[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 76 (Thursday, June 5, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3499-H3501]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON HOUSE CONCURRENT 
  RESOLUTION 84, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1998

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 160 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 160

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 84) establishing the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 1998 and setting forth appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 160 is the customary rule for 
considering a conference report on a budget resolution.
  The rule waives all points of order against the conference report to 
accompany House Concurrent Resolution 84, the budget resolution for 
fiscal years 1998 through 2002, and against its consideration.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate on the conference report, 
divided equally between the chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget. This 1 hour is instead of the 5 hours called 
for under section 305(a) of the Budget Act. However, a review of the 
budget conference report rules over the last decade or so reveals that 
most of them provided for only 1 hour of debate, so this is customary, 
what we are doing here today.
  Finally, the rule does not address the issue of a motion to recommit, 
since section 305(a)(6) of the Budget Act states that a motion to 
recommit the conference report is not in order under the rules of the 
House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this is a customary rule for the 
consideration of a budget resolution conference report.
  Turning to the conference report itself, it is extremely important to 
recognize that this is a dramatic and a very positive shift in the 
direction of this country. This improvement is in large part due to the 
steadfast leadership and the committed drive of the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich] and the bipartisan members of the Committee on the Budget. 
They and the other Members who worked with them deserve our 
commendation.
  Our former colleague and leader, Bob Michel, used to say on this 
floor that ``in political decision-making, we must never let the 
perfect become the enemy of the good.'' This sage advice I think 
applies here today.
  Mr. Speaker, this balanced budget agreement is not perfect and it 
does not reflect the complete priorities of any one Member of this 
House. In fact, I think that I can say with certainty that every Member 
of the House would probably have written this differently if he or she 
were the only one making that decision.
  I know that if I were writing this budget, I would have had deeper 
spending cuts, much deeper. I would have had more tax cuts, more 
entitlement reform to get these entitlements under control, and 
certainly more spending for defense, which is really why this Congress 
exists, is to provide for a common defense for the 50 States against 
those that would take away our freedoms.
  However, it is important to recognize once again that the nature of a 
democracy rests on the art of compromise, a compromise not in principle 
but in approach and in process. This principled compromise is 
epitomized in the leadership of the Committee on the Budget in crafting 
a bipartisan agreement that reflects the principles of balanced 
budgets, lower taxes, lower spending, and a smaller Federal Government. 
That is what this budget is all about.
  Second, on balance it is a good budget. It is built upon permanent 
spending savings and permanent tax cuts. These are specific changes 
that are being written into the law by the adoption of this budget, 
something radically different than the procedural spending caps and 
deficit targets included in previous budget agreements such as Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings, and my colleagues all know that that did not work at 
all.

[[Page H3500]]

