to refuse to enterinto, or renew a Medicare agreementwith a provider, either an individual or

S8401an entity, who has been convicted of afelony under Federal or State law foran offense which would be inconsistentwith the best interests of Medicarebeneficiaries. If a provider has beenmandatorily excluded from participat-ing in Federal and State health careprograms because of a conviction in-volving Medicare or Medicaid program-related crimes, patient abuse, or felo-nies related to health care fraud orcontrolled substances, the exclusionshall be for a period of 10 years if theprovider has been convicted on onlyone occasion, and permanently ex-cluded if the provider has been con-victed on two or more occasions. Itsthe old three strikes and you are outreapplied.

LONG-TERM MEDICARE REFORMSAs a member of the senate Finance

Committee, I supported efforts thatwould have begun to make long-termMedicare reforms. I am disappointednone of these proposals were includedin this final budget.

Over the past 2 years, the rapidly ris-ing costs of the Medicare program, andits future solvency, have been majorconcerns. The 1997 Medicare TrusteesReport concluded the Medicare part Atrust fund, providing hospital servicecoverage, is likely to become insolventas early as 2001. This balanced budgetdoes buy us approximately 10 moreyears of trust fund solvency. But un-less we promptly address the solvencyof Medicare, we will still face a medicaland fiscal crisis as the baby boomersretire, and begin to rely upon Medi-care.

The Congressional Budget Office esti-mates that Medicare costs in 1997 willbe $212 billion. In 2007, the costs are es-timated to total over $467 billion—wellover a 100 percent increase.

In the year 2011 alone, the year thebaby boom generation begins to reach65 years of age, more than two and ahalf million individuals will becomeMedicare eligible. Medicare cannotcome close to covering these future re-tirees, as well as those already retired,unless changes are made. This is theharsh reality we should have dealt within this budget.

I firmly believe a reduction in Medi-care benefits for eligible beneficiariesshould not occur. Yet, to ensure thesehealth care benefits continue, changesmust be made elsewhere in the Medi-care program.

Raising the Medicare eligibility ageto coincide with the Social Securityeligibility age, and increasing the costsof the Medicare Part B—the physicianand outpatient services coverage—monthly premium of the most affluent4 percent of all Medicare recipients aretwo ways to ensure our Medicare pro-gram remains solvent past 2001—andthat benefits are not reduced for allolder Americans.

In fact, in 1983, during the Reagan ad-ministration, similar age eligibility re-quirement changes were made for So-cial Security beneficiaries to help pro-long the solvency of that program aswell.

S8402The Senate bill would have increased

the age of eligibility for Medicare from65 years to 67 years of age. Yet thisshift would have taken place during aspan of 25 years—from 2003 to 2027—andwould not have affected anyone who iscurrently receiving Medicare benefits.

One of the major criticisms of theMedicare age increase proposal wasthat it could leave many seniors with-out adequate health care coverage ifthey choose to retire earlier. Cur-rently, if an individual wants to retireearlier than the Social Security retire-ment age of 65 years, the individualtakes a reduction in his or her SocialSecurity benefit. We could allow earlyretirees, who are Social Security eligi-ble, to buy in to Medicare coverage ear-lier. This may, however, require highercosts for such beneficiaries, until theyreached the age of full eligibility forSocial Security and Medicare benefits.

This final budget bill has bought ussome time to deal responsibly with pre-serving Medicare. A national biparti-san commission will be established torecommend long-term Medicare re-forms to ensure this vital health careprogram can meet the challenge of pro-viding coverage for the baby boom gen-erations. When this commission re-ports its recommendations, Congressmust act upon its reform recommenda-tions immediately. And it would be ir-responsible of Congress not to makethe tough, often unpopular, decisionsthat are going to be necessary to pre-serve this vital program. The soonerthese reforms are made, the sooner wecan ensure future Medicare bene-ficiaries will not face a reduction incovered medical services, and thatMedicare survives into the 21st cen-tury.

CHILD HEALTH CAREThis budget agreement is also a piv-

otal effort to address the needs of the10 million uninsured children in thiscountry. An unprecedented $24 billionwill be flowing to States to providehealth care to these children. This newchild health program will be paid for,in part, by a 10-cent-per-pack increasein the cigarette tax for the years 2000and 2001, and another 5-cent-per-packincrease in 2002, for a total of 15 cents.Although I would have preferred thefull 20-cent increase in the cigarettetax that the Senate included in its ver-sion of the budget bill, this increasewill still provide a substantial increasein the number of children receivinghealth care coverage.

I am, however, concerned with thesefinal child health provisions. The Sen-ate child health proposal would haveensured children had a comprehensivebenefits package. Children's healthcare coverage would have specificallyincluded such services as vision andhearing, prescription drugs, and mentalhealth care. Instead, States will decidewhat benefits to offer.

The importance of a comprehensivebenefit package, tailored to the spe-cific health care needs of children, iskey to ensuring that these new health


care funds are used as to benefit chil-dren. This final bill provides States anumber of options to determine a bene-fits package.

As a former Governor, I understandthe desires of State Governors whowant freedom to determine how to usethe Federal child health funds. How-ever, the goal, first and foremost, is toprovide children throughout this coun-try the health care services they need.Given the amount of Federal childhealth funds going out to the States,and the creativity shown in the past bysome States in skirting restrictionsplaced on Federal funding, I am con-cerned some of these vital funds couldfind their way to other areas.

Such a diversion of funds occurredseveral years ago, when Congress ap-propriated money for the States tobegin receiving Medicaid DSH—dis-proportionate share hospital—Federalfunds. This money was to help hos-pitals providing care to the poorest andmost vulnerable people cover their in-creased expenses. Some States' moneyfound its way into State road construc-tion budgets among other uses. Con-gress had to step in and take correctiveaction.

This budget bill will allow States touse 10 percent of the child health ini-tiative funds for noncoverage purposes,which are defined as administrationand health care outreach. That 10 per-cent is $2.4 billion of the total ChildHealth Care Initiative—and that is sig-nificant money. Congress must ensureStates use all of the child health fundsfor the purpose for which they are in-tended—to provide the children of thiscountry comprehensive health carecoverage period.

CONCLUSION

As historic as this balanced budgetmay be, it marks a first step towardwhat must be done to assure the mil-lions of Americans who are current andfuture Medicare beneficiaries thattheir health care benefits will con-tinue. There is much work yet to bedone to honor the commitment thiscountry has made to Medicare to as-sure not only that these health careservices continue, but the quality andscope of care are sustained, and therampant fraud and abuse of the pro-gram is brought to a halt. Necessaryreforms are required. The sooner theyare implemented, the sooner Medicarecan be assured of continuing into the21st century. We are taking a majorstep toward this goal today, but manysteps are yet to be taken.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, theimpending passage of this balancedbudget agreement is a historic momentof our Nation. The vote that my col-leagues and I are making in support ofthis balanced budget agreement is avote that each American should takepride in. This legislation represents areal victory for all Americans. Chil-dren, students, senior citizens, andfamilies will all benefit from our ac-tions today. This conference report willput this country on a financially re-

July 31, 1997sponsible path while also taking thenecessary steps to protect Medicareand provide health care coverage to ourNation's uninsured children.

This legislation is built on consensus,and no plan built on compromise canmake everyone happy. There are cer-tain provisions that I wish were in thisbill and there are other provisions thatI feel could have been changed. How-ever, it is more important that wemove the process forward instead ofshutting down the system. Overall,though this budget package providesbenefits that will strengthen our econ-omy, reduce the tax burden on individ-uals and families and eliminate spiral-ing deficits.

The measure provides tax relief tofamilies by providing a permanent $500-per-child tax credit for children underthe age of 17. The bill creates incen-tives for savings and investment withexpanded individual retirement ac-counts, reducing capital gains and in-creased deductions for small business.The legislation provides for estate taxrelief which will affect many residentsof my home state of Vermont. The billwill impose roughly $297 billion in sav-ings over the next 5 years and $900 bil-lion over the next 10 years while stillprotecting programs that are vital tothe interest of all Americans. But mostimportantly, this legislation furthersour efforts to provide health care andeducation for children.

Mr. President, there is no resourcemore precious than the children whoare right now playing in the schoolyards from Vermont to California. Iworked closely with my colleaguesSenator HATCH, Senator KENNEDY, Sen-ator CaFEE, and Senator ROCKE-FELLER to develop legislation thatwould provide health care coverage forour Nation's uninsured children. Thisconference report will establish a new$24 billion health care coverage pro-gram for as many as 5 million unin-sured children. The establishment ofthis coverage is not the end but onlythe beginning to ensure that everychild born in this country will have ahealthy start in order for them to ful-fill their own personal Americandream.

I would like to express my special ap-preciation to Senator RoTh and Sen-ator L0TI' for including in the Chil-dren's Health Initiative a provisionthat will allow States like Vermontwhose Medicaid coverage for childrenalready extends beyond 200 percent ofpoverty to cover children with incomes50 percentage points higher than theirMedicaid cutoff. I feel this section willgive these pioneering States the nec-essary flexibility and resources to con-tinue moving forward toward the goalof ensuring that all children have ac-cess to quality health care. In addition,the children's tax credit in this billwill result in meaningful savings forfamilies. For a family with two chil-dren, this bill will result in a 1999 taxbill that's $1,000 less than they wouldhave otherwise owed.

July31, 1997The children's tax credits in this bill

will result in meaningful savings forfamilies with children. For a familywith two children, this bill will resultin a 1999 tax bill that's $1,000 less thanthey would have otherwise owed. In ad-dition, the bill recognizes the criticalrelationship between education and ournational economic well-being. With $39billion in education tax incentives, thebill will ease the burden on familiespaying for higher education. These taxincentives will help families save forcollege, pay tuition costs while stu-dents are in college, and repay fundsborrowed to pay for college. And thebill's education tax incentives are notlimited to college expenses. The billhas a life-long education tax credit tohelp workers who want to brush up ontheir job skills or learn new employ-ment skills.

This agreement also recognizes thecritical relationship between educationand our national economic well-being.In a day and age beset by downsizing,when job skills are constantly becom-ing outmoded by technological ad-vances and breakthrough in learning,education will be a lifetime endeavor. Iam happy that the bill recognizes this,and makes lifetime learning more eas-ily affordable. Aid to education is notlimited to tax incentives; the tax in-centives are supplemented by meaning-ful spending increases for scholarshipgrants and literacy programs.Throughout my years in the Congress,first on the Education and Labor Com-mittee in the House of Representatives,and now as chairman of the SenateLabor and Human Resources Commit-tee, I have worked to make educationmore readily affordable and more eas-ily accessible. This bill represents im-portant steps in that direction.

During my tenure in Congress, I havetried hard to put our fiscal house inorder while protecting programs thatare important to the Nation. I ampleased to cast my vote in favor of thisagreement, which I believe does justthat. This plan finally puts four wallsand a roof on a foundation toward abalanced budget that this Congress hasbeen building over the last 15 years.Today, this body is taking giant stepscloser to ensure the future economicsecurity of our children and the nextgeneration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, a lit-tle over two weeks ago, I sat down withseveral Albuquerque families who areworking hard to pay the bills, put foodon the table, and give their children agood home. Among those gathered atthe meeting, there was Carol Howell,who is struggling with the help of herhusband to make ends meet and raisefour children. And there was JanUsinger, a divorced mother with a Mas-ters degree in French, working threejobs to build a decent life for her threechildren.

Each of the families I met were per-fect examples of who should reap thebenefits of any tax relief package pro-duced by Congress. And yet, what


brought us together that day was thesad fact that none of these familieswould be able to claim the highly-tout-ed $500 per child tax credit in the billpassed by the Senate —not becausethey earned too much money, but be-cause they earned too little. In theeyes of some in Congress, these fami-lies were not rich enough to deservethe full child tax credit. Some even ar-gued that to give hard-working fami-lies making about $25,000 a year a taxbreak was like giving them welfare.

I'm pleased to say that in the heateddebate that took place in Washingtonover who should be allowed to claimthe child tax credit, these families fi-nally won—and they won big. JanUsinger, who would have seen only $6in tax relief from the child credit underthe House bill, will now get a tax breakof $1,500 in the final bill negotiated be-tween the President and Congress.That's no small change when you con-sider the cost of clothing, school sup-plies and child care.

The final tax relief compromise en-acted last week is a significant victoryfor the Usingers, and for the millions ofworking and middle-income familieslike them across the country. Some ofthe more helpful provisions in the billwill help offset the cost of raising chil-dren, make college more affordable,and even help adults go back to schoolfor more training. There is also a $24billion set-aside to provide health in-surance to more children from workingfamilies now unable to afford it.

The child tax credit tops the list ofprovisions New Mexico families willfind most helpful. This new child creditwill be available to families earning be-tween $15,000 and $30,000, as well asthose making between $30,000 to$150,000 a year. The size of the creditwill vary according to the number ofchildren and parents in the family,along with other factors.

Best of all, the credit can be used toreduce a family's total federal tax bur-den—whether it's income taxes or fed-eral payroll taxes. This is a key changefrom earlier versions of the bill, and itwill make a big difference for the near-ly three-quarters of lower-incomeworking Americans who pay more pay-roll taxes than income taxes. Further-more, employers will be instructed tomake adjustments on withholdingforms so that families can see the bene-fit of this credit as soon as possible.

While the economic benefits of a col-lege-educated workforce have increasedtremendously over recent years, the fi-nancial obstacles have increased evenfaster. To help make higher educationmore accessible, the tax bill now in-cludes a $1,500 tax credit for the firsttwo years of college, and a credit of upto $1,000 for students after their firsttwo years of college. Together, thesecredits would cover nearly all the costsof the average public college in theU.S. Workers can also receive up to$5,250 in employer-provided trainingeach year, without having to count thebenefit as taxable income. At a time

S8403when workers must continually updatetheir skills, this break will help themget the training they need to make itin today's job market.

Finally, a major source of economicanxiety for working families is the costof medical care. Almost 150,000 NewMexico children are without health in-surance, and many of them come fromworking families who earn too much toqualify for Medicaid, but not enough toafford health insurance for their chil-dren. The provision setting aside $24billion for expanding children's healthinsurance was designed with theseworking families in mind. It will pro-vide states like New Mexico the re-sources to cover these children, givingthem access to everything from routinecheckups and antibiotics to emergencymedical care. This provision will helpmore kids develop into healthy adults,and it will do so without imposing un-workable new federal mandates.

It's important to note that this taxrelief would not be possible or respon-sible, were we not on the brink of bal-ancing the federal budget. In 1992, ournation ran a whopping $290 billionbudget deficit, which has been shaveddown to an estimated $45 billion thisyear. I think it is fair to say that if ourcountry had not tightened its belt inthe 1993 budget package to achieve thisdeficit reduction, interest rates wouldprobably be higher, unemploymenthigher, and our economic growth slow-er. Now the people who helped sacrificeto get us to the point where we aretoday—like the 70 percent of New Mexi-cans earning under $30,000 a year—aregetting some deserved tax relief.

This tax deal is not perfect, and itcertainly hasn't done much to makethe tax code any simpler. But this finalcompromise does deliver where it mat-ters. It provides relief not just toupper-income families but to the manynew, young families in New Mexicowho are working hard to deliver a de-cent quality of life to their childrenand to provide the educational oppor-tunities and health care support thatwill lay a strong foundation for theirsuccess. In the end, this bill helps usinvest in all of our children—and forthis reason I think we have actuallyachieved something worthwhile thisweek in Washington.

Mr. President, I do need to make ref-erences as well about certain provi-sions in this tax bill which are verygood for small businesses in New Mex-ico as well as around the nation.

First, the bill reinstates the home of-fice business deduction, which I knowis a very important issue for many self-employed people in our state and manyother small business owners.

This legislation also includes an im-portant provision phasing in an in-crease in the self-employed health in-surance deduction. The percentage ofthe deduction in 1997 is now at 40%, butit rises to 100% by the year 2007.

Also, many businesses benefit by in-vesting in continuing education pro-grams for their employees, and this tax

S8404bill extends for three more years thetax exclusion for employer-providededucational assistance.

It also provides an enhanced deduc-tion which businesses can claim for thedonation of computers and technologyto schools.

Also, very importantly, a provisionhas been included that I have beenworking with a number of Senatorsover the last year. This provisionbuilds on a small business initiative in-cluded in the 1993 budget plan. Theoriginal legislation stated that gainsfrom stock held more than five years inpublicly traded firms with assets lessthan $50 million would be taxed afterthe sale of stock at 50% of the capitalgains tax rate. The new provision al-lows this gain to be rolled over intoother small businesses of the same sizeon a fully tax-deferred basis.

This will hopefully keep more capitalin the small business sector. Over-coming venture capital deficiencies inNew Mexico is one of the major hurdlesthat our state constantly faces. Hope-fully, this provision will do some goodfor our state.

Furthermore, small businesses withaverage gross receipts of less than $5million will be exempt from the cor-porate alternative minimum tax. Thiscovers a great majority of New Mexicocompanies.

Also in the estate tax area, owners ofqualified family owned businesses andfarms will be able to exclude—startingnext year—up to $1.3 million of theirestate from inheritance tax. This is avery big provision—particularly as thegeneral estate tax will be incremen-tally increased from $600,000 to $1 mil-lion by the year 2006. This family-owned estate tax relief puts the entireexclusion in place next year. The re-quirements are that the family ownedbusiness or farm must be at least 50%of the estate and heirs must partici-pate in the business for 10 years afterdescendent's death. This provision willhelp a great number of small firms,farms, and ranches pass on to theirheirs estates which often have a vastmajority of their value tied up in thebusiness. The failure to provide this ex-clusion in the past has unfortunatelyforced some families to liquidate busi-nesses after the principal owner died.

Also on the farm front, farmers whooften face years of boom and bust areprovided the option of 3-year incomeaveraging for the next two years. I sup-pose we are going to see if this providesrelief to farmers and consider whetherto extend this option in the years thatfollow.

Finally, the tax deal also includes ex-tension of the research and experimen-tation credit for another year as wellas it extends the Generalized System ofPreferences (GSP) through June, 1998.This provision is particularly impor-tant to our state's jewelry firms thatimport some of their stones and mate-rials from lesser-developed countries.

These are some of the items that Ifeel that small businesses should know


about. If you download the actual billfrom the World Wide Web, Mr. Presi-dent (the address is http://speakernews. house.gov/taxfull .htm),you'll be printing 304 pages. My staffhad to do this, in fact. Hopefully, byhighlighting these items, some smallbusinesses won't be completely depend-ent on H&R Block and the variouscomputer tax packages that sort outthis material.

I recognize that if the standard of liv-ing is going to increase for citizens ofthis state, small business is going to bethe primary engine in that effort. Inany case, I am happy to report and re-state that I think we have actuallyachieved something worthwhile thisweek in Washington.

BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997Mr. DODD. Mr. President, with to-

day's passage of the Balanced BudgetAct of 1997, the Senate has taken a his-toric step toward ensuring the long-term solvency of the Medicare pro-gram.

I am pleased that many of the provi-sions that I found to be so objection-able when this bill first came to thefloor of the Senate one month ago,have since been removed. In stating myreasons for originally opposing the bill,I shared my deep concern over the pro-posal to raise the age at which individ-uals are eligible to receive Medicarefrom 65 to 67. The likelihood of theseseniors finding affordable private in-surance would have been slim—many

July 31, 1997would have been forced to forego cov-erage. It was a wise decision on thepart of my colleagues serving as con-ferees on this bill that they did not de-cide to exacerbate the current problemof lack of health coverage for early re-tirees further with this measure.

I am also pleased that a provisionthat would have required the poorestand sickest seniors to pay up to $700 ayear in home health costs has also beendropped. Looking to the most vulner-able Medicare beneficiaries to shoulderthis level of cost under the guise of ad-dressing the long-term financial chal-lenges of this program would have beenindefensible.• In addition to the removal of theseonerous provisions, this legislation hasbeen improved since the vote in theSenate by the commitment to continueMedicaid coverage for the 30,000 dis-abled children who will lose their Sup-plemental Security Income benefits asa result of eligibility changes in thewelfare reform bill enacted last year.This provision, which was highlightedas a priority in the original budgetagreement between President Clintonand Congress, was noticeably absent inboth the House and Senate bills. Alongwith Senator CONRAD, I offered anamendment to continue health insur-ance for these children and was dis-appointed to see it fail by only ninevotes. However, I am grateful to theconferees that protection for thesechildren of working poor families wasachieved in the conference negotia-tions.

This legislation will also signifi-cantly increase health coverage forchildren who currently lack insurance.We certainly have come a long way onthis issue since the debates of earlieryears. Even as recently as last year,the question was still whether or not toprovide health insurance to our na-tion's children, rather than how wemight accomplish this admirable goal.By adopting the Senate provision,which calls for $24 billion for this newinitiative, we can now offer the hope tomore than seven million children thatcost will not be a barrier to securinghealth care.

Of course, I am disappointed that theimportant and courageous attempt toask those Americans who can afford tocontribute a little more for theirhealth care to do so was dropped. It isimportant to remember that only thewealthiest 8% of seniors would haveseen a rise in their premiums. I main-tain my conviction that the adoptionof means testing of Medicare premiumswas a step in the right direction to-ward the long-term solvency of thecritically important safety net thatMedicare provides to millions of seniorcitizens.

I also continue to have significantconcerns about the reductions in Medi-care and Medicaid payments to hos-pitals and managed care organizations.In order to ensure that our nation'sseniors and lower-income citizens re-ceive the affordable and high-quality

July31, 1997care they need, health care providersmust continue to be adequately funded.I am particularly concerned about thereduction in payments to teaching anddisproportionate share hospitals. Thesehospitals serve a population that issicker and poorer than most hospitals.Reduction in payments of this mag-nitude threaten the ability of thesehospitals to continue to serve as a safe-ty net for the most vulnerable in oursociety.

In addition, I am concerned about theimpact of the new HMO payment struc-ture on low-income seniors who se-lected managed care plans becausethey truly need the additional benefitsand low out-of-pocket costs that theseplans can offer. These seniors cannotafford the high deductibles and copay-ments of Medicare fee-for-service, norcan they afford to purchase expensiveMedigap coverage. While I am pleasedthat Congress has attempted to providemore health care choices for Medicarebeneficiaries, I believe that withoutadequate funding, these choices willnot be viable ones.

Despite these concerns, this legisla-tion goes a long way toward providingmany of our nation's citizens with thecare they need and expect from Medi-care. I view it as an important step to-ward ensuring that Medicare is here toserve future generations of Americans.It is for this reason, Mr. President,that I am pleased to support the Bal-anced Budget Act of 1997.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr.President, earlier this week, the WhiteHouse and the Congress reached a his-toric agreement that will balance thebudget by 2002. Today. I rise in supportof the portion of the deal that providestax cuts to American families andsmall businesses: the Taxpayer ReliefAct, H.R. 2014. After enduring sixteenyears without any tax relief, Ameri-cans will finally benefit from tax cutsthat will affect many aspects of theirlives. Under our tax package, not onlywill taxpayers immediately see theirtax bill go down, but saving for retire-ment. paying for college, and investingfor the future will be much easier. I amencouraged and pleased that the Re-publican-led Taxpayer Relief Act pro-vides $95 billion in tax cuts over fiveyears and represents an improvedstandard of living for taxpayers atevery stage of life.

This tax relief comes at a time whenthe nation's tax burden is at an alltime high. Partly due to PresidentClinton's tax hike back in 1993, today'staxpayers face a combined federal,state, and local tax burden of nearly50% of their income—more than thecost of food, clothing, and shelter com-bined. In fact, for every eight hours ofwork, the average taxpayer spendsabout three hours just to pay the taxcollector. And too many families couldnot survive without two incomes justto make ends meet. We cannot let thissituation continue. By letting hard-working Americans keep more of theirown money, we allow them to preserve


their family, prepare for their own fu-ture, and invest in the nation's econ-omy.

The future of the family. I can nolonger stand by while families in NewHampshire lose more and more time to-gether because they have to worklonger and harder to send their pay toWashington. The Taxpayer Relief Actaddresses this growing problem in sev-eral different ways. First, taxpayerswith young children will get a $500 taxcredit for every child. In 1999, a middle-income family in New Hampshire withtwo young children will save $1,000with this credit! Second, the tax reliefmeasure reduces the capital gains ratefor taxpayers who invest for their fu-ture. If the same New Hampshire fam-ily realizes $2,000 in capital gains tohelp pay for college or buy a home,they will save an additional $100. Itwould also be easier for this family tosell their home, as the tax package ex-empts $500,000 of capital gains on thesale of a principal residence. Equallyimportant, this tax cut benefits theirgrandparents since many senior citi-zens depend on capital gains as a pri-mary source of retirement income.Since 56% of taxpayers with gains haveincomes of less than $50,000, and thepercentage of families who own stockhas increased from 32% in 1989 to over41% today, many Americans will wel-come this revision.

Our plan also offers relief to parentswho face higher expenses as their chil-dren grow older. Families can save forhigher education by taking advantageof the plan's education accounts, pen-alty-free withdrawals for education, orpopular tax-free prepaid state tuitionplans. When the student reaches col-lege, parents receive a HOPE tax creditfor tuition and related expenses forfour years of college. In the first twoyears, for example, parents can receivea tax credit up to $1,500 to help pay fortheir child's education. These provi-sions help parents in New Hampshireface the challenge of saving and payingfor higher education in order to investin a brighter future for their children.

Preparing for the future. Our savingsrate is one of the lowest of all industri-alized nations partly because too manyAmericans find it difficult to save forretirement and pay high taxes. Underour Taxpayer Relief Act, individualsplanning for retirement will benefitfrom expanded Individual RetirementAccounts (IRAs). Specifically, we cre-ated a new back-loaded" IRA—con-tributions are not tax-deductible, butwithdrawals upon retirement are tax-free if the account is held for at leastfive years. Once the IRA is established,penalty-free withdrawals are allowedfor a first-time home purchase or forhigher education expenses. In addition,thanks to the efforts of Senator JUDDGREGG, the bill allows non-workingspouses to contribute to an IRA wheth-er or not the working spouse is alreadyin an employer-sponsored retirementplan. As a result, a New Hampshirecouple can make a yearly tax-deduct-

S8405ible IRA contribution of $4,000, ratherthan just $2,000. After 35 years at a7.5% rate of return, they will havesaved a nice retirement nest egg total-ing $617,000!

Investing in the future. Fortunately,small businesses will finally get a well-deserved break under the Taxpayer Re-lief Act. Under the bill, the home officededuction is expanded to help peoplewho work at home. In addition, the in-crease in the health insurance pre-mium deduction for self-employed indi-viduals is phased in more quickly, ris-ing from 40% this year to 80% in 2006.And by 2007, the premium is fully de-ductible. Most important to many NewHampshire families I talk to, the es-tate tax changes also help small busi-nesses. Now, parents who wish to passon their small, family-owned businessor farm to their children can do soknowing that the first $1.3 million willbe excluded from the extremely highinheritance tax.

Finally, the tax package addressesthe need to encourage saving and in-vestment by cutting the capital gainsrate from 28% to 20% (and from 15% to10% in the lower bracket) for salesafter May 6, 1997. The current highrates discourage the risk taking andcreativity necessary to achieve in-creased productivity and prosperity. Alower capital gains rate, however, willmake it easier to free up capital to in-vest in research, technology and equip-ment: increase worker productivity;and ultimately create higher payingjobs. Without a doubt, this pro-growthinitiative will enhance U.S. competi-tiveness.

I wish I could report the same degreeof satisfaction with the final version ofthe social spending component of thiseffort. When I voted for an earlier ver-sion of this portion of the package, Idid so with the hope that the con-ference negotiations would result in itsimprovement. I regret that the socialspending provisions produced as a re-sult of negotiations with PresidentClinton failed to live up to that hope.

The conference report on H.R. 2015contained many valuable provisions. Iam pleased that Medicare beneficiarieswill have more choice about the type ofhealth care delivery plan in which theywill be enrolled, including—for 390,000seniors—the option to open MedicalSavings Accounts. I welcome the cre-ation of a bipartisan commission to ad-dress Medicare's long-term problems.And I believe that the effort to reformMedicaid undertaken in H.R. 2015 isoverdue.

Unfortunately, however, H.R. 2015fails sufficiently to move toward thefundamental, structural reforms inMedicare we all know will be requiredto ensure the retirement security of fu-ture generations. Furthermore, I hadserious concerns about the fiscal andsocial damage we risk doing by retreat-ing from welfare reform and by creat-ing new entitlement, particularly aflawed child health entitlement whichsome—inside and outside of govern-ment—plan to use as the foundation of

S8406a government-run national health caresystem. Ultimately, these reservationsdictated a vote against this portion ofthe legislation.

I have been a strong advocate for abalanced budget, tax relief, and entitle-ment reform for the past thirteen yearsand I am elated that we have finallymade it here. I support the tax cut por-tion of the Balanced Budget Act, whichprovides $95 billion in tax cuts forAmerican families including a $500 perchild tax credit, tuition tax credits,IRA expansion to include non-workingspouses, a capital gains reduction tocreate jobs, and reductions in the in-heritance tax. These initiatives arelong overdue, and I am proud to be anearly and vocal supporter of tax relief.However, I am concerned that thespending portion of the budget dealcreates a new entitlement program,threatens to move us toward govern-ment-run health care, and significantlyincreases social spending which couldnegatively impact the Balanced BudgetAgreement.

Given that President Clinton submit-ted a budget earlier this year whichwould have added $200 billion to thedeficit, the Republican-led Congresscan take pride in this final agreementthat implements the tax cuts foughtfor by our party for so long. The TaxRelief Act will help American familieskeep more of what they earn, save fortheir retirement, and promote job cre-ation and economic growth. I support abalanced budget and look forward tovoting to give New Hampshire familiestheir first tax cut in stxteen years.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Iyield myself 5 of our 10 minutes.

First, Mr. President, usually wethank a lot of people. There are somany staff people that I am not goingto thank them all, but I will put all oftheir names in the RECORD. There areso many heroes.

But I do want to pay tribute to astaff member from the House. His nameis Rick May. He has been staff directorof the Budget Committee in the House.He is a graduate of Ohio State. Heworks for Representative JOHN KASICH.He has been their budget overseer for10 years, working on budget issuessince 1983. He helped put together thealternative that JO1-!J'J KASICH offered in1989. It started with just 30 votes. JOHNKASICH's leadership has grown. Andright at his right hand has been RickMay. He is going to join a firm here intown, and I wish him well, and wantthe Senate RECORD to reflect that weappreciate what he has done.

Mr. President, before I begin my re-marks, I would like to take a momentto thank all of my colleagues, on bothsides of the aisle, who have seen mestand in this well time and time again,and have listened to me speak about abalanced Federal budget. I want tothank you all—from the bottom of myheart—for your patience and your sup-port.

Mr. President, I would like to thankthe ranking member of the BudgetCommittee, Senator LAUTENBERG. Iturn to him andjust say thank you.

You have been an active member ofthe Senate Budget Committee formany years, but in your first year asranking member you have representedthe interests of your party and yourconstituents in an honest and forth-right manner. I have enjoyed workingwith you.

I would like to thank the chairmanof the Finance Committee, SenatorR0TI-I. Few have worked harder orlonger to ease the tax burden on Amer-ican families. But the package thatyou helped fashion, Senator R0TI-I, oflowering taxes is a significant step for-ward. It addressed a need that has been

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 1997

July31, 1997there for almost 16 years as far as mid-dle-income America is concerned.

The package that you helped fashionin the Finance Committee was not onlya significant step in support of lowertaxes, but also boldly addressed theneed to reform Medicare and protect itfor those who depend upon it today,and those who will need it in the fu-ture. Unfortunately, we were not ableto hold those reforms in our conferencebut I believe your action has put us onthe road to reform. Thank you andyour staff for your support.

In addition to that, we praise the Fi-nance Committee and its leader Sen-ator ROTH for reforms in Medicare. Theprotection of that will depend uponwhether these reforms work andwhether we are successful in the futurein a major reform package for Medi-care.

Finally, to our leader, Senator TRENTLOrr. In short, Mr. President, we wouldnot be standing here today, about topass this historic balanced budgetpackage, if not for the leadership, thesupport, and the efforts of TRENT LOrr.As majority leader I don't believe a dayhas gone by when he didn't take someaction aimed at producing a balancedbudget for the American people. He hasbeen direct, he has been focused, and hehas done everything you could ask aleader to do to get us to this point. TheAmerican people should know, thatthis bipartisan budget and tax reliefpackage is due, in no small part, to hisdetermination, his drive, and his com-mitment. Mr. Leader, I thank you foryour leadership and your support.

I thank him for the support he hasgiven me. I hope that I have been ofsupport and help to him as we movedown this course of very complicatednegotiations as evidenced by the size ofthe bills we have and the scope of whatwe are accomplishing.

Mr. President, I began this debate byquoting from a newspaper that thisagreement is a big deal. And, I believeit is. Because while it has taken us 7months to put this specific balancedbudget and tax relief package together,the pathway to this point has beenyears in the making.

This legislation is a big deal becausewe have followed through on our bipar-tisan commitment to implement thebipartisan budget agreement reachedin May. It is a big deal because it willbalance the Federal budget for the firsttime in 30 years. It is, in short, a greatvictory for the American people whoare entitled to expect of their adultleaders that they work together in thebest interests of our country.

For the past 2 years, many of my col-leagues and I have insisted that anybudget passed through Congress be abalanced budget, one which is fiscallyresponsible, reduces the deficit, pro-tects our children, provides much-need-ed tax relief for working Americanfamilies, while preserving andstrengthening Medicare and encourag-ing economic growth. The BalancedBudget Act of 1997 does just that.


It covers hundreds of Governmentprograms; it has taken thousands ofman-hours to put together; it will helpmillions of our citizens; and save bil-lions and billions of dollars.

The budget we will vote on today is abig deal because it offers Americahope. But not only is this package abig deal it is also a good deal.

It is a good deal because it is a budg-et designed to help American families,to make them more secure—in theirhomes, in their communities, in theirjobs.

It offers them a more efficient gov-ernment—one dedicated to economicgrowth and security, support for ourchildren, and lower taxes on America'sworkers.

This budget is a good deal because itrecognizes the simple notion that ourGovernment cannot simply go on bor-rowing and spending our children'smoney. It will finally drive a stakethrough the heart of the Deficit Drag-on, and put an end to mounting Fed-eral debt, a Medicare system that willgo bankrupt and a crushing tax burdenon thosejust starting out in life.

The budget is a good deal because itwill strengthen America. It will changethe way our Government works—tomake it more efficient, more respon-sive, and less expensive. And, most im-portantly, it will ensure a better futurefor our children and our Nation.

This budget is a good deal because itreflects our commitment to fiscal re-sponsibility, generating economicgrowth, creating good jobs with a fu-ture, and protecting the Americandream for all our citizens—young andold alike.

This budget is a good deal because itwill restore America's fiscal equi-librium. It will reverse the tide of 50years of power flowing for the rest ofthe country to Washington. We want toprovide more freedom and opportunityto people at the local level so theymight have more control over the deci-sions on programs that effect theirlives, their children, and their commu-nities.

This budget is a good deal because itrecognizes the need to ease the tax bur-den on America's middle-class workingparents, to give them a $500-per-childtax credit. This credit will help morethan 50 million American children innearly 30 million families. Under thisplan a family with two children underage 17 would receive $1,000 in perma-nent tax relief.

It's also a good deal for family farm-ers and small business men and women;for homeowners who will someday selltheir home; and for all those who wantto create incentives for economicgrowth and job creation.

And, this budget is a good deal be-cause while we are working toward bal-ance and tax relief, we continue to sup-port programs which provide neededservices to our citizens and we havebeen painstakingly careful to preservea safety net for those in need.

To provide health care for poor chil-dren who have none. To strengthen

S8407Medicare and provide more health careoptions for our seniors. To improve ac-cess to higher education and help par-ents and our young people pay for col-lege.

We support programs aimed at keep-ing Americans safe—in their home,schools, and neighborhoods—by fund-ing needed crime programs.

The question whether one generation hasthe right to bind another by the deficit itimposes is a question of such consequence asto place it among the fundamental principlesof government. We should consider ourselvesunauthorized to saddle posterity with ourdebts and morally bound to pay them our-selves.

Mr. President, we might wonderwhere that came from. Was that just astatement here lately when our deficitand debt grew? No, it wasn't. It wasmade by Thomas Jefferson. ThomasJefferson was a wise man. He wrote theConstitution. And he understood thatif you pass on to the next generation,and the next generation—as he calls it,posterity—the debts of your genera-tion, you take the chance that theirlife being reasonable, good, prosperous,and successful is limited. It limitstheir freedom. That is why we havebeen so worried about the debt, and theannual deficit that contributes to it.

Today we will cast a vote of greatsignificance to the future of America.It is the vote so many of us have saidwe wanted—a vote to finally balancethe Federal budget.

One of freedoms great leaders Win-ston Churchill told us the "price ofgreatness is responsibility." We in gov-ernment shoulder that responsibility.We actively seek it by running for pub-lic office. I believe the time has cometo shoulder our responsibility andenact a balanced Federal budget.

In doing so, we are casting a vote insupport of America's future. You mayserve here for years and never cast amore important vote. Because you nowhave a chance to vote to protect Amer-ica, to strengthen it, and improve it.

Today we can begin writing a newchapter in American history. That iswhy this is a big deal and that is whyit is a good deal.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that a compilation of extraneousprovisions of the Balanced Budget Actof 1997 be printed in the REcOiD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theREcOgD, as follows:

EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS—H.R. 2015—BALANCED

BUDGET ACT OF 1997

Conference

Provision Comments/violation

TiUe Ill—Communications and Spectrum Allocation

Section 3002(a)(1)(C)(iH) ... Requires FCC to set a reseTve price cc mini-mum bid for auctions, unless not in publicinteresi ByTd rule(b)(1)(A): Produces no

thange in outlays or revenues.Section 3004-adds Sec. Directs CC to consider needs of ow-power

337(e)(2)' and "(t)(2). television stations in conducting (fansitionto digital P1. which the FCC is alreadoing und current law. Byrd rule(b)(1)(A):Produces no change in jtlays revenues.

Title V—Medicare, Medicaid and Childrens Health Provisions

Sec. 4021 Medicare Commission. Byrd rule(b)(1)(A): PO-duces no change in outlays or revenues.

Authorization of the Medicare Payment Advi-sory Commission. ByTd wle(bfll)(A): Pro-

duces no chan9e in outlays or revenues.Study on Definition of Homebound. ByTd

nJIe(b)(1)(A): Produces no change in out-lays or revenues.

Study and Report on the Boren Amendment.Byrd wle(b)(1)(A): Produces no change inoutlays or revenues.

Title V—Welfare and Related Provision

Evaluations. Byrd wle(b)(1)(A): Produces nochange in outlays or revenues.

Clarification that sanctions against recipientsunder TANF Program are not wage reduc-tions. Byrd rule(b)(1XA): Produces no

change in outlays or revenues.GAO Study of effect of Family Violence on

Need for Public Assistance. Byrd

rule(b)(1)(A): Produces no change in out-lays or revenues.

Limitation on amount of Federal Funds trans-ferable to title XX programs. Byrdwle(b)(1)(A): Produces no change in Out-lays or revenues.

Limitation on number of persons who ma beengaged in work bj reason of participa-tion. Byrd wle(b)(1)(A): Produces no

change in outlays or revenues.Clarification of authority to permit certain re-

disclosures of wage and claim information.Byrd wle(b)(1)(A): Produces no change inoutlays or revenues.

State Program Integrity Activities for Unem-ployment Compensation. Bid wle)(1)(A):Produces no change in outlays or revenues.

Authorization of appropriations for enforce-ment initiatives related to the earned in-come credit. Byrd wle(b)(1)(A): Producesno change in outlays or revenues.

S8408EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS—H.R. 201 5—BALANCED

BUDGET ACT OF 1997—Continued

Conference

Provision Commentsiviolation

Sec. 4022

Sec

Sc

Sec. 5001(0

Sec. 5001(h)

Sec. 5001(i)

Sec. 5002

Sec. 5003

Sec. 5201

Se 5408

Sec. 5702

Title Vill—Veterans and Related Provisions

Sec. 8023(a) 1729A(e) Report to Congress. Byrd wle(b)(1)(A): Pro-

duces no change in outlays or revenues.

Title X—Budget Enforcement and Process Provisions

Title X Budget Enforcement arC Process Provisions.Byrd wle(b)(1)(A): Produces no change inoutlays or revenues.

Title Xt—District of Columbia Revitalization

Under Review.


not over til it's over." We are gettingever closer. I don't yet feel the atten-tion that comes with championshipbouts or things of that nature; we haveanother 10 hours' worth of debate onthe second part of the reconciliationbill.

At this point, I would be happy toyield the time back that we have, if theParliamentarian could tell us howmuch time is remaining on our side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator has 8 minutes remaining.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Eight minutes. IfI were to give up 5 minutes of thattime, how much combined time wouldthe majority leader have?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A totalof 8 minutes. The majority has 5 min-utes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We will yield 5and you have 5 so that the majorityleader can have 10 minutes.

Senator DASCHLE is on his way, and Iknow he would like to have a couplewords, so we can extend the time if weneed forjust a couple of minutes.

I yield the floor.Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I indicated

last Saturday on a radio show that ifwe could get this answer to the Amer-ican people's prayers this week, Iwould whistle "Hail to the Chief' inthe Senate.

Well, the rules do not allow that. Iam afraid that Senator BYRt wouldcome down and chastise me if I whistle,but let me tell you I am humming"Hail to the Chief" to the Americanpeople today because we have accom-plished an awful lot in reaching theagreement on these two major bills.

I was reading an article last night en-titled, "0 Ye of Little Faith," and itmade me think about what we havegone through the last few weeks. I justhave to ask the Senate this morning,how many of us really, really thoughtwe were going to get this done and thatwe were going to get it done this week?Even 1 week ago there were those whowere saying, "Oh, no, you can't getthat done before we go out for the Au-gust recess. Wait until September: wewill do it then."

But we persisted. We just kept sayingwe can get through this. We can do thistogether. We can do the right thing forthe American people, and we can do itnow, because it has been a long timecoming.

I think it is appropriate that on bothsides of the aisle and both ends ofPennsylvania Avenue, Republicans andDemocrats, House and Senate, and,yes, the President, all are saying thisis good for America.

It is not utopia. It does not solve allthe problems. There are some things inhere I do not like. There are somethings in here that the Senator fromNew Jersey does not like. But it is amajor step forward—maybe not a leapbut a major step forward. We are doingsome things we promised the Americanpeople, things that really matter. Itmatters that we are going to get to abalanced budget, and this time it is

July 31, 1997with honest numbers. We are reallygoing to do it. And for a lot of reasonswe may do it before the year 2002. Thisis the type of commitment that I havenot seen in the Congress in a bipartisanway in the 25 years that I have had thehonor of serving the people of Mis-sissippi. So I think we should declarethis is a very important step forward.It is worth having.

I was doing an interview yesterdayand somebody said: Well, not enough inthe tax bill, not enough tax relief. Whywasn't there more? Why didn't you in-sist on this? Why didn't you insist onthat?

I have a simple question. Is some taxrelief better than no tax relief? Thereare those who would rather have noth-ing if they cannot get everything. La-dies and gentlemen, my colleagues inthe Senate, these bills are worth hav-ing. I am proud to say that I worked onit for 8 months of my life. This pastSaturday night and Sunday morning, Ithought we had lost it. I was boiling in-side. I was disturbed. I was hurt thatwe were going to let this moment getaway from us. But I guess maybe aftera Sunday morning of reflection andprayer, we said, no, we are going to dothis. And so we did. The Presidentmade a commitment. He wanted to getit done. The leadership in the Congress,House and Senate, Republican andDemocrat, wanted to get it done, andthat is why we just did it. We wentahead and did it.

