[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 16, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 103, BALANCED BUDGET
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of
March 11, 1994, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 331) providing for
the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 103) proposing an
amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for the
U.S. Government and for greater accountability in the enactment of tax
legislation, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 331
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 103)
proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a
balanced budget for the United States Government and for
greater accountability in the enactment of tax
legislation, all points of order against the joint
resolution and against its consideration are hereby
waived, and the first reading of the joint resolution
shall be dispensed with. After general debate, which shall
be confined to the joint resolution and which shall not
exceed nine hours, to be equally divided and controlled
among Representative Brooks of Texas, Representative Fish
of New York, and Representative Stenholm of Texas, or
their designees, the joint resolution shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. No amendment to
the joint resolution shall be in order in the House or the
Committee of the Whole except for the following
amendments, which shall be considered only in the
following order:
(a) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by
Representative Kyl of Arizona;
(b) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by
Representative Barton of Texas;
(c) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by
Representative Brooks of Texas;
(d) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by any
Member, which shall be the text of any comparable joint
resolution as passed by the Senate;
(e) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by
Representative Stenholm of Texas;
Each amendment may be offered only by the named proponent
or a designee, shall be in order notwithstanding the adoption
of a previous amendment in the nature of a substitute, shall
be considered as read only if printed in the Congressional
Record at least three legislative days prior to its
consideration, shall be debatable for not to exceed one-hour
to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and a
member opposed thereto, and shall not be subject to an
amendment in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. If
more than one amendment in the nature of a substitute is
adopted, only the last to be adopted shall be considered as
finally adopted and reported to the House. At the conclusion
of the consideration of the joint resolution to the House
with such amendment as may have been finally adopted. The
previous question shall be considered to be ordered on the
joint resolution and such amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit,
with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. If on any day the Committee rises and reports that
it has come to no resolution on the joint resolution, the
House shall, on the next legislative day immediately
following House approval of the Journal, resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union for the
further consideration of the joint resolution.
Sec. 3. If a comparable joint resolution has been passed by
the Senate, it shall be in order at any time after
competition of House consideration of H.J. Res. 103 for
Representative Stenholm or his designee to move for immediate
consideration in the House of one such Senate Joint
Resolution. Such joint resolution shall be debatable for no
longer than one hour to be equally divided and controlled by
a proponent and an opponent. The previous question shall be
considered as having been ordered on the joint resolution to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) a motion
that the House strike all after the resolving clause and
insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.J. Res. 103, as
passed by the House, if offered only by Representative
Stenholm of Texas or a designee, which motion shall not be
separately debatable and against which motion all points of
order are waived; and (2) one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Sec. 4. Consideration, in accordance with the provisions of
this resolution, of the joint resolution and any comparable
joint resolution passed by the Senate shall be a matter of
highest privilege in the House and shall take precedence over
any other motion, business, or order of the House, and the
House shall proceed with such consideration to final passage,
without the intervention of any other motion, order, or
business, except a motion to adjourn, or as otherwise
provided for in this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Moakley], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and 15 minutes to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that both the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] and the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon] be granted authority to control the time yielded to them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 331, the rule which 218 Members of this
body discharged on February 24, allows for a full debate of the major
alternative proposals for a balanced-budget amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. By unanimous consent, that rule has been amended to
reduce the general debate time from 9 hours to 6 hours, with the time
equally divided and controlled by Representative Brooks of Texas,
Representative Fish of New York, and Representative Stenholm of Texas,
or their designees.
It will be in order to consider of the following four amendments in
the nature of substitutes, in king-of-the-hill fashion:
a. A substitute offered by Mr. Kyl, or his designee.
Debatable for 1 hour.
b. A substitute offered by Representative Barton, or his
designee. Debatable for 1 hour.
c. A substitute offered by Mr. Wise, who is the designee of
Mr. Brooks, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Debatable
for 1 hour.
d. A substitute offered by Mr. Stenholm, principal sponsor
of H.J. Res. 103. Debatable for 1 hour.
Of course, passage of any amendment in the nature of a substitute can
be accomplished with a simple majority vote. Final passage of the
constitutional amendment, however, requires a two-thirds vote.
A motion to recommit, with or without instructions, is permitted.
Once begun, consideration of House Joint Resolution 103 is a matter
of the highest privilege and must be completed without the intervention
of any other motion, order, or business.
