[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 184 (Saturday, November 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13318-H13319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
CONCURRING IN SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2491, SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET 
                       RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 279 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 279

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order without intervention of any point of order to take 
     from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2491) to provide for 
     reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996, with a Senate 
     amendment thereto, and to consider in the House a motion 
     offered by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget or his 
     designee to concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate 
     amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
     motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by proponent and an opponent. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to 
     final adoption without intervening motion.

                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is based on an 
inability to get an answer yesterday. Is the measure before the House 
the same measure which excludes the cost-of-living increases for 
military retirees for fiscal year 1996, 1997, and 1998, under the 
national security provisions?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot respond to the content of a 
measure that the resolution before the House would make in order.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Would it 
be in order, Mr. Speaker, at a time when proponents and opponents of 
the measure have time, to ask the proponents to yield to such a 
question? Would that be in order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That would be in order.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Woodland Hills, CA [Mr. 
Beilenson], and pending that I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
All time yielded will be for the purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for the consideration of a 
motion by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to concur in the 
Senate amendment to the Balanced Budget Act. This rule is made 
necessary by the fact that two small provisions of the Balanced Budget 
Act were stricken from the legislation as a result of the so-called 
Byrd rule.
  Mr. Speaker, business as usual in Washington is making promises, not 
keeping them. Business as usual is talking about a balanced budget, but 
not passing one. Business as usual is higher taxes on families and more 
spending on Government.
  By each of these three criteria, Mr. Speaker, passing the Balanced 
Budget Act today and sending it to the President is not business as 
usual.
  Instead, this is a truly historic day in congressional history, the 
day when Congress agrees on a budget plan that places children and 
tomorrow ahead of politicians. That day is today. This rule will permit 
us to vote on a real plan, a specific plan that balances the budget in 
7 years. It may not be perfect, but it has the support of a majority in 
the House and Senate. It has the support of those who want larger tax 
cuts, and those who would rather increase spending a little more. It 
has supporters who want to balance the budget more rapidly and those 
who think 7 years is as fast as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, because it is a real plan rather than some phony 
outline, crafting the Balanced Budget Act involved real choices and 
very tough decisions. The conventional wisdom was that a final package 
could not be put together. The majorities in the House and Senate would 
self-destruct, many had said. That was obviously not the case.
  Along with tremendous leadership from a number of people in and out 
of Congress, those who support this bill have come together behind a 
belief that it is a moral imperative that we put children ahead of 
politics as usual.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people know that balancing the budget is 
critical to improving standards of living. Lower interest rates from 
this bill alone are expected to create nearly 500,000 new jobs, private 
sector jobs in my State of California alone. Cutting the top rate on 
capital gains and extending the research tax credit will translate 
directly into more jobs in the companies that are at the heart of my 
State's transition from a defense-based to an export-based economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I know the experience of these new jobs to families in 
California. I will not apologize for cutting taxes to create more 
private sector jobs. These growth incentives will also increase wage 
levels, addressing the problem of stagnant wages that has plagued the 
economic recovery during the past 3 years. While we balance the Federal 
budget, we must be sure that clear priorities are addressed. Past 
Congresses have ignored the cost of failed immigration policies. 
Billions of 

[[Page H 13319]]
dollars in services to illegal immigrants have been left to State 
taxpayers. That is wrong. For the first time this bill will create a 
$3.5 billion Medicaid fund to assist States with the cost of emergency 
health care to illegal immigrants.
  In tandem with the $500 million appropriated by the House to 
reimburse States for the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrant 
felons, this targeted Medicaid fund places Congress at the forefront of 
dealing with this very important issue of illegal immigration.
  Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the time to put partisanship aside. 
We must unite behind a fundamental desire of families all across this 
country. We know we must balance the Federal budget. They elected the 
President and Congress both to accomplish that goal. The President said 
he was going to do it in 5 years when he ran in 1992, and this 
Congress, this new majority in the Congress said we would do it. The 
Balanced Budget Act embodies a number of the President's election 
promises. Along with that balanced budget, he promised to end welfare 
as we know it. That is exactly what happens in this bill. He promised a 
middle-class tax cut when he ran in 1992; that is exactly what we are 
doing in this bill.
  We should come together. This rule will permit us to send a balanced 
budget to the President for the first time in three decades. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad my friend has stopped talking so we can come 
together.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for a motion to dispose of the Senate 
amendment to the budget reconciliation bill, and allows for 1 hour of 
debate on that motion. The Senate amendment consists of the 
reconciliation bill we did yesterday minus two items as the gentleman 
explained that were dropped in the other body yesterday afternoon. It 
waives all points of order against the motion.
  The rule we are considering is a perfectly acceptable rule for an, 
unfortunately, unacceptable bill. Since the President has already said 
he will veto this bill, and we think he should, we think we ought to 
debate it quickly and get it to his desk as quickly as possible.
  We do this body no justice by spending hours debating a bill that is 
sure to be vetoed. We believe we should concentrate our energies on 
working out a continuing resolution and a reconciliation bill that the 
President will sign.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Appleton, WI [Mr. Roth], my friend.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of short 
observations. Basically, when we hear debate that has been going on, 
not only this past couple of hours, but also yesterday and for the last 
number of days, it is basically the debate on this side of the aisle. 
As I see it, it is the debate about the old paradigm, the old liberal 
welfare state. If my colleagues analyze the debate basically coming 
from this side of the aisle, it is in the paradigm is that we are 
moving into an opportunity society.
  Basically, what we are saying when we analyze it, is that the liberal 
welfare State is dead, that more and more government, more and more 
regulations are not the answer. What we are looking for in our society 
is that we are looking for less government, less regulation. Why? 
Because the jobs that are coming are not going to be produced by 
Government. The jobs that are coming are jobs that are being produced 
by entrepreneurs, and entrepreneurs cannot have a lot of regulation.
  The world is moving ahead too fast. We have got to have less 
government so that the private sector can move and create the jobs that 
are needed today. So basically what we are debating here is really a 
very philosophical issue of where the country and were the world is 
heading.
  We are saying basically that the liberal welfare state is dead and 
that it is being replaced by the Information Act, what we call the 
opportunity society.
  That is why it is difficult to get these groups basically to see eye 
to eye. But the American people instinctively know that we cannot 
continue the liberal welfare state. That is basically why everyone is 
so much in favor of a balanced budget. It is not only the dollars that 
are involved, but it is the direction that our country is going in.
  When we have our town hall meetings, people are always talking about 
let us balance the budget. Let us do what the American people are 
demanding. The American people are demanding a balanced budget. 
Basically what the American people really are saying is that our 
Government has gotten too big and our government costs too much.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye vote on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________