Let me say to my colleagues heretoday, there are so many I want tothank and congratulate for this stepforward, but I have to begin with thedistinguished Senator from New Mex-ico. None of us has worked longer, noneof us has contributed more, none of usknows more about what is in this billthan Senator PETE DOMENICI of NewMexico. He has been my confidante. Hehas been my trusted ally. He has donethis when, in his own personal life, hehas had problems to worry about. Andso I know that the President, theDemocrats and Republicans on bothsides of the aisle, want to say thanks alot, PETE. You did a great job for yourcountry.

His colleague on the other side of theaisle, Senator LAUTENBERG, could havewalked away from this. Even at thelast moment, something he cares abouttremendously, guaranteeing we get theAmtrak funds—-it is in there, but witha condition—he could have said, if Ican't get what I want, I am not goingto do this.

He is not going to do that. He isgoing to do what is right for his Stateand the country.

My colleague, TOM DASCHLE, fromSouth Dakota, yesterday said somevery nice things about my efforts, andI have to say the same about him. Hewas reliable. He was honest with me.He stayed the course. He came to themeetings. There were some meetingshe didn't get to come to. A lot of peo-ple had an opportunity to get theiregos hurt, but everybody rose above it.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I notethe presence of our distinguished ma-jority leader. I wanted to reserve theremainder of the time for him.

I yield the floor.I understand the minority party has

about 10 minutes and we have about 5minutes for you, Mr. Leader.

Mr. President, I suggest the absenceof a quorum.


The legislative clerk proceeded tocall the roll.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. DOMENICI. Senator LAUTEN-BERG, is it your desire to yield the re-maining time to the majority leader?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will in just acouple minutes because I want us to beable to hear from the leadership. I didnot know whether or not SenatorDASCHLE had some remarks that hewanted to make, but I would certainlybe delighted to yield the time so thatwe apportion it with the time remain-ing on the majority side, so that thedistinguished majority leader has thetime that he needs to make his re-marks. For the moment, I would justsay that we are not done yet, in thewords of the distinguished New Jerseyphilosopher Yogi Berra, who said, "Its

July31, 1997PAT MOYNIHAN, Finance Committee,

bipartisan effort. We reported one ofthese bills, I think it was 18 to 2, theother one 20 to nothing, out of the Fi-nance Committee, but it began withBILL RoTh, the chairman of the Fi-nance Committee, and the Senatorfrom New York. They made up theirminds they were going to get it done,and they were going to do it together,and the rest of us could come along ifwe wanted. Our scholar Senator helpedlead the way.

I have to say again about BILL RoTh,patience, tenacity, he was not going torelent on getting this job done. And theFinance Committee had both of thesebills. No other committee in Congresshad to do it that way. In the House, itwas Ways and Means and CommerceCommittee as well as Budget. Overhere, it was just Budget and Finance.He did a great job. We would not havewhat we have in the tax bill on IRA's;we would not have what we have onAmtrak; we would not have what wewere able to get on a myriad of issuesin this legislation. He did a fantasticjob.

I could go on down the list, but ittruly is a bipartisan effort, and I amproud of that. Some people say, Whydon't you draw the line and fight?" Ihave done that. Sometimes it is fun,but it doesn't produce anything but afight most of the time.

So there will be another day to dif-ferentiate between the parties, buttoday we are going to do what is rightfor the country. This bill is rightlycalled the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.It contains literally hundreds of posi-tions that will get us to that balancedbudget. But the bottom line is, it issomething the American people havebeen waiting to hear for many years.We will have a balanced budget by theyear 2002 and thereafter.

How is that accomplished? Well, itdoes have spending reductions of ap-proximately $270 billion over 5 years. Ithas $140 billion in restraint on appro-priated accounts. It has $132 billion inentitlements and net interest savings.It does provide help for children'shealth, and that is a bipartisan effort.

Most of us are parents. Most of ushave children in our States who are notcovered. We disagree about how muchwe should pay for it, how much shouldbe done, but it is something we careabout and we should do. And we get itdone in this bill.

Now, we give as much flexibility aswe can to the States, and that is theway it should be. I have faith in myown Governor and my own legislature.I want these decisions to be made asclose to the people that need this help,as close to the children as possible.What they need in West Virginia maybe different from what they need in Ar-izona. Give that flexibility so that thedecisions are close to the people and soit is provided in a way that will reallyprovide the help it should.

I want to make this important pointabout Medicare. We are going to im-


prove Medicare. We are going to saveMedicare from going insolvent for an-other several years at way out to, I be-lieve, close to the year 2007 probably,and we are going to do it with flexibil-ity. We are going to give the seniors achance to choose. They can go with theold system; they can go with an HMO;they can go with a professional serv-ices organization; they can have medi-cal savings accounts.

We have done what we have been ar-guing about for 4 years. We are actu-ally doing it. We are doing what wesaid we were going to do in Medicareand that alone, what we are doing inMedicare alone is worth voting for thislegislation. What other problems youmay have with this bill—some of thechanges in welfare, I think, go thewrong direction; we really want to getpeople from welfare to work. This billhas some problems, but just the Medi-care provision makes it worthwhile.

We have some savings in Medicaid.The States will have a greater abilityto deliver health services more effi-ciently for poor persons. When youlook through the list of things that wehave done here, in instance after in-stance, I think we should be veryproud.

I am here today to tell you that I amgoing to vote for this legislation withpride, not with fear and trepidation,not with reservations or grumpinessbecause I didn't get everything I want-ed, but because the process worked.Our system of Government workedhere like I think our forefathers in-tended for it to work, and we are goingto produce genuine results that will beof benefit. In this bill and in the otherbill we will pass for our children oureducational system in America, childhealth care, the guarantee of the im-portant programs that we want for ourseniors. From the day we are born tothe day we die, there will be benefitscoming out of this legislation.

So I urge my colleagues, let us makethis an overwhelming vote. I think wewill have as near to a unanimous voteas you will ever get in the Senate on abill of this magnitude, a bill of thissize. I think when we vote on it, it isgoing to pass overwhelmingly. Then weare going to go to the tax relief pack-age, which I am tremendously excitedabout.

I am glad to have been a part of thiseffort. It has been worthwhile. It hasbeen long. It has been tedious. It hastried my patience. I lost my temper afew times, along with others, and forthose occasions I apologize. But we gotit done, and we will have more deci-sions made by the people at the Statelevel; we will have genuine tax relief;we will have security for our seniors,and now and then we can move on andaddress other problems that we need totake up for the future of our country.

I thank the Chair and I thank allSenators for what you have done onthis.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senatoryield for 30 seconds?

S8409Mr. LOTT. I yield to the great senior

Senator from New Mexico.Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I be-

lieve we have an opportunity to write anew chapter in American history, and Iam very proud to be part of it, and Ithank the Senator for his kind words.

Mr. LOTT. It would not have hap-pened without the Senator from NewMexico, and I thank him once again forall of his long hours and great leader-ship.

(Mr. SMITH of Oregon assumed theChair.)

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the leaderyield for 30 seconds?

Mr. LOTT. I will yield to the Senatorfrom New York.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Might I thank himon behalf of Senator ROTH, who is notpresent at the moment, for his verygenerous remarks about the FinanceCommittee, of which he is a member—not hardly the least of us. It is truethat the overwhelming portion of boththese measures fell to the FinanceCommittee, and we voted nearly, inone case, a unanimous measure, on onebill we are about to vote on, 18 to 2, thebill we are going to take up.

I think that has contributed consid-erably to the momentum that has sur-rounded us and brought us to this mo-ment. I thank the distinguished major-ity leader for his generous remarks.

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator fromNew York.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President,do we have any time left here?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator has 3 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the majorityleader will yield?

Mr. LOTr. Mr. President, I am gladto yield the floor to the Senator fromNew Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We will try tosplit the time. I want to say, also, tothe majority leader, thank you for theaccolades and for the encouragementthat you gave Senator DOMENICI andme throughout the process and for thecomments about our other colleagues,all of whom worked diligently, workedhonestly on getting the mission accom-plished. At times, I can tell you thatSenator DOMENIcI—it's no secret—would kind of lay down the book andsay, We have to check this upstairs."I don't think he meant all the way up.I think he meant only as far as the ma-jority leader's office. Or, 'We have toturn to the leadership." I would do thesame thing.

But persistence was the keynote, per-sistence and patience. I want to saythis about the majority leader andabout the way he has conducted things.Serving in the minority, it's easy tofind fault with the majority leader. Butone has to give credit where due. Thefact is that this majority leader has,with diligence and persistence, movedlegislation through this place. He hascome up to me, and I am sure othercolleagues, and said, Frank, let's tryto make sense out of this. What is itthat you are trying to accomplish? Can

S8410it be done this time? Well, I don'tthink so. I think we can get halfwaythere, I think we can get three-quar-ters of the way." Or he'll say, "That'snot a bad idea and I do want to helpyou with that." And he made a com-mitment with me on trying to makesure our national passenger rail systemkeeps on functioning. He reaffirmed hiscommitment to help find a way to getthat done.

So I want to say, relatively, as wesay around here—looking around here,looking at my white hair, I can say itcomfortably—the new kid on the block,the majority leader, has done a goodjob. It's particularly evident when welook at the accomplishment of thispiece of legislation. the one we areabout to pass. And he is right; it'sgoing to pass overwhelmingly. We wantto have as many people on both sidessay yes as we can, to indicate to theAmerican people that we believe in thisassignment that we took on.

So, I thank the majority leader forhis skill, his patience, and his persist-ence. I think he helped calm the watersa little bit. Because I don't remember,throughout the 7 or 8 months of discus-sion, often late at night, often withoutlunch, munchies, or otherwise, that thepatience—the tempers never really gotreal hot. Am I right? Pete, once in awhile, you know, would stamp on thefloor or something like that, but hewould come right back, bouncing up.We pushed our way through.

So I thank everybody involved in theeffort, and I am delighted to be here, toserve in this place and serve at a timelike this when we have accomplishedsomething.

Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senatoryield for a minute?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.Mr. DOMENICI. You know that little

hideaway, the Domenici hideaway withthat great view? I think when we arefinished, we are going to put a plaquein there; right? It's not mine anymore.But it's going to say, "In this littleroom this budget agreement washatched and completed.'

Mr. LAUTENBERG. May I add a wordof poetry?

We stood and looked away,Hoping for some accomplishment at the

end of this day.The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time

has expired. The question is on the con-ference report.

Mr. DOMENICI. We don't have theyeas and nays yet. Mr. President, I askfor the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on the conference report.The yeas and nays have been ordered.The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.The result was announced, yeas 85,

nays 15, as follows:

YEAS—85Abraham Feingold MackAkaka Feinstein McCainBaucus Frist McConnellBennett Glenn MikulskiBiden Gorton Moseley-BraunBingaman Graham MoynihanBond Grassley MurkowskiBoxer Gregg MurrayBreaux Hagel NicklesBrownback Harkin ReedBryan Hatch ReidBumpers Hutchinson RobbBurns Hutchison RobertsByrd Inouye RockefellerCampbell Jeffords RothChafee Johnson SantorumCleland Kempthorne SarbanesCochran Kennedy ShelbyCollins Kerrey Smith (OR)Conrad Kerry SnoweCoverdell Kohl SpecterCraig Kyl StevensDAmato Landrieu ThomasDaschle Lautenberg ThurmondDeWine Leahy TorricelliDodd Levin WarnerDomenici Lieberman WydenDorgan LottDurbin Lugar

NAYS—iSAllard Ford InhofeAshcroft Gramm SessionsCoats Grams Smith (NH)Enzi Helms ThompsonFaircloth Hollings Wellstone

The conference report was agreed to.Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to recon-

sider the vote.Mr. COATS. I move to lay that mo-

tion on the table.The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator

from Arkansas is recognized.


[Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.J

July 31, 1997

July 31, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6667Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, re-

serving the right to object. I would liketo yield to the manager for a discus-sion.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, therule is self-explanatory. For Memberswho may not be aware, sections 106 and107 of title 1 of the United States Coderequire that enrolled bills, measuresthat have been passed by the House andthe Senate in the same form and re-quire the President's signature to be-come law, that they be sent to thePresident on parchment.

So the joint resolution that I amseeking unanimous consent for, Mr.Speaker, waives that requirement.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, Iwithdraw my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from Florida?

There was no objection.The Clerk read the joint resolution

as follows:H.J. RE5. 90

Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep-resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled, That the provisions ofsections 106 and 107 of title 1, United StatesCode, are waived with respect to the printing(on parchment or otherwise) of the enroll-ment of H.R. 2014 and of H.R. 2015 of the OneHundred Fifth Congress. The enrollment ofeach of those bills shall be in such form asthe Committee on House Oversight of theHouse of Representatives certifies to be atrue enrollment.

The joint resolution was ordered tobe engrossed and read a third time, wasread the third time, and passed, and amotion to reconsider was laid on thetable.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, Iask unanimous consent to lay HouseResolution 203 on the table.



WAIVING ENROLLMENT REQUIRE-MENTS WITH RESPECT TO TWOBILLS OF THE 105TH CONGRESSMr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I

offer a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 90)waiving certain enrollment require-ments with respect to two specifiedbills of the 105th Congress, and I askunanimous consent for its immediateconsideration.

The Clerk read the title of the jointresolution.


PUBLIC LAW 105-33—AUG. 5, 1997 111 STAT. 251

*publjc Law 105—33105th Congress

An ActTo provide for reconciliation pursuant to subsections (b)(1) and (c) of section 105 Aug. 5, 1997

of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998. (HR. 2015]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives ofthe United States of America in Congress assembled, Balanced BudgetSECTION 1. SHORT TF1'LE. Act of 1997.

This Act may be cited as the "Balanced Budget Act of 1997".SEC. 2. TABLE OF TITLES.

This Act is organized into titles as follows:Title I—Food Stamp ProvisionsTitle Il—Housing and Related ProvisionsTitle Ill—Communications and Spectrum Allocation ProvisionsTitle IV—Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health ProvisionsTitle V—Welfare and Related ProvisionsTitle VI—Education and Related ProvisionsTitle Vu—Civil Service Retirement and Related ProvisionsTitle VIII—Veterans and Related ProvisionsTitle DC—Asset Sales, User Fees, and Miscellaneous ProvisionsTitle X—Budget Enforcement and Process ProvisionsTitle X1—District of Columbia Revitalization

TITLE I—FOOD STAMP PROVISIONS

Note: This is a hand enrollment pursuant to Public Law 105—32.

39-139 97(33)

PUBLIC LAW 105—33—AUG. 5, 1997 111 STAT. 255

SEC. 1003. DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS FOR PRISONERS.

(a) STATE PLANS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 11(e) of the Food Stamp Act

of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)) is amended by striking paragraph(20) and inserting the following:

"(20) that the State agency shall establish a system andtake action on a periodic basis—

"(A) to verify and otherwise ensure that an individualdoes not receive coupons in more than 1 jurisdiction withinthe State; and

"(B) to verify and otherwise ensure that an individualwho is placed under detention in a Federal, State, or localpenal, correctional, or other detention facility for more than30 days shall not be eligible to participate in the foodstamp program as a member of any household, exceptthat—

"(i) the Secretary may determine that extraor-dinary circumstances make it impracticable for theState agency to obtain information necessary to dis-continue inclusion of the individual; and

"(ii) a State agency that obtains information col-lected under section 1611(e)(1)(I)(i)(I) of the SocialSecurity Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)(I)(i)(I)) pursuant tosection 1611(e)(1)(I)(ii)(II) of that Act (42 U.S.C.1382(e)( 1)(I)(ii)(II)), or under another program deter-mined by the Secretary to be comparable to the pro-gram carried out under that section, shall be consid-ered in compliance with this subparagraph.".

(2) LIMITs ON DISCLOSURE AND USE OF INFORMATION.—Section 11(e)(8)(E) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.2020(e)(8)(E)) is amended by striking "paragraph (16)" andinserting "paragraph (16) or (20)(B)".

(3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph

(B), the amendments made by this subsection shall takeeffect on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactmentof this Act.

(B) EXTENSION.—The Secretary of Agriculture maygrant a State an extension of time to comply with theamendments made by this subsection, not to exceed beyondthe date that is 2 years after the date of enactment ofthis Act, if the chief executive officer of the State submitsa request for the extension to the Secretary—

(i) stating the reasons why the State is not ableto comply with the amendments made by this sub-section by the date that is 1 year after the date ofenactment of this Act;

(ii) providing evidence that the State is makinga good faith effort to comply with the amendmentsmade by this subsection as soon as practicable; and

(iii) detailing a plan to bring the State into compli-ance with the amendments made by this subsection

111 STAT. 256 PUBLIC LAW 105-33—AUG. 5, 1997

7 USC 2020 note.

as soon as practicable but not later than the dateof the requested extension.

(b) INFORMATION S1iRING.—Section 11 of the Food Stamp Actof 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2020) is amended by adding at the end thefollowing:

"(q) DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS FOR PRISONERS.—The Secretaryshall assist States, to the maximum extent practicable, inimplementing a system to conduct computer matches or other sys-tems to prevent prisoners described in section 11(e)(20)(B) fromparticipating in the food stamp program as a member of any house-hold.".

111 STAT. 270 PUBLIC LAW 105—33—AUG. 5, 1997

TITLE 1V—MEDICARE, MEDICAID, ANDCHILDREN'S HEALTH PROVISIONS

SEC. 4000. AMENDMENTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND REFERENCESTO OBRA TABLE OF CONTENTS OF TiTLE.

(a) AMENDMENTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.—Except as other-wise specifically provided, whenever in this title an amendmentis expressed in terms of an amendment to or repeal of a sectionor other provision, the reference shall be considered to be madeto that section or other provision of the Social Security Act.

(b) REFERENCES TO OBRA.—In this title, the terms "OBRA—1986", "OBRA—1987", "OBRA—1989", "OBRA—1990", and "OBRA—1993" refer to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986(Public Law 99—509), the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1987 (Public Law 100—203), the Omnibus Budget ReconciliationAct of 1989 (Public Law 101—239), the Omnibus Budget Reconcili-ation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101—508), and the Omnibus BudgetReconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103—66), respectively.

(c) TABLE OF CONTENTS OF TITLE.—The table of contents ofthis title is as follows:

Sec. 4000. Amendments to Social Security Act and references to OBRA table ofcontents of title.

Subtitle A—Medicare+Choice Program

CHAPTER 1—MEDIc+CHoICE PROGRAMSUBCHAPTER A—MEDICARE+CHOICE PROGRAM

Sec. 4001. Establishment of Medicare+Choice program.

"PART C—MEDIcARE+CHOIcE PROGRAM

"Sec. 1851. Eligibility, election and enrollment."Sec. 1852. Benefits and benefciaryprotections."Sec. 1853. Payments to Medicare+Choice organizations.Sec. 1854. Premiums:"Sec. 1855. Organizational and financial requirements for Medicare+Choice or-

ganizations; provider-sponsored organizations."Sec. 1856. Establishment of standards.'Sec. 1857. Contracts with Medicare+Choice organizations."Sec. 1859. Definitions; miscellaneous provisions.

Sec. 4002. Transitional rules for current medicare HMO program.Sec. 4003. Conforming changes in medigap program.SUBCHAPTER B—SPECIAL RULES FOR MEDICARE+CHOICE MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNFS

Sec. 4006. Medicare+Choice MSA.

CHAPTER 2—DEMONSTRATIONS

SUBCHAPTER A—MEDICARE+CHOICE COMPETITIVE PRICING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

Sec. 4011. Medicare prepaid competitive pricing demonstration project.Sec. 4012. Administration through the Office of Competition; advisory committee.Sec. 4013. Project design based on FEHBP competitive bidding model.

SUBCHAPTER B—SOCIAL HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS

Sec. 4014. Social health maintenance organizations (SHMOs).SUBCHAPTER C—MEDICARE SUBVENTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR MILITARY

RETIREES

Sec. 4015. Medicare subvention demonstration project for military retirees.SUBCHAPTER D—OTHER PROJECTS

Sec. 4016. Medicare coordinated care demonstration project.


Sec. 4017. Orderly transition of municipal health service demonstration projects.Sec. 4018. Medicare enrollment demonstration project.Sec. 4019. Extension of certain medicare community nursing organization dem-

onstration projects.CHAPTER 3—COMMISSIONS

Sec. 4021. National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.Sec. 4022. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

CHAPTER 4—MEDIGAP PROTECTIONS

Sec. 4031. Medigap protections.Sec. 4032. Addition of high deductible medigap policies.

CHAPTER 5—TAx TREATMENT OF HOSPITALS PARTICIPATING IN PROVIDER-SPONSORED

ORGANIZATIONS

Sec. 4041. Tax treatment of hospitals which participate in provider-sponsored orga-nizations.

Subtitle B—Prevention Initiatives

Sec. 4101. Screening mammography.Sec. 4102. Screening pap smear and pelvic exams.Sec. 4103. Prostate cancer screening tests.Sec. 4104. Coverage of colorectal screening.Sec. 4105. Diabetes self-management benefits.Sec. 4106. Standardization of medicare coverage of bone mass measurements.Sec. 4107. Vaccines outreach expansion.Sec. 4108. Study on preventive and enhanced benefits.

Subtitle C—Rural InitiativesSec. 4201. Medicare rural hospital flexibility program.Sec. 4202. Prohibiting denial of request by rural referral centers for reclassification

on basis of comparability of wages.Sec. 4203. Hospital geographic reclassification permitted for purposes of dispropor-

tionate share payment adjustments.Sec. 4204. Medicare-dependent, small rural hospital payment extension.Sec. 4205. Rural health clinic services.Sec. 4206. Medicare reimbursement for telehealth services.Sec. 4207. Informatics, telemedicine, and education demonstration project.

Subtitle D—Anti-Fraud and Abuse Provisions and Improvements in ProtectingProgram Integrity

CHAPTER 1—REVISIONS To SANCTIONS FOR Fiuo AND ABUSE

Sec. 4301. Permanent exclusion for those convicted of 3 health care related crimes.Sec. 4302. Authority to refuse to enter into medicare agreements with individuals

or entities convicted of felonies.Sec. 4303. Exclusion of entity controlled by family member of a sanctioned individ-

ual.Sec. 4304. Imposition of civil money penalties.

CHAPTER 2—IMPROvEMENTS IN PROTECTING PROGRAM INTEGRITY

Sec. 4311. Improving information to medicare beneficiaries.Sec. 4312. Disclosure of information and surety bonds.Sec. 4313. Provision of certain identification numbers.Sec. 4314. Advisory opiniona regarding certain physician self-referral provisions.Sec. 4315. Replacement of reasonable charge methodology by fee schedules.Sec. 4316. Application of inherent reasonableness to all part B services other than

physicians' services.Sec. 4317. Requirement to furnish diagnostic information.Sec. 4318. Report by GAO on operation of fraud and abuse control program.Sec. 4319. Competitive bidding demonstration projects.Sec. 4320. Prohibiting unnecessary and wasteful medicare payments for certain

items.Sec. 4321. Nondiscrimination in post-hospital referral to home health agencies and

other entities.CHAPTER 3—CLARIFICATIONS AND TECHNICAL CHANGES

Sec. 4331. Other fraud and abuse related provisions.Subtitle E—Provisions Relating to Part A Only

CHAPTER 1—PAYMENT OF PPS HOSPITALS

Sec. 4401. PPS hospital payment update.


Sec. 4402. Maintaining savings from temporary reduction in capital payments forPPS hospitals.

Sec. 4403. Disproportionate share.Sec. 4404. Medicare capital asset sales price equal to book value.Sec. 4405. Elimination of IME and DSH payments attributable to outlier payments.Sec. 4406. Increase base payment rate to Puerto Rico hospitals.Sec. 4407. Certain hospital discharges to post acute care.Sec. 4408. Reclassification of certain counties as large urban areas under medicare

program.Sec. 4409. Geographic reclassification for certain disproportionately large hospitals.Sec. 4410. Floor on area wage index.

CHAPFER 2—PAYMENT OF PPS-ExEMPT HOSPITALS

SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL PAYMENT PROVISIONS

Sec. 4411. Payment update.Sec. 4412. Reductions to capital payments for certain PPS-exempt hospitals and

units.Sec. 4413. Rebasing.Sec. 4414. Cap on TEFRA limits.Sec. 4415. Bonus and relief payments.Sec. 4416. Change in payment and target amount for new providers.Sec. 4417. Treatment of certain long-term care hospitals.Sec. 4418. Treatment of certain cancer hospitals.Sec. 4419. Elimination of exemptions for certain hospitals.

SUBCHAPTER B—PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR PPS-EXEMPT HOSPITALS

Sec. 4421. Prospective payment for inpatient rehabilitation hospital services.Sec. 4422. Development of proposal on payments for long-term care hospitals.

CHA?FER 3—PAYMENT FOR SKILLED NuEsIrG FACILITIES

Sec. 4431. Extension of cost limits.Sec. 4432. Prospective payment for skilled nursing facility services.

CHA?FER 4—PROVISIONS RELATED TO HOSPICE SERVICES

Sec. 4441. Payments for hospice services.Sec. 4442. Payment for home hospice care based on location where care is fur-

nished.Sec. 4443. Hospice care benefits periods.Sec. 4444. Other items and services included in hospice care.Sec. 4445. Contracting with independent physicians or physician groups for hospice

care services permitted.Sec. 4446. Waiver of certain staffing requirements for hospice care programs in

nonurbanized areas.Sec. 4447. Limitation on liability of beneficiaries for certain hospice coverage deni-

als.Sec. 4448. Extending the period for physician certification of an individual's termi-

nal illness.Sec. 4449. Effective date.

CHAPTER 5—OTHER PAYMENT PROVISIONS

Sec. 4451. Reductions in payments for enrollee bad debt.Sec. 4452. Permanent extension of hemophilia pass-through payment.Sec. 4453. Reduction in part A medicare premium for certain public retirees.Sec. 4454. Coverage of services in religious nonmedical health care institutions

under the medicare and medicaid programs.

Subtitle F—Provisions Relating to Part B Only

CHAPTER 1—SERVICES OF HEALTH PROFESSIONALS

SUBCHAPTER A—PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Sec. 4501. Establishment of single conversion factor for 1998.Sec. 4502. Establishing update to conversion factor to match spending under sus-

tainable growth rate.Sec. 4503. Replacement of volume performance standard with sustainable growth

rate.Sec. 4504. Payment rules for anesthesia services.Sec. 4505. Implementation of resource-based methodologies.Sec. 4506. Dissemination of information on high per discharge relative values for

in-hospital physicians' services.Sec. 4507. Use of private contracts by medicare beneficiaries.


SUBCRAFFER B—DIRECT GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION

Sec. 4623. Limitation on number of residents and rolling average FTE count.Sec. 4624. Payments to hospitals for direct costs of graduate medical education of

Medicare+Choice enrollees.Sec. 4625. Permitting payment to nonhospital providers.Sec. 4626. Incentive payments under plans for voluntary reduction in number of

residents.Sec. 4627. Medicare special reimbursement rule for primary care combined resi-

dency programs.Sec. 4628. Demonstration project on use of consortia.Sec. 4629. Recommendations on long-term policies regarding teaching hospitals and

graduate medical education.Sec. 4630. Study of hospital overhead and supervisory physician components of di-

rect medical education costs.

CRAPTER 3—PROVISIONS RELATING TO MEDICARE SECONDARY PAYER

Sec. 4631. Permanent extension and revision of certain secondary payer provisions.Sec. 4632. Clarification of time and filing limitations.Sec. 4633. Permitting recovery against third party administrators.

CRAPTER 4—OTHER PROVISIONS

Sec. 4641. Placement of advance directive in medical record.Sec. 4642. Increased certification period for certain organ procurement organiza-

tions.Sec. 4643. Office of the Chief Actuary in the Health Care Financing Administra-

tion.Sec. 4644. Conforming amendments to comply with congressional review of agency

rulemaking.


CHAPTER 1—MANAGED C

Sec. 4701. State option of using managed care; change in terminology.Sec. 4702. Primary care case management services as State option without need for

waiver.Sec. 4703. Elimination of 75:25 restriction on risk contracts.Sec. 4704. Increased beneficiary protections.Sec. 4705. Quality assurance standards.Sec. 4706. Solvency standards.Sec. 4707. Protections against fraud and abuse.Sec. 4708. Improved administration.Sec. 4709. 6-month guaranteed eligibility for all individuals enrolled in managed

care.Sec. 4710. Effective dates.

CRAPTER 2—FLExIBILYFY IN PAYMENT OF PROVIDERS

Sec. 4711. Flexibility in payment methods for hospital, nursing facility, ICFIMR,and home health services.

Sec. 4712. Payment for center and clinic services.Sec. 4713. Elimination of obstetrical and pediatric payment rate requirements.Sec. 4714. Medicaid payment rates for certain medicare cost-sharing.Sec. 4715. Treatment of veterans' pensions under medicaid.

CHAPTER 3—FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO STATES

Sec. 4721. Reforming disproportionate share payments under State medicaid pro-Erams.

Sec. 4722. Treatment of State taxes imposed on certain hospitals.Sec. 4723. Additional funding for State emergency health services furnished to un-

documented aliens.Sec. 4724. Elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse.Sec. 4725. Increased FMAPS.Sec. 4726. Increase in payment limitation for territories.

CHAPTER 4—ELIGIBILITY

Sec. 4731. State option of continuous eligibility for 12 months; clarification of Stateoption to cover children.

Sec. 4732. Payment of part B premiums.Sec. 4733. State option to permit workers with disabilities to buy into medicaid.Sec. 4734. Penalty for fraudulent eligibility.Sec. 4735. Treatment of certain settlement payments.


CHAPTER 5—BENEFITS

Sec. 4741. Elimination of requirement to pay for private insurance.Sec. 4742. Physician qualification requirements.Sec. 4743. Elimination of requirement of prior institutionalization with respect to

habilitation services furnished under a waiver for home or community-based services.

Sec. 4744. Study and report on EPSDT benefit.

CHAPTER 6—ADMINISTRATION m MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 4751. Elimination of duplicative inspection of care requirements for ICFSIMRand mental hospitals.

Sec. 4752. Alternative sanctions for noncompliant ICFSIMR.Sec. 4753. Modification of MMIS requirements.Sec. 4754. Facilitating imposition of State alternative remedies on noncompliant

nursing facilities.Sec. 4755. Removal of name from nurse aide registry.Sec. 4756. Medically accepted indication.Sec. 4757. Continuation of State-wide section 1115 medicaid waivers.Sec. 4758. Extension of moratorium.Sec. 4759. Extension of effective date for State law amendment.

Subtitle I—Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE)Sec. 4801. Coverage of PACE under the medicare program.Sec. 4802. Establishment of PACE program as medicaid State option.Sec. 4803. Effective date; transition.Sec. 4804. Study and reports.

Subtitle J—State Children's Health Insurance Program

CHAP'FER 1—STATE CHILDREN'S Hwm INSURANCE PROGRAM

Sec. 4901. Establishment of program.

"TITLE XXI—STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM"Sec. 2101. Purpose; State child health plans."Sec. 2102. General contents of State child health plan; eligibility; outreach."Sec. 2103. Coverage requirements for children's health insurance."Sec. 2104. Allotments."Sec. 2105. Payments to States."Sec. 2106. Process for submission, approval, and amendment of State child

health plans."Sec. 2107. Strategic objectives and performance goals; plan administration."Sec. 2108. Annual reports; evaluations."Sec. 2109. Miscellaneous provisions."Sec. 2110. Definitions.

CJ1AIR 2—EXPANDED COVERAGE OF CHILDREN UNDER MEDICAID

Sec. 4911. Optional use of State child health assistance funds for enhanced medic-aid match for expanded medicaid eligibility.

Sec. 4912. Medicaid presumptive eligibility for low-income children.Sec. 4913. Continuation of medicaid eligibility for disabled children who lose SSI

benefits.

CHAPTER 3—DIABETES GIr4T PROGRAMS

Sec. 4921. Special diabetes programs for children with Type I diabetes.Sec. 4922. Special diabetes programs for Indians.Sec. 4923. Report on diabetes grant programs.


CHAPTER 2—iMPROVEMENTS IN PROTECTINGPROGRAM INTEGRITY


SEC. 4313. PROVISION OF CERTAIN IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS.

(a) REQUIREMENTS To DISCLOSE EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION

NUMBERS (EINS) AND SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBERS(SSNS).—Section 1124(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1320a—3(a)(1)) is amendedby inserting before the period at the end the following: "and supplythe Secretary with the both the employer identification number(assigned pursuant to section 6109 of the Internal Revenue codeof 1986) and social security account number (assigned under section205(c)(2)(B)) of the disclosing entity, each person with an ownershipor control interest (as defined in subsection (a)(3)), and any sub-contractor in which the entity directly or indirectly has a 5 percentor more ownership interest.

(b) OTHER MEDICARE PROvIDERS.—Section 1124A (42 U.S.C.1320a—3a) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—(A) in paragraph (1), by striking "and" at the end;(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the

end and inserting "; and"; and(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

"(3) including the employer identification number (assignedpursuant to section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code of1986) and social security account number (assigned under sec-tion 205(c)(2)(B)) of the disclosing part B provider and anyperson, managing employee, or other entity identified ordescribed under paragraph (1) or (2)."; and

(2) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting "(or, for purposes ofsubsection (a)(3), any entity receiving payment)" after "on anassignment-related basis".(c) VERIFICATION BY SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA).—

Section 1124A (42 U.S.C. 1320a—3a), as amended by subsection(b), is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new sub-

section:"(c) VERIFICATION.—

"(1) TRANSMITTAL BY HHS.—The Secretary shall transmit—"(A) to the Commissioner of Social Security information

concerning each social security account number (assignedunder section 205(c)(2)(B)), and

"(B) to the Secretary of the Treasury informationconcerning each employer identification number (assigned

PUBLIC LAW 105-33---AUG. 5, 1997 111 STAT. 389

pursuant to section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Codeof 1986),

supplied to the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a)(3) or sec-tion 1124(c) to the extent necessary for verification of suchinformation in accordance with paragraph (2).

"(2) VERIFICATI0N.—The Commissioner of Social Securityand the Secretary of the Treasury shall verify the accuracyof, or correct, the information supplied by the Secretary tosuch official pursuant to paragraph (1), and shall report suchverifications or corrections to the Secretary.

"(3) FEES FOR VERIFICATION.—The Secretary shallreimburse the Commissioner and Secretary of the Treasury,at a rate negotiated between the Secretary and such official,for the costs incurred by such official in performing the verifica-tion and correction services described in this subsection.".(d) REP0RT.—Before the amendments made by this section may 42 Usc 1320a-3

become effective, the Secretary of Health and Human Services note.shall submit to Congress a report on steps the Secretary has takento assure the confidentiality of social security account numbersthat will be provided to the Secretary under such amendments.

(e) EFFECTIVE DATEs.— 42 Usc 1320a-3(1) DiscLosuRE REQUIREMENTS.—The amendment made by note.

subsection (a) shall apply to the application of conditions ofparticipation, and entering into and renewal of contracts andagreements, occurring more than 90 days after the date ofsubmission of-the report under subsection (d).

(2) OTHER PROVIDERS.—The amendments made by sub-section (b) shall apply to payment for items and services fur-nished more than 90 days after the date of submission ofsuch report.


CHAPTER 4—ELIGIBILITYSEC. 4731. STATE OPTION OF CONTINUOUS ELIGIBILITY FOR 12

MONTHS; CLARIFICATION OF STATE OPTION TO COVERCHILDREN.

(a) CONTINUOUS ELIcnBILrry OPTION.—Sectjon 1902(e) (42U.S.C. 1396a(e)) is amended by adding at the end the followingnew paragraph:"(12) At the option of the State, the plan may provide that

an individual who is under an age specified by the State (not

111 STAT. 520 PUBLIC LAW 105-33—AUG. 5,1997

to exceed 19 years of age) and who is determined to be eligiblefor benefits under a State plan approved under this title undersubsection (a)( 1O)(A) shall remain eligible for those benefits untilthe earlier of—

"(A) the end of a period (not to exceed 12 months) followingthe determination; or

"(B) the time that the individual exceeds that age.".(b) CLARIFICATION OF STATE OP'rIoN To COVER ALL CHILDREN

UNDER 19 YEARs OF AGE.—Section 1902(l)(1)(D) (42 U.S.C.1396a(l)(1)(D)) is amended by inserting "(or, at the option of aState, after any earlier date)" after "children born after September30, 1983".

(c) EFFECTWE DATE.—The amendments made by this sectionshall apply to medical assistance for items and services furnishedon or after October 1, 1997.SEC. 4732. PAYMENT OF PART B PREMIUMS.

(a) ELIGIBILITY.—Section 1902(a)(10)(E) (42 U.S.C.1396a(a)(10)(E)) is amended—

(1) by striking "and" at the end of clause (ii); and(2) b?r inserting after clause (iii) the following:

'(iv) subject to sections 1933 and l9O5(p)(4), for makingmedical assistance available (but only for premiums pay-able with respect to months during the period beginningwith January 1998, and ending with December 2002)—

"(I) for medicare cost-sharing described in section1905(p)(3)(A)(ii) for individuals who would be qualifiedmedicare beneficiaries described in section l9O5(p)( 1)but for the fact that their income exceeds the incomelevel established by the State under section 19O5(p)(2)and is at least 120 percent, but less than 135 percent,of the official poverty line (referred to in such section)for a family of the size involved and who are nototherwise eligible for medical assistance under theState plan, and

"(II) for the portion of medicare cost-sharingdescribed in section 1905(p)(3)(A)(ii) that is attrib-utable to the operation of the amendments made by(and subsection (e)(3) of) section 4611 of the BalancedBudget Act of 1997 for individuals who would bedescribed in subclause (I) if '135 percent' and '175percent' were substituted for '120 percent' and '135percent' respectively; and".

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1905(b) (42 U.S.C.1396d(b)) is amended by striking "The term" and inserting "Subjectto section 1933(d), the term".

(c) TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COVERAGE.—Title XIX (42 U.S.C.1395 et seq.), as amended by section 470 1(a), is amended by

42 USC 1396v. redesignating section 1933 as section 1934 and by inserting aftersection 1932 the following new section:

42 USC 1396u-3. "STATE COVERAGE OF MEDICARE COST-SHARING FOR ADDITIONALLOW-INCOME MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES

"SEC. 1933. (a) IN GENERAL.—A State plan under this titleshall provide, under section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iv) and subject to thesucceeding provisions of this section and through a plan amend-ment, for medical assistance for payment of the cost of medicare

PUBLIC LAW 105-33-—AUG. 5, 1997 111 STAT. 521

cost-sharing described in such section on behalf of all individualsdescribed in such section (in this section referred to as 'qualifyingindividuals') who are selected to receive such assistance undersubsection (b).

"(b) SELECTION OF QUALIFYING INDWIDUALS.—A State shallselect qualifying individuals, and provide such individuals withassistance, under this section consistent with the following:

"(1) ALL QUALIFYING INDIVIDUALS MAY APPLY.—The Stateshall permit all qualifying individuals to apply for assistanceduring a calendar year.

"(2) SELECTION ON FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED BASIS.—"(A) IN GENERAL.—For each calendar year (beginning

with 1998), from (and to the extent of) the amount ofthe allocation under subsection (c) for the State for thefiscal year ending in such calendar year, the State shallselect qualifying individuals who apply for the assistancein the order in which they apply.

"(B) CARRYOVER.—For calendar years after 1998, theState shall give preference to individuals who were pro-vided such assistance (or other assistance described in sec-tion 1902(a)(10)(E)) in the last month of the previous yearand who continue to be (or become) qualifying individuals."(3) LIMIT ON NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS BASED ON ALLOCA-

TION.—The State shall limit the number of qualifjing individ-uals selected with respect to assistance in a calendar yearso that the aggregate amount of such assistance provided tosuch individuals in such year is estimated to be equal to (butnot exceed) the State's allocation under subsection (c) for thefiscal year ending in such calendar year.

"(4) RECEIPT OF ASSISTANCE DURING DURATION OF YEAR.—If a qualifying individual is selected to receive assistance underthis section for a month in year, the individual is entitledto receive such assistance for the remainder of the year ifthe individual continues to be a qualifjing individual. Thefact that an individual is selected to receive assistance underthis section at any time during a year does not entitle theindividual to continued assistance for any succeeding year."(c) ALLOCATION.—

"(1) TOTAL ALLOCATION.—The total amount available forallocation under this section for—

"(A) fiscal year 1998 is $200,000,000;"(B) fiscal year 1999 is $250,000,000;"(C) fiscal year 2000 is $300,000,000;"(D) fiscal year 2001 is $350,000,000; and"(E) fiscal year 2002 is $400,000,000.

"(2) ALLOCATION TO STATES.—The Secretary shall providefor the allocation of the total amount described in paragraph(1) for a fiscal year, among the States that executed a planamendment in accordance with subsection (a), based upon theSecretary's estimate of the ratio of—

"(A) an amount equal to the sum of—"(i) twice the total number of individuals described

in section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iv)(I) in the State, and"(ii) the total number of individuals described in

section 1902(a)(10)(E)(ivXII) in the State; to"(B) the sum of the amounts computed under subpara-

graph (A) for all eligible States.


"(d) APPLICABLE FMAP.—With respect to assistance describedin section 1902(a)( 10)(E)(iv) furnished in a State for calendar quar-ters in a calendar year —

"(1) to the extent that such assistance does not exceedthe State's allocation under subsection (c) for the fiscal yearending in the calendar year, the Federal medical assistancepercentage shall be equal to 100 percent; and

"(2) to the extent that such assistance exceeds such alloca-tion, the Federal medical assistance percentage is 0 percent."(e) LIMITATION ON ENTITLEMENT.—Except as specifically pro-

vided under this section, nothing in this title shall be construedas establishing any entitlement of individuals described in section1902(a)(10)(E)(iv) to assistance described in such section.

"U) COVERAGE OF COSTS THROUGH PART B OF THE MEDICAREPROGRAM.—For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall provide forthe transfer from the Federal Supplementary Medical InsuranceTrust Fund under section 1841 to the appropriate account in theTreasury that provides for payments under section 1903(a) withrespect to medical assistance provided under this section, of anamount equivalent to the total of the amount of payments madeunder such section that is attributable to this section and suchtransfer shall be treated as an expenditure from such Trust Fundfor purposes of section 1839.".SEC. 4733. STATE OPTION TO PERMIT WORKERS WiTH DISABILITIES

TO BUY INTO MEDICAID.

Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(ii)) isamended—

(1) in subclause (XI), by striking "or" at the end;(2) in subclause (XII), by adding "or" at the end; and(3) by adding at the end the following:

"(XIII) who are in families whose income isless than 250 percent of the income official povertyline (as defined by the Office of Management andBudget, and revised annually in accordance withsection 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconcili-ation Act of 1981) applicable to a family of thesize involved, and who but for earnings in excessof the limit established under section 1905(q)(2)(B),would be considered to be receiving supplementalsecurity income (subject, notwithstanding section1916, to payment of premiums or other cost-shar-ing charges (set on a sliding scale based on income)that the State may determine);".


CHAPTER 2—EXPANDED COVERAGE OF Cml 1)RENUNDER MEDICAID


SEC. 4913. CONTINUATION OF MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY FOR DISABLEDCIIILDREN WHO LOSE SSI BENEFITS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Sectjon 1902(a)( 1O)(A)(i)(II) (42 U.S.C.1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(ll)) is amended by inserting "(or were being paidas of the date of the enactment of section 211(a) of the PersonalResponsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996(P.L. 104—193)) and would continue to be paid but for the enactmentof that section" after "title XVI".