  This one is going to work. These principles deliver real benefits for 
the American people. Listen to these facts.
  First, this agreement balances the budget for the first time in 30 
years, and for the second time in 40 years. Government spending will be 
less than 20 percent of the gross domestic product for the first time 
since 1974. Think about that. American taxpayers will save $600 billion 
over the next 5 years in entitlement spending reform, the fastest 
growing portion of the budget. Finally, this Congress has got the guts 
to stand up here and do something about it.
  Most importantly of all, Mr. Speaker, nondefense discretionary 
spending will grow at one-half of 1 percent a year over the next 5 
years, one-half of 1 percent per year over the next 5 years compared 
with 6 percent per year over the last 5 years. What a difference that 
is going to make.
  Contrary to what some have asserted, this budget is also built on 
conservative economic assumptions that the economy will grow at 2.1 
percent over the next 5 years, that unemployment will rise to 6 
percent, and that the Consumer Price Index will continue to go up.
  However, the economy has actually been growing stronger, reaching 5.6 
percent in the last quarter alone. The unemployment rate has remained 
below 5 percent, I think it is 4.9 percent right now, and the CPI may 
actually be going down. This budget is built on sound economic 
assumptions as well as a strong and vibrant national economy.
  Furthermore, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, has 
stated, and again this is very important, that balancing the budget 
will further improve the performance of the economy.
  Why is that so? One-third of all the interest that the American 
people pay on their home mortgages, one-third of it, let us say that 
their total mortgage interest rate per year is $6,000, $2,000 of that 
is caused by the Federal deficits. If we get these deficits under 
control, we are putting $2,000 back into the pockets of families with 
mortgages. That is nontaxable money. That is money they have already 
paid taxes on, so that they can go out and spend it or save it, and 
either way it certainly stimulates the economy.
  While this conference report is good, the reconciliation and 
appropriation bills that follow it are perhaps the most important bills 
that we will pass in this Congress this year, important in the sense 
that they will also directly benefit every single American family.
  I think we owe it to those families to pass this budget and then once 
that is done, Mr. Speaker, to summon the courage to vote ``yes'' on 
these enabling authorization and appropriation measures that will cut 
spending, that will cut taxes, and end the deficits that are 
bankrupting the future generations of Americans. I, for one, pledge 
here today, right now, that I will vote for every one of those spending 
cuts that are going to bring some fiscal sanity back to this Federal 
Government.
  This budget is a victory for America's children, and I believe 
something this Congress and even this President should be proud to 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a friend back in 1816 
gave the following charge: ``To preserve people's independence, we must 
not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our 
election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.''
  I urge my colleagues to follow Thomas Jefferson's instructions to 
preserve independence and to maximize liberty by supporting this rule 
and supporting this balanced budget here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on May 20 when the House considered the rule providing 
for the consideration of the budget resolution, I said that the vote on 
the resolution was but the beginning of what promises to be a difficult 
process. I also said that even if individual Members supported the 
framework of the agreement to balance the Federal budget, such a vote 
would not obligate any Member to support the separate pieces 
implementing that agreement that he or she might consider unfair or 
ill-conceived.
  Mr. Speaker, even before this conference report has been adopted, we 
are seeing pieces of the implementing package which might indeed be 
considered unfair. Many Members supported the budget agreement because 
it promised to right a wrong that had been part of the welfare reform 
legislation enacted in the last Congress. I am referring, of course, to 
the removal of thousands of elderly disabled legal immigrants from the 
SSI program.
  This House agreed during the consideration of the supplemental 
appropriation to provide funding to keep disabled elderly legal 
immigrants on the rolls until the Congress had an opportunity to 
revisit the issue and correct what is an unjustifiable inequity. Yet, 
Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is now offering the House what can 
only be called a bait-and-switch deal.
  This budget agreement came about as a result of long and difficult 
negotiations between the administration and the Republican leadership. 
Democrats in the House were subsequently assured that the agreement 
ensured that disabled elderly legal immigrants would be protected as 
part of those negotiations. Mr. Speaker, how is it, then, that the 
Republican majority is now proposing to fulfill perhaps only a part of 
that agreement?

                              {time}  1245

  The Committee on Ways and Means now has pending before it a proposal 
which will fulfill at least that part of the agreement that might save 
the Republican majority a major public and political embarrassment. To 
avoid what would surely create a public furor the Republicans have 
agreed that they will not kick those elderly disabled illegal 
immigrants who currently receive SSI off the roles. Thus the 
Republicans will ensure that they will not be blamed for kicking sick 
old people out of their nursing home beds and onto the streets.
  But, Mr. Speaker, this is only half of the deal. What about the 
future? Mr. Speaker, I ask this question in the context that this is 
the same Republican majority who left Washington for a 10-day break 
without addressing the urgent necessity of providing money to the flood 
ravaged regions of the Dakotas and the Midwest. This is the same 
Republican majority that is now going to send a supplemental 
appropriation to the President knowing full well that he will veto it 
because of the extraneous political issues which are designed to save 
them future political embarrassment are attached to a bill that was 
supposed to help families begin to put their lives back to order. What 
next Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker, I will not oppose this rule providing for the 
consideration of this conference report, but I caution my colleagues to 
examine closely every bill that comes to the floor which will implement 
this budget agreement. Some parts may indeed be fair and equitable and 
deserve the support of all Members, but others, Mr. Speaker, deserve to 
be exposed for what they are, Republican proposals which will fill only 
part of an agreement and are not part of the agreement at all.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, we have debated this at length, 
and we have with us speakers that could speak, but I would just as soon 
expedite this, and if the gentleman is willing to yield back his time, 
I would do so right after he does.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished Member from Texas is 
always agreeable, and because of that I also yield back the balance of 
our time, and I move the previous question on the resolution..
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHOOD). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further 
proceedings on this measure will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

[[Page H3501]]



                          ____________________