[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 74 (Tuesday, June 3, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1088]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. HARRIS W. FAWELL

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 20, 1997

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the concurrent resolution 
     (H. Con Res. 84) establishing the Congressional budget for 
     the U.S. Government for the fiscal year 1998 and setting 
     forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1999, 
     2000, 2001, and 2002:

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the balanced 
budget agreement, embodied in the budget resolution. For the first time 
since I came to Congress, in fact for the first time since 1969, we 
shall hopefully balance the Federal budget under a 5-year plan. While I 
would prefer a balanced budget for fiscal year 1998, nevertheless this 
is a blueprint which if followed by subsequent Congresses and the 
President, will finally result in a balanced budget in 2002. This 
agreement also provides for significant tax relief that will allow 
working Americans to keep more of their hard earned dollars and it 
takes significant steps to restrain the growth of entitlement spending. 
Of particular importance, it will insure that Medicare will remain 
solvent for another 10 years.
  The budget compromise we consider today is, however, by definition 
imperfect. It was achieved through laborious and lengthy negotiations 
that were conducted by congressional leaders and the President. Both 
sides made compromises and had to give up points that were of great 
importance to them. I for one would have liked to see greater efforts 
at reforming entitlements and deficit reduction. However, the nature of 
compromise requires that both sides give up goals that they value 
highly, in order to achieve something of even greater value. The road 
to a balanced budget agreement is unquestionably of such great value.
  Tinkering with the terms of the agreement may potentially cause the 
entire budget deal to collapse. An amendment offered by Congressman 
Shuster, which would designate that moneys taken from the 
transportation trust fund should go towards increased transportation 
spending, is basically sound. But it would upset the carefully balanced 
terms that were agreed to by congressional leaders and the President. I 
do oppose the practice of using taxes levied for an express purpose--
such as taxes levied for transportation purposes--for uses other than 
the purpose for which such taxes were levied. In this case however, I 
reluctantly oppose the Shuster amendment, which would disrupt the 
carefully negotiated terms of the budget agreement, potentially leading 
to the collapse of the entire agreement. The amendment also would take 
moneys from education, defense and other important spending priorities. 
If adopted, the Shuster amendment would have reduced defense spending 
by $5.65 billion, education by $980 million, criminal justice by $510 
million and housing and child health programs by $860 million.
  While it is not perfect, the balanced budget agreement represents an 
important step toward ultimately having Congress pass annual balanced 
budgets. It is therefore an important first step in finally eliminating 
annual deficits and moving Congress towards a reduction of our Nation's 
large national debt. I therefore urge Members to join in support of the 
bipartisan budget agreement.

                          ____________________