(b) EFFECTWE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) 42 USC 1396aapplies to medical assistance furnished on or after July 1, 1997. note.

39-139 0 — 97 — 11(33)


TITLE V—WELFARE AND RELATEDPROVISIONS

SEC. 5000. TABLE OF CONTENTS; REFERENCES.

(a) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this titleis as follows:

Sec. 5000. Table of contents; references.

Subtitle A—TANF Block GrantSec. 5001. Welfare-to-work grants.Sec. 5002. Limitation on amount of Federal funds transferable to title XX pro-

grams.Sec. 5003. Limitation on number of persons who may be treated as engaged in

work by reason of participation in educational activities.Sec. 5004. Penalty for failure of State to reduce assistance for recipients refusing

without good cause to work.

Subtitle B—Supplemental Security IncomeSec. 5101. Extension of deadline to perform childhood disability redeterminations.Sec. 5102. Fees for Federal administration of State supplementary payments.

Subtitle C—Child Support EnforcementSec. 5201. Clarification of authority to permit certain redisclosures of wage and

claim information.

Subtitle D—Restricting Welfare and Public Benefits for AliensSec. 5301. SSI eligibility for aliens receiving SSI on August 22, 1996, and disabled

aliens lawfully residing in the United States on August 22, 1996.Sec. 5302. Extension of eligibility period for refugees and certain other qualified

aliens from 5 to 7 years for SSI and medicaid; status of Cuban and Hai-tian entrants.

Sec. 5303. Exceptions for certain Indians from limitation on eligibility for supple-mental security income and medicaid benefits.

Sec. 5304. Exemption from restriction on supplemental security income programparticipation by certain recipients eligible on the basis of very old appli-cations.

Sec. 5305. Reinstatement of eligibility for benefits.Sec. 5306. Treatment of certain Amerasian immigrants as refugees.Sec. 5307. Verification of eligibility for State and local public benefits.Sec. 5308. Effective date.

Subtitle E—Unemployment CompensationSec. 5401. Clarif'ing provision relating to base periods.Sec. 5402. Increase in Federal unemployment account ceiling.Sec. 5403. Special distribution to States from Unemployment Trust Fund.Sec. 5404. Interest-free advances to State accounts in Unemployment Trust Fund

restricted to States which meet funding goals.Sec. 5405. Exemption of service performed by election workers from the Federal

unemployment tax.Sec. 5406. Treatment of certain services performed by inmates.Sec. 5407. Exemption of service performed for an elementary or secondary school

operated primarily for religious purposes from the Federal unemploy-ment tax.

Sec. 5408. State program integrity activities for unemployment compensation.

Subtitle F—Welfare Reform Technical Corrections

CHAFFER 1—BLOcK GRMTS FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE Th NEEDY FAMILIES

Sec. 5501. Eligible States; State plan.Sec. 5502. Grants to States.


Sec. 5503. Use of grants.Sec. 5504. Mandatory work requirements.Sec. 5505. Prohibitions; requirements.Sec. 5506. Penalties.Sec. 5507. Data collection and reporting.Sec. 5508. Direct funding and administration by Indian Tribes.Sec. 5509. Research, evaluations, and national studies.Sec. 5510. Report on data processing.Sec. 5511. Study on alternative outcomes measures.Sec. 5512. Limitation on payments to the territories.Sec. 5513. Conforming amendments to the Social Security Act.Sec. 5514. Other conforming amendments.Sec. 5515. Modifications to the job opportunities for certain low-income individuals

program.Sec. 5516. Denial of assistance and benefits for drug-related convictions.Sec. 5517. Transition rule.Sec. 5518. Effective dates.

CHAPTER 2— SuPpir'ri. SECURITY INcOME

Sec. 5521. Conforming and technical amendments relating to eligibility restrictions.Sec. 5522. Conforming and technical amendments relating to benefits for disabled

children.Sec. 5523. Additional technical amendments to title XVI.Sec. 5524. Additional technical amendments relating to title XVI.Sec. 5525. Technical amendments relating to drug addicts and alcoholics.Sec. 5526. Advisory board personnel.Sec. 5527. Timing of delivery of October 1, 2000, SSI benefit payments.Sec. 5528. Effective dates.

CHAPTER 3—Crnu SUPPORT

Sec. 5531. State obligation to provide child support enforcement services.Sec. 5532. Distribution of collected support.Sec. 5533. Civil penalties relating to State Directory of New Hires.Sec. 5534. Federal Parent Locator Service.Sec. 5535. Access to registry data for research purposes.Sec. 5536. Collection and use of social security numbers for use in child support en-

forcement.Sec. 5537. Adoption of uniform State laws.Sec. 5538. State laws providing expedited procedures.Sec. 5539. Voluntary paternity acknowledgement.Sec. 5540. Calculation of paternity establishment percentage.Sec. 5541. Means available for provision of technical assistance and operation of

Federal Parent Locator Service.Sec. 5542. Authority to collect support from Federal employees.Sec. 5543. Definition of support order.Sec. 5544. State law authorizing suspension of licenses.Sec. 5545. International support enforcement.Sec. 5546. Child support enforcement for Indian tribes.Sec. 5547. Continuation of rules for distribution of support in the case of a title IV—

E child.Sec. 5548. Good cause in foster care and food stamp cases.Sec. 5549. Date of collection of support.Sec. 5550. Administrative enforcement in interstate cases.Sec. 5551. Work orders for arrearages.Sec. 5552. Additional technical State plan amendments.Sec. 5553. Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders.Sec. 5554. Full faith and credit for child support orders.Sec. 5555. Development costs of automated systems.Sec. 5556. Additional technical amendments.Sec. 5557. Effective date.

CHAPTER 4—RESTRICTING WELFARE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR ALIENS

SUBCHAPTER A—ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL BENEFITS

Sec. 5561. Alien eligibility for Federal benefits: limited application to medicare andbenefits under the Railroad Retirement Act.

Sec. 5562. Exceptions to benefit limitations: corrections to reference concerningaliens whose deportation is withheld.

Sec. 5563. Veterans exception: application of minimum active duty service re9uire-ment; extension to unremarried surviving spouse; expanded definition ofveteran.


Sec. 5564. Notification concerning aliens not lawfully present: correction of termi-nology.

Sec. 5565. Freely associated States: contracts and licenses.Sec. 5566. Congressional statement regarding benefits for Hmong and other High-

land Lao veterans.SUBCHAPTER B—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 5571. Determination of treatment of battered aliens as qualified aliens; inclu-sion of alien child of battered parent as qualified alien.

Sec. 5572. Verification of eligibility for benefits.Sec. 5573. Qualifring quarters: disclosure of quarters of coverage information; cor-

rection to assure that crediting applies to all quarters earned by parentsbefore child is 18.

Sec. 5574. Statutory construction: benefit eligibility limitations applicable only withrespect to aliens present in the United States.

SUBCHAPTER C—MISCELLANEOUS CLERICAL AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS; EFFECTIVE

DATE

Sec. 5581. Correcting miscellaneous clerical and technical errors.Sec. 5582. Effective date.

CHAPTER 5—CHILD PROTECTION

Sec. 5591. Conforming and technical amendments relating to child protection.Sec. 5592. Additional technical amendments relating to child protection.Sec. 5593. Effective date.

CHAPTER 6—CHILI) CSec. 5601. Conforming and technical amendments relating to child care.Sec. 5602. Additional conforming and technical amendments.Sec. 5603. Effective dates.

CHAPTER 7—ERISA AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MEDICAL CHnD Swi'owr Oiws


Sec. 5612. Amendment relating to section 381 of the Personal Responsibility andWork Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.


Subtitle G—Miscellaneous

Sec. 5701. Increase in public debt limit.Sec. 5702. Authorization of appropriations for enforcement initiatives related to the

earned income tax credit.(b) REFERENCES.—EXCePt as otherwise expressly provided,

wherever in this title an amendment or repeal is expressed interms of an amendment to, or repeal of a section or other provision,the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or otherprovision of the Social Security Act.


Subtitle B—Supplemental Security IncomeSEC. 5101. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO PERFORM CHILDHOOD

DISABILITY REDETERMINATIONS.

Section 211(d)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and WorkOpportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104—193; 110Stat. 2190) is amended— 42 USC 1382c

(1) in subparagraph (A)—(A) in the 1st sentence, by striking "1 year" and insert-

ing "18 months"; and(B) by inserting after the 1st sentence the following:

"Any redetermination required by the preceding sentencethat is not performed before the end of the period describedin the preceding sentence shall be performed as soon asis practicable thereafter."; and(2) in subparagraph (C), by adding at the end the following:

"Before commencing a redetermination under the 2nd sentence Notification.of subparagraph (A), in any case in which the individualinvolved has not already been notified of the provisions ofthis paragraph, the Commissioner of Social Security shall notifythe individual involved of the provisions of this paragraph.".

SEC. 5102. FEES FOR FEDERAL ADMINIST1ATION OF STATE SUPPLE-MENTARY PAYMENTS.

(a) FEE SCHEDULE.—(1) OP'rIoNAJ. STATE SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Section 1616(d)(2)(B) (42 U.S.C.1382e(d)(2)(B)) is amended—

(i) by striking "and" at the end of clause (iii);and

(ii) by striking clause (iv) and inserting the follow-ing:

"(iv) for fiscal year 1997, $5.00;"(v) for fiscal year 1998, $6.20;"(vi) for fiscal year 1999, $7.60;"(vii) for fiscal year 2000, $7.80;"(viii) for fiscal year 2001, $8.10;"(ix) for fiscal year 2002, $8.50; and"(x) for fiscal year 2003 and each succeeding fiscal year—

"(I) the applicable rate in the preceding fiscal year,increased by the percentage, if any, by which the ConsumerPrice Index for the month of June of the calendar yearof the increase exceeds the Consumer Price Index for themonth of June of the calendar year preceding the calendaryear of the increase, and rounded to the nearest wholecent; or

"(II) such different rate as the Commissioner deter-mines is appropriate for the State.".

(B) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 16 16(d)(2)(C)of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382e(d)(2)(C)) is amended by strik-ing "(B)(iv)" and inserting "(B)(x)(II)".(2) MANDATORY STATE SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Section 2 12(b)(3)(B)(ii) of Public Law93—66 (42 U.S.C. 1382 note) is amended—

(i) b striking "and" at the end of subclause (III);and


(ii) by striking subclause (W) and inserting thefollowing:

"(N) for fiscal year 1997, $5.00;"(V) for fiscal year 1998, $6.20;"(VI) for fiscal year 1999, $7.60;"(VII) for fiscal year 2000, $7.80;"(VIII) for fiscal year 2001, $8.10;"(IX) for fiscal year 2002, $8.50; and"(X) for fiscal year 2003 and each succeeding fiscal year—

"(aa) the applicable rate in the preceding fiscal year,increased by the percentage, if any, by which the ConsumerPrice Index for the month of June of the calendar yearof the increase exceeds the Consumer Pripe Index for themonth of June of the calendar year preceding the calendaryear of the increase, and rounded to the nearest wholecent; or

"(bb) such different rate as the Commissioner deter-mines is appropriate for the State.".

(B) CoNFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 2 12(b)(3)(B)( iii)of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382 note) is amended by striking"(ii)(N)" and inserting "(ii)(X)(bb)".

(b) USE OF NEW FEES To DEFRAY THE SOcIAL SECURITYADMINISTRATION'S ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—

(1) CREDIT TO SPECIAL FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 ANDSUBSEQUENT YEARS.—

(A) OPTIONAL STATE SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENT FEES.—Section 1616(d)(4) (42 U.S.C. 1382e(d)(4)) is amended toread as follows:

"(4)(A) The first $5 of each administration fee assessed pursuantto paragraph (2), upon collection, shall be deposited in the generalfund of the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.

"(B) That portion of each administration fee in excess of $5,and 100 percent of each additional services fee charged pursuantto paragraph (3), upon collection for fiscal year 1998 and eachsubsequent fiscal year, shall be credited to a special fund establishedin the Treasury of the United States for State supplementary pay-ment fees. The amounts so credited, to the extent and in theamounts provided in advance in appropriations Acts, shall be avail-able to defray expenses incurred in carrying out this title andrelated laws. The amounts so credited shall not be scored as receiptsunder section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985, and the amounts so credited shall be creditedas a discretionary offset to discretionary spending to the extentthat the amounts so credited are made available for expenditurein appropriations Acts.".

(B) MANDATORY STATE SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTFEES.—Section 212(b)(3)(D) of Public Law 93—66 (42 U.S.C.1382 note) is amended to read as follows:

"(D)(i) The first $5 of each administration fee assessed pursuantto subparagraph (B), upon collection, shall be deposited in thegeneral fund of the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneousreceipts.

"(ii) The portion of each administration fee in excess of $5,and 100 percent of each additional services fee charged pursuantto subparagraph (C), upon collection for fiscal year 1998 and eachsubsequent fiscal year, shall be credited to a special fund established


in the Treasury of the United States for State supplementary pay-ment fees. The amounts so credited, to the extent and in theamounts provided in advance in appropriations Acts, shall be avail-able to defray expenses incurred in carrying out this section andtitle XVI of the Social Security Act and related laws. The amountsso credited shall not be scored as receipts under section 252 ofthe Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,and the amounts so credited shall be credited as a discretionaryoffset to discretionary spending to the extent that the amountsso credited are made available for expenditure in appropriationsActs.".

(2) LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 42 USC 1382eFrom amounts credited pursuant to section 1616(d)(4)(B) of note.

the Social Security Act and section 2 12(b)(3)(D)(ii) of PublicLaw 93—66 to the special fund established in the Treasuryof the United States for State supplementary payment fees,there is authorized to be appropriated an amount not to exceed$35,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and such sums as may benecessary for each fiscal year thereafter.

Subtitle C—Child Support EnforcementSEC. 5201. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO PERMIT CERTAIN RE-

DISCLOSURES OF WAGE AND CLAIM INFORMATION.

Section 303(h)(1)(C) (42 U.S.C. 503(hXl)(C)) is amended bystriking "section 453(i)( 1) in carrying out the child support enforce-ment program under title IV" and inserting "subsections (i)(1),(i)(3), and (j) of section 453".

Subtitle D—Restricting Welfare and PublicBenefits for Aliens

SEC. 5301. SSI ELIGIBILITY FOR ALIENS RECEIVING SSI ON AUGUST22, 1996, AND DISABLED ALIENS LAWFULLY RESIDING INTHE UNITED STATES ON AUGUST 22, 1996.

(a) SSI ELIGIBILITY FOR ALIENS RECEWING SSI ON AUGUST22, 1996.—Section 402(a)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and WorkOpportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)) isamended by adding after subparagraph (D) the following newsubparagraph:

"(E) ALIENS RECEWING SSI ON AUGUST 22, 1996.—Withrespect to eligibility for benefits for the program definedin paragraph (3)(A) (relating to the supplemental securityincome program), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alienwho is lawfully residing in the United States and whowas receiving such benefits on August 22, 1996.".

(b) SSI ELIGIBILITY FOR DISABLED ALIENS LAWFULLY RESIDINGIN THE UNITED STATES ON AUGUST 22, 1996.—Section 402(a)(2) ofthe Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)) is amended by adding at theend the following:

"(F) DISABLED ALIENS LAWFULLY RESIDING IN THEUNITED STATES ON AUGUST 22, 1996.—With respect to eligi-bility for benefits for the program defined in paragraph


(3)(A) (relating to the supplemental security income pro-gram), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien who—

"(i) was lawfully residing in the United Stateson August 22, 1996; and

"(ii) is blind or disabled, as defined in section1614(aX2) or 1614(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)).".

(c) EXTENSION OF GRANDFATHER PROVISION RELATING To SSIELIGIBILITY.—SeCtion 402(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Personal Responsibilityand Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.16 12(a)(2)(D)(i)) is amended—

(1) in subclause (I), by striking "September 30, 1997," andinserting "September 30, 1998,"; and

(2) in subclause (III), by striking "September 30, 1997,"and inserting "September 30, 1998".

SEC. 5302. EXTENSION OF EUGIBILITY PERIOD FOR REFUGEES ANDCERTAIN OTHER QUALWThD AliENS FROM 5 TO 7 YEARSFOR SSI AND MEDICAID; STATUS OF CUBAN AND HAITIANENTRANTS.

(a) SSI.—Section 402(a)(2)(A) of the Personal Responsibilityand Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1612(aX2)(A)) is amended to read as follows:


"(i) SSI.—With respect to the specified Federalprogram described in paragraph (3)(A), paragraph (1)shall not apply to an alien until 7 years after thedate—




"(N) an alien is granted status as a Cubanand Haitian entrant (as defined in section 50 1(e)of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980)."(ii) FOOD STAMPS.—With respect to the specified

Federal program described in paragraph (3)(B), para-graph (1) shall not apply to an alien until 5 yearsafter the date—




"(N) an alien is granted status as a Cubanand Haitian entrant (as defined in section 501(e)of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980).".

(b) MEDICAID.—Section 402(b)(2)(A) of the Personal Responsibil-ity and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.16 12(b)(2)(A)) is amended to read as follows:

PUBLIC LAW 105-33—-AUG. 5, 1997 111 STAT. 599


"(i) MEDICAID.—With respect to the designatedFederal program described in paragraph (3)(C), para-graph (1) shall not apply to an alien until 7 yearsafter the date—




"(N) an alien is granted status as a Cubanand Haitian entrant (as defined in section 50 1(e)of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980)."(ii) OTHER DESIGNATED FEDERAL PROGRAMS.—

With respect to the designated Federal programs underparagraph (3) (other than subparagraph (C)), para-graph (1) shall not apply to an alien until 5 yearsafter the date—




"(117) an alien is granted status as a Cubanand Haitian entrant (as defined in section 50 1(e)of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980).".

(c) STATUS OF CUBAN AND HAITIAN ENTRANTS.—(1) FEDERAL MEANS-TESTED PUBLIC BENEFITS.—

(A) Section 403(b)( 1) of the Personal Responsibilityand Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1613(b)( 1)) is amended by adding at the end the followingnew subparagraph:

"(D) An alien who is a Cuban and Haitian entrantas defined in section 501(e) of the Refugee Education Assist-ance Act of 1980.".

(B) Section 403 of the Personal Responsibility andWork Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1613) is amended by striking subsection (d).(2) STATE PUBLIC BENEFITS.—Section 412(b)( 1) of the Per-

sonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Actof 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1622(b)(1)) is amended by adding at theend the following new subparagraph:

"(D) An alien who is a Cuban and Haitian entrantas defined in section 50 1(e) of the Refugee Education Assist-ance Act of 1980 until 5 years after the alien is grantedsuch status.".(3) QUALIFIED ALIEN DEFINED.—Section 43 1(b) of the Per-

sonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Actof 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1641(b)) is amended—

(A) in paragraph (5) by striking "or";(B) in paragraph (6) by striking the period and insert-

ing"; or"; and


(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:"(7) an alien who is a Cuban and Haitian entrant (as

defined in section 50 1(e) of the Refugee Education AssistanceAct of 1980).".

SEC. 5303. EXCEPTIONS FOR CERTAIN INDIANS FROM LIMITATION ONELIGIBILITY FOR SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOMEAND MEDICAID BENEFITS.

(a) ExCEPTION FROM LIMITATION ON SSI ELIGIBILITY.—SeCtion402(a)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Rec-onciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)) is amended by addingat the end the following:

"(G) SSI EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN INDLANS.—Withrespect to eligibility for benefits for the program definedin paragraph (3)(A) (relating to the supplemental securityincome program), section 40 1(a) and paragraph (1) shallnot apply to any individual—

"(i) who is an American Indian born in Canadato whom the provisions of section 289 of the Immigra-tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1359) apply; or

"(ii) who is a member of an Indian tribe (as definedin section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination andEducation Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e))).".

(b) EXCEPTION FROM LIMITATION ON MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY.—Section 402(b)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor-tunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(b)(2)) is amendedby inserting at the end the following:

"(E) MEDICAID EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN INDIANS.—Withrespect to eligibility for benefits for the program definedin paragraph (3)(C) (relating to the medicaid program),section 40 1(a) and paragraph (1) shall not apply to anyindividual described in subsection (a)(2)(G).".

(c) SSI AND MEDICAID EXCEPTIONS FROM LIMITATION ON ELIGI-BILITY OF NEW ENTRANTS.—Section 403 of the Personal Responsibil-ity and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1613) is amended by adding after subsection (c) the following newsubsection:

"(d) SSI AI'fl) MEDICAID BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN INDLANS.—Not-withstanding any other provision of law, the limitations undersection 401(a) and subsection (a) shall not apply to an individualdescribed in section 402(a)(2)(G), but only with respect to the pro-grams specified in subsections (a)(3)(A) and (b)(3)(C) of section402.".

SEC. 5304. EXEMPTION FROM RESTRICTION ON SUPPLEMENTAL SECU-RITY INCOME PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY CERTAINRECIPIENTS ELIGIBLE ON TIff BASIS OF VERY OLDAPPLICATIONS.

Section 402(a)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and WorkOpportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)) isamended by adding at the end the following:

"(H) SSI EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RECIPIENTS ON THEBASIS OF VERY OLD APPLICATIONS.—With respect to eligi-bility for benefits for the program defined in paragraph(3)(A) (relating to the supplemental security income pro-gram), paragraph (1) shall not apply to any individual—

PUBLIC LAW 105-33—AUG. 5 1997 111 STAT. 601

"(i) who is receiving benefits under such programfor months after July 1996 on the basis of an applica-tion filed before January 1, 1979; and

"(ii) with respect to whom the Commissioner ofSocial Security lacks clear and convincing evidencethat such individual is an alien ineligible for suchbenefits as a result of the application of this section.".

SEC. 6305. REINSTATEMENT OF ELIGIBILITY FOR BENF1TS.

(a) FOOD STi1pS.—The Personal Responsibility and WorkOpportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 is amended by adding aftersection 435 the following new section:

"SEC. 436. DERiVATiVE ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS. 8 USC 1646.

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien whounder the provisions of this title is ineligible for benefits underthe food stamp program (as defined in section 402(a)(3)(B)) shallnot be eligible for such benefits because the alien receives benefitsunder the supplemental security income program (as defined insection 402(a)(3)(A)).".

(b) MEDICArD.—Section 402(b)(2) of the Personal Responsibilityand Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.16 12(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

"(F) MEDICAID EXCEPTION FOR ALIENS RECEIVING SSI.—An alien who is receiving benefits under the programdefined in subsection (a)(3)(A) (relating to the supplementalsecurity income program) shall be eligible for medicalassistance under a State plan under title XIX of the SocialSecurity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) under the same termsand conditions that apply to other recipients of benefitsunder the program defined in such subsection.".

(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections as containedin section 2 of the Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996 is amended by adding after the itemrelating to section 435 the following:'Sec. 436. Derivative eligibifity for benefits.".

SEC. 5306. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN AMERASLAN IMMIGRANTS ASREFUGEES.

(a) FOR PURPOSES OF SSI AND FOOD STi1PS.—Section402(a)(2)(A) of the Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(A)) as amendedby section 5302 is amended—

(1) in clause (i)—(A) by striking "or" at the end of subclause (III);(B) by striking the period at the end of subclause

(W) and inserting"; or"; and(C) by adding at the end the following:

"(V) an alien is admitted to the United Statesas an Amerasian immigrant pursuant to section584 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing,and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1988(as contained in section 101(e) of Public Law 100—202 and amended by the 9th proviso under MIGRA-TION AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE in title II of theForeign Operations, Export Financing, and Related

111 STAT. 602 PUBLIC LAW 105-33--AUG. 5, 1997

Programs Appropriations Act, 1989, Public Law100—461, as amended)."; and

(2) in clause (ii)—(A) by striking "or" at the end of subclause (III);(B) by striking the period at the end of subclause

(IV) and inserting "; or"; and(C) by adding at the end the following:

"(V) an alien is admitted to the United Statesas an Amerasian immigrant as described in clause(i)(V).".

(b) FOR PURPOSES OF TANF, SSBG, AND MEDIcAID.—Section402(b)(2)(A) of the Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(b)(2)(A)) as amendedby section 5302 is amended—

(1) in clause (i)—(A) by striking "or" at the end of subclause (III);(B) by striking the period at the end of subclause

(IV) and inserting "; or"; and(C) b adding at the end the following:

'(V) an alien admitted to the United States asan Amerasian immigrant as described in subsection(a)(2)(A)(i)(V) until 5 years after the date of such alien'sentry into the United States."; and

(2) in clause (ii)—(A) by striking "or" at the end of subclause (III);(B) by striking the period at the end of subclause

(W) and inserting "; or"; and(C) by adding at the end the following:

"(V) an alien admitted to the United States asan Amerasian immigrant as described in subsection(a)(2)(A)(i)(V) until 5 years after the date of such alien'sentry into the United States.".

(c) FOR PURPOSES OF ExCEPTION FROM 5-YEAR LIMITED ELIGI-BILITY OF QUALIFIED ALIENS.—Section 403(b)(1) of the PersonalResponsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996(8 U.S.C. 1613(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

"(E) An alien admitted to the United States as anAmerasian immigrant as described in section402(a)(2)(A)(i)(V).".

(d) FOR PURPOSES OF CERTAIN STATE PROGRAMS.—Section412(b)( 1) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Rec-onciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1622(b)(1)) is amended by addingat the end the following new subparagraph:

"(E) An alien admitted to the United States as anAmerasian immigrant as described in section402(a)(2)(A)(i)(V).".

SEC. 5307. VERIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR STATE AND LOCAL PUB-LIC BENEFITS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor-tunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 is amended by adding after section412 the following new section:

8 USC 1625. "SEC. 413. AUTHORIZATION FOR VERIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORSTATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC BENEFITS.

"A State or political subdivision of a State is authorized torequire an applicant for State and local public benefits (as definedin section 411(c)) to provide proof of eligibility.".


(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections as containedin section 2 of the Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996 is amended by adding after the itemrelating to section 412 the following:"Sec. 413. Authorization for verificatioti of eligibility for state and local public bene-

fits.".

SEC. 5308. EFFECTIVE DATE. 8 Usc 1612 note.

Except as otherwise provided, the amendments made by thissubtitle shall be effective as if included in the enactment of titleIV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconcili-ation Act of 1996.


CHAPTER 2—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOMESEC. 5521. CONFORMING AND TECRNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATING

TO ELIGIBILfl'Y RESTRICTIONS.

(a) DENIAL OF 55! BENEFITS FOR FUGITWE FELONS AND PROBA-TION AND PAROLE VIOLATORS—Sectjon l611(e)(6) (42 U.S.C.l382(e)(6)) is amended by inserting "and section 1106(c) of thisAct" after "of 1986".

(b) TREATMENT OF PRISONER5.-_.Sectjon 161 1(e)( 1)(!)(iXH) (42U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)(I)(i)(H)) is amended by striking "inmate of theinstitution" and all that follows through "this subparagraph" andinserting "individual who receives in the month preceding the firstmonth throughout which such individual is an inmate of the jail,prison, penal institution, or correctional facility that furnishesinformation respecting such individual pursuant to subclause (I),or is confined in the institution (that so furnishes such information)as described in section 202(x)( 1)(A)(ii), a benefit under this title


for such preceding month, and who is determined by the Commis-sioner to be ineligible for benefits under this title by reason ofconfinement based on the information provided by such institution".

(c) CORRECTION OF REFERENCE.—SectiOn 161 1(e)(1)(IXi)(I) (42U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)(I)(i)(I)) is amended by striking "paragraph (1)"and inserting "this paragraph".

SEC. 5522. CONFORMING ANI) TECHNICAL AMENDMENN RELATJNGTO BENEFITS FOR DISABLED CHILDREN.

(a) ELIGIBILITY REDETERMINATIONS AND CONTINUING DISABILITYREVIEWS.—

(1) DIsABILITY ELIGIBILITY REDETERMINATIONS REQUIREDFOR SSI RECIPIENTS WHO ATFAIN 18 YEARS OF AGE.—Section1614(a)(3)(H)(iii) (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(H)(iii)) is amended bystriking subclauses (I) and (II) and all that follows and insertingthe following:

"(I) by applying the criteria used in determining initialeligibility for individuals who are age 18 or older; and

"(II) either during the 1-year period beginning on theindividual's 18th birthday or, in lieu of a continuing disabilityreview, whenever the Commissioner determines that. an individ-ual's case is subject to a redetermination under this clause.

With respect to any redetermination under this clause, paragraph(4) shall not apply.".

(2) CONTINUING DISABILITY REVIEW REQUIRED FOR LOWBIRTH WEIGHT BABIES.—Section 1614(a)(3)(H)(iv) (42 U.S.C.1382c(a)(3)(H)(iv)) is amended—

(A) in subclause (I), by striking "Not" and inserting"Except as provided in subclause (VI), not"; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:"(VI) Subclause (I) shall not apply in the case of an individual

described in that subclause who, at the time of the individual'sinitial disability determination, the Commissioner determines hasan impairment that is not expected to improve within 12 monthsafter the birth of that individual, and who the Commissioner sched-ules for a continuing disability review at a date that is after theindividual attains 1 year of age.".

(b) ADDITIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—SectiOn163 1(a)(2)(F) (42 U.S.C. 1383(a)(2)(F)) is amended—

(1) in clause (ii)(III)(bb), by striking "the total amount"and all that follows through "1613(c)" and inserting "in anycase in which the individual knowingly misapplies benefitsfrom such an account, the Commissioner shall reduce futurebenefits payable to such individual (or to such individual andhis spouse) by an amount equal to the total amount of suchbenefits so misapplied"; and

(2) by striking clause (iii) and inserting the following:"(iii) The representative payee may deposit into the account

established under clause (i) any other funds representing past duebenefits under this title to the eligible individual, provided thatthe amount of such past due benefits is equal to or exceeds themaximum monthly benefit payable under this title to an eligibleindividual (including State supplementary payments made by theCommissioner pursuant to an agreement under section 1616 orsection 212(b) of Public Law 93—66).".


(c) REDUCTION IN CASH BENEFITS PAYABLE TO INSTITUTIONAL-IZED INDIVIDUALS WHOSE MEDICAL COSTS ARE COVERED BY PRIVATEINSURANCE.—Section 1611(e) (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)—(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking "hos-

pital, extended care facility, nursing home, or intermediatecare facility" and inserting "medical treatment facility";

(B) in clause (ii)—(i) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by strik-

ing "hospital, home or"; and(ii) in subclause (I), by striking "hospital, home,

or";(C) in clause (iii), by striking "hospital, home, or";

and(D) in the matter following clause (iii), by striking

"hospital, extended care facility, nursing home, or inter-mediate care facility which is a 'medical institution ornursing facility' within the meaning of section 19 17(c)"and inserting "medical treatment facility that providesservices described in section 19 17(c)( 1)(C)";(2) in paragraph (1)(E)—

(A) in clause (i)(II), by striking "hospital, extendedcare facility, nursing home, or intermediate care facility"and inserting "medical treatment facility"; and

(B) in clause (iii), by striking "hospital, extended carefacility, nursing home, or intermediate care facility" andinserting "medical treatment facility";(3) in paragraph (1)(G), in the matter preceding clause

(i)-(A) by striking "or which is a hospital, extended care

facility, nursing home, or intermediate care" and inserting"or is in a medical treatment"; and

(B) by inserting "or, in the case of an individual whois a child under the age of 18, under any health insurancepolicy issued by a private provider of such insurance" after"title XIX"; and(4) in paragraph (3)—

(A) by striking "same hospital, home, or facility" andinserting "same medical treatment facility"; and

(B) by striking "same such hospital, home, or facility"and inserting "same such facility".

(d) CORRECTION OF U.S.C. CITATION.—Section 2 11(c) of thePersonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Actof 1996 (Public Law 104—193; 110 Stat. 2189) is amended by striking 42 USC 1382c.

"1382(a)(4)" and inserting "1382c(a)(4)".

SEC. 5523. ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO TITLE XVI.

Section 1615(d) (42 U.S.C. 1382d(d)) is amended—(1) in the first sentence, by inserting a comma after "sub-

section (a)(1)"; and(2) in the last sentence, by striking "him" and inserting

"the Commissioner".

SEC. 5524. ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TOTiTLE

Section 1110(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 1310(a)(3)) is amended—


(1) by inserting "(or the Commissioner, with respect toany jointly financed cooperative agreement or grant concerningtitle XVI)" after "Secretary" the first place it appears; and

(2) by inserting "(or the Commissioner, as applicable)" after"Secretary" the second place it appears.

SEC. 5525. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO DRUG ADDICTSAND ALCOHOLICS.

(a) CLARIFICATION RELATING TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THEDENIAL OF SSI DISABILITY BENEFITS TO DRUG ADDICTS ANDALCOHOLICS.—Section 105(b)(5) of the Contract with America

42 USC 1382 Advancement Act of 1996 (Public Law 104—121; 110 Stat. 853)note, is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking "by the Commissionerof Social Security" and "by the Commissioner"; and

(2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph(F) and by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following newsubparagraphs:

"(D) For purposes of this paragraph, an individual'sclaim, with respect to supplemental security income bene-fits under title XVI of the Social Security Act based ondisability, which has been denied in whole before the dateof the enactment of this Act, may not be considered tobe finally adjudicated before such date if, on or after suchdate—

"(i) there is pending a request for either adminis-trative or judicial review with respect to such claim,or

"(ii) there is pending, with respect to such claim,a readjudication by the Commissioner of Social Secu-rity pursuant to relief in a class action or implementa-tion by the Commissioner of a court remand order."(E) Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph,

with respect to any individual for whom the Commissionerdoes not perform the eligibility redetermination before thedate prescribed in subparagraph (C), the Commissionershall perform such eligibility redetermination in lieu ofa continuing disability review whenever the Commissionerdetermines that the individual's eligibility is subject toredetermination based on the preceding provisions of thisparagraph, and the provisions of section 1614(a)(4) of theSocial Security Act shall not apply to such redetermina-tion.".

(b) CORRECTIONS TO EFFECTIVE DATE OF PROVISIONS CONCERN-ING REPRESENTATIVE PAYEES AND TREATMENT REFERRALS OF SSIBENEFICIARIES WHO ARE DRUG ADDICTS AND ALCOHOLICS.—Section105(b)(5)(B) of such Act (Public Law 104—121; 110 Stat. 853) isamended to read as follows:

"(B) The amendments made by paragraphs (2) and(3) shall take effect on July 1, 1996, with respect to anyindividual—

"(i) whose claim for benefits is finally adjudicatedon or after the date of the enactment of this Act,or

"(ii) whose eligibility for benefits is based uponan eligibility redetermination made pursuant tosubparagraph (C).".


(c) REPEAL OF OBSOLETE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—SUb-sections (a)(3)(B) and (b)(3)(B)(ii) of section 201 of the Social Secu-rity Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994 (PublicLaw 103—296; 108 Stat. 1497, 1504) are repealed. •42 USC 925 note,

1382 note.SEC. 5528. ADVISORY BOARD PERSONNEL

Section 703(i) (42 U.S.C. 903(i)) is amended—(1) in the first sentence, by striking ", and three" and

all that follows through "Board,"; and(2).in the last sentence, by striking "clerical".

SEC. 5527. TIMING OF DELWERY OF OCTOBER 1, 2000, SSI BENEFIT 42 USC 909 note.PAYMENTS.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 708(a) of the SocialSecurity Act (42 U.S.C. 908(a)), the day designated for deliveryof benefit payments under title XVI of such Act for October 2000shall be the second day of such month.SEC. 5528. EFFECT WE DATES. 42 USC 903 note.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this section, the amend-ments made by this chapter shall take effect as if included inthe enactment of title II of the Personal Responsibility and WorkOpportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104—193; 110Stat. 2185).

(b) SECTION 5524 AMENDMENTS.—TIIe amendments made bysection 5524 of this Act shall take effect as if included in theenactment of the Social Security Independence and ProgramImprovements Act of 1994 (Public Law 103—296; 108 Stat. 1464).

(c) SECTION 5525 AMENDMENTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by subsections

(a) and (b) of section 5525 of this Act shall take effect asif included in the enactment of section 105 of the Contractwith America Advancement Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-12 1;110 Stat. 852 et seq.).

(2) REPEALS.—TIIe repeals made by section 5525(c) shalltake effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.(d) SECTION 5526 AMENDMENTS.—The amendments made by

section 5526 of this Act shall take effect as if included in theenactment of section 108 of the Contract with America AdvancementAct of 1996 (Public Law 104—121; 110 Stat. 857).

(e) SECTION 5227.—Section 5227 shall take effect on the dateof the enactment of this Act.



SEC. 5533. CIVIL PENALTIES RELATING TO STATE DIRECTORY OF NEWH1RS.

Section 453A (42 U.S.C. 653a) is amended—(1) in subsection (d)—

(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking"shall be less than" and inserting "shall not exceed"; and

(B) in paragraph (1), by striking "$25" and inserting"$25 per failure to meet the requirements of this sectionwith respect to a newly hired employee"; and(2) in subsection (g)(2)(B), by striking "extracts" and all

that follows through "Labor" and inserting "information".

SEC. 5534. FEDERAL PARENT LOCATOR SERVICE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—.Section 453 (42 U.S.C. 653) is amended—(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) by inserting "(1)" after "(a)"; and(B) by striking "to obtain" and all that follows through

the period and inserting "for the purposes specified inparagraphs (2) and (3).

"(2) For the purpose of establishing parentage, establishing,setting the amount of, modifying, or enforcing child support obliga-tions, the Federal Parent Locator Service shall obtain and transmitto any authorized person specified in subsection (c)—

"(A) information on, or facilitating the discovery of, thelocation of any individual—

"(i) who is under an obligation to pay child support;"(ii) against whom such an obligation is sought; or"(iii) to whom such an obligation is owed,

including the individual's social security number (or numbers),most recent address, and the name, address, and employeridentification number of the individual's employer;


"(B) information on the individual's wages (or other income)from, and benefits of, employment (including rights to or enroll-ment in group health care coverage); and

"(C) information on the type, status, location, and amountof any assets of, or debts owed by or to, any such individual."(3) For the purpose of enforcing any Federal or State law

with respect to the unlawful taking or restraint of a child, ormaking or enforcing a child custody or visitation determination,as defined in section 463(d)( 1), the Federal Parent Locator Serviceshall be used to obtain and transmit the information specifiedin section 463(c) to the authorized persons specified in section463(d)(2).";

(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:"(b)(1) Upon request, filed in accordance with subsection (d),

of any authorized person, as defined in subsection (c) for theinformation described in subsection (a)(2), or of any authorizedperson, as defined in section 463(d)(2) for the information describedin section 463(c), the Secretary shall, notwithstanding any otherprovision of law, provide through the Federal Parent Locator Servicesuch information to such person, if such information—

"(A) is contained in any files or records maintained bythe Secretary or by the Department of Health and HumanServices; or

"(B) is not contained in such files or records, but canbe obtained by the Secretary, under the authority conferredby subsection (e), from any other department, agency, orinstrumentality of the United States or of any State,

and is not prohibited from disclosure under paragraph (2)."(2) No information shall be disclosed to any person if the

disclosure of such information would contravene the national policyor security interests of the United States or the confidentialityof census data. The Secretary shall give priority to requests madeby any authorized person described in subsection (c)( 1). No informa-tion shall be disclosed to any person if the State has notifiedthe Secretary that the State has reasonable evidence of domesticviolence or child abuse and the disclosure of such informationcould be harmful to the custodial parent or the child of suchparent, provided that—

"(A) in response to a request from an authorized person(as defined in subsection (c) of this section and section463(d)(2)), the Secretary shall advise the authorized personthat the Secretary has been notified that there is reasonableevidence of domestic violence or child abuse and that informa-tion can only be disclosed to a court or an agent of a courtpursuant to subparagraph (B); and

"(B) information may be disclosed to a court or an agentof a court described in subsection (c)(2) of this section or section463(d)(2)(B), if—

"(i) upon receipt of information from the Secretary,the court determines whether disclosure to any other per-son of that information could be harmful to the parentor the child; and

"(ii) if the court determines that disclosure of suchinformation to any other person could be harmful, thecourt and its agents shall not make any such disclosure.


"(3) Information received or transmitted pursuant to this sectionshall be subject to the safeguard provisions contained in section454(26)."; and

(3) in subsection (c)—(A) in paragraph (1), by striking "or to seek to enforce

orders providing child custody or visitation rights"; and(B) in paragraph (2)—

(i) by inserting "or to serve as the initiating courtin an action to seek an order" after "issue an order";and

(ii) by striking "or to issue an order against aresident parent for child custody or visitation rights".

(b) USE OF THE FEDERAL PARENT LOCATOR SERvICE.—Section463 (42 U.S.C. 663) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)—

(i) by striking "any State which is able and willingto do so," and inserting "every State"; and

(ii) by striking "such State" and inserting "eachState"; and(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting "or visitation" after

"custody";(2) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting "or visitation" after

"custody";(3) in subsection (d)—

(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting "or visitation" after"custody"; and

(B) in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2),by inserting "or visitation" after "custody" each place itappears;(4) in subsection (0(2), by inserting "or visitation" after

"custody"; and(5) by striking "noncustodial" each place it appears.

SEC. 5535. ACCESS TO REGISTRY DATA FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 453(j)(5) (42 U.S.C. 653(j)(5)) isamended by inserting "data in each component of the FederalParent Locator Service maintained under this section and to" before"information".

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 453 (42 U.S.C. 653)is amended—

(1) in subsection (j)(3)(B), by striking "registries" and insert-ing "components"; and

(2) in subsection (k)(2), by striking "subsection (j)(3)" andinserting "section 453A(g)(2)".

SEC. 5536. COLLECTION AND USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS FORUSE IN CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT.

Section 466(a)(13) (42 U.S.C. 666(aXl3)) is amended—(1) in subparagraph (A)—

(A) by striking "commercial"; and(B) by inserting "recreational license," after "occupa-

tional license,"; and(2) in the matter following subparagraph (C), by inserting

"to be used on the face of the document while the social securitynumber is kept on file at the agency" after "other than thesocial security number".


CHAPTER 4—RESTRICTING WELFARE AND PUBLICBENEFITS FOR ALIENS

Subchapter A—Eligibility for Federal BenefitsSEC. 5561. ALLEN ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL BENEFITS: LIMITED

APPLICATION TO MEDICARE AND BENEFITS UNDER THERAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT.

(a) LIMITED APPLICATION TO MEDICARE.—Section 401(b) of thePersonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Actof 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611(b)) is amended by adding at the end thefollowing:

"(3) Subsection (a) shall not apply to any benefit payableunder title XVIII of the Social Security Act (relating to themedicare program) to an alien who is lawfully present in theUnited States as determined by the Attorney General and,with respect to benefits payable under part A of such title,who was authorized to be employed with respect to any wagesattributable to employment which are counted for purposesof eligibility for such benefits.".(b) LIMITED APPLICATION TO BENEFITS UNDER THE RAILROAD

RETIREMENT ACT.—Section 401(b) of the Personal Responsibilityand Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611(b))(as amended by subsection (a)) is amended by inserting at theend the following:

"(4) Subsection (a) shall not apply to any benefit payableunder the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 or the RailroadUnemployment Insurance Act to an alien who is lawfullypresent in the United States as determined by the AttornerGeneral or to an alien residing outside the United States.'.

SEC. 5562. EXCEPTIONS TO BENEFIT LIMITATIONS: CORRECTIONS TOREFERENCE CONCERNING ALIENS WHOSE DEPORTA-TION IS WITHBELD.