In drafting this rule, the supporters of House Joint Resolution 103,
the Stenholm-Smith amendment, have guaranteed adequate time for a full
and complete debate on all of the leading approaches to a balanced-
budget constitutional amendment. In fact, we guaranteed the right to
consideration of one amendment, the Wise substitute, which had not been
drafted, or even conceived, at the time the rule was introduced. We
feel that Members of both parties and all ideologies will have an
opportunity to clearly and publicly express their positions on the
various constitutional amendment options.
This rule is fair, it is complete, and it already has been supported
by the 218 Members who signed the discharge petition. I urge all of my
colleagues to support House Resolution 331.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1110
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Although Mr. Stenholm has worked hard to discharge this rule from the
committee I chair, he has been at all times honorable and candid and I
appreciate the way he has handled the situation.
Mr. Speaker, this is the way the House is supposed to work; this is a
majority rule institution. The purpose of the discharge rule, the
purpose of all the rules and traditions of the House, is to guarantee
that a determined majority will prevail.
If a majority of the House wishes to consider this constitutional
amendment, they can and they will.
But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this particular rule. The division
of time is unfair, the restriction on amendments is ill-considered and
other elements of the rule are unjustified.
Look at the amendments. This is the same rule as was discharged last
Congress. It makes in order four substitutes to be offered by the same
four Members or their designees as in the last Congress and in the same
order as before: Mr. Kyl, Mr. Barton, Mr. Brooks and then Mr. Stenholm.
Mr. Speaker, there are more than 100 new Members. Why do they not get
a shot? We should not make available only the same four slots until we
at least ask whether the freshmen or other Members have some new ideas.
Representative Margolies-Mezvinsky wants to offer an amendment; this
rule denies her the opportunity. Are there others? We can not be sure.
So I say this restrictive rule is ill-considered.
And frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that Members on the other
side of the aisle will support this rule, essentially in lock step.
Consider the motion to recommit. The four substitutes are the only
amendments that may be offered.
The restriction on amendments applies both in the Committee of the
Whole and in the House. Members of the minority support a rule limiting
the instructions available on the motion to recommit--that comes as a
real surprise to me. There are some tricks here even I never
considered. I think I will just have to file this one away.
But I am a realist. The gentleman from Texas filed a discharge
petition, got his 218 signatures the very same day--in fact 2 hours
quicker than his last Olympic record time--and here we are. This rule
will pass. Members are eager to move on to debate the constitutional
amendment, not the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I do not support a constitutional amendment to require a
balanced budget. A balanced budget is not always the right thing to do.
Even the proponents admit as much. The spending cuts and burdensome tax
hikes necessary to reach a balanced budget this year would cripple even
this growing economy.
No one seriously calls for a balanced budget this year. If we agree
it would be dangerous to balance the budget today, balancing the budget
may also be dangerous tomorrow and it ought not to be required by the
Constitution.
Proponents of the constitutional amendment say that States and local
governments, businesses, and families must all balance their budgets.
Why should not the Federal Government also balance its budget?
Many States have a balanced budget constitutional amendment. But even
those States borrow from the public. I challenge you to name a single
State that has never issued bonds of any sort. You cannot do it. They
all borrow. And the best businesses borrow to expand and modernize.
Decent families borrow to buy a house or a car or to pay for their
kids' education.
The point is there is nothing wrong with borrowing if it is for good
purposes.
But the Federal Government borrows too much. Notice it is the size of
the deficit we should object to, not the mere fact that we borrow at
all. We have grown accustomed to a deficit that is much too large.
Deficits this size drag down economic growth, lower our standard of
living, weaken our competitive position, and constrain our ability to
answer our domestic and international needs.
But if the size of the deficit is the problem, there can be no
substitute for real deficit reduction. No mandate established in the
Constitution, no pretty new procedure set forth in the law of the land,
can do the work of real changes in our spending habits and our tax
policies.
The best face proponents put on the constitutional amendment is to
say it will fortify our will to do the right thing. The right thing, of
course, is deficit reduction of the sort we passed--barely--last year.
It was not easy, but we passed the largest real deficit reduction
package in history and the economy is showing signs of strength because
of it--without any constitutional amendment in place. If more is
needed, we can do it again, without the help of a constitutional
amendment.
And if you thought it was hard to vote for deficit reduction on the
order of $500 billion over 5 years, think about what is needed to get
to a balanced budget. The choices are stark: attack Social Security,
hike taxes significantly, or slash discretionary programs.
Using the Solomon budget as a model, that means: eliminating crop
price supports, throwing off hundreds of thousands of disabled children
from the SSI program, eliminating financial assistance to local
governments to help them comply with Clean Water standards,
substantially raising Government fees, and selling off Government
assets at fire sale prices.