Sections 402(a)(2)(A), 402(b)(2)(A), 403(b)(1)(C), 412(b)(1)(C),and 431(b)(5) of the Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(A), 1612(b)(2)(A),1613(b)(1)(C), 1622(b)(1)(C), and 1641(b)(5)) as amended by thisAct are each amended by striking "section 243(h) of such Act"each place it appears and inserting "section 243(h) of such Act(as in effect immediately before the effective date of section 307of division C of Public Law 104—208) or section 241(b)(3) of suchAct (as amended by section 305(a) of division C of Public Law104—208)".

SEC. 5563. VETERANS EXCEPTION: APPLICATION OF MINIMUM ACTWEDUTY SERVICE REQUIREMENT; EXTENSION TOUNREMARRIED SURVIVING SPOUSE; EXPANDED DEFINI-TION OF VETERAN.

(a) APPLICATION OF MINIMUM ACTIVE Dury SERVICE REQUIRE-MENT.—Sections 402(a)(2)(C)(i), 402(b)(2)(C)(i), 403(b)(2)(A), and412(b)(3)(A) of the Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(C)(i), 1612(b)(2)(C)(i),1613(b)(2)(A), and 1622(b)(3)(A)) are each amended by inserting


"and who fulfills the minimum active-duty service requirementsof section 5303A(d) of title 38, United States Code" after 'alienage".

(b) ExcEFrIoN APPLICABLE TO UNREMARRIED SURVIVINGSPOUSE.—Sections 402(a)(2)(C)(iii), 402(b)(2)(C)(iii), 403(b)(2)(C),and 412(b)(3)(C) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor-tunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(C)(iii),1612(b)(2)(C)(iii), 1613(b)(2)(C), and 1622(b)(3)(C)) are each amend-ed by inserting before the period "or the unremarried survivinspouse of an individual described in clause (i) or (ii) who is deceaseif the marriage fulfills the requirements of section 1304 of title38, United States Code".

(c) EXPANDED DEFINITION OF VE'rERAN.—Sections402(a)(2)(C)(i), 402(b)(2)(C)(i), 403(b)(2)(A), and 412(b)(3)(A) of thePersonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Actof 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(C)(i), 1612(b)(2)(C)(i), 1613(b)(2)(A),and 1622(b)(3)(A)) are each amended by inserting ", 1101, or 1301,or as described in section 107" after "section 101".

SEC. 5564. NOTIFICATION CONCERNING ALIENS NOT LAWFULLYPRESENT: CORRECTION OF TERMINOLOGY.

Section 163 1(e)(9) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1383(e)(9)) and section 27 of the United States Housing Act of1937, as added by section 404 of the Personal Responsibility andWork Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, are each amended 42 USC 1437y.

by striking "unlawfully in the United States" each place it appearsand inserting "not lawfully present in the United States".SEC. 5505. FREELY ASSOCIATED STATES: CONTRACTS AND LICENSES.

Sections 401(c)(2)(A) and 411(c)(2)(A) of the Personal Respon-sibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1611(c)(2)(A) and 1621(c)(2)(A)) are each amended by insertingbefore the semicolon at the end ", or to a citizen of a freely associatedstate, if section 141 of the applicable compact of free associationapproved in Public Law 99—239 or 99—658 (or a successor provision)is in effect".SEC. 5566. CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT REGARDING BENEFITS FOR

HMONG AND OTHER HIGHLAND LAO VETERANS.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress makes the following findings:(1) Hmong and other Highland Lao tribal peoples were

recruited, armed, trained, and funded for military operationsby the United States Department of Defense, Central Intel-ligence Agency, Department of State, and Agency for Inter-national Development to further United States national securityinterests during the Vietnam conflict.

(2) Hmong and other Highland Lao tribal forces sacrificedtheir own lives and saved the lives of American military person-nel by rescuing downed American pilots and aircrews and byengaging and successfully fighting North Vietnamese troops.

(3) Thousands of Hmong and other Highland Lao veteranswho fought in special guerilla units on behalf of the UnitedStates during the Vietnam conflict, along with their families,have been lawfully admitted to the United States in recentyears.

(4) The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Rec-onciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104—193), the new nationalwelfare reform law, restricts certain welfare benefits for nonciti-zens of the United States and the exceptions for noncitizen


veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States do notextend to Hmong veterans of the Vietnam conflict era, makingHmong veterans and their families receiving certain welfarebenefits subject to restrictions despite their military serviceon behalf of the United States.(b) CONG1ssIONAi. STATEMENT.—It is the sense of the Congress

that Hmong and other Highland Lao veterans who fought on behalfof the Armed Forces of the United States during the Vietnamconflict and have lawfully been admitted to the United Statesfor permanent residence should be considered veterans for purposesof continuing certain welfare benefits consistent with the exceptionsprovided other noncitizen veterans under the Personal Responsibil-ity and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

Subchapter B—General ProvisionsSEC. 5571. DETERMINATION OF TREATMENT OF BArI'ERED ALIENS

AS QUALIFIED ALIENS; INCLUSION OF ALIEN CHILD OFBATTERED PARENT AS QUALIFIED ALIEN.

(a) DETERMINATION OF STATUS BY AGENCY PROVIDING BENE-FITS.—Section 431 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor-tunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1641) is amended insubsections (c)(1)(A) and (c)(2)(A) by striking "Attorney General,which opinion is not subject to review by any court)" each placeit appears and inserting "agency providing such benefits)".

(b) GUIDANCE ISSUED BY ArrORNEY GENnAL.—Section 43 1(c)of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1641(c)) is amended by adding at the endthe following new undesignated paragraph:

"After consultation with the Secretaries of Health and HumanServices, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban Development, theCommissioner of Social Security, and with the heads of such Federalagencies administering benefits as the Attorney General considersappropriate, the Attorney General shall issue guidance (in the Attor-ney General's sole and unreviewable discretion) for purposes ofthis subsection and section 421(f), concerning the meaning of theterms 'battery' and 'extreme cruelty', and the standards and meth-ods to be used for determining whether a substantial connectionexists between battery or cruelty suffered and an individual's needfor benefits under a specific Federal, State, or local program.".

(c) INCLUSION OF ALIEN CHILD OF BATTERED PARENT AS QUALI-FIED ALIEN.—Section 431(c) of the Personal Responsibility and WorkOpportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1641(c)) is amend-ed—

(1) at the end of paragraph (1)(B)(iv) by striking "or";(2) at the end of paragraph (2)(B) by striking the period

and inserting "; or"; and(3) by inserting after paragraph (2)(B) and before the last

sentence of such subsection the following new paragraph:"(3) an alien child who—

"(A) resides in the same household as a parent whohas been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty in theUnited States by that parent's spouse or by a memberof the spouse's family residing in the same household asthe parent and the spouse consented or acquiesced to suchbattery or cruelty, but only if (in the opinion of the agencyproviding such benefits) there is a substantial connection


between such battery or cruelty and the need for the bene-fits to be provided; and

"(B) who meets the requirement of subparagraph (B)of paragraph (1).".

(d) INCLUSION OF ALIEN CHILD OF BArFERED PARENT UNDERSPECIAL RULE FOR ArFRIBUTION OF INCOME.—Section 421(fXl)(A)of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1631(fXl)(A)) is amended—

(1) at the end of clause (i) by striking "or"; and(2) by striking "and the battery or cruelty described in

clause (i) or (ii)" and inserting "or (iii) the alien is a childwhose parent (who resides in the same household as the alienchild) has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty inthe United States by that parent's spouse, or by a memberof the spouse's family residing in the same household as theparent and the spouse consented to, or acquiesced in, suchbattery or cruelty, and the battery or cruelty described inclause (i), (ii), or (iii)".

SEC. 5572. VERIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS.

(a) REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE.—Section 432(a) of the Per-sonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of1996 (8 U.S.C. 1642(a)) is amended—

(1) by inserting at the end of paragraph (1) the following:"Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment ofthe Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Attorney General ofthe United States, after consultation with the Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, shall issue interim verificationguidance."; and

(2) by adding after paragraph (2) the following new para-graph:(3) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment

of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Attorney General shallpromulgate regulations which set forth the procedures by whicha State or local government can verify whether an alien applyingfor a State or local public benefit is a qualified alien, a non-immigrant under the Immigration and Nationality Act, or an alienparoled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of theImmigration and Nationality Act for less than 1 year, for purposesof determining whether the alien is ineligible for benefits undersection 411 of this Act.".

(b) DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION FOR VERIFICATION.—Section384(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Respon-sibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104—208) is amended 8 USC 1367.by adding after paragraph (4) the following new paragraph:

(5) The Attorney General is authorized to disclose informa-tion, to Federal, State, and local public and private agenciesproviding benefits, to be used solely in making determinationsof eligibility for benefits pursuant to section 43 1(c) of the Per-sonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Actof 1996.".

SEC. 5573. QUALIFYING QUARTERS: DISCLOSURE OF QUARTERS OFCOVERAGE INFORMATION; CORRECTION TO ASSURETHAT CREDITING APPLIES TO ALL QUARTERS EARNEDBY PARENTS BEFORE CHILD IS 1&

(a) DISCLOSURE OF QUARTERS OF COVERAGE INFORMATION.—Section 435 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity


Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1645) is amended by addingat the end the following: "Notwithstanding section 6103 of theInternal Revenue code of 1986, the commissioner of Social Securityis authorized to disclose quarters of coverage information concerningan alien and an alien's spouse or parents to a government agencyfor the purposes of this title.".

(b) CORRECTION To ASSURE THAT CREDITING APPLIES TO ALLQUARTERS EARNED BY PARENTS BEFORE CHILD IS 18.—Section435(1) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Rec-onciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1645(1)) is amended by striking"while the alien was under age 18," and inserting "before thedate on which the alien attains age 18,".

SEC. 5574. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION: BENEFIT ELIGIBILITY LIMITA-TIONS APPLICABLE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO ALIENSPRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES.

Section 433 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor-tunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1643) is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections(c) and (d); and

(2) by adding after subsection (a) the following new sub-section:"(b) BENEFIT ELIGIBILITY LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE ONLY WITH

RESPECT TO ALIENS PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES.—Notwith-standing any other provision of this title, the limitations on eligi-bility for benefits under this title shall not apply to eligibilityfor benefits of aliens who are not residing, or present, in theUnited States with respect to—

"(1) wages, pensions, annuities, and other earned paymentsto which an alien is entitled resulting from employment by,or on behalf of, a Federal, State, or local government agencywhich was not prohibited during the period of such employmentor service under section 274A or other applicable provisionof the Immigration and Nationality Act; or

"(2) benefits under laws administered by the Secretaryof Veterans Affairs.".


TITLE X—BUDGET ENFORCEMENT AND BudgetPROCESS PROVISIONS EflfOrcement ACt

President.

SEC. 10001. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This title may be cited as the "Budget 2 USC 900 note.Enforcement Act of 1997".

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this titleis as follows:S&. 10001. Short title; table of contents.

Subtitle A—Amendments to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment ControlAct of 1974

Sec. 10101. Amendment to section 3.S&. 10102. Amendments to section 201.Sec. 10103. Amendments to section 202.Sec. 10104. Amendment to section 300.Sec. 10105. Amendments to section 301.S&. 10106. Amendments to section 302.S&, 10107. Amendments to section 303.Sec. 10108. Amendment to section 304.Sec. 10109. Amendment to section 305.Sec. 10110. Amendments to section 308.Sec. 10111. Amendments to section 310.Sec. 10112. Amendments to section 311.Sec. 10113. Amendment to section 312.Sec. 10114. Adjustments.S&. 10115. Effect of adoption of a special order of business in the House of Rep-

resentatives.Sec. 10116. Amendment to section 401 and repeal of section 402.Sec. 10117. Amendments to title V.Sec. 10118. Repeal of title VI.Sec. 10119. Amendments to section 904.Sec. 10120. Repeal of sections 905 and 906.Sec. 10121. Amendments to sections 1022 and 1024.Sec. 10122. Amendment to section 1026.Sec. 10123. Senate task force on consideration of budget measures.

Subtitle B—Amendments to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit ControlAct of 1985

Sec. 10201. Purpose.Sec. 10202. General statement and definitions.Sec. 10203. Enforcing discretionary spending limits.Sec. 10204. Violent crime reduction spending.Sec. 10205. Enforcing pay-as-you-go.Sec. 10206. Reports and orders.S&. 10207. Exempt programs and activities.S&. 10208. General and special sequestration rules.


Sec. 10209. The baseline.Sec. 10210. Technical correction.Sec. 10211. Judicial review.Sec. 10212. Effective date.Sec. 10213. Reduction of preexisting balances and exclusion of effects of this Act


Subtitle A—Amendments to the Congres-sional Budget and Impoundment ControlAct of 1974

SEC. 10101. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.

Section 3(9) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment2 USC 622. Control Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:

"(9) The term 'entitlement authority' means—"(A) the authority to make payments (including loans

and grants), the budget authority for which is not providedfor in advance by appropriation Acts, to any person orgovernment if, under the provisions of the law containingthat authority, the United States is obligated to makesuch payments to persons or governments who meet therequirements established by that law; and

"(B) the food stamp program.".SEC. 10102. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 201.

(a) TERM OF OFFIcE.—The first sentence of section 201(a)(3)2 USC 601. of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended to read as

follows: "The term of office of the Director shall be 4 years andshall expire on January 3 of the year preceding each Presidentialelection.".

(b) CONFORMING CHANGE.—Section 20 1(e) of the CongressionalBudget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting "and" before "theLibrary", by striking "and the Office of Technology Assessment,",by inserting "and" before "the Librarian", and by striking ", andthe Technology Assessment Board".

(c) REDESIGNATION OF EXECUTED PROvISION.—Section 201 ofthe Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by redesignatingsubsection (g) (relating to revenue estimates) as subsection (f).SEC. 10103. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 202.

(a) ASSISTANCE TO BUDGET COMMITTEES.—The first sentence2 USC 602. of section 202(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended

by inserting "primary" before "duty".(b) ELIMINATION OF EXECUTED PROvISION.—.Section 202 of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking subsection(e) and by redesignating subsections (f), (g), and (h) as subsections(e), (f), and (g), respectively.

(c) REPORTING REQTJIREMENT.—The first sentence of section202(e)( 1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (as redesignated)is amended by—

(1) striking "and" before "(B)"; and(2) inserting before the period the following: ", and (C)

a statement of the levels of budget authority and outlays foreach program assumed to be extended in the baseline, as pro-vided in section 257(b)(2)(A) and for excise taxes assumed tobe extended under section 257(b)(2)(C) of the Balanced Budgetand Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985".



(a) TIMETABLE.—The item relating to February 25 in the time-table set forth in section 300 of the Congressional Budget Actof 1974 is amended by striking "February 25" and inserting "Not 2 Usc 631.

later than 6 weeks after President submits budget".(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Clause 4(g) of rule X of

the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by striking"on or before February 25 of each year" and inserting "not laterthan 6 weeks after th President submits his budget".

(2) Clause 3(c) of rule XLVIII of the Rules of the House ofRepresentatives is amended by striking "On or before March 15of each year" and inserting "Within 6 weeks after the Presidentsubmits a budget under section 1105(a) of title 31, United StatesCode" and by striking "section 301(c)" and inserting "section 301(d)".

SEC. 10105. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 301.

(a) TERMS OF BUDGET RES0LUTI0NS.—Section 30 1(a) of theCongressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking ", and 2 Usc 632.planning levels for each of the two ensuing fiscal years," and insert-ing "and for at least each of the 4 ensuing fiscal years".

(b) CONTENTS OF BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.—Paragraphs (1) and(4) of section 30 1(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 areamended by striking ", budget outlays, direct loan obligations, andprimary loan guarantee commitments" each place it appears andinserting "and outlays".

(c) ADDITIONAL MATTERS.—Section 30 1(b) of the CongressionalBudget Act of 1974 is amended by—

(1) striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:"(7) set forth procedures in the Senate whereby committee

allocations, aggregates, and other levels can be revised forlegislation if that legislation would not increase the deficit,or would not increase the deficit when taken with other legisla-tion enacted after the adoption of the resolution, for the firstfiscal year or the total period of fiscal years covered by theresolution;";

(2) in paragraph 8, striking the period and inserting ";and"; and

(3) adding the following new paragraph:"(9) set forth direct loan obligation and primary loan

guarantee commitment levels.".(d) VIEwS AND ESTIMATES.—The first sentence of section 301(d)

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting"or at such time as may be requested by the Committee on theBudget," after "Code,".

(e) HEARINGS AND REPORT.—Section 30 1(e) of the CongressionalBudget Act of 1974 is amended—

(1) by striking "In developing" and inserting the following:"(1) IN GENERAL.—In developing"; and(2) by striking the sentence beginning with "The report

accompanying" and all that follows through the end of thesubsection and inserting the following:

"(2) REQUIRED CONTENTS OF REPORT.—The report accom-panying the resolution shall include—

"(A) a comparison of the levels of total new budgetauthority, total outlays, total revenues, and the surplusor deficit for each fiscal year set forth in the resolution


with those requested in the budget submitted by the Presi-dent;

"(B) with respect to each major functional category,an estimate of total new budget authority and total outlays,with the estimates divided between discretionary andmandatory amounts;

"(C) the economic assumptions that underlie each ofthe matters set forth in the resolution and any alternativeeconomic assumptions and objectives the committee consid-ered;

"(D) information, data, and comparisons indicating themanner in which, and the basis on which, the committeedetermined each of the matters set forth in the resolution;

"(E) the estimated levels of tax expenditures (the taxexpenditures budget) by major items and functional cat-egories for the President's budget and in the resolution;and

"(F) allocations described in section 302(a)."(3) ADDITIONAL CONTENTS OF REPORT.—The report accom-

panying the resolution may include—"(A) a statement of any significant changes in the

proposed levels of Federal assistance to State and localgovernments;

"(B) an allocation of the level of Federal revenues rec-ommended in the resolution among the major sources ofsuch revenues;

"(C) information, data, and comparisons on the shareof total Federal budget outlays and of gross domestic prod-uct devoted to investment in the budget submitted by thePresident and in the resolution;

"(D) the assumed levels of budget authority and outlaysfor public buildings, with a division between amounts forconstruction and repair and for rental payments; and

"(E) other matters, relating to the budget and to fiscalpolicy, that the committee deems appropriate.".

(f) SOCIAL SECURITY COmECTIONS.—(1) Section 30 1(i) of the2 USC 632. Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by—

(A) inserting "SOCL SECURITY POINT OF OIWER.—" after"(i)"; and

(B) striking "as reported to the Senate" and inserting "(oramendment, motion, or conference report on the resolution)";and(2) Section 22 of House Concurrent Resolution 218 (103d Con-

108 Stat. 5092. gress) is repealed.


(a) ALLOCATIONS AND SUBALL0CATI0NS.—Section 302 of the2 USC 633. Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking sub-

sections (a) and (b) and inserting the following:"(a) COMMIrrEE SPENDING ALLOCATIONS.—

"(1) ALLOCATION AMONG COMMIrrEES.—The joint explana-tory statement accompanying a èonference report on a concur-rent resolution on the budget shall include an allocation,consistent with the resolution recommended in the conferencereport, of the levels for the first fiscal year of the resolution,for at least each of the ensuing 4 fiscal years, and a total


for that period of fiscal years (except in the case of the Commit-tee on Appropriations only for the fiscal year of that resolution)of—

"(A) total new budget authority; and"(B) total outlays;

among each committee of the House of Representatives or theSenate that has jurisdiction over legislation providing or creat-ing such amounts.

"(2) No DOUBLE COUNTING.—In the House of Representa-tives, any item allocated to one committee may not be allocatedto another committee.

"(3) FURTHER DIVISION OF AMOUNTS.—"(A) IN THE SENATE.—In the Senate, the amount allo-

cated to the Committee on Appropriations shall be furtherdivided among the categories specified in section 250(c)(4)of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit ControlAct of 1985 and shall not exceed the limits for each categoryset forth in section 251(c) of that Act.

"(B) IN THE HOUSE.—In the House of Representatives,the amounts allocated to each committee for each fiscalyear, other than the Committee on Appropriations, shallbe further divided between amounts provided or requiredby law on the date of filing of that conference report andamounts not so provided or required. The amounts allocatedto the Committee on Appropriations shall be furtherdivided—

"(i) between discretionary and mandatory amountsor programs, as appropriate; and

"(ii) consistent with the categories specified in sec-tion 250(c)(4) of the Balanced Budget and EmergencyDeficit Control Act of 1985.

"(4) AMOUNTS NOT ALLOCATED.—In the House of Represent-atives or the Senate, if a committee receives no allocationof new budget authority or outlays, that committee shall bedeemed to have received an allocation equal to zero for newbudget authority or outlays.

"(5) ADJUSTING ALLOCATION OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDINGIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—(A) If a concurrent resolu-tion on the budget is not adopted by April 15, the chairmanof the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representativesshall submit to the House, as soon as practicable, an allocationunder paragraph (1) to the Committee on Appropriationsconsistent with the discretionary spending levels in the mostrecently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for theappropriate fiscal year covered by that resolution.

"(B) As soon as practicable after an allocation under para-graph (1) is submitted under this section, the Committee onAppropriations shall make suballocations and report those sub-allocations to the House of Representatives."(b) SUBALLOCATIONS BY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITrEES.—A8

soon as practicable after a concurrent resolution on the budgetis agreed to, the Committee on Appropriations of each House (afterconsulting with the Committee on Appropriations of the otherHouse) shall suballocate each amount allocated to it for the budgetyear under subsection (a) among its subcommittees. Each Commit-tee on Appropriations shall promptly report to its House suballoca-tions made or revised under this subsection. The Committee on


Appropriations of the House of Representatives shall further divideamong its subcommittees the divisions made under subsection(a)(3)(B) and promptly report those divisions to the House.".

(b) POINT OF ORDER.—Section 302(c) of the Congressional2 USC 633. Budget Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:

"(c) POINT OF ORDER.—After the Committee on Appropriationshas received an allocation pursuant to subsection (a) for a fiscalyear, it shall not be in order in the House of Representativesor the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment,motion, or conference report within the jurisdiction of that commit-tee providing new budget authority for that fiscal year, until thatcommittee makes the suballocations required by subsection (b).".

(c) ENFORCEMENT OF POINT OF ORDER.—(1) IN THE HOUSE.—Section 302(fl(1) of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 is amended by—(A) striking "providing new budget authority for such

fiscal year or new entitlement authority effective duringsuch fiscal year" and inserting "providing new budgetauthority for any fiscal year"; and

(B) striking "appropriate allocation made pursuant tosubsection (b)" and all that follows through "exceeded."and inserting "applicable allocation of new budget authoritymade under subsection (a) or (b) for the first fiscal yearor the total of fiscal years to be exceeded.".(2) IN THE SENATE.—Section 302(0(2) of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:"(2) IN THE SENATE.—Mter a concurrent resolution on the

budget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in the Senateto consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, orconference report that would cause—

"(A) in the case of any committee except the Committeeon Appropriations, the applicable allocation of new budgetauthority or outlays under subsection (a) for the first fiscalyear or the total of fiscal years to be exceeded; or

"(B) in the case of the Committee on Appropriations,the applicable suballocation of new budget authority oroutlays under subsection (b) to be exceeded.".

(d) PAY-AS-YOU-GO EXCEPTION IN THE HOUSE.—Section 302(g)of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended to read asfollows:

"(g) PAY-AS-YOU-GO EXCEPTION IN THE HOUSE.—"(1) IN GENERAL.—(A) Subsection (0(1) and, after April

15, section 303(a) shall not apply to any bill or joint resolution,as reported, amendment thereto, or conference report thereonif, for each fiscal year covered by the most recently agreedto concurrent resolution on the budget—

"(i) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;"(ii) the adoption and enactment of that amendment;

or"(iii) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the

form recommended in that conference report,would not increase the deficit, and, if the sum of any revenueincreases provided in legislation already enacted during thecurrent session (when added to revenue increases, if any, inexcess of any outlay increase provided by the legislation pro-posed for consideration) is at least as great as the sum ofthe amount, if any, by which the aggregate level of Federal


revenues should be increased as set forth in that concurrentresolution and the amount, if any, by which revenues areto be increased pursuant to pay-as-you-go procedures undersection 301(b)(8), if included in that concurrent resolution.

"(B) Section 311(a), as that section applies to revenues,shall not apply to any bill, joint resolution, amendment thereto,or conference report thereon if, for each fiscal year coveredby the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on thebudget—

"(i) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;"(ii) the adoption and enactment of that amendment;

or"(iii) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the

form recommended in that conference report,would not increase the deficit, and, if the sum of any outlayreductions provided in legislation already enacted during thecurrent session (when added to outlay reductions, if any, inexcess of any revenue reduction provided by the legislationproposed for consideration) is at least as great as the sumof the amount, if any, by which the aggregate level of Federaloutlays should be reduced as required by that concurrent resolu-tion and the amount, if any, by which outlays are to be reducedpursuant to pay-as-you-go procedures under section 301(b)(8),if included in that concurrent resolution.

"(2) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—(A) As soon as practicable afterCongress agrees to a bill or joint resolution that would havebeen subject to a point of order under subsection (0(1) butfor the exception provided in paragraph (1XA) or would havebeen subject to a point of order under section 3 11(a) but forthe exception provided in paragraph (1)(B), the chairman ofthe committee on the Budget of the House of Representativesshall file with the House appropriately revised allocations undersection 302(a) and revised functional levels and budget aggre-gates to reflect that bill.

"(B) Such revised allocations, functional levels, and budgetaggregates shall be considered for the purposes of this Actas allocations, functional levels, and budget aggregates con-tained in the most recently agreed to concurrent resolutionon the budget.".


(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 303 of the Congressional Budget Actof 1974 is amended to read as follows: 2 USC 634.

"CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET MUST BE ADOPTEDBEFORE BUDGET-RELATED LEGISLATION IS CONSIDERED

"SEC. 303. (a) IN GENERAL.—Until the concurrent resolutionon the budget for a fiscal year has been agreed to, it shall notbe in order in the House of Representatives, with respect to thefirst fiscal year covered by that resolution, or the Senate, withrespect to any fiscal year covered by that resolution, to considerany bill or joint resolution, amendment or motion thereto, or con-ference report thereon that—

"(1) first provides new budget authority for that fiscalyear;

"(2) first provides an increase or decrease in revenues dur-ing that fiscal year;


"(3) provides an increase or decrease in the public debtlimit to become effective during that fiscal year;

"(4) in the Senate only, first provides new entitlementauthority for that fiscal year; or

"(5) in the Senate only, first provides for an increase ordecrease in outlays for that fiscal year."(b) EXCEPTIONS IN THE HousE.— In the House of Representa-

tives, subsection (a) does not apply—"(1)(A) to any bill or joint resolution, as reported, providing

advance discretionary new budget authority that first becomesavailable for the first or second fiscal year after the budgetyear; or

"(B) to any bill or joint resolution, as reported, first increas-ing or decreasing revenues in a fiscal year following the fiscalyear to which the concurrent resolution applies;

"(2) after May 15, to any general appropriation bill oramendment thereto; or

"(3) to any bill or joint resolution unless it is reportedby a committee."(c) APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATION MEASURES IN THE SEN-

ATE.—"(1) IN GENERAL.—Until the concurrent resolution on the

budget for a fiscal year has been agreed to and an allocationhas been made to the Committee on Appropriations of theSenate under section 302(a) for that year, it shall not be inorder in the Senate to consider any appropriation bill or jointresolution, amendment or motion thereto, or conference reportthereon for that year or any subsequent year.

"(2) EXCEPrION.—Paragraph (1) does not apply to appro-priations legislation making advance appropriations for thefirst or second fiscal year after the year the allocation referredto in that paragraph is made.".(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating to section

303 in the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the Congres-sional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amendedto read as follows:

"Sec. 303. Concturent resolution on the budget must be adopted before budget-relat-ed legislation is considered.".


2 USC 635. Section 304 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amendedby—

(1) striking "(a) IN GENERiu.—"; and(2) striking subsection (b).


(a) BUDGET Ac.—Section 305(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget2 USC 636. Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:

"(1) When a concurrent resolution on the budget has beenreported by the Committee on the Budget of the House ofRepresentatives and has been referred to the appropriate cal-endar of the House, it shall be in order on any day thereafter,subject to clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI of the Rules of the Houseof Representatives, to move to proceed to the considerationof the concurrent resolution. The motion is highly privilegedand is not debatable. An amendment to the motion is not

PUBLIC LAW 105—33-—AUG. 5, 1997 111 STAT. 685

in order and it is not in order to move to reconsider thevote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.".(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT IN THE H0UsE.—The first sen-

tence of clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI of the Rules of the House ofRepresentatives is amended by striking ", or as provided by section305(a)(1)" and all that follows thereafter through "under that sec-tion)".SEC. 10110. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 308.

Section 308 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amend- 2 Usc 639.

ed—(1)(A) in the heading of subsection (a), by striking ", NEw

SPENDING AUTHORITY, OR NEW CREDIT AUTHORITY,";(B) in subsection (a)(1), by striking subparagraph (B) and

by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as subparagraphs(B) and (C), respectively;

(C) in subsection (a)(1)(B) (as redesignated), by striking"spending authority" through "commitments" and inserting"revenues, or tax expenditures"; and

(D) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), by striking", new spending authority described in section 401(c)(2), ornew credit authority," each place it appears;

(2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ", new spending author-ity described in section 401(c)(2), or new credit authority,";

(3) in subsection (c), by inserting "and" after the semicolonat the end of paragraph (3), by striking "; and" at the endof paragraph (4) and inserting a period; and by striking para-graph (5); and

(4) by inserting 'joint" before "resolution" each place itappears except when "concurrent", "such", or "reconciliation"precedes "resolution" and, in subsection (b)(1), by inserting'joint" before "resolutions" each place it appears.


Section 3 10(c)( 1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 2 Usc 641.

is amended—(1) by striking "20 percent" the first place it appears and

all that follows thereafter through ", and" and inserting thefollowing:

"(I) in the Senate, 20 percent of the total of theamounts of the changes such committee was directedto make under paragraphs (1) and (2) of such sub-section; or

"(II) in the House of Representatives, 20 percentof the sum of the absolute value of the changes thecommittee was directed to make under paragraph (1)and the absolute value of the changes the committeewas directed to make under paragraph (2); and"; and

(2) by striking "20 percent" the second place it appearsand all that follows thereafter through "; and" and insertingthe following:

"(I) in the Senate, 20 percent of the total of theamounts of the changes such committee was directedto make under paragraphs (1) and (2) of such sub-section; or

"(II) in the House of Representatives, 20 percentof the sum of the absolute value of the changes thecommittee was directed to make under paragraph (1)

111 STAT. 686 PUBLIC LAW 105-33-—AUG. 5, 1997

and the absolute value of the changes the committeewas directed to make under paragraph (2); and".


(a) IN GENERAL—Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act2 Usc 642. of 1974 is amended to read as follows:

"BUDGET-RELATED LEGISLATION MUST BE WITHIN APPROPRIATELEVELS

"SEC. 311. (a) ENFORCEMENT OF BUDGET AGGREGATES.—"(1) IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—Except as pro-

vided by subsection (c), after the Congress has completed actionon a concurrent resolution on the budget for a fiscal year,it shall not be in order in the House of Representatives toconsider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or con-ference report providing new budget authority or reducing reve-nues, if—

"(A) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;"(B) the adoption and enactment of that amendment;

or"(C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the

form recommended in that conference report;would cause the level of total new budget authority or totaloutlays set forth in the applicable concurrent resolution onthe budget for the first fiscal year to be exceeded, or wouldcause revenues to be less than the level of total revenuesset forth in that concurrent resolution for the first fiscal yearor for the total of that first fiscal year and the ensuing fiscalyears for which allocations are provided under section 302(a),except when a declaration of war by the Congress is in effect.

(2) IN THE SENATE.—After a concurrent resolution on thebudget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in the Senateto consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, orconference report that—

"(A) would cause the level of total new budget authorityor total outlays set forth for the first fiscal year in theapplicable resolution to be exceeded; or

"(B) would cause revenues to be less than the levelof total revenues set forth for that first fiscal year orfor the total of that first fiscal year and the ensuing fiscalyears in the applicable resolution for which allocationsare provided under section 302(a)."(3) ENFORCEMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY LEVELS IN THE SEN-

ATE.—After a concurrent resolution on the budget is agreedto, it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider anybill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference reportthat would cause a decrease in social security surpluses oran increase in social security deficits relative to the levelsset forth in the applicable resolution for the first fiscal yearor for the total of that fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal yearsfor which allocations are provided under section 302(a)."(b) SocL SECURITY LEVELS.—

"(1) IN GENERAL—For purposes of subsection (a)(3), socialsecurity surpluses equal the excess of social security revenuesover social security outlays in a fiscal year or years with suchan excess and social security deficits equal the excess of social

PUBLIC LAW 1O5--33—AUG. 5, 1997 111 STAT. 687

security outlays over social security revenues in a fiscal yearor years with such an excess.

"(2) TAx TREATMENT.—For purposes of subsection (a)(3),no provision of any legislation involving a change in chapter1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated asaffecting the amount of social security revenues or outlaysunless that provision changes the income tax treatment ofsocial security benefits."(c) ExCEPTION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—Sub-

section (a)( 1) shall not apply in the House of Representatives toany bill, joint resolution, or amendment that provides new budgetauthority for a fiscal year or to any conference report on anysuch bill or resolution, if—

"(1) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;"(2) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or"(3) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form

recommended in that conference report;would not cause the appropriate allocation of new budget authoritymade pursuant to section 302(a) for that fiscal year to be exceeded.".

(b) TABLE OF CONTEN'rS.----The table of contents set forth insection 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment ControlAct of 1974 is amended by striking the item relating to section311 and inserting the following:"Sec. 311. Budgetrelated legislation must be within appropriate levels.".


(a) IN GENEFLAL.—Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Actof 1974 is amended to read as follows: 2 USC 643.

"DETERMINATIONS AND POINTS OF ORDER

"SEC. 312. (a) BUDGET COMMITTEE DETERMINATIONS.—FOr pur-poses of this title and title N, the levels of new budget authority,outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority, and revenuesfor a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of estimatesmade by the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representa-tives or the Senate, as applicable.

"(b) DISCRETIONARY SPENDING POINT OF ORDER IN THE SEN-ATE.—

"(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in thissubsection, it shall not be in order in the. Senate to considerany bill or resolution (or amendment, motion, or conferencereport on that bill or resolution) that would exceed any ofthe discretionary spending limits in section 25 1(c) of the Bal-anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

"(2) ExCEPTIONS=—This subsection shall not apply if a dec-laration of war by the Congress is in effect or if a joint resolutionpursuant to section 258 of the Balanced Budget and EmergencyDeficit Control Act of 1985 has been enacted."(c) MAXIMUM DEFICIT AMOUNT POINT OF ORDER IN THE SEN-

ATE,—It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any concur-rent resolution on the budget for a fiscal year, or to considerany amendment to that concurrent resolution, or to consider aconference report on that concurreit resolution, if-—

"(1) the level of total outlays for the first fiscal year setforth in that concurrent resolution or conference report exceeds;or


"(2) the adoption of that amendment would result in alevel of total outlays for that fiscal year that exceeds;

the recommended level of Federal revenues for that fiscal year,by an amount that is greater than the maximum deficit amount,if any, specified in the Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985 for that fiscal year.

"(d) TIMING OF POINTS OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.—A pointof order under this Act may not be raised against a bill, resolution,amendment, motion, or conference report while an amendment ormotion, the adoption of which would remedy the violation of thisAct, is pending before the Senate.

"(e) POiNTs OF ORDER IN THE SENATE AGAINST AMENDMENTSBETWEEN THE HOUSEs.—Each provision of this Act that establishesa point of order against an amendment also establishes a pointof order in the Senate against an amendment between the Houses.If a point of order under this Act is raised in the Senate againstan amendment between the Houses and the point of order is sus-tained, the effect shall be the same as if the Senate had disagreedto the amendment.

"U) EFFECT OF A POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.—In theSenate, if a point of order under this Act against a bill or resolutionis sustained, the Presiding Officer shall then recommit the billor resolution to the committee of appropriate jurisdiction for furtherconsideration.".

(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 313 of the Congressional Budget

2 USC 644. Act of 1974 is amended—(A) by striking "(c) When" and inserting "(d) CON-

FERENCE REPORTS.—When"; and(B) by striking subsection (e) and redesignating sub-

section (d) as subsection (e).(2) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The item relating to section 312

in the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the Congres-sional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amend-ed by striking "Effect of points" and inserting "Determinationsand points".

SEC. 10114. ADJUSTMENTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Congressional Budget Actof 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

"ADJUSTMENTS

2 USC 645. "SEC. 314. (a) ADJUSTMENTS.—"(1) IN GENERAL.—After the reporting of a bill or joint

resolution, the offering of an amendment thereto, or the submis-sion of a conference report thereon, the chairman of theCommittee on the Budget of the House of Representativesor the Senate shall make the adjustments set forth in para-graph (2) for the amount of new budget authority in thatmeasure (if that measure meets the requirements set forthin subsection (b)) and the outlays flowing from that budgetauthority.

"(2) MATTERS TO BE ADJUSTED.—The adjustments referredto in paragraph (1) are to be made to—

"(A) the discretionary spending limits, if any, set forthin the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget;


"(B) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriateconcurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section302(a); and

"(C) the budgetary aggregates as set forth in the appro-priate concurrent resolution on the budget.

"(b) AMOUNTS OF ADJUSTMENTS.—The adjustment referred toin subsection (a) shall be—

"(1) an amount provided and designated as an emergencyrequirement pursuant to section 25 1(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of theBalanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985;

"(2) an amount provided for continuing disability reviewssubject to the limitations in section 251(b)(2)(C) of that Act;

"(3) for any fiscal year through 2002, an amount providedthat is the dollar equivalent of the Special Drawing Rightswith respect to—

"(A) an increase in the United States quota as partof the International Monetary Fund Eleventh GeneralReview of Quotas (United States Quota); or

"(B) any increase in the maximum amount availableto the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 17of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, as amended fromtime to time (New Arrangements to Borrow);"(4) an amount provided not to exceed $1,884,000,000 for

the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2000 for arrearagesfor international organizations, international peacekeeping, andmultilateral development banks; or

"(5) an amount provided for an earned income tax creditcompliance initiative but not to exceed—

"(A) with respect to fiscal year 1998, $138,000,000 innew budget authority;

"(B) with respect to fiscal year 1999, $143,000,000 innew budget authority;

"(C) with respect to fiscal year 2000, $144,000,000 innew budget authority;

"(D) with respect to fiscal year 2001, $145,000,000in new budget authority; and

"(E) with respect to fiscal year 2002, $146,000,000 innew budget authority.

"(c) APPLICATION OF ADJUSTMENTS.—The adjustments madepursuant to subsection (a) for legislation shall—

"(1) apply while that legislation is under consideration;"(2) take effect upon the enactment of that legislation;

and"(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as Congressional

practicable."(d) REPORTING REVISED SuBALLOCATIONS.—Following any pt1o

adjustment made under subsection (a), the Committees on Appro-priations of the Senate and the House of Representatives mayreport appropriately revised suballocations under section 302(b)to carry out this section.

"(e) DEFINITIONS FOR CDRS.—As used in subsection (b)(2)—"(1) the term 'continuing disability reviews' shall have the

same meaning as provided in section 251(b)(2)(C)(ii) of theBalanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985;and

"(2) the term 'new budget authority' shall have the samemeaning as the term 'additional new budget authority' and


the term 'outlays' shall have the same meaning as 'additionaloutlays' in that section.".(b) TABLE OF C0N'rEN'rs.—The table of contents set forth in

section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment ControlAct of 1974 is amended by adding after the item relating to section313 the following new item:"Sec. 314. Adjustments.".

SEC. 10115. EFFECT OF ADOPTION OF A SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESSIN TIlE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATWES.

(a) EFFECT OF POINTs OF ORDER.—Title III of the CongressionalBudget Act of 1974 is amended by adding after section 314 thefollowing new section:

2 USC 645a. "EFFECT OF ADOPTION OF A SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS IN THEHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

"SEC. 315. For purposes of a reported bill or joint resolutionconsidered in the House of Representatives pursuant to a specialorder of business, the term 'as reported' in this title or title IVshall be considered to refer to the text made in order as an originalbill or joint resolution for the purpose of amendment or to thetext on which the previous question is ordered directly to passage,as the case may be.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of contents set forthin section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Con-trol Act of 1974 is amended by adding after the item relatingto section 314 the following new item:'Sec. 315. Effect of adoption of a special order of business in the House of Represent-

atives.".

SEC. 10116. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 401 AND REPEAL OF SECTION402.

(a) SECTION 40 1.—(1) CONTROLS.—Section 401 of the Congressional Budget

2 USC 1. Act of 1974 is amended by—(A) striking the heading and inserting the following:

"BUDGET-RELATED LEGISLATION NOT SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS";and

(B) striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:"(a) CONTROLS ON CERTAIN BUDGET-RELATED LEGISLATION NOT

SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS.—It shall not be in order in eitherthe House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any billor joint resolution (in the House of Representatives only, asreported), amendment, motion, or conference report that provides—

"(1) new authority to enter into contracts under whichthe United States is obligated to make outlays;

"(2) new authority to incur indebtedness (other than indebt-edness incurred under chapter 31 of title 31 of the UnitedStates Code) fOr the repayment of which the United Statesis liable; or

"(3) new credit authority;unless that bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conferencereport also provides that the new authority is to be effective forany fiscal year only to the extent or in the amounts providedin advance in appropriation Acts.".

PUBLIC LAW 105—33----AUG. 5, 1997 111 STAT. 691

(2) POINT OF ORDER.—Section 401(b) of the CongressionalBudget Act of 1974 is amended— 2 Usc 651.

(A) by inserting "new" before "entitlement" in the head-ing;

(B) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the follow-ing:"(1) POINT OF ORDER.—It shall not be in order in either

the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider anybill or joint resolution (in the House of Representatives only,as reported), amendment, motion, or conference report thatprovides new entitlement authority that is to become effectiveduring the current fiscal year."; and

(C) in paragraph (2)—(i) by striking "new spending authority described

in subsection (c)(2)(C)" and inserting "new entitlementauthority"; and

(ii) by striking "of that House" and inserting "ofthe Senate or may then be referred to the Committeeon Appropriations of the House, as the case majr be,".

(3) DEFINITION5.—Section 401 of the Congressional BudgetAct of 1974 is amended by striking subsection (c).

(4) ExcEvnONs.—Section 40 1(d) of the CongressionalBudget Act of 1974 is amended—

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking "new spending author-ity if the budget authority for outlays which result fromsuch new spending authority is derived" and inserting "newauthority described in those subsections if outlays fromthat new authority will flow";

(B) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating para-graph (3) as paragraph (2); and

(C) in paragraph (2), as redesignated, by striking "newspending authority" and inserting "new authority describedin those subsections".(5) REDEsIGNATION.—Subsection (d) of section 401 of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is redesignated as subsection(c).

(6) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(A) Clause 1(b)(4) of ruleX of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amendedto read as follows:

"(4) The amount of new authority to enter into contractsunder which the United States is obligated to make outlays,the budget authority for which is not provided in advanceby appropriation Acts; new authority to incur indebtedness(other than indebtedness in incurred under chapter 31 of title31 of the United States Code) for the repayment of whichthe United States is liable, the budget authority for whichis not provided in advance by appropriation Acts; new entitle-ment authority as defined in section 3(9) of the CongressionalBudget Act of 1974, including bills and resolutions (reportedby other committees) which provide new entitlement authorityas defined in section 3(9) of the Congressional Budget Actof 1974 and are referred to the committee under clause 4(a);authority to forego the collection by the United States of propri-etary offsetting receipts, the budget authority for which isnot provided in advance by appropriation Acts to offset suchforegone receipts; and authority to make payments by theUnited States (including loans, grants, and payments from


revolving funds) other than those covered by this subparagraph,the budget authority for which is not provided in advanceby appropriation Acts.".

(B) Clause 4(a)(2) of rule X of the Rules of the Houseof Representatives is amended by striking "new spendingauthority described in section 401(c)(2)(C)" and inserting "newentitlement authority as defined in section 3(9)" and by striking"total amount of new spending authority" and inserting "totalamount of new entitlement authority".

(C) Clause 2(l)(3) of rule XI of the Rules of the Houseof Representatives is amended by striking "new spendingauthority as described in section 401(c)(2)" and by inserting"new entitlement authority as defined in section 3(9)".(b) REPEALER OF SECTION 402.—Section 402 of the Congres-

2 USC 652. sional Budget Act of 1974 is repealed.(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

(1) REDESIGNATION.—Sections 403 through 407 of theCongressional Budget Act of 1974 are redesignated as sections

2 USC 653-656. 402 through 406, respectively.(2) GAO ANALYSIS.—Section 404 (as redesignated) of the

2 USC 654. Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking"spending authority as described by section 401(c)(2) and whichprovide permanent appropriations," and inserting "mandatoryspending".

(3) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents set forthin section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and ImpoundmentControl Act of 1974 is amended by—

(A) striking the item for section 401 and insertingthe following:

"Sec. 401. Budget-related legislation not subject to appropriations."; and

(B) striking the item relating to section 402 andredesignating the items relating to sections 403 through407 as the items relating to sections 402 through 406,respectively.(4) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(A) Clause 2(l)(3) of rule

XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amendedby striking "section 403" and inserting "section 402".

(B) Clause 7(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the Houseof Representatives is amended by striking "section 403" andinserting "section 402".

Loans. SEC. 10117. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE V.

(a) SECTION 502.—Section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform2 USC 661a. Act of 1990 is amended as follows:

(1) In the second sentence of paragraph (1), insert "andfinancing arrangements that defer payment for more than 90days, including the sale of a government asset on credit terms"before the period.

(2) In paragraph (5)(A), insert "or modification thereof'before the first comma.

(3) In paragraph (5), strike subparagraphs (B) and (C)and insert the following:

"(B) The cost of a direct loan shall be the net presentvalue, at the time when the direct loan is disbursed, of thefollowing estimated cash flows:

"(i) loan disbursements;"(ii) repayments of principal; and


"(iii) payments of interest and other payments by orto the Government over the life of the loan after adjustingfor estimated defaults, prepayments, fees, penalties, andother recoveries;

including the effects of changes in loan terms resulting fromthe exercise by the borrower of an option included in theloan contract.

"(C) The cost of a loan guarantee shall be the net presentvalue, at the time when the guaranteed loan is disbursed,of the following estimated cash flows:

"(i) payments by the Government to cover defaultsand delinquencies, interest subsidies, or other payments;and

"(ii) payments to the Government including originationand other fees, penalties and recoveries;

including the effects of changes in loan terms resulting fromthe exercise by the guaranteed lender of an option includedin the loan guarantee contract, or by the borrower of an optionincluded in the guaranteed loan contract.".

(4) In paragraph (5), amend subparagraph (D) to readas follows:

"(D) The cost of a modification is the difference betweenthe current estimate of the net present value of the remainingcash flows under the terms of a direct loan or loan guaranteecontract, and the current estimate of the net present valueof the remaining cash flows under the terms of the contract,as modified.".

(5) In paragraph (5)(E), insert "the cash flows or after

(6) In paragraph (5), by adding at the end the following:"(F) When funds are obligated for a direct loan or loan

guarantee, the estimated cost shall be based on the currentassumptions, adjusted to incorporate the terms of the loancontract, for the fiscal year in which the funds are obligated.".

(7) Redesignate paragraph (9) as paragraph (11) and afterparagraph (8) add the following new paragraphs:

"(9) The term 'modification' means any Government actionthat alters the estimated cost of an outstanding direct loan(or direct loan obligation) or an outstanding loan guarantee(or loan guarantee commitment) from the current estimateof cash flows. This includes the sale of loan assets, with orwithout recourse, and the purchase of guaranteed loans. Thisalso includes any action resulting from new legislation, or fromthe exercise of administrative discretion under existing law,that directly or indirectly alters the estimated cost of outstand-ing direct loans (or direct loan obligations) or loan guarantees(or loan guarantee commitments) such as a change in collectionprocedures.

"(10) The term 'current' has the same meaning as in section250(c)(9) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit ControlAct of 1985.".(b) SECTION 504.—Section 504 of the Federal Credit Reform

Act of 1990 is amended as follows: 2 USC 661c.

(1) Amend subsection (b)(1) to read as follows:"(1) new budget authority to cover their costs is provided

in advance in an appropriations Act;".


(2) In subsection (b)(2), strike "is enacted" and insert "hasbeen provided in advance in an appropriations Act".

(3) In subsection (c), strike "Subsection (b)" and insert"Subsections (b) and (e)".

(4) In subsection (d)( 1), strike "directly or indireétly alterthe costs of outstanding direct loans and loan guarantees"and insert "modifr outstanding direct loans (or direct loanobligations) or loan guarantees (or loan guarantee commit-ments)".

(5) Amend subsection (e) to read as follows:"(e) MODIFICATIONS.—AIi outstanding direct loan (or direct loan

obligation) or loan guarantee (or loan guarantee commitment) shallnot be modified in a manner that increases its costs unless budgetauthority for the additional cost has been provided in advancein an appropriations Act.".

(c) SECTION 505.—-Section 505 of the Federal Credit Reform2 USC 661d. Act of 1990 is amended as follows:

(1) In subsection (c), by inserting before. the period atthe end of the second sentence the following: ", except thatthe rate of interest charged by the Secretary on lending tofinancing accounts (including amounts treated as lending tofinancing accounts by the Federal Financing Bank (hereinafterin this subsection referred to as the 'Bank') pursuant to section406(b)) and the rate of interest paid to financing accountson uninvested balances in financing accounts shall be the sameas the rate determined pursuant to section 502(5)(E). Forguaranteed loans financed by the Bank and treated as directloans by a Federal agency pursuant to section 406(b), anyfee or interest surcharge (the amount by which the interestrate charged exceeds the rate determined pursuant to section502(5)(E)) that the Bank charges to a private borrower pursuantto section 6(c) of the Federal Financing Bank Act of 1973shall be considered a cash flow to the Government for thepurposes of determining the cost of the direct loan pursuantto section 502(5). All such amounts shall be credited to theappropriate financing account. The Bank is authorized torequire reimbursement from a Federal agency to cover theadministrative expenses of the Bank that are attributable tothe direct loans financed for that agency. All such paymentsby an agency shall be considered administrative expenses sub-

Applicability. ject to section 504(g). This subsection shall apply to transactionsrelated to direct loan obligations or loan guarantee commit-ments made on or after October 1, 1991".

(2) In subsection (c), by striking "supercede" and inserting"supersede".

(3) By amending subsection (d) to read as follows:"(d) AUTHORIZATION FOR LIQUIDATING ACCOUNTS.—(1) Amounts

in liquidating accounts shall be available only for payments result-ing from direct loan obligations or loan guarantee commitmentsmade prior to October 1, 1991, for—

"(A) interest payments and principal repayments to theTreasury or the Federal Financing Bank for amounts borrowed;

"(B) disbursements of loans;"(C) default and other guarantee claim payments;"(D) interest supplement payments;

PUBLIC LAW 1O5-33-----AUG. 5, 1997 111 STAT. 695

"(E) payments for the cost8 of foreclosing, managing, andselling collateral that are capitalized or routinely deductedfrom the proceeds of sales;

"(F) payments to financing accounts when required formodifications;

"(G) administrative expenses, if—"(i) amounts credited to the liquidating account would

have been available for administrative expenses under aprovision of law in effect prior to October 1, 1991; and

"(ii) no direct loan obligation or loan guarantee commit-ment has been made, or any modification of a direct loanor loan guarantee has been made, since September 30,1991; or"(H) such other payments as are necessary for the liquida-

tion of such direct loan obligations and loan guarantee commit-ments."(2) Amounts credited to liquidating accounts in any year shall

be available only for payments required in that year. Any unobli-gated balances in liquidating accounts at the end of a fiscal yearshall be transferred to miscellaneous receipts as soon as practicableafter the end of the fiscal year.

"(3) If funds in liquidating accounts are insufficient to satisfyobligations and commitments of such accounts, there is herebyprovided permanent, indefinite authority to make any paymentsrequired to be made on such obligations and commitments.".

(d) SECTION 506.—Section 506 of the Federal Credit ReformAct of 1990 is amended—

(1) by striking "(a) IN GENERAL.—";(2) by striking "(1)" and inserting the following:

"(a) IN GENERAL.—";(3) by striking "(2) The" and inserting the following:

"(b) STuDY.—The";(4) by striking "(3)" and inserting the following:

"(c) ACCESS TO DATA.—"; and(5) in subsection (c) (as redesignated) by striking "para-

graph (2)" and inserting "subsection (b)".SEC. 10118. REPEAL OF TITLE VI.

(a) REPEALER.—Title VI of the Congressional Budget Act of1974 is repealed.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—( 1) The items relating to titleVI of the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the Congres-sional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 are repealed.

(2) Clause 4(h) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representa-tives is amended by striking "section 302 or section 602 (in thecase of fiscal years 1991 through 1995)" and inserting "section302".SEC. 10119. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 904.

(a) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—=SectiOn 904(a) of the Congres-sional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking "(except section905)" and by striking "V, and VI (except section 601(a))" and insert-ing "and V".

(b) WArvERS.—Section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget Actof 1974 is amended to read as follows:

"(c) WAIVERS.—"(1) PERMANENT.—Sections 305(b)(2), 305(c)(4), 306,

310(d)(2), 313, 904(c), and 904(d) of this Act may be waived

2 USC 661e.

2 USC 665 et seq.

2 USC 621 note.


or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote ofthree-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

"(2) TEMPORA1y.—.Sectjons 301(i), 302(c), 302(f), 3 10(g),3 11(a), 3 12(b), and 3 12(c) of this Act and sections 258(a)(4)(C),258A(b)(3)(C)(I), 258B(f)(1), 258B(h)(1), 258(h)(3), 258C(a)(5),and 258C(b)(1) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985 may be waived or suspended in the Senateonly by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members,duly chosen and sworn.".(c) APPEAL5.—Section 904(d) of the Congressional Budget Act

2 Usc 621 note. of 1974 is amended to read as follows:"(d) AppEs.—

"(1) PiocEDuRE.—Appeals in the Senate from the decisionsof the Chair relating to any provision of title III or W orsection 1017 shall, except as otherwise provided therein, belimited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and controlledby, the mover and the manager of the resolution, concurrentresolution, reconciliation bill, or rescission bill, as the casemay be.

"(2) PERMiu.iI'r.—An affirmative vote of three-fifths of theMembers, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in theSenate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair ona point of order raised under sections 305(b)(2), 305(c)(4), 306,310(dX2), 313, 904(c), and 904(d) of this Act.

"(3) TEMPORARY.—An affirmative vote of three-fifths of theMembers, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in theSenate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair ona point of order raised under sections 301(i), 302(c), 302(f),310(g), 311(a), 312(b), and 312(c) of this Act and sections258(a)(4)(C), 258A(b)(3)(C)(I), 258B(f)(1), 258B(h)(1), 258(h)(3),258C(a)(5), and 258C(b)(1) of the Balanced Budget and Emer-gency Deficit Control Act of 1985.".(d) EXPIRATION OF SUPERMAJORITY VOTING REQUIREMENTS.—

Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amendedby adding at the end the following:

"(e) EXPIRATION OF CERTAIN SUPERMAJORITY VOTING REQUIRE-MENTS.—Subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) shall expire on September30, 2002.".

SEC. 10120. REPEAL OF SECTIONS 905 AND 906.

(a) REPEALER.—Sections 905 and 906 of the Congressional2 USC 621 note, Budget Act of 1974 are repealed.632 note. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The table of contents set forth

in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Con-trol Act of 1974 is amended by striking the items relating tosections 905 and 906.

SEC. 10121. AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 1022 AND 10Z4.

(a) SECTION 1022.—Section 1022(b)( 1)(F) of the Congressional2 USC 691a. Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by strik-

ing "section 601" and inserting "section 251(c) of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985".

(b) SECTION 1024.—Section 1024(a)( 1)(B) of the Congressional2 USC 691c. Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by strik-

ing "section 60 1(a)(2)" and inserting "section 251(c) of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985".



Section 1026(7)(A)(iv) of the Congressional Budget andImpoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by striking "; and" 2 Usc 691e.

and inserting "; or".

SEC. 10123. SENATE TASK FORCE ON CONSIDERATION OF BUDGETMEASURES.

(a) APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS.—The Majority Leader andMinority Leader of the Senate shall each appoint 3 Senators toserve on a bipartisan task force to study the floor proceduresfor the consideration of budget resolutions and reconciliation billsin the Senate as provided in sections 305(b) and 3 10(e) of theCongressional Budget Act of 1974.

(b) REPORT OF THE TASK F0RcE.—The task force shall submitits report to the Senate not later than October 8, 1997.

Subtitle B—Amendments to the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit ControlAct of 1985

SEC. 10201. PURPOSE. 2 Usc 900 note.

The purpose of this subtitle is to extend discretionary spendinglimits and pay-as-you-go requirements.

SEC. 10202. GENERAL STATEMENT AND DEFINITIONS.

(a) GENERAL STATEMEN'r.—Section 250(b) of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended 2 Usc 900.

by striking the first 2 sentences and inserting the following "Thispart provides for budget enforcement as called for in House Concur-rent Resolution 84 (105th Congress, 1st session).".

(b) DEFINITION5.—Section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended—-

(1) in paragraph (1)—(A) by striking "(but including" through "amount' ";

and(B) by striking "section 601 of that Act as adjusted

under sections 251 and 253" and inserting "section 251";(2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:"(4) The term 'category' means the subsets of discretionary

appropriations in section 251(c). Discretionary appropriationsin each of the categories shall be those designated in thejoint explanatory statement accompanying the conference reporton the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. New accounts or activitiesshall be categorized only after consultation with the committeeson Appropriations and the Budget of the House of Representa-tives and the Senate and that consultation shall, to the extentpracticable, include written communication to such committeesthat affords such committees the opportunity to comment beforeofficial action is taken with respect to new accounts or activi-ties.";

(3) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:"(6) The term 'budgetary resources' means new budget

authority, unobligated balances, direct spending authority, andobligation limitations.";


(4) in paragraph (9), by striking "submission of the fiscalyear 1992 budget that are not included with a budget submis-sion" and inserting "that budget submission that are notincluded with it";

(5) in paragraph (14), by inserting "first 4" before "fiscalyears" and by striking "through fiscal year 1995";

(6) by striking paragraphs (17) and (20) and by redesignat-ing paragraphs (18), (19), and (21) as paragraphs (17), (18),and (19), respectively;

(7) in paragraph (17) (as redesignated), by striking "Omni-bus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990" and inserting "BalancedBudget Act of 1997";

(8) in paragraph (18) (as redesignated), by striking allafter "expenses" and inserting "the Federal deposit insuranceagencies, and other Federal agencies supervising insureddepository institutions, resulting from full funding of, andcontinuation of, the deposit insurance guarantee commitmentin effect under current estimates."; and

(9) by striking paragraph (19) (as redesignated) and insert-ing the following:

"(19) The term 'asset sale' means the sale to the publicof any asset (except for those assets covered by title V ofthe Congressional Budget Act of 1974), whether physical orfinancial, owned in whole or in part by the United States.".

SEC. 10203. ENFORCING DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

(a) EXTENSION THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2002.—Section 251 of2 Usc 901. the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985

is amended—(1) in the heading of subsection (a), by striking "Fiscal

Years 1991—1998";(2) in subsection (a)(3), by striking "(h)" both places it

appears and inserting "(f)";(3) by striking subsection (a)(7) and inserting the following:"(7) ESTIMATES.—

"(A) CBO ESTIMATES.—AS soon as practicable afterCongress completes action on any discretionary appropria-tion, CBO, after consultation with the Committees on theBudget of the House of Representatives and the Senate,shall provide 0MB with an estimate of the amount ofdiscretionary new budget authority and outlays for thecurrent year (if any) and the budget year provided bythat legislation.

Reports. "(B) 0MB ESTIMATES AND EXPLANATION OF DIF-FERENCES.—Not later than 7 calendar days (excludingSaturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) after the dateof enactment of any discretionary appropriation, 0MB shalltransmit a report to the House of Representatives andto the Senate containing the CBO estimate of that legisla-tion, an 0MB estimate of the amount of discretionary newbudget authority and outlays for the current year (if any)and the budget year provided by that legislation, and anexplanation of any difference between the 2 estimates.If during the preparation of the report 0MB determinesthat there is a significant difference between 0MB andCBO, 0MB shall consult with the Committees on theBudget of the House of Representatives and the Senate


regarding that difference and that consultation shallinclude, to extent practicable, written communication tothose committees that affords such committees the oppor-tunity to comment before the issuance of the report.

"(C) ASSUMPTIONS AND GUIDELINES.—OMB estimatesunder this paragraph shall be made using current economicand technical assumptions. 0MB shall use the 0MB esti-mates transmitted to the Congress under this paragraph.0MB and CBO shall prepare estimates under this para-graph in conformance with scorekeeping guidelines deter-mined after consultation among the House and SenateCommittees on the Budget, CBO, and 0MB.

"(D) ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS.—For purposes of thisparagraph, amounts provided by annual appropriationsshall include any new budget authority and outlays forthe current year (if any) and the budget year in accountsfor which funding is provided in that legislation that resultfrom previously enacted legislation.";(4) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:

"(b) ADJUSTMENTS TO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.—"(1) PREVIEW REPORT.—When the President submits the

budget under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code,0MB shall calculate and the budget shall include adjustmentsto discretionary spending limits (and those limits as cumula-tively adjusted) for the budget year and each outyear to reflectchanges in concepts and definitions. Such changes shall equalthe baseline levels of new budget authority and outlays usingup-to-date concepts and definitions minus those levels usingthe concepts and definitions in effect before such changes. Suchchanges may only be made after consultation with the commit-tees on Appropriations and the Budget of the House of Rep-resentatives and the Senate and that consultation shall includewritten communication to such committees that affords suchcommittees the opportunity to comment before official actionis taken with respect to such changes.

"(2) SEQUESTRATION REPORTS,—When 0MB submits asequestration report under section 254(e), (f), or (g) for a fiscalyear, 0MB shall calculate, and the sequestration report andsubsequent budgets submitted by the President under section1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, shall include adjust-ments to discretionary spending limits (and those limits asadjusted) for the fiscal year and each succeeding year through2002, as follows:

"(A) EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS.—If, for any fiscalyear, appropriations for discretionary accounts are enactedthat the President designates as emergency requirementsand that the Congress so designates in statute, the adjust-ment shall be the total of such appropriations in discre-tionary accounts designated as emergency requirementsand the outlays flowing in all fiscal years from such appro-priations. This subparagraph shall not apply to appropria-tions to cover agricultural crop disaster assistance.

"(B) SPECIAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE.—If, in any fiscalyear, outlays for a category exceed the discretionary spend-ing limit for that category but new budget authority doesnot exceed its limit for that category (after applicationof the first step of a sequestration described in subsection


(a)(2), if necessary), the adjustment in outlays for a fiscalyear is the amount of the excess but not to exceed 0.5percent of the sum of the adjusted discretionary spendinglimits on outlays for that fiscal year.

"(C) CONTINUING DISABILITY REVIEWS.—(i) If a bill orjoint resolution making appropriations for a fiscal yearis enacted that specifies an amount for continuing disabilityreviews under the heading 'Limitation on AdministrativeExpenses' for the Social Security Administration, theadjustments for that fiscal year shall be the additionalnew budget authority provided in that Act for such reviewsfor that fiscal year and the additional outlays flowing fromsuch amounts, but shall not exceed—

"(I) for fiscal year 1998, $290,000,000 in additionalnew budget authority and $338,000,000 in additionaloutlays;

"(II) for fiscal year 1999, $520,000,000 in additionalnew budget authority and $520,000,000 in additionaloutlays;

"(III) for fiscal year 2000, $520,000,000 in addi-tional new budget authority and $520,000,000 in addi-tional outlays;

"(IV) for fiscal year 2001, $520,000,000 in addi-tional new budget authority and $520,000,000 in addi-tional outlays; and

"(V) for fiscal year 2002, $520,000,000 in additionalnew budget authority and $520,000,000 in additionaloutlays."(ii) As used in this subparagraph—

"(I) the term 'continuing disability reviews' meansreviews or redeterminations as defined under section20 1(g)( 1)(A) of the Social Security Act and reviewsand redeterminations authorized under section 211 ofthe Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Rec-onciliation Act of 1996;

"(II) the term 'additional new budget authority'means the amount provided for a fiscal year, in excessof $200,000,000, in an appropriations Act and specifiedto pay for the costs of continuing disability reviewsunder the heading 'Limitation on AdministrativeExpenses' for the Social Security Administration; and

"(III) the term 'additional outlays' means outlays,in excess of $200,000,000 in a fiscal year, flowing fromthe amounts specified for continuing disability reviewsunder the heading 'Limitation on AdministrativeExpenses' for the Social Security Administration,including outlays in that fiscal year flowing fromamounts specified in Acts enacted for prior fiscal years(but not before 1996)."(D) ALLOWANCE FOR IMF.—If an appropriation bill or

joint resolution is enacted for a fiscal year through 2002that includes an appropriation with respect to clause (i)or (ii), the adjustment shall be the amount of budgetauthority in the measure that is the dollar equivalentof the Special Drawing Rights with respect to—


"(i) an increase in the United States quota aspart of the International Monetary Fund Eleventh Gen-eral Review of Quotas (United States Quota); or

"(ii) any increase in the maximum amount avail-able to the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to sec-tion 17 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, asamended from time to time (New Arrangements toBorrow)."(E) ALLOWANCE FOR INTERNATIONAL ARREARAGES.—

"(i) ADJUSTMENTS.—If an appropriation bill or jointresolution is enacted for fiscal year 1998, 1999, or2000 that includes an appropriation for arrearages forinternational organizations, international peacekeep-ing, and multilateral development banks for that fiscalyear, the adjustment shall be the amount of budgetauthority in that measure and the outlays flowingin all fiscal years from that budget authority.

"(ii) LIMITATIONS.—The total amount of adjust-ments made pursuant to this subparagraph for theperiod of fiscal years 1998 through 2000 shall notexceed $1,884,000,000 in budget authority."(F) EITC COMPLIANCE INITIATIVE.—If an appropriation

bill or joint resolution is enacted for a fiscal year thatincludes an appropriation for an earned income tax creditcompliance initiative, the adjustment shall be the amountof budget authority in that measure for that initiativeand the outlays flowing in all fiscal years from that budgetauthority, but not to exceed—

"(i) with respect to fiscal year 1998, $138,000,000in new budget authority and $131,000,000 in outlays;

"(ii) with respect to fiscal year 1999, $143,000,000in new budget authority and $143,000,000 in outlays;

"(iii) with respect to fiscal year 2000, $144,000,000in new budget authority and $144,000,000 in outlays;

"(iv) with respect to fiscal year 2001, $145,000,000in new budget authority and $145,000,000 in outlays;and

"(v) with respect to fiscal year 2002, $146,000,000in new budget authority and $146,000,000 in outlays.".

(b) SHIFFING OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS INTO THEBALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT OF1985.—Section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985 is amended by adding at the end the following 2 USC 901.new subsection:

"(c) DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMIT.—As used in this part,the term 'discretionary spending limit' means—

"(1) with respect to fiscal year 1997, for the discretionarycategory, the current adjusted limits of new budget authorityand outlays;

"(2) with respect to fiscal year 1998—"(A) for the defense category: $269,000,000,000 in new

budget authority and $266,823,000,000 in outlays;"(B) for the nondefense category: $252,357,000,000 in

new budget authority and $282,853,000,000 in outlays; and"(C) for the violent crime reduction category:

$5,500,000,000 in new budget authority and $3,592,000,000in outlays;

39—139 0 — 97 — 15 (33)

ill STAT. 702 PUBLIC LAW 105-33—AUG. 5, 1997

"(3) with respect to fiscal year 1999—"(A) for the defense category: $271,500,000,000 in new

budget authority and $266,518,000,000 in outlays;"(B) for the nondefense category: $255,699,000,000 in

new budget authority and $287,850,000,000 in outlays; and"(C) for the violent crime reduction category:

$5,800,000,000 in new budget authority and $4,953,000,000in outlays;"(4) with respect to fiscal year 2000—

"(A) for the discretionary category: $532,693,000,000in new budget authority and $558,711,000,000 in outlays;and

"(B) for the violent crime reduction category:$4,500,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,554,000,000in outlays;"(5) with respect to fiscal year 2001, for the discretionary

category: $542,032,000,000 in new budget authority and$564,396,000,000 in outlays; and

"(6) with respect to fiscal year 2002, for the discretionarycategory: $551,074,000,000 in new budget authority and$560,799,000,000 in outlays;

as adjusted in strict conformance with subsection (b).".(c) REPEAL OF DUPLICATIVE PROVISIONS.—Sections 201, 202,

204(b), 206, and 211 of House Concurrent Resolution 84 (105thCongress) are repealed.

SEC. 10204. VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION SPENDING.

(a) SEQUESTRATION REGARDING VIOLE!'l'r CRIME REDUCTIONSPENDING.—

(1) REPEAL.—Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and2 USC 901a. Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is repealed.

(2) TLE OF CONTENTS.—The item relating to section 251Ain the table contents set forth in section 250(a) of the Balanced

2 USC 900. Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is repealed.(b) COOiuiING AMENDMENT.—Section 310002 of Public Law

103—322 (42 U.S.C. 14212) is repealed.

SEC. 10205. ENFORCING PAY-AS-YOU-GO.

Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit2 USC 902. Control Act of 1985 is amended—

(1) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting thefollowing:"(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to assure that

any legislation enacted before October 1, 2002, affecting directspending or receipts that increases the deficit will trigger an offset-ting sequestration.

"(b) SEQUESTRATION.—"(1) TIMING.—Not later than 15 calendar days after the

date Congress adjourns to end a session and on the sameday as a sequestration (if any) under section 251 or 253, thereshall be a sequestration to offset the amount of any net deficitincrease caused by all direct spending and receipts legislationenacted before October 1, 2002, as calculated under paragraph(2).

"(2) CALCULATION OF DEFICIT INCREASE.—-OMB shall cal-culate the amount of deficit increase or decrease by adding—


"(A) all 0MB estimates for the budget year of directspending and receipts legislation transmitted under sub-section (d);

"(B) the estimated amount of savings in direct spendingprograms applicable to budget year resulting from the prioryear's sequestration under this section or section 253, ifany, as published in OMB's final sequestration report forthat prior year; and

"(C) any net deficit increase or decrease in the currentyear resulting from all 0MB estimates for the currentyear of direct spending and receipts legislation transmittedunder subsection (d) that were not reflected in the final0MB sequestration report for the current year.";(2) by amending subsection (c)( 1)(B), by inserting "and

direct" after "guaranteed";(3) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:

"(d) ESTIMATES.—"(1) CBO ESTIMATES.—As soon as practicable after Congress

completes action on any direct spending or receipts legislation,CBO shall provide an estimate to 0MB of that legislation.

"(2) 0MB ESTIMATES.—Not later than 7 calendar days(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) after thedate of enactment of any direct spending or receipts legislation,0MB shall transmit a report to the House of Representativesand to the Senate containing—

"(A) the CBO estimate of that legislation;"(B) an 0MB estimate of that legislation using current

economic and technical assumptions; and"(C) an explanation of any difference between the 2

estimates."(3) SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES.—If during the preparation

of the report under paragraph (2) 0MB determines that thereis a significant difference between the 0MB and CBO estimates,0MB shall consult with the Committees on the Budget ofthe House of Representatives and the Senate regarding thatdifference and that consultation, to the extent practicable, shallinclude written communication to such committees that affordssuch committees the opportunity to comment before the issu-ance of that report.

"(4) SCOPE OF ESTIMATES.—The estimates under this sectionshall include the amount of change in outlays or receipts forthe current year (if applicable), the budget year, and eachoutyear excluding any amounts resulting from—

"(A) full funding of, and continuation of, the depositinsurance guarantee commitment in effect under currentestimates; and

"(B) emergency provisions as designated under sub-section (e)."(5) SCOREKEEPING GUIDELINES.—OMB and CBO, after con-

sultation with each other and the Committees on the Budgetof the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall—

"(A) determine common scorekeeping guidelines; and"(B) in conformance with such guidelines, prepare esti-

mates under this section."; and(4) in subsection (e), by striking ", for any fiscal year

from 1991 through 1998," and by striking "through 1995".


SEC. 10206. REPORTS AND ORDERS.

Section 254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit2 USC 904. Control Act of 1985 is amended—

(1) by striking subsection (c) and redesignating subsections(d) through (k) as (c) through (j), respectively;

(2) in subsection (c) (as redesignated), by striking "1998"and inserting "2002";

(3) in subsection (d) (as redesignated), by striking "(h)"and inserting "(f)";

(4)(A) in subsection (fX2XA) (as redesignated), by striking"1998" and inserting "2002";

(B) in subsection (fX3) (as redesignated), by striking"through 1998"; and

(C) by striking subsection (fX4) (as redesignated) and byredesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) of that subsection as para-graphs (4) and (5), respectively; and

(5) in subsection (g) (as redesignated), by striking "(g)"each place it appears and inserting "(f)".

SEC. 10207. EXEMPT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES.

(a) VETERANS PROGRAMS.—Section 255(b) of the Balanced2 USC 905. Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended

as follows:(1) In the item relating to Veterans Insurance and Indem-

nity, strike "Indemnity" and insert "Indemnities".(2) In the item relating to Veterans' Canteen Service

Revolving Fund, strike "Veterans' ".(3) In the item relating to Benefits under chapter 21 of

title 38, strike "(36—0137—O--1—702)" and insert "(36—0120—0—1—701)".

(4) In the item relating to Veterans' compensation, strike"Veterans' compensation" and insert "Compensation".

(5) In the item relating to Veterans' pensions, strike "Veter-ans' pensions" and insert "Pensions".

(6) After the last item, insert the following new items:"Benefits under chapter 35 of title 38, United States Code,

related to educational assistance for survivors and dependentsof certain veterans with service-connected disabilities (36—0137—0—1—702);

"Assistance and services under chapter 31 of title 38,United States Code, relating to training and rehabilitation forcertain veterans with service-connected disabilities (36—0137—0—1—702);

"Benefits under subchapters I, II, and III of chapter 37of title 38, United States Code, relating to housing loans forcertain veterans and for the spouses and surviving spousesof certain veterans Guaranty and Indemnity Program Account(36—li 19—0—1—704);

"Loan Guaranty Program Account (36—1025—0—1—704); and"Direct Loan Program Account (36—1024—0—1—704).".

(b) CERTAIN PROGRAM BASES.—Section 255(f) of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amendedto read as follows:

"U) OvrIoNAL EXEMPTION OF MILITARY PERSONNEL.—


"(1) IN GENERAL.—The President may, with respect to anymilitary personnel account, exempt that account from seques-tration or provide for a lower uniform percentage reductionthan would otherwise apply.

"(2) LIMITATION.—The President may not use the authorityprovided by paragraph (1) unless the President notifies theCongress of the manner in which such authority will be exer-cised on or before the date specified in section 254(a) for thebudget year.".(c) OTHER PROGRAMS AND ACTNITIES.—(1) Section 255(g)(1)(A)

of the Balanced Budget Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 2 Usc 905.is amended as follows:

(A) After the first item, insert the following new item:"Activities financed by voluntary payments to the

Government for goods or services to be provided for suchpayments;".(B) Strike "Thrift Savings Fund (26—8141—0—7—602);".(C) In the first item relating to the Bureau of Indian

Affairs, insert "Indian land and water claims settlements and"after the comma.

(D) In the second item relating to the Bureau of IndianAffairs, strike "miscellaneous" and insert "Miscellaneous" andstrike ", tribal trust funds".

(E) Strike "Claims, defense (97—0102—0—1—051);".(F) In the item relating to Claims, judgments, and relief

acts, strike "806" and insert 808".(G) Strike "Coinage profit fund (20—5811—O--2—803);".(H) Insert "Compact of Free Association (14—0415--O—1—

808);" after the item relating to the Claims, judgments, andrelief acts.

(I) Insert "Conservation Reserve Program (12—2319—0—1—302);" after the item relating to the Compensation of the Presi-dent.

(J) In the item relating to the Customs Service, strike"852" and insert "806".

(K) In the item relating to the Comptroller of the Currency,insert", Assessment funds (20—8413—0—8—373)" before the semi-colon.

(L) Strike "Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision;".(M) Strike "Eastern Indian land claims settlement fund

(14—2202—0—1—806);".(N) After the item relating to the Exchange stabilization

fund, insert the following new items:"Farm Credit Administration, Limitation on Adminis-

trative Expenses (78—4131—0—3—351);"Farm Credit System Financial Assistance Corpora-

tion, interest payment (20—1850--O--1—908);".(0) Strike "Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;".(P) In the first item relating to the Federal Deposit Insur-

ance Corporation, insert "(51-4064—0—3—373)" before the semi-colon.

(Q) In the second item relating to the Federal DepositInsurance Corporation, insert "(51—4065—0—3—373)" before thesemicolon.

(R) In the third item relating to the Federal Deposit Insur-ance Corporation, insert "(51—4066—0—3—373)" before the semi-colon.


(S) In the item relating to the Federal Housing FinanceBoard, insert "(95—4039—0—3—371)" before the semicolon.

(T) In the item relating to tjie Federal payment to therailroad retirement account, strike "account" and insert"accounts".

(U) In the item relating to the health professions graduatestudent loan insurance fund, insert "program account" after"fund" and strike "(Health Education Assistance Loan Program)(75—4305—0—3—553)" and insert "(75—0340—0—1—552)".

(V) In the item relating to Higher education facilities, strike"and insurance".

(W) In the item relating to Internal revenue collectionsfor Puerto Rico, strike "852" and insert "806".

(X) Amend the item relating to the Panama Canal Commis-sion to read as follows:

"Panama Canal Commission, Panama Canal RevolvingFund (95—4061—0—3—403);".(Y) In the item relating to the Medical facilities guarantee

and loan fund, strike "(75—4430—0—3—551)" and insert "(75—9931—0-3—550)".

(Z) In the first item relating to the National Credit UnionAdministration, insert "operating fund (25—4056—0—3—373)"before the semicolon.

(AA) In the second item relating to the National CreditUnion Administration, strike "central" and insert "Central" andinsert "(25—4470—0—3—373)" before the semicolon.

(BB) In the third item relating to the National CreditUnion Administration, strike "credit" and insert "Credit" andinsert "(25—4468—0—3—373)" before the semicolon.

(CC) After the third item relating to the National CreditUnion Administration, insert the following new item:

"Office of Thrift Supervision (20—4108—0—3—373);".(DD) In the item relating to Payments to health care trust

funds, strike "572" and insert "571".(EE) Strike "Compact of Free Association, economic assist-

ance pursuant to Public Law 99—658 (14—0415—0—1—806);".(FF) In the item relating to Payments to social security

trust funds, strike "571" and insert "651".(GG) Strike "Payments to state and local government fiscal

assistance trust fund (20—2111—0—1—851);".(HH) In the item relating to Payments to the United States

territories, strike "852" and insert "806".(II) Strike "Resolution Funding Corporation;".(JJ) In the item relating to the Resolution Trust Corpora-

tion, insert "Revolving Fund (22—4055—0—3—373)" before thesemicolon.

(1(K) After the item relating to the Tennessee ValleyAuthority funds, insert the following new items:

"Thrift Savings Fund;"United States Enrichment Corporation (95—4054—0—

3—271);"Vaccine Injury Compensation (75—0320—0—1—551);"Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Trust Fund

(20—8175—0—7—551);".(2) Section 255(g)( 1XB) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency

2 Usc 905. Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended as follows:


(A) Strike "The following budget" and insert "The followingFederal retirement and disability".

(B) In the item relating to Black lung benefits, strike"lung benefits" and insert "Lung Disability Trust Fund".

(C) In the item relating to the Court of Federal ClaimsCourt Judges' Retirement Fund, strike "Court of Federal".

(D) In the item relating to Longshoremen's compensationbenefits, insert "Special workers compensation expenses," before"Longshoremen's".

(E) In the item relating to Railroad retirement tier II,strike "retirement tier II" and insert "Industry Pension Fund".(3) Section 255(g)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency

Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended as follows: 2 USC 905.

(A) Strike the following items:"Agency for International Development, Housing, and

other credit guarantee programs (72—4340.-O--3—151);"Agricultural credit insurance fund (12—4140—0--i—

351);".(B) In the item relating to Check forgery, strike "Check"

and insert "United States Treasury check".(C) Strike "Community development grant loan guarantees

(86—0162—0—1—451);".(D) After the item relating to the United States Treasury

Check forgery insurance fund, insert the following new item:"Credit liquidating accounts;".

(E) Strike the following items:"Credit union share insurance fund (25—4468—0—3—

371);"."Economic development revolving fund (13—4406—0—3—

452);"."Export-Import Bank of the United States, Limitation

of program activity (83—4027—0—3—155);"."Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (51—8419—0—

8—371);"."Federal Housing Administration fund (86—4070—0—3—

371);"."Federal ship financing fund (69—4301—0—3—403);"."Federal ship financing fund, fishing vessels (13—4417—

0—3—376);"."Government National Mortgage Association, Guaran-

tees of mortgage-backed securities (86—4238—0—3—371);"."Health education loans (75—4307—0—3—553);"."Indian loan guarantee and insurance fund (14—4410—

0—3—452);"."Railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing

fund (69—4411—0—3—401);"."Rural development insurance fund (12—4155—0—3—

452);"."Rural electric and telephone revolving fund (12—4230—

8-3—271);"."Rural housing insurance fund (12-4141—0-3-371);"."Small Business Administration, Business loan and

investment fund (73—4154—0—3—376);"."Small Business Administration, Lease guarantees

revolving fund (73—4157—0—3—376);".


"Small Business Administration, Pollution controlequipment contract guarantee revolving fund (73—4147—0—3—376);".

"Small Business Administration, Surety bond guaran-tees revolving fund (73—4156—0—3—376);".

"Department of Veterans Affairs Loan guaranty revolv-ing fund (36—4025—0—3—704);".

(d) LOW-INCOME PROGRAMS.—Section 255(h) of the Balanced2 USC 905. Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended

as follows:(1) Amend the item relating to Child nutrition to read

as follows:"Child nutrition programs (with the exception of special

milk programs) (12—3539—0—1—605);".(2) Mter the second item insert the following new items:"Temporary assistance for needy families (75—1552—0—1—

609);"Contingency fund (75—1522—0—1—609);""Child care entitlement to States (75—1550—0—1—609);(3) Amend the item relating to Women, infants, and chil-

dren program to read as follows:"Special supplemental nutrition program for women,

infants, and children (WIC) (12—3510—0—1—605);".(4) After the last item add the following new item:"Family support payments to States (75—1501—0—1—609);".

(e) IDENTIFICATION OF PROGRAMS.—SeCtion 255(i) of the Bal-anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amend-ed to read as follows:

"(i) IDENTIFICATION OF PROGRAMS.—For purposes of subsections(b), (g), and (h), each account is identified by the designated budgetaccount identification code number set forth in the Budget of theUnited States Government 1998—Appendix, and an activity withinan account is designated by the name of the activity and theidentification code number of the account.".

(f) OPTIONAL EXEMPTION OF MILITARY PERSONNEL.—Section255(h) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Actof 1985 (relating to optional exemption of military personnel) isrepealed.

SEC. 10208. GENERAL AND SPECIAL SEQUESTRATION RULES.

(a) HEADINGS.—(1) SECTI0N.—The section heading of section 256 of the

2 USC 906. Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985is amended by striking "EXCEPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND SPECIALRULES" and inserting "GENERAL AND SPECIAL SEQUESTRATIONRULES".

(2) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The item relating to section 256in the table ontents set forth in section 250(a) of the Balanced

2 USC 900. Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amendedto read as follows:

"SEC. 256. GENERAL AND SPECIAL SEQUESTRATION RULES.".

(b) AUTOMATIC SPENDING INCREASES.—Section 256(a) of theBalanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 isamended by striking paragraph (1) and redesignating paragraphs(2) and (3) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively.


"(b) STUDENT LOANs.—For all student loans under part B orD of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 made duringthe period when a sequestration order under section 254 is ineffect as required by section 252 or 253, origination fees undersections 438(c)(2) and 455(c) of that Act shall each be increasedby 0.50 percentage point.".

(d) HEALTH CENTERS.—Section 256(e)(1) of the Balanced Budgetand Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by strikingthe dash and all that follows thereafter and inserting "2 percent.".

(e) TREATMENT OF FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ExPENSES.—Sec-tion 256(h) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit ControlAct of 1985 is amended—

(1) in paragraph (2), by striking "joint resolution" andinserting "part"; and

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking subparagraphs (D) and(H), by redesignating subparagraphs (E), (F), (G), and (I), assubparagraphs (D), (E), (F), and (G), respectively, and by addingat the end the following new subparagraph:

"(H) Farm Credit Administration.".(1) COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.—Section 256(j) of the

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 isamended by striking paragraphs (2) through (5) and inserting thefollowing:

"(2) REDUCTION IN PAYMENTS MADE UNDER CONTRACTS.—(A) Loan eligibility under any contract entered into with aperson by the Commodity Credit Corporation prior to the timean order has been issued under section 254 shall not be reducedby an order subsequently issued. Subject to subparagraph (B),after an order is issued under such section for a fiscal year,any cash payments for loans or loan deficiencies made bythe Commodity Credit Corporation shall be subject to reductionunder the order.

"(B) Each loan contract entered into with producers orproducer cooperatives with respect to a particular crop of acommodity and subject to reduction under subparagraph (A)shall be reduced in accordance with the same terms and condi-tions. If some, but not all, contracts applicable to a crop ofa commodity have been entered into prior to the issuanceof an order under section 254, the order shall provide thatthe necessary reduction in payments under contracts applicableto the commodity be uniformly applied to all contracts forthe next succeeding crop of the commodity, under the authorityprovided in paragraph (3).

"(3) DELAYED REDUCTION IN OUTLAYS PERMISSIBLE.—Not-withstanding any other provision of this title, if an order undersection 254 is issued with respect to a fiscal year, any reductionunder the order applicable to contracts described in paragraph(1) may provide for reductions in outlays for the accountinvolved to occur in the fiscal year following the fiscal yearto which the order applies.

"(4) UNIFORM PERCENTAGE RATE OF REDUCTION AND OTHERLIMITATIONS.—A1l reductions described in paragraph (2) whichare required to be made in connection with an order issuedunder section 254 with respect to a fiscal year shall be madeso as to ensure that outlays for each program, project, activity,or account involved are reduced by a percentage rate thatis uniform for all such programs, projects, activities, and


accounts, and may not be made so as to achieve a percentagerate of reduction in any such item exceeding the rate specifiedin the order.

"(5) DAIRY PROGRAM.—Notwithstanding any other provisionof this subsection, as the sole means of achieving any reductionin outlays under the milk price support program, the Secretaryof Agriculture shall provide for a reduction to be made inthe price received by producers for all milk produced in theUnited States and marketed by producers for commercial use.That price reduction (measured in cents per hundred weightof milk marketed) shall occur under section 201(d)(2)(A) ofthe Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446(d)(2)(A)), shallbegin on the day any sequestration order is issued under section254, and shall not exceed the aggregate amount of the reductionin outlays under the milk price support program that otherwisewould have been achieved by reducing payments for the pur-chase of milk or the products of milk under this subsectionduring the applicable fiscal year.".(g) EFFECTS OF SEQUESTRATION.—Section 256(k) of the Bal-

2 USC 906. anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amend-ed as follows:

(1) In paragraph (1), strike "other than a trust or specialfund account" and insert ", except as provided in paragraph(5)" before the period.

(2) Amend paragraph (6) to read as follows:"(6) Budgetary resources sequestered in revolving, trust,

and special fund accounts and offsetting collections sequesteredin appropriation accounts shall not be available for obligationduring the fiscal year in which the sequestration occurs, butshall be available in subsequent years to the. extent otherwiseprovided in law.".

SEC. 10209. THE BASELINE.

(a) IN GENEiL.—Section 257 of the Balanced Budget and2 USC 907. Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)(2) by amending subparagraph (A) toread as follows:

"(A)(i) No program established by a law enacted on orbefore the date of enactment of the Balanced Budget Act of1997 with estimated current year outlays greater than$50,000,000 shall be assumed to expire in the budget yearor the outyears. The scoring of new programs with estimatedoutlays greater than $50,000,000 a year shall be based onscoring by the Committees on Budget or 0MB, as applicable.0MB, CBO, and the Budget Committees shall consult on thescoring of such programs where there are differenes betweenCBO and 0MB.

"(ii) On the expiration of the suspension of a provisionof law that is suspended under section 171 of Public Law104—127 and that authorizes a program with estimated fiscalyear outlays that are greater than $50,000,000, for purposesof clause (i), the program shall be assumed to continue tooperate in the same manner as the program operated imme-diately before the expiration of the suspension.";

(2) by adding the end of subsection (b)(2) the followingnew subparagraph:

PUBLIC LAW 1O5=33=AUG. 5, 1997 111 STAT. 711

"(D) If any law expires before the budget year or anyoutyear, then any program with estimated current year outlaysgreater than $50,000,000 that operates under that law shallbe assumed to continue to operate under that law as in effectimmediately before its expiration.";

(3) in the second sentence of subsection (c)(5), by striking"national product fixed-weight price index" and inserting"domestic product chaintype price index"; and

(4) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:"(e) ASSET SALES.—Amounts realized from the sale of an asset

shall not be included in estimates under section 251, 252, or 253if that sale would result in a financial cost to the Federal Govern-ment as determined pursuant to scorekeeping guidelines.".

(b) PRESIDENT'S BuDGET.—Section 1105(a) of title 31, UnitedStates Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

"(32) a statement of the levels of budget authority andoutlays for each program assumed to be extended in the base-line as provided in section 257(b)(2)(A) and for excise taxesassumed to be extended under section 257(b)(2)(C) of the Bal-anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.".(c) BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRUST FuND OPER-

ATIONS.—Section 710 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 911)is amended to read as follows:

"BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF TRUST FUND OPERATIONS

"SEC. 710. (a) The receipts and disbursements of the FederalOld-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the FederalDisability Insurance Trust Fund and the taxes imposed under sec-tions 1401 and 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shallnot be included in the totals of the budget of the United StatesGovernment as submitted by the President or of the congressionalbudget and shall be exempt from any general budget limitationimposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget outlays)of the United States Government,

"(b) No provision of law enacted after the date of enactmentof the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985(other than a provision of an appropriation Act that appropriatedfunds authorized under the Social Security Act as in effect onthe date of the enactment of the Balanced Budget and EmergencyDeficit control Act of 1985) may provide for payments from thegeneral fund of the Treasury to any Trust Fund specified in sub-section (a) or for payments from any such Trust Fund to thegeneral fund of the Treasury",

SEC. 10210. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

Section 258 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985, entitled "Modification of Presidential Order", 2 USC 908.is repealed.

SEC. 10211. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Section 274 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985 is amended as follows: 2 USC 922.

(1) Strike "252" or "252(b)" each place it occurs and insert"254".

(2) In subsection (d)(1)(A), strike "257(1) to the extent that"and insert "256(a) if' and at the end insert "or".


(3) In subsection (d)(1)(B), strike "new budget" and allthat follows through "spending authority" and insert "budgetaryresources" and strike "or" after the comma.

(4) Strike subsection (d)(1)(C).(5) Strike subsection (f) and redesignate subsections (g)

and (h) as subsections (f) and (g), respectively.(6) In subsection (g) (as redesignated), strike "base levels

of total revenues and total budget outlays, as" and insert "fig-ures", and strike "251(a)(2)(B) or (c)(2)," and insert "254".

SEC. 10212. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) ExPIRATI0N.—Section 275(b) of the Balanced Budget and2 Usc 900 note. Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended—

(1) by striking "Part C of this title, section" and inserting"Sections 251, 253, 258B, and";

(2) by striking "1995" and inserting "2002"; and(3) by adding at the end the following new sentence: "The

remaining sections of part C of this title shall expire September30, 2006.".(b) ExPIRATI0N.—Section 14002(c)(3) of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993 (2 U.S.C. 900 note) is repealed.2 USC 902 note. SEC. 10213. REDUCTION OF PREEXISTiNG BALANCES AND EXCLUSION

OF EFFECTS OF THIS ACT FROM PAYGO SCORECARD.

Upon the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Officeof Management and Budget shall—

(1) reduce any balances of direct spending and receiptslegislation for any fiscal year under section 252 of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to zero;and

(2) not make any estimates of changes in direct spendingoutlays and receipts under subsection (d) of that section forany fiscal year resulting from the enactment of this Act orof the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.


LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2015 (S. 947):

HOUSE REPORTS: Nos. 105—149 (Comm. on the Budget) and 105—217 (Comm. ofConference).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 143 (1997):June 25, considered and passed House; considered and passed Senate,

amended, in lieu of 5. 947.July 30, House agreed to conference report. Senate considered conference

report.July 31, Senate agreed to conference report.

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 33(1997):Aug. 5, Presidential remarks and statement.Aug. 11, Presidential remarks and special message on line item veto.

FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 62 (1997):Aug. 12, Cancellation of item pursuant to Line Item Veto Act.

0

1188 Aug. 4 / Administration of WllhiamJ. Clinton, 1997

Remarks on Signing the BalancedBudget Act of 1997 and theTaxpayers Relief Act of 1997August 5, 1997

Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, Mr.Vice President, Senator Lautenberg, Mem-bers of Congress, ladies and gentlemen. Wecome here today, Democrats and Repub-licans, Congress and President, Americans ofgood will from all points of view and all walksof life, to celebrate a true milestone for ourNation. In a few moments I will sign intolaw the first balanced budget in a generation,a balanced budget that honors our values,puts our fiscal house in order, expands vistasof opportunity for all our people, and fash-ions a new Government to lead in a new era.

Like every generation of Americans beforeus, we have been called upon to renew ourNation and to restore its promise. For toolong, huge, persistent, and growing budgetdeficits threatened to choke the opportunitythat should be every American's birthright.For too long it seemed as If America wouldnot be ready for the new century, that wewould be too divided, too wedded to old ar-rangements and ideas. It's hard to believenow, but it wasn't so very long ago that some

Administration of WilliamJ. Clinton, 1997 / Aug. 5 1189

people looked at our Nation and saw a settingsun.

When I became President, I determinedthat we must believe and make sure thatAmerica's best days were still ahead. Afteryears in which the deficit drained our econ-omy and dampened our spirit, in which ourability to lead the world was diminished byour inability to put our own house in order,after years in which too many people doubt-ed whether our Nation would ever come to-gether again to address this problem, we setoff on a new economic course to cut the defi-cit, to create the conditions in which businesscould thrive, to open more foreign marketsto our goods and services, to invest in ourpeople so that all Americans would have thetools they need to make the most of theirown lives.

Today, our budget deficit has been cut bymore than 80 percent. It is now among thesmallest in the industrialized world, as a per-centage of our economy. Our businessesonce again lead in world markets, now mademore open, more free, mor fair than everbefore through our efforts. Our workers areclearly the most competitive on Earth, andwe have recast our old Government so thata new one can take shape that does give ourpeople the tools to make the most of theirGod-given abilities.

This year, we, Democrats and Republicansalike, were given the opportunity and the re-sponsibility to finish the job of balancing thebudget for the first time in almost 30 yearsand to do it in a way that prepares Americansto enter the next century stronger than ever.By large bipartisan majorities in bothHouses, we have risen to that challenge.

The balanced budget I sign into law todaywill continue our successful economic strat-egy. It reflects the most fundamental valuesthat brought us together. It will spur growthand spread opportunity. Even after we payfor tax cuts penny by penny, there will stillbe $900 billion in savings, including half atrillion dollars in entitlement savings over thenext 10 years. It opens the doors of collegeto a new generation, with the largest invest-ment in higher education since the GI bill50 years ago.

It makes it possible for the 13th and 14thyears of college to become as universal as

high school is today. It strengthens our fami-lies with the largest expansion in health carefor children since the Medicaid program 32years ago. It modernizes Medicare and ex-tends the life of the Trust Fund for a decade.It helps our communities to rebuild, to movea million more people from welfare to work,to bring the spark of private enterprise backto our most isolated inner-city neighbor-hoods. It provides the largest tax relief tohelp families raise their children, save for thefuture, and pass on their home and a dreamto the next generation. These tax cuts arethe equivalent of a $1,000 raise in take-homepay for the average family with two children.

For so many Americans, what goes on herein Washington often seems abstract and re-mote, unrelated to their daily concerns. Well,this balanced budget deals with the big issuesof the deficit and long-term economic growthin ways that respond to the practical chal-lenges ordinary American citizens face everysingle day.

Because we have acted, millions of chil-dren all across this country will be able toget medicine and have their sight and hear-ing tested and see dentists and doctors forthe first time. Millions of young Americanswill be able to go on to college. Millions ofAmericans not so young will be able to goback to school to get the education and train-ing they need to succeed in life. Millions offamilies will have more to spend on their ownchildren's needs and upbringing. This budgetis an investment in their future and in Ameri-ca's.

Today it should be clear to all of us, with-out regard to our party or our differences,that, in common, we were able to transformthis era of challenge into an era of unparal-leled possibility for the American people. Ihope we can tap this spirit of cooperationand use it to meet and master the many chal-lenges that remain before us.

I want to thank, in closing, the many peo-ple whose work made this day possible. I

want to thank Speaker Gingrich and SenatorLott, Mr. Armey and the other Members ofthe House and Senate leadership, especiallySenator Domenici and Senator Kasich. Andlet me thank Chairman Archer and ChairmanRoth and the other leaders of the House andSenate committees. They were dedicated

1190 Aug. 5 / Administration of WillamJ. Clinton, 1997

partners. They fought hard for their prior-ities. I want to thank Senator Daschle andCongressman Bonior and CongressmanFazio and Congressman Hoyer and the othermembers of the House Democratic leader-ship who worked with us.

I want to thank especially CongressmanSpratt and Senator Lautenberg, Congress-man Rangel and the other Members of theHouse and Senate Democratic minority lead-ers in the committees for the work that theydid. I thank all the Members of the Congresswho are here present and the many whomthey represent who are already back home,who could not be. All of them deserve ourthanks, and I would like to ask the Membersof the Congress who are here today to standand be recognized and appreciated by thecrowd. [Applause]

I'd like to thank the members of our budg-et team: Erskine Bowles, Secretary Rubin,John Hilley, 0MB Director Raines, GeneSperling, Jane Yellen, Rahm Emanuel, JackLew, Larry Summers, Chris Jennings, andmany others, especially those who work inour legislative shop, too numerous to men-tion, for the enormous work that they didon this agreement.

I would like to thank the First Lady, Mrs.Gore, the Vice President for their concernfor the health of our children, for the mentalhealth of the American people, and the VicePresident, especially, who led the fight toprotect our urban initiatives and our environ-mental program and the interests of legal im-migrants in America. We owe to them a greatdeal.

Again, I say to all, I thank you. I believethat together we have fulfilled the respon-sibility of our generation to guarantee oppor-tunity to the next generation, the responsibil-ity of our generation to take America intoa new century, where there is opportunityfor all who are responsible enough to workfor it, where we have a chance to come to-gether across all of our differences as a greatAmerican community, where we will be ableto continue to lead the world toward peaceand freedom and prosperity. That is worthywork, and you have all contributed doing it.

We can say with pride and certainty thatthose who saw the sun setting on America

were wrong. The sun is rising on Americaagain. And I thank you all.

NOTE: The President spoke at 11:33 a.m. on theSouth Lawn at the \Vhite House. HR. 2015, theBalanced Budget Act of 1997, approved August5, was assigned Public Law No. 105—33. H.R.2014, the Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997, approvedAugust 5, was assigned Public Law No. 105—34.

Statement on Signing the BalancedBudget Act of 1997August 5, 1997

It is with great pleasure that I have signedinto law today H.R. 2015, the "BalancedBudget Act of 1997." This Act; together withthe tax cut legislation that I have also signedtoday, implements an historic agreement thatwill benefit generations of Americans.

These bills will balance the budget in away that honors our values, invests in ourpeople, and cuts taxes for middle-class fami-lies. They are a victory for all parents whowant a good education for their children andfor all families working to build a secure fu-ture. This package is the best investment wecan make in America's future, and it preparesour Nation for the 21st century. After dec-ades of deficits, we have put America's fiscalhouse in order again.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a bal-anced package of spending provisions that in-cludes targeted program cuts while it investsin America's future. It includes the followingnoteworthy features.

First, it strengthens our families by extending health insurance coverage to up to 5 mil-lion children. By investing $24 billion, we willbe able to provide quality medical care forthese children—everything from regularcheck-ups to major surgery. I want everychild in America to grow up healthy andstrong, and this investment takes a major steptoward that goal. I am also pleased that theCongress agreed to pay for this investmentin our Nation's children in part with a 15-cents-a-pack tax increase on cigarettes. Notonly will this new revenue help to pay forhealth care, it will help prevent children fromtaking up smoking in the first place.

Second, the bill helps finish the job of wel-fare reform, providing 83 billion to move wel-

Administration of WilliamnJ. Clinton, 1997 / Aug. 5 1191

fare recipients to private sector jobs and $1.5billion in Food Stamp assistance for peoplewho want to work, but cannot find a job. Inaddition, it keeps my promise to provide $12billion to restore disability and health bene-fits for 350,000 legal immigrants.

Third, H.R. 2015 honors our commitmentto our parents by extending the life of theMedicare Trust Fund for a decade. It alsoprovides structural reforms that will giveMedicare beneficiaries more informedchoices among competing health plans, au-thorizes a number of new anti-fraud provi-sions, and establishes a wide array of newpreventative benefits.

The bill includes proposals to revitalize theDistrict of Columbia. It includes my propos-als to assume financial and administrative re-sponsibility for certain District pension plansand to increase the Federal contribution tothe District's Medicaid program. The revital-ization measures will benefit the city and theregion by reducing the city's financial bur-dens and improving the delivery of city serv-ices. The Federal assumption of these State-like responsibilities will enable the DistrictGovernment to focus more intensively onlocal issues, such as education and law en-forceinent.

The bill also establishes a sentencing com-mission made up of District and Federal rep-resentatives charged with developing aTruth-in-Sentencing system. The bill alsoprovides for the Federal Government to as-suine the costs and responsibilities of theDistrict of Columbia's courts, public de-fender, and pretrial services systems as wellas for felony offender incarceration, super-vision, and parole. This assistance willstrengthen the District's criminal justice sys-tem and improve public safety. Unfortu-nately, the Act fails to guarantee that the Jus-tice Department's Bureau of Prisons willhave the time, management flexibility, andresources needed to achieve a safe transitionof responsibility for District of Columbia in-mates. I look forward to working with theCongress to rectify these problems.

I am also pleased that the bill respondsin part to my proposal to narrow the gap be-tween the treatment of insular areas andStates with respect to Medicaid payments,and I look fonvard to working with the Con-

173-998(32)- 97-2 - QL 2

gress to provide more equitable funding forchildren's health care in the insular areas.

The Department of Justice has identifieda number of Establishment Clause constitu-tional concerns with respect to section 4454of H.R. 2015, entitled "Coverage of Servicesin Religious Nonmnedical Health Care Insti-tutions Under the Medicare and MedicaidPrograms," and with respect to section 4001,concerning the Medicare Plus program andtreatment of religious fraternal benefit soci-ety plans. The Department of Health andHuman Services will consult with the De-partment of Justice regarding how best to ad-dress these concerns.

Section 4422 of the bill purports to requirethe Secretary of Health and Human Services,to develop a legislative proposal for establish-ing a case-mix adjusted prospective paymentsystem for payment of long-term care hos-pitals under the Medicare program. I willconstrue this provision in light of my con-stitutional duty and authority to recommendto the Congress such legislative measures asI judge necessary and expedient, and topervise and guide my subordinates, includingthe review of their proposed communicationsto the Congress.

The bill also broadens and extends theFederal Communications Commission's au-thority to auction the right to use the radioand television spectrum. This authority hasbeen a successful means of streamlining thespectrum licensing process and for facilitat-ing the deployment of new and innovativeinformation technologies into the marketplace. I remain concerned, however, aboutthe lack of a firm date for the terminationof analog broadcasting, which made it nec-essary to find alternative and troubling sav-ings from the universal service fund. I amalso concerned about the waiver of mediaconcentration rules.

This legislation represents an historic com-promise. Together with its companion tax cutlegislation,. H.R. 2015 is a monument to theprogress that people of goodwill can makewhen they put aside partisan interests towork together for the coin mon good and ourcommon future. It reflects the values and as-pirations of all Americans.

This summer, we had an historic oppor-tunity to strengthen America for the 21st

1192 Aug. 5 / Administration of WilliamJ. Clinton, 1997

century—and we have seized it. Now our Na-tion can move forward stronger, more vi-brant, and more united than ever. For that,I am profoundly grateful.

William J. Clinton

The White House,August 5, 1997.

NOTE: HR. 2O5, approved August 5, was as-signed Public Law No. 105—33.

Administration of WilliarnJ. Clinton, 1997 / Aug. 11 1225

Remarks on Line Item Vetoes of theBalanced Budget Act of 1997 and theTaxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and anExchange With ReportersAugust11, 1997

The President. Last week we took historicaction to put America's economic house inorder when I signed into law the first bal-anced budget in a generation, one that hon-ors our values, invests in our people, preparesour Nation for the 21st century.

It includes the largest increase in collegeaid since the CI bill, the largest increase inchildren's health since the creation of Medic-aid over 30 years ago, tax cuts that are theequivalent of a $1,000 raise in take-home payfor the average family with two children, andmuch more that is good for America.

The new balanced budget law also offersthe first opportunity to use a powerful newtool to protect taxpayers: the line item veto,a tool designed to fight against waste and un-justifiable expenditures, to ensure Govern-ment works for the public interests, not theprivate interests.

In the past, good legislation could be clut-tered up with unjustifiable or wasteful spend-ing or tax provisions, leaving the Presidentno choice but to sign or veto the overall legis-lation. With the line item veto, the Presidentcan sign an overall bill into law that cancela particular spending project or a particulartax break that benefits only a handful of indi-viduals or companies.

Forty-three Governors throughout our Na-tion already have the line item veto power.Last year I signed the Federal line item vetointo law. Last month the United States Su-preme Court, on procedural grounds, re-jected a challenge to this authority. Today,for the first time in the history of our country,the President will use the line item veto toprotect taxpayers and to ensure that nationalinterests prevail over narrow interests.

In reaching agreement with Congress onhow to balance the budget, we worked veryhard to be fair to all Americans and to avoidwasting our citizens' tax dollars. For the samereason, I've asked the members of my admin-istration to work carefully over the final legis-lation to identify any specific spending or taxprovisions that I should consider canceling.Here's what I told the budget team.

First, any provision I cancel must be onethat was not included—and let me empha-size—not included—as a part of the balancedbudget agreement process with Congress.Our agreement was entered into in goodfaith, and I will keep it. Second, any provisionI cancel must be one that benefits just a fewindividuals, corporations, or States at the ex-pense of the general interest. Finally, anyprovision I cancel must be one that is incon-sistent with good public policy. Just because

1226 Aug. 11 / Administration of William]. Clinton, 1997

something benefits a small number of peopledoesn't necessarily mean that it hurts thepublic interest or the American people atlarge.

After careful scrutiny and numerous meet-ings with my staff and Cabinet members, wehave found three provisions that meet thosecriteria. In a few moments I will use thepower of the line item veto to cancel a provi-sion that would allow financial service com-panies to shelter income in foreign tax havensto avoid all U.S. taxation. I will also cancela provision that singles out New York by al-lowing it to tap into the Federal Treasuryto reduce its State expenditures through theuse of health provider tax to match FederalMedicaid dollars that are impermissible inevery other State in the country and actuallyin existence now in several other States. Noother State in the Nation would be given thisprovision, and it is unfair to the rest of ourNation's taxpayers to ask them to subsidizeit. Finally, I will cancel a provision that,though well-intended, is poorly designed.This provision would have allowed a very lim-ited number of agribusinesses to avoid payingcapital gains taxes, possibly forever, on thesales of certain assets to farmers' coopera-tives. And it could have benefited not onlytraditional farm co-ops but giant organiza-tions which do not need and should not trig-ger the law's benefits.

Because I strongly support family farmers,farm cooperatives, and the acquisition of pro-duction facilities by co-ops, this was a verydifficult decision for me. And I intend towork with Congressman Stenholm andHulshof and Senators Daschle, Dorgan, andConrad and other interested Members of theCongress to redesign this effort so that it isbetter targeted and not susceptible to abuse.

The actions I take today will save theAmerican people hundreds of millions of dol-lars over the next 10 years and send a signalthat the Washington rules have changed forgood and for the good of the American peo-ple. From now on, Presidents will be ableto say no to wasteful spending or tax loop-holes, even as they say yes to vital legislation.Special interests will not be able to play theold game of slipping a provision into a mas-sive bill in the hope that no one will notice.For the first time, the President is exercising

the power to prevent that from happening.The first balanced budget in a generation isnow also the first budget in American historyto be strengthened by the line item veto. Andthat will strengthen our country.

And now I want to go and sign these provi-sions.

[The President signed the cancellation let-ters.]

Q. Mr. President, is that the only pork youcan find in that budget?

The President. I think that my staff isgoing to brief you about it, but let me saythat they have—the relevant Cabinet andstaff members have gone over this quite ex-tensively. Keep in mind, the primary use ofthe line item veto overwhelmingly was meantto be in the appropriations process, whichis not even started yet. I don't have the firstappropriations bill.

There are only a few spending items inthis balanced budget that are part of the so-called entitlements process, so that—for ex-ample, you had the New York Medicaid pro-vision there on provider taxes. With regardto the taxes, there were some 79 items cer-tified to me, but that was only because oftheir size, that is, the number of people af-fected by it. Of those 79, 30, or more wereactually recommendations by the TreasuryDepartment to fix flaws in the present lawsor to ease the transitions in the tax laws. Andanother dozen or more were put in by Con-gress by agreement with the Treasury De-partment to fix procedural problems in thelaw. Then there were a number of others thatI agreed were good policy. So these are theones that I think—and then there were sev-eral others that I might have line-item-vetoed, but they were plainly part of the un-derstandings reached with Congress as a partof the budget process. So these seemed tome to be the ones, after being briefed bymy staff, that both involved significantamounts of money and met the three criteriathat I mentioned. And I believe it was theappropriate thing to do.

Q. May I ask another way, sir, the lastquestion another way? Were these the mostglaring examples of why you were given thispower and, therefore, they might hold upbetter in a court challenge?

Athninist ration of WilliamJ. Clinton, 1997 / Aug. 11 1227

The President. Well, I wouldn't say that.I expect the most glaring examples to comeup in the appropriations process, at least ifthe past is any prolog. Now, it may be thatthe use of the line item veto here will meanthat it won't have to be used as much in theappropriations process, and that wouldplease me greatly. But I think it's importantthat the American people understand thatwhen the line iteni veto was given to thePresident, the primary assumption was thatit would take out special projects that weretypically funded in big bills, and those arethose big appropriations bills, none of whichhave come to me yet.

But I do believe that this should withstandcourt challenge because the process by whichthe niatters were reviewed at least was a veiycareful, exhaustive process, and I receivedinput from people all over the country thathad interests in it, through my Cabinet andstaff members. But we worked very hard onthis, and—well, since I told you after niypress conference on Thursday that I wouldbe meeting with my staff, and I had meetingsand conversations each day since then beforefinally making these decisions.

Claire [Claire Shipman, CNN].Q. Mr. President, it sounds as though,

given the deliberations among your staff andthe talk about the court challenge and thedifficulty finding items in this particular taxand spending legislation, that you decided toact now largely for symbolic reasons insteadof—

The President. No, I wouldn't say that.I think these three things are appropriate.But I just want to point out that I think thatwhen the Congress certified, for example, 79tax items to me, people said, "Well, maybeyou ought to veto 76 of them." And I thinkit's important to recognize that there reallynever were 79 candidates for a line item vetothere. The Congress is required—the JointTax Committee is required by law to certif'to the President all the tax items that benefitfewer than 100 people, and there were—thevast majority of those were either put in bythe Treasury Department or by the congres-sional committees with the support of theTreasury Department to actually clean upprocedural problems in the law so that thenumbers were smaller.

Then there were a number of things that,as I said, I niight well have line-item-vetoed,but they were part of the overall budget proc-ess and that did a lot of good for the Amer-ican people and I have to honor the agree-ments that were made and the process ofit.

So these things I hope will be both realand symbolic in the sense that I'm hopefulthat this will work out pretty niuch the wayit did when I was Governor; that is, whenyou know the President is prepared to usethe line item veto, that tends to operate asa deterrent against the most egregious kindsof projects that would otherwise not be fund-ed. So it would suit me if, after a while, theuse of the veto became quite rare becausethere was a disciplined agreement not tohave projects that ought not be funded inthe first place.

Q. Sir, can you tell me where in the Con-stitution the President is given this kind ofpower that hasn't been exerted until now?

The President. Well, the power is givenby legislation. The real question is, does theConstitution permit or forbid the Congressto give the President this kind of power. Ibelieve that since—if you look at the fact that43 States have this power for the Governor,and it has been upheld in State after Stateafter State, the provisions of most State con-stitutions are similar to the provisions of theFederal Constitution in the general alloca-tion of executive authority and legislative au-thority.

So I think it is an implicit thing. As longas the legislature has the right to overridethe executive, then for the legislature to allowthe executive to make reasoned judgmentsabout particular items in these omnibus bills,I do not believe is an unconstitutional delega-tion of the legislature's authority to the Presi-dent.

So keep in mind, they can override this.If they decide that they think I'm wrong, andtwo-thirds of them agree, they can overridethis.

Q. Do you welcome a challenge?Q. Mr. President, Senator McCain sent

you a note last week saying you ought to con-sider putting off a line item veto until youget the appropriations bills, on the groundsthat it might be a blow to the spirit of co-

1228 Aug. 11 I Administration of WilliarnJ. Clinton, 1997

operation that produced the tax cut and thebalanced budget bills in the first place. Didyou give that any consideration?

The President. Absolutely. And whenSenator McCain came to see me about thecampaign finance issue and our commonsupport for his legislation, we talked aboutit a little bit. As I've already said to you, thatone of the reasons that we have decided ona relatively small number is I didn't want totouch anything that I thought where therewas even a question that it might have beenpart of the negotiating process and a cooper-ative spirit with Congress.

If you look at these three things, theypresent three entirely different problems,but I think all three are outside the scopeof the budget negotiating process and allthree are the kinds of things that the lineitem veto was meant for: the first, the avoid-ance of Federal taxation in an inappropriateway; the second, giving a break to one Statein a way that would immediately disadvan-tage several others and potentially disadvan-tage all the other States; and the third, asI said, I believe a very worthy goal, havingincentives for farmers' co-ops to integratewith production facilities in a way that isoverbroad and could lead to the total avoid-ance of taxation under circumstances, whichare inappropriate, which would require amore disciplined fix. I think those are thekinds of things that the line item veto wasmeant to deal with in these contexts.

Now, when you get to the appropriationsprocess it will be somewhat more straight-for\vard: Should this project be built Or not;should this road be built or not; should thismoney be given to this agency or not for thisprogram? And I think that those are thethings where typically it's in use at the Statelevel. But in the context of taxes and the enti-tlements, I thought each of these three thingspresented a representative case where theveto was intended to be used.

Q. Are you running Out of travel money,sir? [Laughter]

The President. I hope not; I'm trying togo on holiday. [Laughter]

NOTE: The President spoke at 12:30 p.m. in theOval Office at the \Vhite House. The Presidentsigned cancellations affecting Public Law 105—33,

the Balanced Budget Act of 1997; and Public Law105—34, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

Letter to Congressional LeadersTransmitting a Line Item Veto of theBalanced Budget Act of 1997August11, 1997

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)In accordance with the Line Item Veto

Act, I hereby cancel one item of new directspending, as specified in the attached report,contained in the 'Balanced Budget Act of1997" (Public Law 105—33; H.R. 2015). Ihave determined that this cancellation willreduce the Federal budget deficit, will notimpair any essential Government functions,and will not harm the national interest. Thisletter, together with its attachment, con-stitutes a special message under section 1022of the Congressional Budget and Impound-ment Control Act of 1974, as amended.

Sincerely,

William J. Clinton

NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Newt Ging-rich, Speaker of the House of Representatives,and Albert Gore, Jr., President of the Senate. Thereport detailing the cancellation was published inthe Federal Register on August 12.

105TH CONGRESS1ST SEssioN

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the Balanced Budgetand Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to enforce the bipartisanbudget agreement.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 25, 1997

Mr. SMITH of Michigan (for himself and Mr. KAsICH) introduced the followingbill; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in additionto the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determinedby the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fallwithin the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILLTo amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Actof 1985 to enforce the bipartisan budget agreement.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

5 "Budget Enforcement Act of 1997".

6 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

2

TITLE, I—AMENDMENTS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ANDIMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974

Sec. 101. Amendments to section 3.Sec. 102. Amendments to section 201.Sec. 103. Amendments to section 202.Sec. 104. Amendment to section 300.Sec. 105. Amendments to section 301.Sec. 106. Amendments to section 302.Sec. 107. Amendments to section 303.Sec. 108. Amendment to section 305.Sec. 109. Amendments to section 308.Sec. 110. Amendments to section 310.Sec. 111. Amendments to section 311.Sec. 112. Amendment to section 312.Sec. 113. Adjustments and Budget Committee determinations.Sec. 114. Effect of self-executing amendments on points of order in the House

of Representatives.Sec. 115. Amendment of section 401 and repeal of section 402.Sec. 116. Repeal of title VT.Sec. 117. Amendments to section 904.Sec. 118. Repeal of sections 905 and 906.Sec. 119. Amendments to sections 1022 and 1024.Sec. 120. Amendment to section 1026.

TITLE Il—AMENDMENTS TO THE BALANCED BUDGET ANDEMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT OF 1985

Sec. 201. Purpose.Sec. 202. General statement and definitions.Sec. 203. Enforcing discretionary spending limits.Sec. 204. Violent crime reduction trust fund.Sec. 205. Enforcing pay-as-you-go.Sec. 206. Reports and orders.Sec. 207. Exempt programs and activities.Sec. 208. General and special sequestration rules.Sec. 209. The baseline.Sec. 210. Technical correction.Sec. 211. Judicial review.Sec. 212. Effective date.Sec. 213. Reduction of preexisting balances and exclusion of effects of this Act


.ILR 2037 III

3

1 TITLE I—AMENDMENTS TO THE2 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET3 AND IMPOUNDMENT CON-4 TROL ACT OF 19745 SEC. 101. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 3.

6 Section 3 of the Congressional Budget and Impound-

7 ment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 622) is amended—

8 (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking "and" at

9 the end of clause (iii), by striking the period and in-

10 serting "; and" at the end of clause (iv), and by

11 adding at the end the following:

12 "(v) entitlement authority and the

13 food stamp program."; and

14 (2) in paragraph (9), by inserting ", but such

15 term does not include salary or basic pay funded

16 through an appropriation Act" before the period.

17 SEC. 102. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 201.

18 (a) TERM OF OFFICE.—The first sentence of section

19 201(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is

20 amended to read as follows: "The term of office of the

21 Director shall be four years and shall expire on January

22 3 of the year preceding a Presidential election.".

23 (b) REDESIGNATION OF EXECUTED PROVISION.—

24 Section 201 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is

.}IR 2037 ifi

4

1 amended by redesignating subsection (g) (relating to reve-

2 nue estimates) as subsection (f).


4 (a) ASSISTANCE TO BUDGET COiITTEES.—The

5 first sentence of section 202(a) of the Congressional

6 Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting "primary"

7 before "duty".

8 (b) ELIMINATION OF EXECUTED PROvISION.—Sec-

9 tion 202 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is

10 amended by striking subsection (e) and by redesignating

11 subsections (f), (g), and (h) as subsections (e), (f), and

12 (g), respectively.

13 SEC. 104. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 300.

14 The item relating to February 25 in the timetable

15 set forth in section 300 of the Congressional Budget Act

16 of 1974 is amended by striking "February 25" and insert-

17 ing "Within 6 weeks after President submits budget".


19 (a) TERMS OF BUDGET IRESOLUTIONS.—Section

20 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amend-

21 ed by striking ", and planning levels for each of the two

22 ensuing fiscal years," and inserting "and for at least each

23 of the 4 ensuing fiscal years".

24 (b) CONTENTS OF BUDGET RES0LUTJONS.—Para-

25 graphs (1) and (4) of section 301(a) of the Congressional

.HR 2037 JR

5

1 Budget Act of 1974 are amended by striking ", budget

2 outlays, direct loan obligations, and primaly loan guaran-

3 tee commitments" each place it appears and inserting

4 "and budget outlays".

5 (c) ADDITIONAL MATTERS.—Section 301(b) of the

6 Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by amend-

7 ing paragraph (7) to read as follows—

8 "(7) set forth pay-as-you-go procedures in the

9 Senate whereby committee allocations, aggregates,

10 and other levels can be revised for legislation within

11 a committee's jurisdiction if such legislation would

12 not increase the deficit for the first year covered by

13 the resolution and will not increase the deficit for

14 the period of 5 fiscal years covered by the resolu-

15 tion;".

16 (d) VIEWS AND ESTIMATES.—The first sentence of

17 section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974

18 is amended by inserting "or at such time as may be re-

19 quested by the Committee on the Budget," after "Code,".

20 (e) HEARINGS AND REPORT.—Section 301(e)(2) of

21 the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by

22 striking "total direct loan obligations, total primaly loan

23 guarantee commitments,".

24 (f) SocJAI SECURITY CORRECTIONS.—Section 301(i)

25 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by—

'HR 2037 III

6

1 (1) inserting "Soci SECURITY POINT OF

2 ORDER.—" after "(i)"; and

3 (2) striking "as reported to the Senate" and in-

4 serting "(or amendment, motion, or conference re-

5 port on such a resolution)".


7 (a) ALLOCATIONS AND SUBALLOCATIONS.—SUb-

8 sections (a) and (b) of section 302 of the Congressional

9 Budget Act of 1974 are amended to read as follows:

10 "(a) COMMITTEE SPENDING ALLOCATIONS.—

11 "(1) ALLOCATION AMONG COMMITTEES.—The

12 joint explanatory statement accompanying a con-

13 ference report on a budget resolution shall include

14 allocations, consistent with the resolution rec-

15 ommended in the conference report, of the appro-

16 priate levels (for each fiscal year covered by that res-

17 olution and a total for all such years, except in the

18 case of the Committee on Appropriations only for

19 the first such fiscal year) of—

20 "(A) total new budget authority;

21 "(B) total outlays; and

22 "(C) in the Senate, social security outlays;

23 among each committee of the House of Representa-

24 tives or the Senate that has jurisdiction over legisla-

25 tion providing or creating such amounts.

.HR 2037 LII

7

1 "(2) No DOUBLE COUNTING.—In the House of

2 Representatives, any item allocated to one committee

3 may not be allocated to another such committee.

4 "(3) FURTHER DIVISION OF AMOUNTS.—In the

5 House of Representatives, the amounts allocated to

6 each committee for each fiscal year, other than the

7 Committee on Appropriations, shall be further cli-

8 vided between amounts provided or required by law

9 on the date of filing of that conference report and

10 amounts not, so provided or required. The amounts

11 allocated to the Committee on Appropriations for

12 each fiscal year shall be further divided between dis-

13 cretionary and mandatory amounts or programs, as

14 appropriate.

15 "(4) AMOUNTS NOT ALLOCATED.—(A) In the

16 House of Representatives, if a committee receives no

17 allocation of new budget authority or outlays, that

18 committee shall be deemed to have received an allo-

19 cation equal to zero for new budget authority or out-

20 lays.

21 "(B) In the Senate, if a cOmmittee receives no

22 allocation of new budget authority, outlays, or social

23 security outlays, that committee shall be deemed to

24 have received an allocation equal to zero for new

25 budget authority, outlays, or social security outlays.

.HR 2037 lB

8

1 "(5) Soci SECURITY LEVELS IN THE SEN-

2 ATE.—

3 "(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of para-

4 graph (1)(C), social security surpluses equal the

5 excess of social security revenues over social se-

6 curity outlays in a fiscal year or years with

7 such an excess and social security deficits equal

8 the excess of social security outlays over social

9 security revenues in a fiscal year or years with

10 such an excess.

11 "(B) TAX TREATMENT.—For purposes of

12 paragraph (1)(C), no provision of any legisla-

13 tion involving a change in chapter 1 of the In-

14 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated as

15 affecting the amount of social security revenues

16 or outlays unless such provision changes the in-

17 come tax treatment of social security benefits.

18 "(6) ADJUSTING ALLOCATION OF DISCRE-

19 TIONARY SPENDING IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENT-

20 ATIVES.—(A) If a concurrent resolution on the

21 budget is not adopted by April 15, the chairman of

22 the Committee on the Budget of the House of Rep-

23 resentatives shall submit to the House, as soon as

24 practicable, an allocation under paragiaph (1) to the

25 Committee on Appropriations consistent with the

'HR 2037 III

9

1 discretionary spending limits contained in the most

2 recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the

3 budget for the second fiscal year covered by that res-

4 olution.

5 "(B) As soon as practicable after an allocation

6 under paragraph (1) is submitted under this section,

7 the Committee on Appropriations shall make sub-

8 allocations and promptly report those suballocations

9 to the House of Representatives.

10 "(b) SUBALLOCATIONS BY APPROPRIATION CoivnvrIT-

11 TEES.—As soon as practicable after a concurrent resolu-

12 tion on the budget is agreed to, the Committee on Appro-

13 priations of each House (after consulting with the Com-

14 mittee on Appropriations of the other House) shall sub-

15 allocate each amount allocated to it for the budget year

16 under subsection (a) among its subcommittees. Each Com-

17 mittee on Appropriations shall promptly report to its

18 House sub alloc ations made or revised under this para-

19 graph.".

20 (b) POINT OF ORDER.—Section 302(c) of the Con-

21 gressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended to read as fol-

22 lows:

23 "(c) PoINT OF ORDER.—After the Committee on Ap-

24 propriations has received an allocation pursuant to sub-

25 section (a) for a fiscal year, it shall not be in order in

.HR 2037 LII

10

1 the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider

2 any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or con-

3 ference report providing new budget authority for that fis-.

4 cal year within the jurisdiction of that committee, until

5 such committee makes the suballocations required by sub-

6 section (b).".

7 (c) ENFORCEMENT OF POINT OF ORDER.—(1) Sec-

8 tion 302(f)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974

9 is amended by—

10 (A) striking "providing new budget authority

11 for such fiscal year or new entitlement authority ef-

12 fective during such fiscal year" and inserting "pro-

13 viding new budget authority for any fiscal year coy-

14 ered by the concurrent resolution";

15 (B) striking "appropriate allocation made pur-

16 suant to subsection (b) for such fiscal year" and in-

17 serting "appropriate allocation made under sub-

18 section (a) or any suballocation made under sub-

19 section (b), as applicable, for the fiscal year of the

20 concurrent resolution or for the total of all fiscal

21 years covered by the concurrent resolution"; and

22 (C) striking "of new discretionary budget au-

23 thority or new entitlement authority to be exceeded"

24 and inserting "of new discretionary budget authority

25 to be exceeded".

'HR 2037 LH

11

1 (2) Section 302(f)(2) of the Congressional Budget

2 Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:

3 "(2) ENFORCEMENT OF COMMITTEE ALLOCA-

4 TIONS AND SUBALLOCATIONS IN THE SENATE.—

5 After a concurrent resolution on the budget is

6 agreed to, it shall not be in order in the Senate to

7 consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, mo-

8 tion, or conference report that would cause—

9 "(A) in the case of any committee except

10 the Committee on Appropriations, the appro-

11 priate allocation of new budget authority or

12 outlays under subsection (a) to be exceeded; or

13 "(B) in the case of the Committee on Ap-

14 propriations, the appropriate suballocation of

15 new budget authority or outlays under sub-

16 section (b) to be exceeded.".

17 (d) SEPARATE ALLOCATIONS.—Section 302(g) of the

18 Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended to read as

19 follows:

20 "(g) SEPARATE ALLOCATIONS.—The Committees on

21 Appropriations and the Budget shall make separate alloca-

22 tions and suballocations under this section consistent with

23 the categories in section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget

24 and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985."

.HR 2037 LU

12


2 (a) IN GEiI4.—Section 303 of the Congressional

3 Budget Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:

4 "CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET MUST BE

5 AIOPTED BEFORE LEGISLATION PROVIDING NEW

6 BUDGET AUTHORITY, NEW SPENDING AUTHORITY,

7 OR CHANGES IN REVENUES OR THE PUBLIC DEBT

8 LIMIT IS CONSIDERED

9 "SEC. 303. (a) IN GENEiI4.—It shall not be in order

10 in either the House of Representatives or the Senate to

11 consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or

12 conference report as reported to the House or Senate

13 which provides—

14 "(1) new budget authority for a fiscal year;

15 "(2) an increase or decrease in revenues to be-

16 come effective during a fiscal year;

17 "(3) an increase or decrease in the public debt

18 limit to become effective during a fiscal year;

19 "(4) in the Senate only, new spending authority

20 (as defined in section 401(c)(2)) for a fiscal year; or

21 "(5) in the Senate only, outlays,

22 until the concurrent resolution on the budget for such fis-

23 cal year (or, in the Senate, a concurrent resolution on the

24 budget covering such fiscal year) has been agreed to pur-

25 suant to section 301.

'HR 2037 lB

13

1 "(b) ExcEPTI0Ns.—(1) In the House of Representa-

2 tives, subsection (a) does not apply to any bill or resolu-

3 tion—

4 "(A) providing advance discretionary new budg-

5 et authority which first becomes available in a fiscal

6 year following the fiscal year to which the concur-

7 rent resolution applies; or

8 "(B) increasing or decreasing revenues which

9 first become effective in a fiscal year following the

10 fiscal year to which the concurrent resolution ap-

11 plies.

12 After May 15 of any calendar year, subsection (a) does

13 not apply in the House of Representatives to any general

14 appropriation bill, or amendment thereto, which provides

15 new budget authority for the fiscal year beginning in such

16 calendar year.

17 "(2) In the Senate, subsection (a) does not apply to

18 any bill or resolution making advance appropriations for

19 the fiscal year to which the concurrent resolution applies

20 and the two succeeding fiscal years.".

21 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating

22 to section 303 in the table of contents set forth in section

23 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Con-

24 trol Act of 1974 is amended by striking "new credit au-

25 thority,".

'lIlt 2037 111

14


2 Section 305(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act

3 of 1974 is amended by inserting "when the House is not

4 in session" after "holidays" each place it appears.


6 Section 308 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974

7 is amended—

8 (1)(A) in the side heading of subsection (a), by

9 striking "OR NEW CREDIT AUTHORITY," and

10 by striking the first comma and inserting "OR";

11 (B) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a),

12 by striking "or new credit authority," each place it

13 appears and by striking the comma before "new

14 spending authority" each place it appears and in-

15 serting "or";

16 (2) in subsection (b) (1), by striking "or new

17 credit authority," and by striking the comma before

18 "new spending authority" and inserting "or";

19 (3) in subsection (c), by inserting "and" after

20 the semicolon at the end of paragraph (3), by strik-

21 ing "; and" at the end of paragraph (4) and insert-

22 ing a period; and by striking paragraph (5); and

23 (4) by inserting "joint" before "resolution"

24 each place it appears and, in subsection (b)(1), by

25 inserting "joint" before "resolutions".

.HR 2037 IH

15



3 is amended by—

4 (1) in subsection (a) (1), by inserting "and"

5 after the semicolon at the end of subparagraph (B),

6 by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D), and by in-

7 serting after subparagraph (B) the following new

8 subparagraph:

9 "(C) direct spending (as defined in section

10 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emer-

11 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985),"; and

12 (2) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by inserting "of the

13 absolute value" after "20 percent" each place it ap-

14 pears.



17 is amended to read as follows:

18 "NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, NEW SPENDING AUTHORITY,

19 AND REVENUE LEGISLATION MUST BE WITHIN AP-

20 PROPRTATE LEVELS

21 "SEC. 311. (a) ENFORCEMENT OF BUDGET AGGRE-

22 GATES.—

23 "(1) IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—

24 Except as provided by subsection (c), after the Con-

25 gress has completed action on a concurrent resolu-

26 tion on the budget for a fiscal year, it shall not be

.1-IR 2037 IH

16

1 in order in the House of Representatives to consider

2 any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or

3 conference report providing new budget authority for

4 such fiscal year or reducing revenues for such fiscal

5 year, if—

6 "(A) the enactment of such bill or resolu-

7 tion as reported;

8 "(B) the adoption and enactment of such

9 amendment; or

10 "(C) the enactment of such bill or resolu-

11 tion in the form recommended in such con-

12 ference report;

13 would cause the appropriate level of total new budg-

14 et authority or total budget outlays set forth in the

15 most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the

16 budget for such fiscal year to be exceeded, or would

17 cause revenues to be less than the appropriate level

18 of total revenues set forth in such concurrent resolu-

19 tion such fiscal year or for the total of all fiscal

20 years covered by the concurrent resolution, except in

21 the case that a declaration of war by the Congress

22 is in effect.

23 "(2) IN THE SENATE.—After a concurrent reso-

24 lution on the budget is agreed to, it shall not be in

.HR 2037 III

17

1 order in the Senate to consider any bill, resolution,

2 amendment, motion, or conference report that—

3 "(A) would cause the appropriate level of

4 total new budget authority or total outlays set

5 forth for the first fiscal year in such resolution

6 to be exceeded; or

7 "(B) would cause revenues to be less than

8 the appropriate level of total revenues set forth

9 for the first fiscal year covered by such resolu-

10 tion or for the period including the first fiscal

11 year plus the following 4 fiscal years in such

12 resolution.

13 "(3) ENFORCEMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY LEV-

14 ELS IN THE SENATE.—After a concurrent resolution

15 on the budget is agreed to, it shall not be in order

16 in the Senate to consider any bill, resolution, amend-

17 ment, motion, or conference report that would cause

18 a decrease in social security surpluses or an increase

19 in social security deficits derived from the levels of

20 social security revenues and social security outlays

21 set forth for the first fiscal year covered by the reso-

22 lution and for the period including the first fiscal

23 year plus the following 4 fiscal years in such resolu-

24 tion.

25 "(b) SoCJ SECURITY LEVELS.—

.HR 2037 111 -

18

1 "(1) IN GENERAL.—FOr the purposes of sub-

2 section (a)(3), social security surpluses equal the ex-

3 cess of social security revenues over social security

4 outlays in a fiscal year or years with such an excess

5 and social security deficits equal the excess of social

6 security outlays over social security revenues in a

7 fiscal year or years with such an excess.

8 "(2) TAX TREATMENT.—For the purposes of

9 this section, no provision of any legislation involving

10 a change in chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code

11 of 1986 shall be treated as affecting the amount of

12 social security revenues or outlays unless such provi-

13 sion changes the income tax treatment of social se-

14 curity benefits.

15 "(c) EXCEPTION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA-

16 TIVES.—Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply in the House

17 of Representatives to any bill, resolution, or amendment

18 that provides new budget authority for a fiscal year or

19 to any conference report on any such bill or resolution,

20 if—

21 "(1) the enactment of such bill or resolution as

22 reported;

23 "(2) the adoption and enactment of such

24 amendment; or

'HR 2037 ifi

19

1 "(3) the enactment of such bill or resolution in

2 the form recommended in such conference report;

3 would not cause the appropriate allocation of new budget

4 authority made pursuant to section 302(a) for such fiscal

5 year, for the committee within whose jurisdiction such bill,

6 resolution, or amendment falls, to be exceeded.".


8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 312 of the CongTessional


10 "POINTS OF ORDER

11 "SEC. 312. (a) BUDGET COMMITTEE DETERMINA-

12 TIONS.—For purposes of this title and title IV, the levels

13 of new budget authority, budget outlays, spending author-

14 ity as described in section 401(c)(2), direct spending, new

15 entitlement authority, and revenues for a fiscal year shall

16 be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Com-

17 mittee on the Budget of the House of Representatives or

18 the Senate, as the case may be.

19 "(b) DISCRETIONARY SPENDING POINT OF ORDER IN

20 THE SENATE.—

21 "(1) Except as otherwise provided in this sub-

22 section, it shall not be in order in the Senate to con-

23 sider any concurrent resolution on the budget (or

24 amendment, motion, or conference report on such a

25 resolution) that would exceed any of the discre-

26 tionary spending limits in section 251(c) of the Bal-

•HR 2037 lB

20

1 anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of

2 1985.

3 "(2) This subsection shall not apply if a dec-

4 laration of war by the Congress is in effect or if a

5 joint resolution pursuant to section 258 of the Bal-


7 1985 has been enacted.

8 "(c) MAXIMIJM DEFICIT AMOUNT POINT OF ORDER

9 IN THE SENATE.—It shall not be in order in the Senate

10 to consider any concurrent resolution on the budget for

11 a fiscal year under section 301, or to consider any amend-

12 ment to that concurrent resolution, or to consider a con-

13 ference report on that concurrent resolution—

14 "(1) if the level of total budget outlays for the

15 first fiscal year that is set forth in that concurrent

16 resolution or conference report exceeds the rec-

17 ommended level of Federal revenues set forth for

18 that year by an amount that is greater than the

19 maximum deficit amount, if any, specified in the

20 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

21 Act of 1985 for such fiscal year; or

22 "(2) if the adoption of such amendment would

23 result in a level of total budget outlays for that fiscal

24 year which exceeds the recommended level of Fed-

25 eral revenues for that fiscal year, by an amount that

.HIR 2037 III

21

1 is greater than the maximum deficit amount, if any,

2 specified in the Balanced Budget and Emergency

3 Deficit Control Act of 1985 for such fiscal year.

4 "(d) TIMING OF POINTS OF ORDER IN THE SEN-

5 ATE.—A point of order under this Act may not be raised

6 against a bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or con-

7 ference report while an amendment or motion, the adop-

8 tion of which would remedy the violation of this Act, is

9 pending before the Senate.

10 "(e) POINTS OF ORDER IN THE SENATE AGAINST

11 AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE H0uSES.—Each provision

12 of this Act that establishes a point of order against an

13 amendment also establishes a point of order in the Senate

14 against an amendment between the Houses. If a point of

15 order under this Act is raised in the Senate against an

16 amendment between the Houses, and the Presiding Officer

17 sustains the point of order, the effect shall be the same

18 as if the Senate had disagreed to the amendment.

19 "(f) EFFECT OF A POINT OF ORDER ON A BILL IN

20 THE SENATE.—In the Senate, if the Chair sustains a

21 point of order under this Act against a bill, the Chair shall

22 then send the bill to the committee of appropriate jurisdic-

23 tion for further consideration.".

24 (b) CONFORMTNG AMENDMENT.—The item relating

25 to section 312 in the table of contents set forth in section

.HR 2037 ifi

22

1 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Con-

2 trol Act of 1974 is amended by striking "Effect of point"

3 and inserting "Point".

4 SEC. 113. ADJUSTMENTS AND BUDGET COMMITTEE DETER-

5 MINATIONS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Congressional

7 Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the

8 following new section:

9 "ADJTJSTMENTS

10 "SEc. 314. (a) ADJUSTMENTS.—WIIen—

11 "(1) (A) the Committee on Appropriations re-

12 ports an appropriation measure for fiscal year 1998,

13 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 that specifies an amount

14 for emergencies pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of

15 the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

16 Act of 1985 or for continuing disability reviews pur-

17 suant to section 251(b)(2)(C) of that Act;

18 "(B) any other committee reports emergency

19 legislation described in section 252(e) of that Act;

20 "(C) the Committee on Appropriations reports

21 an appropriation measure for fiscal year 1998, 1999,

22 2000, 2001, or 2002 that includes an appropriation

23 with respect to clause (i) or (ii), the adjustment

24 shall be the amount of budget authority in the meas-

25 ure that is the dollar equivalent, in terms of Special

26 Drawing Rights, of—

'HR 2087 III

23

1 "(i) increases the United States quota as

2 part of the International Monetary Fund Elev-

3 enth General Review of Quotas (United States

4 Quota); or

5 "(ii) increases the maximum amount avail-

6 able to the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant

7 to section 17 of the Bretton Woods Agreement

8 Act, as amended from time to time (New Ar-

9 rangements to Borrow); or

10 "(D) the Committee on Appropriations reports

11 an appropriation measure for fiscal year 1998, 1999,

12 or 2000 that includes an appropriation for arrear-

13 ages for international organizations, international

14 peacekeeping, and multilateral development banks

15 during that fiscal year, and the sum of the appro-

16 priations for the period of fiscal years 1998 through

17 2000 do not exceed $1,884,000,000 in budget au-

18 thority; or

19 "(2) a conference committee submits a con-

20 ference report thereon;

21 the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Sen-

22 ate or House of Representatives shall make the adjust-

23 ments referred to in subsection (c) to reflect the additional

24 new budget authority for such matter provided in that

25 measure or conference report and the additional outlays

•HR 2037 111

24

1 flowing in all fiscal years from such amounts for such mat-

2 ter.

3 "(b) APPLICATION OF ADJUSTMENTS.—The adjust-

4 ments and revisions to allocations, aggregates, and limits

5 made by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget

6 pursuant to subsection (a) for legislation shall only apply

7 while such legislation is under consideration and shall only

8 permanently take effect upon the enactment of that legis-

9 lation.

10 "(c) CONTENT OF ADJUSTMENTS.—The adjustments

11 referred to in subsection (a) shall consist of adjustments,

12 as appropriate, to—

13 "(1) the discretionary spending limits as set

14 forth in the most recently agreed to concurrent reso-

15 lution on the budget;

16 "(2) the allocations made pursuant to the most

17 recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget

18 pursuant to section 302(a); and

19 "(3) the budgetary aggregates as set forth in

20 the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on

21 the budget.

22 "(d) REPORTING REVISED SUBALLOCATIONS.—F01-

23 lowing the adjustments made under subsection (a), the

24 Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the

25 House of Representatives may report appropriately revised

'HR 2037 LB

25

suballocations pursuant to section 302(b) to carry out this

subsection.

"(e) DEFINITIONS.—As used in subsection (a)(1)(A),

when referring to continuing disability reviews, the terms

'continuing disability reviews', 'additional new budget au-

thority', and 'additional outlays' shall have the same

meanings as provided in section 251(b)(2)(C)(ii) of the

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of

1985.".

(b) CONFORMING A1V[ENDMENTS.—(1) Sections

302(g), 311(c), and 313(e) of the Congressional Budget

Act of 1974 are repealed.

(2) The table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of

the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act

of 1974 is amended by adding after the item relating to

section 313 the following new item:

"Sec. 314. Adjustments.".

SEC. 114. EFFECT OF SELF-EXECUTING AMENDMENTS ON

POINTS OF ORDER IN THE HOUSE OF REP-

RESENTATWES.

(a) EFFECT OF POINTS OF ORDER.—Title III of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding

after section 314 the following new section:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

.HR 2037 ifi

26

1 "EFFECT OF SELF-EXECUTING AMENDMENTS ON POINTS

2 OF ORDER IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATiVES

3 "SEC. 315. In the House of Representatives, if a pro-

4 vision of a bill, as reported, violates a section of this title

5 or title IV and a self-executing rule providing for consider-

6 ation of that bill modifies that provision to eliminate such

7 violation, then such point of order shall not lie against

8 consideration of that bill.".

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of con-

10 tents set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget

11 and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by

12 adding after the item relating to section 314 the following

13 new item:

"Sec. 315. Effect of self-executing amendments on points of order in the Houseof Representatives.".

14 SEC. 115. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 401 AND REPEAL OF

15 SECTION 402.

16 (a) SECTION 401.—Subsections (a) and (b) of section

17 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are amended

18 to read as follows:

19 "BILLS PROVIDING NEW SPENDING AUTHORITY OR NEW

20 CREDIT AUTHORITY

21 "SEC. 401. (a) CoNTROLS ON LEGISLATION PROVID-

22 ING SPENIIING AUTHORITY OR CREDIT AUTH0RITY.—It

23 shall not be in order in either the House of Representa-

24 tives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution,

.HR 2037 III

27

1 amendment, motion, or conference report, as reported to

2 its House which provides new spending authority de-

3 scribed in subsection (c)(2) (A) or (B) or new credit au-

4 thority, unless that bill, resolution, conference report, or

5 amendment also provides that such new spending author-

6 ity as described in subsection (c)(2) (A) or (B) or new

7 credit authority is to be effective for any fiscal year only

8 to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in ap-

9 propriation Acts.

10 "(b) LEGIsL&TI0N PROVIDING ENTITLEMENT Au-

11 THORITY.—It shall not be in order in either the House

12 of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint

13 resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, as

14 reported to its House which provides new spending author-

15 ity described in subsection (c)(2)(C) which is to become

16 effective before the first day of the fiscal year which begins

17 during the calendar year in which such bill or resolution

18 is reported.".

19 (b) REPEALER OF SECTION 402.—

20 (1) Section 402 of the Congressional Budget

21 Act of 1974 is repealed.

22 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

23 (A) Sections 403 through 407 of the Con-

24 gressional Budget Act of 1974 are redesignated

25 as sections 402 through 406, respectively.

'HR 2037 LII

28

1 (B) The table of contents set forth in sec-

2 tion 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Tm-

3 poundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by

4 deleting the item relating to section 402 and by

5 redesignating the items relating to sections 403

6 through 407 as the items relating to sections

7 402 through 406, respectively.

8 SEC. 116. REPEAL OF TITLE VI.

9 (a) REPEALER.—Title VI of the Congressional Budg-

10 et Act of 1974 is repealed.

11 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The items relating

12 to title VI of the table of contents set forth in section 1(b)

13 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control

14 Act of 1974 are repealed.


16 (a) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 904(a) of

17 the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by

18 striking "(except section 905)" and by striking "V, and

19 VI (except section 601(a))" and inserting "and V".

20 (b) WAIVERs.—Section 904(c) of the Congressional


22 "(c) WAWERS.—

23 "(1) Sections 305(b)(2), 305(c)(4), 306,

24 310(d)(2), 313, 904(c), and 904(d) of this Act may

25 be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the af-

•HR 2037 LU

29

1 firmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly

2 chosen and sworn.

3 "(2) Sections 301(i), 302(c), 302(f), 310(g),

4 311(a), and 315 of this Act and sections

5 258(a)(4)(C), 258(A)(b)(3)(C)(I), 258(B)(f)(1),

6 258B(h)(1), 258(h)(3), 258C(a)(5), and

7 258(C)(b)(1) of the Balanced Budget and Emer-

8 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 may be waived or

9 suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote

10 of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and

11 sworn.".

12 (c) APpEAI4s.—Section 904(d) of the Congressional


14 "(d)APPEALs.—

15 "(1) Appeals in the Senate from the decisions

16 of the Chair relating to any provision of title III or

17 IV of section 1017 shall, except as otherwise pro-

18 vided therein, be limited to 1 hour, to be equally di-

19 vided between, and controlled by, the mover and the

20 manager of the resolution, concurrent resolution,

21 reconciliation bill, or rescission bill, as the case may

22 be.

23 "(2) An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the

24 Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required

25 in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of

•ILR 2037 III

30

1 the Chair on a point of order raised under sections

2 305(b)(2), 305(c)(4), 306, 310(d)(2), 313, 904(c),

3 and 904(d) of this Act.

4 "(3) An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the

5 Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required

6 in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of

7 the Chair on a point of order raised under sections

8 301(i), 302(c), 302(f), 310(g), 311(a), and 315 of

9 this Act and sections 258(a)(4)(C),

10 258(A)(b)(3)(C)(I), 258(B)(f)(1), 258B(h)(1),

11 258(h)(3), 258C(a)(5), and 258(C)(b)(1) of the Bal-


13 1985.".

14 (d) ExPI1TIoN OF SUPERMAJORITY VOTING RE-

15 QUIREMENTS.—Section 904 of the Congressional Budget

16 Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the follow-

17 ing:

18 "(e) ExPnTIoN OF CERTAIN SUPERMAJORITY V0T-

19 ING REQUIREMENTS.—Subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) shall

20 expire on September 30, 2002.".

21 SEC. 118. REPEAL OF SECTIONS 905 AND 906.

22 (a) REPEALER.—Sections 905 and 906 of the Con-

23 gressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974

24 are repealed.

.ER 2037 111

31

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The table of con-

2 tents set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget


4 striking the items relating to sections 905 and 906.

5 SEC. 119. AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 1022 AND 1024.

6 (a) SECTION 1022.—Section 1022(b)(1)(F) of the

7 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of

8 1974 is amended by striking "section 601" and inserting

9 "section 251(c) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Def-

10 icit Control Act of 1985".

11 (b) SECTION 1024.—Section 1024(a)(1)(B) of the

12 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of

13 1974 is amended by striking "section 601(a) (2)" and in-

14 serting "section 251(c) the Balanced Budget and Emer-

15 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985".


17 Section 1026(7)(A)(iv) of the Congressional Budget


19 striking "and" and inserting "or".

.IIR 2037 III

32

1 TITLE Il—AMENDMENTS TO THE2 BALANCED BUDGET AND3 EMERGENCY DEFICIT CON-4 TROL ACT OF 19855 SEC. 201. PURPOSE.

6 This title extends discretionaiy spending limits and

7 pay-as-you-go requirements.

8 SEC. 202. GENERAL STATEMENT AN]) DEFINITIONS.

9 (a) GENERAL STATEMENT.—SectiOn 250(b) of the

10 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of

11 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(b)) is amended by striking the first

12 two sentences and inserting the following: "This part pro-

13 vides for the enforcement of a balanced budget by fiscal

14 year 2002 as called for in House Concurrent Resolution

15 84 (105th Congress, 1st session).".

16 (b) DEFINITI0NS.—Section 250(c) of the Balanced

17 Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is

18 amended—

19 (1) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the

20 following:

21 "(4) The term 'category' means defense, non-

22 defense, and violent crime reduction discretionary

23 appropriations as specified in the joint explanatory

24 statement accompanying a conference report on the

25 Balanced Budget Act of 1997.";

.ILR 2037 111

33

1 (2) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the

2 following:

3 "(6) The term 'budgetary resources' means new

4 budget authority, unobligated balances, direct spend-

5 ing authority, and obligation limitations.";

6 (3) in paragraph (9), by striking "submission of

7 the fiscal year 1992 budget that are not included

8 with a budget submission" and inserting "that budg-

9 et submission that are not included with it";

10 (4) in paragraph (14), by inserting "first 4" be-

11 fore "fiscal years" and by striking "1995" and in-

12 serting "2006";

13 (5) by striking paragraphs (17) and (20) and

14 by redesignating paragraphs (18), (19), and (21) as

15 paragraphs (17), (18), and (19), respectively;

16. (6) in paragraph (17) (as redesignated), by

17 striking "Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

18 1990" and inserting "Balanced Budget Act of

19 1997";

20 (7) in paragraph (20) (as redesignated), by

21 striking the second sentence; and

22 (8) •by adding at the end the following new

23 paragraph:

24 "(20) The term 'consultation', when applied to

25 the Committee on the Budget of either the House of

.ILR 2037 III

34

1 Representatives or of the Senate, means written

2 communication with that committee that affords

3 that committee an opportunity to comment on the

4 matter that is the subject of the consultation before

5 official action is taken on such matter.".

6 SEC. 203. ENFORCING DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

7 (a) EXTENSION THROUGH FISCAL YE 2002.—Sec-

8 tion 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

9 Control Act of 1985 is amended—

10 (1) in the side heading of subsection (a), by

11 striking "1991—1998" and inserting "1997—2002";

12 (2) in subsection (a) (7) by inserting "(excluding

13 Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays)" after "5 cal-

14 endar days";

15 (3) in the first sentence of subsection (b)(1), by

16 striking "1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 or

17 1998" and inserting "1997 or anyfiscal year there-

18 after through 2002" and by striking "through

19 1998" and inserting "through 2002";

20 (4) in subsection (b) (1), by striking "the follow-

21 ing:" and all that follows through "in concepts and

22 definitions" the first place it appears and inserting

23 "the following: the adjustments" and by striking

24 subparagraphs (B) and (C);

.HR 2037 III

35

1 (5) in subsection (b)(2), by striking "1991,

2 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, or 1998" and

3 inserting "1997 or any fiscal year thereafter through

4 2002", by striking "through 1998" and inserting

5 "through 2002", and by striking subparagraphs (A),

6 (B), (C), (E), and (G), and by redesignating sub-

7 paragraphs (D), (F), and (H) as subparagraphs (A),

8 (B), and (C), respectively;

9 (6) in subsection (b)(2)(A) (as redesignated),

10 by striking "(i)", by striking clause (ii), and by in-

11 serting "fiscal" before "years";

12 (7) in subsection (b)(2)(B) (as redesignated),

13 by striking everything after "the adjustment in out-

14 lays" and inserting "for a fiscal year is the amount

15 of the excess but not to exceed 0.5 percent of the

16 adjusted discretionary spending limit on outlays for

17 that fiscal year in fiscal year 1997 or any fiscal year

18 thereafter through 2002; and

19 (8) by adding at the end of subsection (b)(2)

20 the following new subparagraphs:

21 "(D) ALLOWANCE FOR IMF.—If an appro-

22 priations bill or joint resolution is enacted for

23 fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002

24 that includes an appropriation with respect to

25 clause (i) or (ii), the adjustment shall be the

.HR 2037 III

36

1 amount of budget authority in the measure that

2 is the dollar equivalent, in terms of Special

3 Drawing Rights, of—

4 "(i) an increase in the United States

5 quota as part of the International Mone-

6 tary Fund Eleventh General Review of

7 Quotas (United States Quota); or

8 "(ii) any increase in the maximum

9 amount available to the Secretary of the

10 Treasury pursuant to section 17 of the

11 Bretton Woods Agreement Act, as amend-

12 ed from time to time (New Arrangements

13 to Borrow).

14 "(E) ALLOWANCE FOR INTERNATIONAL

15 ARREARAGES.—

16 "(i) ADJ1JSTMENTS.—If an appropria-

17 tions bill or joint resolution is enacted for

18 fiscal year 1998, 1999, or 2000 that in-

19 cludes an appropriation for arrearages for

20 international organizations, international

21 peacekeeping, and multilateral banks for

22 that fiscal year, the adjustment shall be

23 the amount of budget authority in such

24 measure and the outlays flowing in all fis-

25 cal years from such budget authority.

.HR 2037 III

37

1 "(ii) LI1VrrTATION5.—The total

2 amount of adjustments made pursuant to

3 this subparagraph for the period of fiscal

4 years 1998 through 2000 shall not exceed

5 $1,884,000,000 in budget authority.".

6 (b) SHIFTING OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIlvrrTs

7 INTO THE BALANCED BUDGET ANI) EMERGENCY DEFICIT

8 CONTROL ACT OF 1985.—Section 251 of the Balanced


10 amended by adding at the end the following new sub-

11 section:

12 "(c) DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LI1VrIT.—As used in

13 this part, the term 'discretionary spending limit' means—

14 "(1) with respect to fiscal year 1997, for the

15 discretionary category, the current adjusted amount

16 of new budget authority and outlays;

17 "(2) with respect to fiscal year 1998—

18 "(A) for the defense category:

19 $269,000,000,000 in new budget authority and

20 $266,823,000,000 in outlays;

21 "(B) for the noñdefense category:


23 $282,853,000,000 in outlays; and

•HR 2037 LU

38

1 "(C) for the violent crime reduction cat-

2 egory: $5,500,000,000 in new budget authority

3 and $3,592,000,000 in outlays;

4 "(3) with respect to fiscal year 1999—

5 "(A) for the defense category:


7 $266,518,000,000 in outlays; and

8 "(B) for the nondefense category:


10 $292,803,000,000 in outlays;


12 discretionary category: $537,193,000,000 in new

13 budget authority and $564,265,000,000 in outlays;




17 and




21 as adjusted in strict conformance with subsection (b).".

22 SEC. 204. VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND.

23 (a) SEQUESTRATION REGARDING VIOLENT CRIME

24 REDUCTION TRUST FuND.—Section 251A of the Bal-

'HR 2037 111

39

1 anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985

2 is repealed.

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 310002 of

4 Public Law 103—322 (42 U.S.C. 14212) is repealed.

5 SEC. 205. ENFORCING PAY-AS-YOU-GO.

6 (a) ExTENSION.—Section 252 (2 U.S.C. 902) is

7 amended—

8 (1) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and in-

9 serting the following:

10 "(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to as-

11 sure that any legislation enacted prior to September 30,

12 2002, affecting direct spending or receipts that increases

13 the deficit will trigger an offsetting sequestration.

14 "(b) SEQUESTRATION.—

15 "(1) TIMING.—Within 15 calendar days after

16 Congress adjourns to end a session and on the same

17 day as a sequestration (if any) under sections 251

18 and 253, there shall be a sequestration to offset the

19 amount of any net deficit increase in the budget

20 year caused by all direct spending and receipts legis-

21 lation (after adjusting for any prior sequestration as

22 provided by paragraph (2)) plus any net deficit in-

23 crease in the prior fiscal year caused by all direct

24 spending and receipts legislation not reflected in the

25 final 0MB sequestration report for that year.

.HR 2037 III

40

1 "(2) CAicuiTIoN OF DEFICIT INCREASE.—

2 0MB shall calculate the amount of deficit increase,

3 if any, in the budget year by adding—

4 "(A) all applicable estimates of direct

5 spending and receipts legislation transmitted

6 under subsection (d) applicable to the budget

7 year, other than any amounts included in such

8 estimates resulting from—

9 "(i) full funding of, and continuation of, the de-

10 posit insurance guarantee commitment in effect on

11 the date of enactment of this section; and

12 "(ii) emergency provisions as designated under

13 subsection (e); and

14 "(B) the estimated amount of savings in

15 direct spending programs applicable to the

16 budget year resulting from the prior year's se-

17 questration under this section or section 253, if

18 any (except for any amounts sequestered as a

19 result of any deficit, increase in the fiscal year

20 immediately preceding the prior fiscal year), as

21 published in OMB's final sequestration report

22 for that prior year; and

23 "(C) all applicable estimates of direct

24 spending and receipts legislation transmitted

25 under subsection (d) for the current year that

.HR 2037 III

41

1 are not reflected in the final 0MB sequestra-

2 tion report for that year, other than any

3 amounts included in such estimates resulting

4 from emergency provisions as designated under

5 subsection (e).";

6 (2) by amending subsection (c) (1) (B), by in-

7 serting "and direct" after "guaranteed";

8 (3) by amending subsection (d) to read as fol-

9 lows:

10 "(d) ESTIMATES.—

11 "(1) CBO ESTIMATES.—As soon as practicable

12 after Congress completes action on any direct spend-

13 ing or receipts legislation, CBO shall provide an esti-

14 mate of the budgetary effects of that legislation.

15 "(2) 0MB ESTIMATES.—Not later than 5 cal-

16 endar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal

17 holidays) after the enactment of any direct spending

18 or receipts legislation, 0MB shall transmit a report

19 to the House of Representatives and to the Senate

20 containing—

21 "(A) the CBO estimate of the budgetary

22 effects of that legislation;

23 "(B) an 0MB estimate of the budgetary

24 effects of that legislation using current eco-

25 nomic and technical assumptions; and

'HR 2037 IH

42

1 "(C) an explanation of any difference be-

2 tween the two estimates.

3 "(3) SCOPE OF ESTIMATES.—The estimates

4 under this section shall include the amount of

5 change in outlays or receipts, as the case may be,

6 for the current year (if applicable), the budget year,

7 and each outyear.

8 "(4) SCOREKEEPING GUIDELINES.—OMB and

9 CBO, after consultation with each other and the

10 Committees on the Budget of the House of Rep-

11 resentatives and the Senate, shall—

12 "(A) determine common scorekeeping

13 guidelines; and

14 "(B) in conformance with such guidelines,

15 prepare estimates under this section."; and

16 (4) in subsection (e), by striking ", for any fis-

17 cal year from 1991 through 1998," and by striking

18 "through 1995".

19 SEC. 206. REPORTS AND ORDERS.

20 Section 254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency

21 Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended—

22 (1) by striking subsection (c) and redesignating

23 subsections (d) through (k) as (c) through (j), re-

24 spectively;

.IIR 2037 Ui

43

1 (2) in subsection (c)(2) (as redesignated), by

2 striking "1998" and inserting "2002"; and

3 (3)(A) in subsection (f)(2)(A) (as redesignated),

4 by striking "1998" and inserting "2002"; and

5 (B) in subsection (f)(3) (as redesignated), by

6 striking "through 1998".

7 SEC. 207. EXEMPT PROGRAMS AND ACTiVITIES.

8 (a) VETERANS PRorniviS.—Section 255(b) of the


10 1985 is amended as follows:

11 (1) In the item relating to Veterans Insurance

12 and Indemnity, strike "Indemnity" and insert "In-

13 demnities".

14 (2) In the item relating to Veterans' Canteen

15 Service Revolving Fund, strike "Veterans".

16 (3) In the item relating to Benefits under chap-

17 ter 21 of title 38, strike "(36—0137—0—1—702)" and

18 insert "(36—0120.--0—1--701)".

19 (4) In the item relating to Veterans' compensa-

20 tion, strike "Veterans' compensation" and insert

21 "Compensation".

22 (5) In the item relating to Veterans' pensions,

23 strike "Veterans' pensions" and insert "Pensions".

24 (6) After the last item, insert the following new

25 items:

.HR 2037 JR

44

1 "Benefits under chapter 35 of title 38,

2 United States Code, related to educational as-

3 sistance for survivors and dependents of certain

4 veterans with service-connected disabilities (36—

5 0137—0—1—702);

6 "Assistance and services under chapter 31

7 of title 38, United States Code, relating to

8 training and rehabilitation for certain veterans

9 with service-connected disabilities (36—0137—0—

10 1—702);

11 "Benefits under subchapters I, II, and III

12 of chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code,

13 relating to housing loans for certain veterans

14 and for the spouses and surviving spouses of

15 certain veterans Guaranty and Indemnity Pro-

16 gram Account (36—1119—0—1—704);

17 "Loan Guaranty Program Account (36—

18 1025—0—1—704); and

19 "Direct Loan Program Account (36—1024—

20 0—1—704).".

21 (b) CERTAIN PROGRAM BAsEs.—Section 255(f) of

22 the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act

23 of 1985 is amended to read as follows:

24 "(f) OPTIoN ExEMPTIoN OF MILITArtY PERSON-

25 NEL.—

.HR 2037 IH

45

1 "(1) The President may, with respect to any

2 military personnel account, exempt that account

3 from sequestration or provide for a lower uniform

4 percentage reduction than would otherwise apply.

5 "(2) The President may not use the authority

6 provided by paragraph (1) unless he notifies the

7 Congress of the manner in which such authority will

8 be exercised on or before the date specified in sec-

9 tion 254(a) for the budget year.".

10 (c) OTHER PROGRAMS AND AcTWITIEs.—(1) Section

11 255(g)(1)(A) of the Balanced Budget Emergency Deficit

12 Control Act of 1985 is amended as follows:

13 (A) After the first item, insert the following

14 new item:

15 "Activities financed by voluntary payments

16 to the Government for goods or services to be

17 provided for such payments;".

18 (B) Strike "Thrift Savings Fund (26—8141—0—

19 7—602);".

20 (C) In the first item relating to the Bureau of

21 Indian Affairs, insert "Indian land and water claims

22 settlements and" after the comma.

23 (D) In the second item relating to the Bureau

24 of Indian Affairs, strike "miscellaneous" and insert

25 "Miscellaneous" and strike ", tribal trust funds".

.BR 2037 III

46

1 (E) Strike "Claims, defense (97—0102—0—1—

2 051);".

3 (F) In the item relating to Claims, judgments,

4 and relief acts, strike "806" and insert "808".

5 (G) Strike "Coinage profit fund (20—5811—0—

6 2—803)".

7 (H) Insert "Compact of Free Association (14—

8 0415—0—1—808);" after the item relating to the

9 Claims, judgments, and relief acts.

10 (I) Insert "Conservation Reserve Program (12—

11 23 19—0—1—302);" after the item relating to the

12 Compensation of the President.

13 (J) In the item relating to the Customs Service,

14 strike "852" and insert "806".

15 (K) In the item relating to the Comptroller of

16 the Currency, insert ", Assessment funds (20—8413—

17 0—8—373)" before the semicolon.

18 (L) Strike "Director of the Office of Thrift Su-

19 pervision;".

20 (M) Strike "Eastern Indian land claims settle-

21 ment fund (14—2202—0—1—806);".

22 (N) After the item relating to the Exchange

23 stabilization fund, insert the following new items:

.IiR 2037 III

47

1 "Farm Credit Administration, Limitation

2 on Administrative Expenses (78—4131—0—3—

3 351);

4 "Farm Credit System Financial Assistance

5 Corporation, interest payment (20—1850—0—1—

6 908);".

7 (0) Strike "Federal Deposit Insurance Cor-

8 poration;".

9 (P) In the first item relating to the Federal De-

10 posit Insurance Corporation, insert "(51—4064—0—3—

11 373)" before the semicolon.

12 (Q) In the second item relating to the Federal

13 Deposit Insurance Corporation, insert "(51—4065--


15 (iR) In the third item relating to the Federal

16 Deposit Insurance Corporation, insert "(51—4066—


18 (5) In the item relating to the Federal Housing

19 Finance Board, insert "(95—4039—0—3—371)" before

20 the semicolon.

21 (T) In the item relating to the Federal payment

22 to the railroad retirement account, strike "account"

23 and insert "accounts".

24 (U) In the item relating to the health profes-

25 sions graduate student loan insurance fund, insert

'HR 2037 ifi

48

1 "program account" after "fund" and strike

2 "(Health Education Assistance Loan Program) (75—

3 4305—0—3—553)" and insert "(75—0340—0—1—552)".

4 (V) In the item relating to Higher education fa-

5 cilities, strike "and insurance".

6 (W) In the item relating to Internal Revenue

7 collections for Puerto Rico, strike "852" and insert

8 "806".

9 (X) Amend the item relating to the Panama

10 Canal Commission to read as follows:

11 "Panama Canal Commission, Panama

12 Canal Revolving Fund (95—4061—0—3—403);".

13 (Y) In the item relating to the Medical facilities

14 giiarantee and loan fund, strike "(75—4430—0—3—

15 551)" and insert "(75—9931—0—3—550)".

16 (Z) In the first item relating to the National

17 Credit Union Administration, insert "operating fund

18 (25—4056—0—3—373)" before the semicolon.

19 (AA) In the second item relating to the Na-

20 tional Credit Union Administration, strike "central"

21 and insert "Central" and insert "(25—4470—0—3—

22 373)" before the semicolon.

23 (BB) In the third item relating to the National

24 Credit Union Administration, strike "credit" and in-

'HR 2037 LII

49

1 sert "Credit" and insert "(25—4468—0—3—373)" be-

2 fore the semicolon.

3 (CC) After the third item relating to the Na-

4 tional Credit Union Administration, insert the fol-

5 lowing new item:

6 "Office of Thrift Supervision (20—4108—0—

7 3—373);".

8 (DD) In the item relating to Payments to

9 health care trust funds, strike "572" and insert

10 "571".

11 (EE) Strike "Compact of Free Association, eco-

12 nomic assistance pursuant to Public Law 99—658

13 (14—0415—0—1—806);".

14 (FF) In the item relating to Payments to social

15 security trust funds, strike "571" and insert "651".

16 (GG) Strike "Payments to state and local gov-

17 ernment fiscal assistance trust fund (20—2111—0—1—

18 851);".

19 (1111) In the item relating to Payments to the

20 United States territories, strike "852" and insert

21 "806".

22 (II) Strike "Resolution Funding Corporation;".

23 (JJ) In the item relating to the Resolution

24 Trust Corporation, insert "Revolving Fund (22—

25 4055—0—3—373)" before the semicolon.

.HR 2037 III

50

1 (IRK) After the item relating to the Tennessee

2 Valley Authority funds, insert the following new

3 items:

4 "Thrift Savings Fund;

5 "United States Enrichment Corporation

6 (95—4054—0—3—271);

7 "Vaccine Injury Compensation (75—0320—

8 0—1—551);

9 "Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

10 Trust Fund (20—8175—0—7—551);".

11 (2) Section 255(g)(1)(B) of the Balanced Budget and

12 Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended as fol-

13 lows:

14 (A) Strike "The following budget" and insert

15 "The following Federal retirement and disability".

16 (B) In the item relating to Black lung benefits,

17 strike "lung benefits" and insert "Lung Disability

18 Trust Fund".

19 (C) In the item relating to the Court of Federal

20 Claims Court Judges' Retirement Fund, strike

21 "Court of Federal".

22 (D) In the item relating to Longshoremen's

23 compensation benefits, insert "Special workers com-

24 pensation expenses," before "Longshoremen's".

.ILR 2037 111

51

1 (E) In the item relating to Railroad retirement

2 tier II, strike "retirement tier II" and insert "Indus-

3 try Pension Fund".

4 (3) Section 255(g)(2) of the Balanced Budget and

5 Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended as fol-

6 lows:

7 (A) Strike the following items:

8 "Agency for International Development,

9 Housing, and other credit guarantee programs

10 (72—4340—0—3—151);

11 "Agricultural credit insurance fund (12—

12 4140—0—1—351);".

13 (B) In the item relating to Check forgery,

14 strike "Check" and insert "United States Treasury

15 check".

16 (C) Strike "Community development grant loan

17 guarantees (86—0162—0—1—451);".

18 (D) After the item relating to the United States

19 Treasury Check forgery insurance fund, insert the

20 following new item:

21 "Credit liquidating accounts;".

22 (E) Strike the following items:

23 "Credit union share insurance fund (25—

24 4468—0—3—371);

.IIR 2037 III

52

1 "Economic development revolving fund

2 (13—4406—0—3);

3 "Export-Import Bank of the United

4 States, Limitation of program activity (83—

5 4027—0—1—155);

6 "Federal deposit Insurance Corporation

7 (51—8419—0—8—371);

8. "Federal Housing Administration fund

9 (86—4070—0—3—371);

10 "Federal ship financing fund (69—4301—0—

11 3—403);

12 "Federal ship financing fund, fishing yes-

13 sels (13—4417—0—3—376);

14 "Government National Mortgage Associa-

15 tion, Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities

16 (86—4238—0—3—371);

17 "Health education loans (75—4307—0—3—

18 553);

19 "Indian loan guarantee and insurance fund

20 (14—4410—0—3—452);

21 "Railroad rehabilitation and improvement

22 financing fund (69—4411—0—3—401);

23 "Rural development insurance fund (12—

24 4155—0—3—452);

'HR 2037 Ui

53

1 "Rural electric and telephone revolving

2 fund (12—4230—8—3—271);

3 "Rural housing insurance fund (12—4141—

4 0—3—371);

5 "Small Business Administration, Business

6 loan and investment fund (73—4154—0—3—376);

7 "Small Business Administration, Lease

8 guarantees revolving fund (73—4157—0—3—376);

9 "Small Business Administration, Pollution

10 control equipment contract guarantee revolving

11 fund (73—4147—0—3—376);

12 "Small Business Administration, Surety

13 bond guarantees revolving fund (73—4156—0—3—

14 376);

15 "Department of Veterans Affairs Loan

16 guaranty revolving fund (36—4025—0—3—704);".

17 (d) LOW-INCOME PROGIvIs.—5ection 255(h) of the


19 1985 is amended as follows:

20 (1) Amend the item relating to Child nutrition


22 "State child nutrition programs (with the

23 exception of special milk programs) (12—3539—

24 0—1—605);".

'HR 2037 III

54

1 (2) Amend the item relating to the Women, in-

2 fants, and children program to read as follows:

3 Special supplemental nutrition program

4 for women, infants, and children (WIC) (12—

5 3510—0—1—605).".

6 (e) IDENTIFICATION OF PROG1Ms.—Section 255(i)

7 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

8 Act of 1985 is amended to read as follows:

9 "(i) IDENTIFICATION OF PROG1I\1S.—For purposes

10 of subsections (b), (g), and (h), each account is identified

11 by the designated budget account identification code num-

12 ber set forth in the Budget of the United States Govern-

13 ment 199 6—Appendix, and an activity within an account

14 is designated by the name of the activity and the identi-

15 fication code number of the account.".

16 (f) OPTIONAL EXEMPTION OF MILITARY PERSON-

17 NEL.—Section 255(h) of the Balanced Budget and Emer-

18 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (relating to optional ex-

19 emption of military personnel) is repealed.

20 SEC. 208. GENERAL AND SPECIAL SEQUESTRATION RULES.

21 (a) SECTION HEADING.—(1) The section heading of

22 section 256 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Defi-

23 cit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking EXCEP-

24 TIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND SPECIAL RULES" and in-

'HR 2037 III

55

1 serting "GENERAL AND SPECIAL SEQUESTRATION

2 RULES".

3 (2) The item relating to section 256 in the table con-

4 tents set forth in section 250(a) of the Balanced Budget

5 and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended


"Sec. 256. General and special sequestration rules.".

7 (b) AUT01VIATIC SPENDING INCREASES.—Section

8 256(a) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

9 Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking paragraph (1)

10 and redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs

11 (1) and (2), respectively.

12 (c) GUARANTEED AND DIRECT STUDENT LoAN PRO-

13 GRAMS.—Section 256(b) of the Balanced Budget and

14 Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended to

15 read as follows:

16 "(b) STUDENT L0ANs.—(1) For all student loans

17 under part B or D of title IV of the Higher Education

18 Act of 1965 made during the period when a sequestration

19 order under section 254 is in effect, origination fees under

20 sections 438(c)(2) and 455(c) of that Act shall be in-

21 creased by a uniform percentage sufficient to produce the

22 dollar savings in student loan programs (as a result of

23 that sequestration order) required by section 252 or 253,

24 as applicable.

•IIR 2037 lB

56

1 "(2) For any loan made during the period beginning

2 on the date that an order issued under section 254 takes

3 effect with respect to a fiscal year and ending at the close

4 of such fiscal year, the origination fees which are author-

5 ized to be collected pursuant to sections 438(c)(2) and

6 455(c) of such Act shall be increased by 0.50 percent.".

7 (d) HEALTH CENTERS.—Section 256(e)(1) of the


9 1985 is amended by striking the dash and all that follows

10 thereafter and inserting "2 percent.".

11 (e) FEDERAL PAY.—Section 256(g)(1) of the Bal-

12 anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985

13 is amended by inserting "(including any amount payable

14 under section 5303 or 5304 of title 5, United States

15 Code)" after "such statutory pay system".

16 (f) TREATMENT OF FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE Ex-

17 PENSES.—Section 256(h)(4) of the Balanced Budget and

18 Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by

19 striking subparagraphs (D) and (H), by redesignating

20 subparagraphs (E), (F), (G), and (I), as subparagraphs

21 (D), (E), (F), and (G), respectively, and by adding at the

22 end the following new subparagraph:

23 "(H) Farm Credit Administration.".

•}LR 2037 III

57

1 (g) COMMODITY CREDIT CoRPoiTIoN.—Section

2 256(j) (5) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

3 Control Act of 1985 is amended to read as follows:

4 "(5) DAIRY PROGRAM.—Notwithstanding other

5 provisions of this subsection, as the sole means of

6 achieving any reduction in outlays under the milk

7 price support program, the Secretary of Agriculture

8 shall provide for a reduction to be made in the price

9 received by producers for all milk produced in the

10 United States and marketed by producers for com-

11 mercial use. That price reduction (measured in cents

12 per hundred weight of milk marketed) shall occur

13 under section 201(d)(2)(A) of the Agricultural Act

14 of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446(d)(2)(A)), shall begin on the

15 day any sequestration order is issued under section

16 254, and shall not exceed the aggregate amount of

17 the reduction in outlays under the milk price sup-

18 port program that otherwise would have been

19 achieved by reducing payments for the purchase of

20 milk or the products of milk under this subsection

21 during the applicable fiscal year.".

22 (h) EFFECTS OF SEQuESTRATI0N.—Section 256(k)

23 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

24 Act of 1985 is amended as follows:

.}tR 2037 IR

58

1 (1) In paragraph (1), strike "other than a trust

2 or special fund account" and insert ", except as pro-

3 vided in paragraph (5)" before the period.

4 (2) Strike paragraph (4), redesignate para-

5 graphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs (4) and (5), re-

6 spectively, and amend paragraph (5) (as redesig-

7 nated) to read as follows:

8 "(5) Budgetary resources sequestered in revolv-

9 ing, trust, and special fund accounts, and offsetting

10 collections sequestered in appropriation accounts

11 shall not be available for obligation during the fiscal

12 year in which the sequestration occurs, but shall be

13 available in subsequent years to the extent otherwise

14 provided in law.".

15 SEC. 209. THE BASELINE.


17 Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended—

18 (1) in subsection (b) (2) by amending subparagraph

19 (A) to read as follows:

20 "(A)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), no

21 program with estimated current year outlays greater

22 than $50,000,000 shall be assumed to expire in the

23 budget year or the outyears.

24 "(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to a program if

25 legislation establishing or modifying that program

'hR 2037 LII

59

1 contains a provision stating 'Section 257(b)(2) of

2 the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

3 Act of 1985 shall not apply to the program specified

4 in

____

of this Act.', the blank space being filled in

5 with the appropriate section or sections of that legis-

6 lation.

7 "(iii) No bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or

8 conference report shall be subject to a point of order

9 under section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act

10 of 1974 solely because it includes the provision spec-

11 ified in clause (ii).

12 "(iv) Upon the expiration of the suspensions

13 contained in section 171 of Public Law 104—193

14 with regard to a program in such Act with estimated

15 fiscal year outlays. greater than $50,000,000, that

16 program shall be assumed to operate under that Act

17 as in effect immediately before reversion to the laws

18 suspended by such Act."

19 (2) by adding at the end of subsection (b) (2)

20 the following new subparagraph:

21 "(D) If any law expires before the budget year

22 or any outyear, then any program with estimated

23 current year outlays greater than $50 million which

24 operates under that law shall be assumed to con-

.HR 2037 UI

60

1 tinue to operate under that law as in effect imme-

2 diately before its expiration.";

3 (3) in the second sentence of subsection (c)(5),

4 by striking "national product fixed-weight price

5 index" and inserting "domestic product chain-type

6 price index"; and

7 (4) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the

8 following:

9 "(e) ASSET SALES.—Amounts realized from the sale

10 of an asset other than a loan asset shall not be counted

11 against legislation if that sale would result in a financial

12 cost to the Federal Government.".

13 SEC. 210. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.


15 Deficit Control Act of 1985, entitled "Modification of

16 Presidential Order", is repealed.

17 SEC. 211. JUDICIAL REVIEW.


19 Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended as follows:

20 (1) Strike "252" or "252(b)" each place it oc-

21 curs and insert "254".

22 (2) In subsection (d)(1)(A), strike "257(1) to

23 the extent that" and insert "256(a) if", strike the

24 parenthetical phrase, and at the end insert "or".

.HR 2037 111

61

1 (3) In subsection (d)(1)(B), strike "new budg-

2 et" and all that follows through "spending author-

3 ity" and insert "budgetary resources" and strike

4 "or" after the comma.

5 (4) Strike subsection (d)(1)(C).

6 (5) Strike subsection (f) and redesignate sub-

7 sections (g) and (h) as subsections (f) and (g), re-

8 spectively.

9 (6) In subsection (g) (as redesignated), strike

10 "base levels of total revenues and total budget out-

11 lays, as" and insert "figures", and "251 (a)(2)(B)

12 or (c)(2)," and insert "254".

13 SEC. 212. EFFECT WE DATE.

14 (a) ExPTRATT0N.—Section 275(b) of the Balanced


16 amended—

17 (1) by striking "Part C of this title, section"

18 and inserting "Sections 251, 253, 258B, and";

19 (2) by striking "1995" and inserting "2002";

20 and

21 (3) by adding at the end the following new sen-

22 tence: "The remaining sections of part C of this title

23 shall expire September 30, 2006.".

.HR 2037 LII

62

1 (b) ExPIiTIoN.—Section 14002(c)(3) of the Omni-

2 bus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (2 U.S.C. 900

3 note) is repealed.

4 SEC. 213. REDUCTION OF PREEXISTiNG BALANCES AND EX-

5 CLUSION OF EFFECTS OF THIS ACT FROM

6 PAYGO SCORECARD.

7 Upon the enactment of this Act, the Director of the

8 Office of Management and Budget shall—

9 (1) reduce any balances of direct spending and

10 receipts legislation for any fiscal year under section

11 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

12 Control Act of 1985 to zero; and

13 (2) not make any estimates of changes in direct

14 spending outlays and receipts under subsection (d)

15 of such section 252 for any fiscal year resulting

16 from the enactment of this Act or the IRevenue IRec-

17 onciliation Act of 1997.

0

.HR 2037 lB

COMPARISON OF BUDGET RECONCILIATION HUMAN RESOURCES ITEMS

CONFERENCE STA TUS

As of July 21, 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. WELpARF-TO-WORX GRANT, BLOCK GRANTS FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE TO NEEDY FAMILiES. AND OThER PROVISIONS1. Wrlftre-io-Work Grunt, 1

LPIITtXt I

b. Adltht'f. Aericy 1

r. later-Age.cy Ccordiaatioo 2

d. Appruprtotton sod DtionoIPuode 3

r.. MuIhIagReqoIrrmeo1J 3

1. Prior State Speodle& Req ulreiieo (a 4

g. A1Iocdo.afFaruiaVuod,toStItes 4

h. DeEloItlooefIUglbkSlute S

I. fl4,trfoatl.e of Foriuula Foodp WIIkI* States 6

j. Fforwct3osiiaes 6

k. CoiapdMht Grvit Foodu for P,frite 1ndvat Coszcli aad PtiUSk*l SubdMon of 54 'It, 7

U. Great, S. hidlea Tribes 9

Greats tTirrttorleWOu*IyIa Arue 9

tJNatPiedJ to0. E1I1bk 4I4 12

p. t.ic4Jo with TANP Itq.LvaatloI Ii

2. Woddare - Role, for CvnIty Ses1ce aid Work Iiperle.ce Propaiti 14

LSII1kP 14

3. C,oolLa Aay Other Work Arthfty for Rts wIlk Sufliclest ParticIpatlea ha Workfare Pnrums4. ProlectIldi tar WorWue lad W,Iftn40-WOrk P&r1lcIpuiti 15

3 Uidt en 'jocidceal sad Educidcaullr*loIogu a Work Acthfty 17

6. LIdS oaTrsa'feTc1TANFPd17. Peaally Aplut State tor Not RedodagEruefit of Recipient for Rzfiast to Woria ii8 Yseilly Vtolcee Zs.empllc.a free TANT Ruin ii9. peaaJey for Failure So Med Mlainota Piiddpattoa Rates 19

to. Data Collection About TAYIP FuniJIlas 19

IL SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME13. Raqutremelit I. Peifotai Cblldbood DiubWty R deltuoloalloii Ii Mlsied Cues

air -of-zff.st Reqoi,t for Optional State SoppIeeatatioa of SSI Benefits IL

13. Tees for Federal AdmIn1MiS1on of Stilt SupkmcntaI7 Psyment, 21

Ift CBILD SUP9'ORT USFORCEMLNTu. c'artncatiso ttty .PrCI.RaidIIdsre,o(WaBt aod Claim teformitlon

IV RZS1RICW4G WILPARE ARD PUBLIC WIZTI1S FOR ALIRNS1S Eztoo .(SSIiMrdItald LUlbUlty Tesled for RdpeI aad Ctrttia Other QuslNlrd Miens Free, Stol Yran 24

16. Defl11(o*: 'QusJifie4 Mimi"(7. SSJ Eligib11It for Nmncitizin. Rttrlvlng SSI on Avgszsi 22. 19%II. SSI ElIg(bIIity for Nondilieni Heir b! 1122196 uid Ssb,equmntly Dljiblcd .

2439. SSI £IIglbIIIty fotkr Serrrl, Dkab4ed

2120. SSI Eligibility fm 553 Rp4ets with Ap&atlonj Piled Bdnrm 1(1/792521. MedicaId Eligibility fi) Nocfthni Rcfrf 551 on Auu 22,19%23

22. Food Stamp Eligibility2523. MedicaId !Jigibfllty for Childern25

24. SSI?Medknld ElblIfty for Prreneut rilden1 Miens Wo Art Member, of a lndlt. Tribe23. A,u1a,26. VerifIcation at EIlglbHIty fur Stak and LocM Pabik Be.dlti

26

V. UNF.MPLOYMN1 COMPNSA11DN27. 272& lncruie Federal Une$oymI Aee*n* C 2729. Speciat V4ftutlon to 1a1asfro VicI.,ji. Trust :1 2$30. Istarust4rrc M,aeces to Stale Aweanti Ii eploymrnt Tmual Fund Rmalrkted 1 State Which Meet Funding G.d 2131. Zumptlon at Secslce Pei*rmed by Eleello. Woikrn from the Federal Unemployment Tai32. Trtabient of Cirtal. Servicra Performed by Inmates33 Ezemptian St Sersict Pcrfoin,ed for a. E.ry or Secondary Scbool Opecated Prierily for Religious Purpose. from the Federal Unemployment Tes 2934. State Program Integrity Activities for Unempl.yment Competuaflon 29

Vi. TECHNICAL CORRECflONS35. loadierlmnt Rthmcti Ca Interaai Reresue Code.36. Eapenditorea to Be Excluded from Khstork State iipcnditurea.17. Ciytloô St kderences31. Techakat Correction Pertaining to Sod.! Secidty

VU. MCSCELIAMEOUS39. IncrtueI.tbeP%ibIlcDchtLimIt 33

II. SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY iNCOME

11. RequlremealtaParfomi ChildhoodDI,*bUityRtdit*nz'Iis*thU I.Mlued Cars

By August 22, 1997 (one eai aftet theclatecfenactment of P.L. 10*493), theCoinmlssionci of the Social Scc.amtyMministrtion (SSA) is expte4 toredetetminc the eligibility o(asiy child

ivusg SSI beneftis on August 22,1996. whose e "ty may be affectedby chang in childhood disabilityeligihibty cnleiia. IZICItIdIII$ the newdefinition of childhood diedilily aed thethnñrntlon of the 1nMdnsI14flmctlonal ieument. Bcla ofaureid 1ecip wifl conthiuc wdil thebto(iuIy 1, 1997waredeterUt)aIi*st,intnt. Should a child be Ibinidineligible, benefits will end followingreonninalion. Within 1 yew ofattainmentoruge LSSAise,ipectedl0niake a nwdical edcicnninetion ofairreot SSC childhood recipicati usingadult dibiIily eligibility criteria- Forlow birth weight hobies. a micw must be

ainducted within 12 imedha after the

blsth of a child wbo low buthseeigbt Isa owlribu1lng faor to Izisor betdisthility

This pwisicn estends from 1 year afler thedateofcnactn,etdtO t nonthsa1ertheda!eoIenactment the period by which SSA mustredetennina the ligibility of any coldreci'.ing benefits on August 22, 1996 whoseeligibility may be affected by changes inchildhood disability. The pro%ision also

flea that any child subject to an SSTrer,nination ceder the terms of the welfarerdorTn Law whose redeiennlnation does zair during the 1$-niotiih period foIloingenactmerfl(thatii,tlyFthflWlY22. 1998)istobe cucd sa enon u jxac*icchle thatoronisg the new eligibility standards applied toother children wales the welfare refomi law.

Frositlon Current Law Hoese Bill Senate Amendment Statsl

No ptmion. Senate rede.

20

Slates hae an option to xpptcmen; ihcFedczai SSI pa'1menl ith their oiirunds. Stales that operate optionalRJeznenta1ion prvgiazns axe requiredby Section 1618 of the Social SecurityAct to paas along the amowfl atanyFedetal SSI henef ii increase totoctpleiit& The law allows States totnp1y with this requirement by cithe,iminlalning thdr çplemrntaiypayment Ie'e1, to recip4ert5 of a giventypest or thuve 19*3 levels or bynaialnig thelr iwiaqpaymeals at a level that. when annbncdwith FSIleTSI paymeats. at least epedsonond payments to the e type at

ntsduthti 12

mohs. (ne. Section 161* reqoutsthai onor a SWe eiuts to peavidssupplesnenlary peymesfla, it mi

thsietodo

The House repeals Section 161$, ending therequirement thai Slates pass along any Federalbcuefit increase to recipients

Senate recute, wilhmodification thai States thai payr rc,, Federal distratjonorrupplanentasy payments mayreduce Stale payments by nomore than tOpezeeMpca'car(see below).

12. Repeal o(Mantenaiiee-er4ffortKequiresnent tar OptionalState Supplemealatic. of551 Bdh

Prvialcn Current L.iw liouie flU Senalt Ameadasent

No provision.

21

13. FeesforlederIlAdtnlalstrItloa of StateSupPlementary Paysaeats

The law requires the Co issioner ofSociaIStosseasan

iiion fee r making Statesuppkinentvy SSI psyrarmfll (ç4ioctalrnandalmy)onbebaffof States. ForFiscal Yea, 1997 and each rec-'edlngfiscal year. the 1e is 55.00 eaoiithly or adifferent rate that the Comrniaslonerdelermines to be appmp.iale for theState. The adniinlstntion fees—alongwills any additional senbec &ca that theCnsrthsleear Lmpciaes to vee onus-are deposited In the general flual *1 theTreasury as rniarllaxscous receipts.

The House increas fees for administeringState supplements (optional or mandatory) asfollows:

For Fiscal Year 1998, 86.20;Far Fiscal Year 1999 5740,For Fiscal Year 2000. 57.80;For Fiscal Year 2001, 58.10;For Fiscal Year 2002, Si 50; andFor Fiscal Year 1003 and each succeeding

fiscal year, the rate in the preceding ear,adjusted for pnce inflation (by t of theCnnsum Price Index); or a different rate thatthe Commissioner determines to be ajçmpiialefor the SWe-

The first $5 to moaihly admisistralien shall bedeposited in the general fund of the Treasuty asmiscellancoos xpta. The remaining portionof administration fees (sal 100 percent ofadditlorgi services fees) shalt, upon collectionfor Fiscal Year t99 and isier years be creditedto a special Tceay fund to be available todefiay eaperucs In carrying ou SSI and relatedlana.

The bill autborizes S33 million to beappenpTated kosu the new igmocial Treawnyfund(orFtcil Year 199R .sal'suvhsumsaaare neoeeaaif for letar year,.

Senate recede, withmodification regardingmaintenance ol'cffott lot Statesopplementation of SSI benefits.

Promialas Cumiat Law Uoule Bill Senate Amendment Statut

No provision.

22

LII. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

14. Clari(kalio* ofAuthority to PenoitCestiho R,d1pdo.res ofWaeanCiaImIcforWo4,

FL. 104-19J ,ises}flLS the authority toobtain into matinu about thewgcs andwiemplomenl compen1ian mid toindividuals fmm State imewpkymentoonçen1iou agencies for the SlateDircctotyo(New Hires. The StaleDirermoiyo( New Hire, is then to furnishhis *a,gc and nuemploymeatcompenulion claim Information, onaquar$eity basis, to the Nallocal direc1oyof New Hires. The law also rsqagencie, to ealabllsh web aafegimrda asthe Seay of Labor dumine, anmzy to Lisure (hal the in(mm, liondla$oaed to the Natiorml Dütcry ofNew Hire, is usmi only for the pwpo ofadminlatceing jeDJlu wader SillSplans apwoved wader the Child SuptxtEnforcemant pcogram. the TANI bktchgrant. and for her porpene, authcdzndinaectloa45ioftheSoclal semuity Act(as amended by P.L. W4-L93).

Clanfles that IIHS ma'. disclose wage anduncmplonwnt compensation informatonountained in the Directory of New Hires to theDepa1rnem ofTrcasusy, the Suxial SectititAthuirüs*mtk,a. and to State Child SiipcxnlEntowemenl agencies.

PrM$uo ()Jrrrnt Law Bali Seoste Amendment SLIu,

(o proisLon. Senate rece.

23

IV. RESTRICTING WELFARE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR ALIENS

Provision Current Law Ilosne Bill Senate Ameadmeni States

15. enonofSSI/Medkald LUgibilIlyPaiind ror Refugees andCerta&a Other QnallfiedAllesuFrsri5tolYeisi

16. Deflultloe: Qu.IUiedAlienaN

ii. 581 cugibwtyrorNdttuns Eeeefvisg SSIoAaguM 22,1996

18 SSJ Eligibility rorNoocftize., Urn by8/22/% as4 Seb.eqsarutIy

19. 581 ElIgibility Em- theknrely Disabled

Provides 5-yeas exemption from; (I) thebar .pinst 551 and Food Stamps; and(2) the pwlsion allocririg Ststes to deity'qualiuied aliens' access to Mediceid,TANF. and Social Scxviccs flock Grantfor refugees, asytees. and aliens grantedsitltho1ding of depoiiailcn Ear

persecutfon

Defloedby P.L tO'4.l93 (as amendedby P.L. 104-2O€) as aliens edntiued forleg perman dence (i.e..ininsigrants), relUgecs aliens paroledInto the Vu dSiaiesfor ailcast Ialiens granted asyhen or reheed reLief,and certain sed s andditldresi. Mo O*isn/Hthtian entrantsart — for I year arid. is web, arequaIIIIUI alicu. Ajes,asians enter as

launanl5 and .as sth, artquaiifiesialietiL

Mest"qtialifiedalierts' ertbaned &umSupplemental Snmrity liix,nn (S5I) forthe Aged, Blind, and Dindiled. Correntrrdpients xusnt be satenod forcontinuing eligibility by S,*gwber 30,1997.

Not eligible under current law (unlessotherwise exempt from ineligibility).

No provision fat eligibility of severelydisabled qualified aliens" bevatidconuinenl esurage thrvugb 9/30/97 ofthese rules sso( 8/22/96.

Letigihens from S years to 7 years the periodduring which welfare eligibiLity is guaranteedto refugees. asylees and aliens whosedepoetaiion has been wIthheld.

Specifies tleit Cuhan and Kaiti.an entraills andAmerasian permanent resIdent aliens are to beconsidered qoalUled *Iicns roe pupate ofntiriul rig SSI and Medicaid eligibility oflbo who were receiving bene8ts on 8122196.

'Qualiiied aliens" receiving SSI benelds on8/22/96 culd remain eligible for SSI. Appliestoboth the aged and disabled.

Eligibility continues beyond 9/31W97 only fort.hore receiving benefits as of 8122/96 (seeabove).

No special provision for the severely disabled.Eligibility of U oo the rn(ls as of 8/22/96wild continue (see abase).

Similar to House, except alsoclarifies that Cthan-Kaitian entrantstvuld be considered "refugees" forpurpo of SStiMedicaid. makingthem eligible ror their first 7 esrs Inthe U.s.

Sçeeil%cs Cuban and Haitian entrantsare qualified aliens for porpoec ofcontinuing SS1 and Medicaideligibility of these who wererwezving benefits on 8122196.

Similar to House, darifies that bandoes not appiy to an alien who is'lawfully residing in any state.1

Eligibility for SSI disability benefitsprovided for 'gualified aliens' hereby 8/22/96 who sequenLly becomedisabled.

Provides for coverage of futureseveTely disabled "qualified aliens"who srt unai,le to naturalira wleIybecause of their dability.

Hoqescrdc.

Hue ree.

Senate rr.

Senate ste.

24

Frw,ialon Currest Law Hon* Bill Seaste Amrndmeoi Stitu,

Indivithials who have been receivingSSI on basis of an application filedbelore lit P9 sould ronhinuc to beeligible unless there is convincingcvióence that they art non-qualifiedlsen.

22. Mcald Xbgibllktyfor N.ndthros RthlaSSIo.Aupst22, 19%

States ruay exclude "qualified alienfwho erflerut the United Swesbefaieenameni o(the welfare law (August22. 1996) from Medicaid beginningJaiusey 1. 1997. AWiIIanaliy, to theextent thet Isp1 lmntigr$nLI' receipt ofMedicaid ii based only on theireligibility for SSL, meMfi lose

dbecause of thor bacligibilftyforSSl.

"QcaJiZini aliena" who wets receivingderivative Medicaid benefIts on Auga 22,19% as a iilt of receipt of 551 would remaineUgible roe Medicalt

Similar 10 House. Follow }-4oue and Senate.

22. Food Stamp Ellbillty Qaalihed aliens hen b 8/2&96barred from food dançs by 8/22/91;mew ariivalt baited.

No derivative eligibility from SSI eligibility;i.e, noclianie ineidating law.

No de nlive eligibility from SSIetigibility i.e., no ckarige in existinglaw.

identical provision.

23. MedicaId ElIgibilityfor Children

ii. SSVMdic*IdZlJglIt7 for PsroanenlResidetit Aiku Who AreMemtera of a Indian

Qualiflcd aliens" crileriog alter 8/22/%are barred horn all but emergencyMedicaid for5 ycanaltcrentzy, iiwhich poiiii their pezlicipe&n Is a daleoptimi no special provIsion is made forchilthcn.

Makes no eitcq*ion for qualified alienswho arc Native Americana. Section 29at' the Immigration and Nationality Aof 1952 (INA) preseru the right of freepascage recognized ic the Jay Trty of1794 by aHoing "American Indiansborn In Caandi" intiuipc,Ld i1y andresidency rights If they po * lead30 per ceniuino(blood of the Americanindian r By regWatlo ia±ihrahwho enter the U.S. and realde hereunder this provision art regardedlawful pencao der* nl.

Excepts members of ibiheally rea,gnrredAmerican Indian inbea who are lawfullyadmitted foe permanent residence from the 5S1(and dcrivaiivt Medicaid if applicable)rcs*ncliotis on qualified alieni

Exempts "qualified alien' childirnunder age 19 from the 5-yea boronfull Medicaid.

Excepts (I) meinbeno(federsllyrecognized teibes and (2) AmericanIndiajis whocomeunder Sec. 2S9 ofthe INA From the SSI (and dcrwatheMedicaid if applicable) restrictionson qu ed aliens. Makes similarexceptions to the 5-year bar onberduts foe nealy arriving qualifiedaJiens

20. SSJ Eligibility for SSIRecipicats withApplications Pilid Bifore1/1/79

Not eligible under cunrcnt law beyond No provision9/30/97 unless can prove citnienabip (oraxe otherwise exempt because ol vrkreourd or vderan status).

Housc rdc.

No change in existing law. Serials r.

Ho ede.

25

Prswliloa Current Law Uoe,e Bill Sanute Amendment Stibis

Amerasianz enter a immigrants and, Cozisideied to be "qualilied ahens br purposetuch, ate qualified aliens. of cznhlizTUed eligibility for SSI for tho hcrc

by K/i 2/96.

Requlreerilicatioo thai applicants ftrfederal benelits are thgiblc for thebeodha and that aJ administeringaucit prozranu ha'e a er1flcaiionn.

Authorlzca gate and local gprnroenls tovtr*lr eligibdfty foe slate or local pilicbc.

Ameiasians would be made eligiblefor beileillS on same basis asrefugees. ?rovidcs for fundingthrougb 5100 processing foes to belevied on uniawfully present alienswho are ..nkied rernoed aflerhaving been convid in the U.S. cia ldooy.

Hoprvyuion.

25 Amerulw,

26. Verllkatloo at£Hglblllt7 rorstate andLocal PiNk $eodlti

House recede.

Senate rtcede.

26

VI. TECHNiCAL CORRECTIONSNOTE: Ptostuonj orthe House-passed Technical Cotrectiona Act (HR. 1O4.) are (denlical to those of the Scnate-passnd Technical Ccnectons Act (Subtitle N of Title V oF S. 947 espt he four items(33. 36.37, and 18) notnl below.

Prosilkal C.rrent Law flows. Bill (FIR lO4) Senate

33. IaadvartestBdennces to InternalRe,eoae Code

36. Kapeathtum to B.Eicded fro HistoricSLate Lapendllurea

31. Correction vi

The twctechnical changes made in thiscuon pcstaln to the ddhiiticn ofIaIIfind otEImat4on that ny rvcua rqxeseotath'e payee, and eod-oi-lhng as they apply to SocialSecurity bcfits.

Strikes one paragraph (numb 7) of Sec. 110(1)o!P.L. 104-191, wh ch made an inadvertentchange in the iruarnal Revenue Code.

Clarifies that Stale funds s,enz as a condiiion ortying other Federal fundi may not counttoward the Slate maizilcnance of ccflri1rcmr. also makes a miner wordingchangewemure that Slate spendingon OESare induded in the ntainlenanco.ofcflbxtbethw (histøtic State expenditules).

No provialois.

Stnkes additional paragraphs (numbots 1. 4,and 3) which made inadserteni or obsoletechanges in. the Imernal Revenue Code.

Makes this change in conForming amendmentsIG welfare-to-work block geant (see item 1above). Language La the same as that In theW.ys and Means wfane-to-wodc pnvialon.

Siriket amcndmcni made by section 2103 of(he Pesal PoLIibi1lty and WorkOppottutitty" and ilens "amendments neby s.ctiosi 103 of the Personal Responsibilityand Work Opportunity Reconciliation."

House recede with Senatemodiflcation thai onlyprosisions of titLe 8crH. R. 104 affecting title I! ofthe Social Secsnity Act aredeleted.

Nopnsvlsion.

No provision.

31. Tecbolcaj CorrectionFerlaioi.g to SocialSeenrity

House rc.

Identical prrrvisson.

Hoc mec.

Makes minor changes in wording to improve to provision.clam.

30

VII. N1ISCELLAtEOLTS

The stalutory limit woWd be increased toS3.950 trilLion. This is sulflcient debtauthority until Deembez 15. 1999.

ProhIo.,

39. (crwe lb Ibe Public The currenl istut ory limit on the pcublkDebt U&i dd,t ii 55.5 tTU11041.

Currtnt Law Hou,e Bill SinakAmeadmeat

Same as E{ouse.

Status

ldcniicai piston.

31

LEGISLA TIVE

BULLE\T1N105-4 June 12, 1997

THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEEREPORTS BUDGET RECONCILIATION RECOMMENDATIONS

INCLUDING WELFARE REFORM PROVISIONS

On June 10, 1997, the House Ways and Means Committee reported its recommendationsto the Committee on the Budget for inclusion in an omnibus budget bill. The provisionsadopted were in an amendment offered in the nature of a substitute by Chairman Archerand Human Resources Subcommittee Chairman Shaw. Provisions of interest to SSA areas follows:

Noncitizens

o Extends the current period for SSI and Medicaid eligibility from 5 years after entryto 7 years after entry for refugees, asylees and noncitizens who have had theirdeportations withheld under section 243(h) of the INA.

Would be effective as if enacted in the Personal Responsibility and WorkOpportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).

o Provides that noncitizens receiving SSI on August 22, 1996, would not have thePRWORA provisions apply relating to noncitizens' eligibility for SSI. Specificallyincluded in this group of noncitizens that would be "grandfathered" would beAmerasian immigrants and Cuban and Haitian entrants.

Would be effective as if enacted in PRWORA (August 22, 1996).

o Provides that noncitizen members of federally recognized American Indian tribeswho are lawfully admitted for permanent residence may be eligible for SSI.

Would be effectiye as if enacted in PRWORA (August 22, 1996).

1 of 2

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR LEGISLATION AND CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS

o Provides that noncitizens who are otherwise ineligible for Medicaid, would beeligible for Medicaid if they receive SSI benefits and if the State's Medicaid planprovides Medicaid eligibility for SSI recipients.

Also provides that noncitizens who are otherwise ineligible for food stamps wouldnot be made eligible for food stamps because they receive SSI.

Would be effective as if enacted in PRWORA (August 22, 1996).

Disabled Children

o Extends current 12-month period (ending 8/22/97) to 18 months (ending 2/22/98)for redetermining the disability of children under age 18 under the new standards.Any child whose redetermination is not done within the 18-month period is to beassessed under the new standards as soon as possible after the close of the period.

State Supplementary Payments

o Increases fees for SSA's administering supplementary payments (currently $5 percheck) under the following schedule: FY 1998--$6.20; FY 1999--$7.60;FY 2000--$7.80; FY 2001--$8.1O; and FY 2002--$8.50. Beginning FY 2003, feeswould be indexed to increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or such differentrate as the Commissioner determines would be appropriate for the State.

Amounts of fees collected in excess of $5 per check would be available for SSAadministrative purposes.

o Repeals section 1618 of the Social Security Act that requires States withsupplementary payment programs to pass through cost-of-living increases in theSSI Federal payment rate.

Would be effective upon enactment.

2 of 2

LEGISLA TIVE

B1UIIET1N105-6 August 1, 1997

CONGRESS PASSES THE BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997

On July 30, 1997, the House passed the conference report accompanying H.R. 2015, theBalanced Budget Act of 1997, by a vote of 346 to 85. On July 31, the Senate passedH.R. 2015 by a vote of 85 to 15. Provisions of interest to SSA are as follows:

Noncitizens

SSI Eligibility for Aliens Receiving SSI on August 22, 1996 and Disabled Legal Aliensin the United States on August 22, 1996

Provides that "qualified alien" noncitizens lawfully residing in the United States whoreceived SSI on August 22, 1996, would remain eligible for SSI--i.e., eligibility"grandfathered."

Also provides that "qualified aliens" lawfully residing in the United States on August 22,1996 would be eligible for SSI if they meet the SSI definition of disability or blindness.

Extends from September 30, 1997 to September 30, 1998 the period during whichredeterminations of eligibility can be conducted for noncitizens who were receiving SSIon August 22, 1996. Thus, noncitizens who are not "qualified aliens" who received SSIon August 22, 1996 could remain eligible until September 30, 1998.

Effective as if enacted in the "Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996" (PRWORA), pertinent sections of which were effective uponits enactment--i.e., August 22, 1996.

1 of 7

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR LEGISLATION AND CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS

Extension of Eligibility Period for Refugees and Certain Other Qualified Aliens from 5to 7 years for SSI and Medicaid; Status of Cuban/Haitian Entrants

Extends the current 5-year eligibility period for refugees, asylees, and noncitizens whohave had their deportations withheld to 7 years.

Also adds Cuban and Haitian entrants to the categories of noncitizens who are consideredto be "qualified aliens," to the categories of noncitizens who are eligible for SSI for 7years after they are granted status, and to the categories of noncitizens who are exemptfrom the 5-year eligibility ban on noncitizens who enter the United States after August 22,1996.

Effective as if enacted in PRWORA.

Treatment of Certain Amerasian Immigrants as Refugees

Adds Amerasian immigrants to the categories of noncitizens who are eligible for SSI andfor the first 7 years after they are admitted to the United States and would exempt themfrom the 5-year eligibility ban on noncitizens who enter the United States afterAugust 22, 1996.


Exceptions for Certain Indians from Limitation on Eligibility for Supplemental SecurityIncome and Medicaid Benefits

Exempts noncitizen members of federally recognized Indian tribes or noncitizen nativeAmericans who come under section 289 of the Immigration and Nationality Act from theSSI and Medicaid restrictions in PRWORA, including the restriction on benefits only to"qualified aliens" and the 5-year ban.


Exemption from Restriction on SSI Program Participation by Certain Recipients Eligibleon the Basis of Very Old Applications

Exempts individuals who have been on SSI rolls since before January 1, 1979 from thenoncitizen restrictions in PRWORA if the Commissioner lacks clear and convincingevidence that such an individual is a noncitizen ineligible for benefits under therestrictions in PRWORA.


2 of 7

Derivative Eligibility for Medicaid and Food Stamp Benefits

Provides that noncitizens who are otherwise ineligible for Medicaid under PRWORA, maybe eligible for Medicaid if they receive SSI benefits and if the State's Medicaid planprovides Medicaid eligibility for SSI recipients.

Also provides that noncitizens who are otherwise ineligible under PRWORA for foodstamps would not be made eligible for food stamps because they receive SSI.


State Supplementary Payment Program

Fees for Federal Administration of State Supplementary Payments

Increases fees for SSA's administering supplementary payments (currently $5 per check)under the following schedule: FY 98--$6.20; FY 99--$7.60, FY 00--$7.80; FY 01--$8.10;FY 02--$8.50. Each succeeding year, fees would be indexed to increases in the ConsumerPrice Index or set at a different rate as detennined by the Commissioner of SocialSecurity.

Amounts of fees collected in excess of $5 per check would be credited to a specialTreasury fund available for SSA administrative purposes. Such amounts would becredited as a discretionary offset to discretionary spending to the extent that they aremade available for expenditures in appropriations acts.

Effective upon enactment.

Timing of Delivery of October 1, 2000, SSI Benefit Payments

Provides that the October 2000 SSI check be paid on October 2, which is a Monday,rather than on the last Friday in September.

Technical Amendments to PRWORA

Disclosures Involving Fugitive Felons and Probation and Parole Violators

Authorizes SSA to charge fees as a condition for processing requests by law enforcementauthorities for SSN and address information regarding SSI beneficiaries who are fugitivefelons or probation or parole violators.

3 of 7

Defmition of Qualified Alien: Inclusion of Noncitizen Child of Battered Parent asQualified Alien

Provides that the benefit-paying agencies rather than the Attorney General make certaindeterminations. Such determinations would be made under guidance promulgated by theAttorney General. Also provides "qualified alien' status to noncitizen children whoseparents are abused and makes conforming amendments reflecting changes in theImmigration and Nationality Act.

Treatment of Prisoners

Authorizes prisoner reporting incentive payments to a penal institution with respect toan inmate who receives an SSI benefit for the month preceding the first month throughoutwhich he is an inmate of the institution, and who is determined to be ineligible for an SSIbenefit based on the information provided by the institution.

Children With Disabifities

Eligibility Redeterminations for SSI Children Who are Under Age 18

Extends current 12-month period (ending 8/22/97) to 18 months (ending 2/22/98) forredetermining the disability of children under age 18 under the new standards. However,if a redetermination is not made within this time period, requires that it be conducted assoon thereafter as practical. Also, requires that the individual be notified of theredetermination provision before the redetermination process is started.

Eligibility Redeterminations for SSI Recipients Who Attain Age 18

Provides SSA with the authority to make redeterminations of disabled childhood SSIrecipients who attain age 18, using the adult disability eligibility criteria, more than oneyear after the date such recipient attains age 18.

Continuing Disability Review Required for Low Birth Weight Babies

Permits SSA to schedule a continuing disability review for a child whose eligibility forSSI benefits is based on low birth weight at a date after such in's first birthdayif the Commissioner determines that such individual's impairment is not expected toimprove within 12 months of the child's birth.

4 of 7

Additional Accountability Requirements (Dedicated Accounts)

Clarifies that monies from a dedicated account which are misapplied by an individual whois his or her own payee shall reduce future SSI payments to that individual and alsoclarifies the type of benefits a representative payee may deposit in a previouslyestablished account.

Reduction in Cash Benefits Payable to Institutionalized Individuals Whose Medical CostsAre Covered by Private Insurance

Replaces the terms "hospital, extended care facility, nursing home, or intermediate carefacility" in section 1611(e) with "medical treatment facility" and makes other conformingchanges.

Clarification of the Effective Date of the Denial of SSI Benefits to Drug Addicts andAlcoholics

Clarifies the meaning of the term "final adjudication" and clarifies SSA's authority tomake SSI medical redeterminations after January 1, 1997.

Expands the applicability of the provisions in P.L. 104-121 which require treatmentreferrals and authorization of a $50 fee for organizations serving as representative payeesfor SSI beneficiaries who are incapable and have a DA&A condition. Under current law,the provisions are limited to SSI applications and reapplications filed after July 1, 1996.This amendment extends these provisions to SSI beneficiaries whose applications areadjudicated after enactment of P.L. 104-121--March 29, 1996--(regardless of when filed)and to individuals allowed SSI benefits before March 29, 1996 and who filed a requestfor a new medical determination before July 1, 1996.

Repeal of Obsolete Reporting Requirement

Repeals an obsolete reporting requirements in subsections (b)(3)(B)(ii) of section 201 ofP.L. 103-296, the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994.Reports were to have been made to the House Committee on Ways and Means and theSenate Committee on Finance on SSA's experience with SSI beneficiaries whosedisabling condition is primarily caused by alcohol or drug addiction.

Exceptions to Benefit Limitations: Corrections to Reference Concerning NoncitizensWhose Deportation Is Withheld

Reflects the redesignation of Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) section 243(h) to241(b)(3) in order to assure that noncitizens whose deportations are withheld under eithersection are treated the same way effective April 1, 1997. Such noncitizens may be

5 of 7

eligible for SSI during the 7-year period beginning the date their deportations arewithheld.

Veteran Exception: Application of Minimum Active Duty Service Requirement;Extension to Unremarried Surviving Spouse; Expanded Defmition of Veteran

Requires a minimum of military service--generally 24 months--in order to qualify for SSIand Medicaid.

Makes the following clarifications:

-- Provides SSI eligibility to an unremarried surviving spouse of a noncitizen veteranor active duty military personnel generally if they were married for at least oneyear.

-- Provides that the term "veteran" includes military personnel who dies duringactive duty service.

-- Provides that certain Filipinos who fought for the United States military duringWorld War II are considered veterans for benefit eligibility purposes

Notification Concerning Noncitizens Not Lawfully Present; Correction of Terminology

Provides for replacing in section 163 1(e)(9) of the Social Security Act "unlawfully in theUnited States" with "not lawfully present in the United States."

Correction To Assure That Crediting Applies To All Quarters of Coverage Earned ByParents Before a Child is 18

Clarifies that all quarters of coverage earned by a parent before a child is age 18,including those earned before the child was born, may be credited to the noncitizen childfor purposes of the child's eligibility for SSI.

Other Provisions of Interest

Medicaid--Continued Coverage for Disabled Children Who Lose SSI

Provides States must continue Medicaid coverage for disabled children who werereceiving SSI benefits as of 8/22/96 and would have continued to be eligible for suchbenefits except that their eligibility terminated because they did not meet the new, morestrict SSI childhood disability criteria.

6 of 7

Medicaid--State Option to Permit Workers With Disabilities to Buy Into Medicaid

Permits individuals with disabilities whose family income is less than 250% of povertyto buy into Medicaid. States would determine the amount of the premium, which wouldbe based on a sliding scale based on income.

Disclosure of Quarters of Coverage Information

Authorizes SSA to disclose quarters of coverage information about a noncitizen or thespouse or parent of an alien for purposes of determining the noncitizen' s eligibility undercertain Federally funded benefit programs.


Medicare Part B Premium Assistance For Low-Income Seniors

Expands the current level of premium assistance by establishing a $1.5 billion cappedentitlement block grant to States to use to assist Medicaid enrollees whose family incomesrange from 120 percent to 135 percent of the poverty level.

Under current law, States are required to pay the Medicare Part B premium for Medicaidbeneficiaries whose family income is between 100 percent and 120 percent of the povertylevel.

This new program would not, however, provide any individual entitlement to any low-income senior citizens. The amount of assistance a person would get would be decidedby the States. In addition, the block grant is authorized for five years, but the increasein premium is permanent.

Sense of the Congress Concerning the Treatment of Hmong Veterans

Expresses the sense of Congress that, based on their service on behalf of the UnitedStates during the Vietnam War, Hmong veterans should be treated like other noncitizenveterans for purposes of continued eligibility for assistance benefits.

Advisory Board Personnel

Eliminates the statutory restrictions on the number and type of staff that the AdvisoryBoard is authorized to hire.

Effective as if enacted in the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996(P.L. 104-121).

7 of 7

SOCIAL SECURITYOffice of the Commissioner

July 31, 1997

The Honorable Franklin D. RainesDirector, Office of Management and BudgetWashington, D.C. 20503

Dear Mr. Raines:

This is in response to your request for a report on the enrolledbill H.R. 2015, 'The Balanced Budget Act of 1997."

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has reviewed the billand recommends that the President sign it. The provisions ofthis bill make a number of important changes to the SupplementalSecurity Income (SSI) program that, among other things, redressseveral unnecessarily harsh provisions that were in last year'swelfare reform bill, H.R. 3734.

Under this bill, by 2002, eligibility to both SSI and Medicaidwill be provided to 350,000 individuals who were destined, underlast year's welfare reform bill, to lose or be ineligiblefor SSI. The individuals whose benefits will be restored arenoncitizens who were present in the United States as of theenactment of last year's welfare reform bill, August 22, 1996,and who were receiving SSI benefits as of that date. Inaddition, all noncitizens who were in the United States as ofAugust 22, 1996, and who become disabled after that date, canqualify for SSI in the future. SSA believes that the bill fullycomports with the Administration's position to reinstate SSIeligibility for immigrants.

The bill makes several additional changes that affectnoncitizens. It extends the SSI and Medicaid eligibility periodfor refugees and asylees from 5 years after entry (the limit inlast year's welfare bill) to 7 years to give these residents moretime to naturalize. It also adopts the Administration's proposalto treat Cuban and Haitian entrants and Amerasian immigrants asrefugees to preserve benefits for these groups that have enduredextraordinary hardships.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BALTIMORE MD 21235.0001

2

This bill also provides for continued eligibility to Medicaid fordisabled children who would otherwise lose eligibility to SSI asa result of last year's welfare reform bill.

Again, we recommend that the President sign the bill.

of

lahanLissionerSecurity

Documents

H.R. 2015 PUBLIC lAW 105-33 - Social Security Administration PDFs... · H.R. 2015 PUBLIC lAW 105-33 105TH CONGRESS REPORTS, BILLS, DEBATES, AND ACT ... sent the Senate resume consideration