In the abstract a balanced budget for all times sounds good. In
practice, right now, it is not something I can vote for so how can I,
in good conscience, make it a constitutional requirement?
Norm Ornstein recently wrote an article asking why contemporary
conservatives so often turn to constitutional amendments to state their
policy preferences. He doubts the wisdom of a balanced budget
constitutional amendment, arguing:
There are many conditions, short of all-out war or deep
depression, when balancing the budget would be foolish and
self-destructive. Prohibition should have taught the bitter
lesson that one should not constitutionalize a policy
preference.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, setting fiscal policy is a normal political
decision to be made each year.
So we come full circle to the issue of majority rule in the House of
Representatives. I began by stating that I am an enthusiastic advocate
for the principle of majority rule: If a majority of this House wishes
to debate a balanced budget constitutional amendment, we can and will.
And if a majority in this House believes the deficit is too high, we
can and we should reduce it. But if a majority in the House disagree,
the Constitution should not insist upon a contrary policy, should not
bar the majority from considering the budget that constrains or
stimulates fiscal policy as lawmakers and citizens of the day see fit.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], for
yielding the committee chairman and myself some of his time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the
balanced budget constitutional amendment.
First, we need to be clear about the nature of the problem. The debt
we are dumping on our children and grandchildren is increasing every
day. As we debate here, the debt is increasing at $433,000 per minute,
or stated another way, more than $7,000 per second. And those numbers
would be worse if we were not including the surplus in the Social
Security trust funds as an offset, which we never should do.
Mr. Speaker, the problem is not going away. Even by the projections
of the House Budget Committee, we will add hundreds of billions of
dollars to the debt every year, and the amount we are adding to the
debt each year is projected to increase in fiscal year 1997 and the
years following.
Mr. Speaker, some of the other side of this issue have charged that
the balanced budget constitutional amendment is somehow a gimmick, and
Congress can handle the problem at any time by acting responsibly to
control its big spending ways.
Well, Mr. Speaker, last week, during the consideration of the budget
resolution, I gave this House an opportunity to vote for a responsible
budget plan which would have led to a balanced budget in 5 years. It
provided for tough spending cuts, and it included language saying that
if Congress did not like the specific spending modifications proposed,
it could always substitute others.
Did it pass? Not on your life. What this tells me is this; if we are
ever going to control runaway spending around here, it is going to take
something more than we have had to this point. We are actually going to
have to amend the U.S. Constitution to make it more difficult to
overspend.
Mr. Speaker, amending the Constitution is a serious step which should
never be taken lightly. But over the years we have tried a number of
different legislative solutions and none of them have worked.
Thomas Jefferson was right when he expressed regret that the
Constitution did not include a restriction on borrowing. And Mr.
Speaker, if Thomas Jefferson could only see us now, like a bunch of
drunken sailors on a never-ending spending spree.
Mr. Speaker, other opponents of this proposal have argued that if
will somehow put Congress in a straitjacket, and Congress will not be
able to respond properly in case of emergency. This is not true. The
constitutional amendment proposed by the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Stenholm] allows flexibility.
The first section provides, and I quote:
Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total
receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the
whole number of each House of Congress shall provide a law
for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall
vote.
If an emergency arises, Congress will be able to respond by a three-
fifths rollcall vote. The proposed amendment strikes a fair balance
between prohibiting deficits on the one hand, and allowing needed
flexibility on the other hand.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the procedure we will be following to
consider the proposed constitutional amendment, the rule discharged
from the Rules Committee was modified by a unanimous consent on the
floor last Friday.
As modified, the rule will allow for a total of 6 hours of general
debate. Representative Brooks of Texas, Representative Fish of New
York, and Representative Stenholm of Texas, will each control 2 hours
of general debate.
Then there will be an hour of debate on the Kyl substitute followed
by a vote on that substitute. The other substitute would then be put
over until Thursday.
On Thursday, the House will consider the Barton substitute for 1 hour
followed by a vote, the Wise-Price-Pomeroy substitute for 1 hour
followed by a vote, and finally the Stenholm balanced budget amendment
for 1 hour followed by a vote.
The last one to receive a majority vote would be reported back to the
House. There would be a motion to recommit followed by a vote on
passage.
Mr. Speaker, this rule allows a fair procedure to consider a range of
alternative solutions to the problem of runaway deficits.
If we are concerned about the future of this Nation, we should
support this rule and ultimately the Stenholm balanced budget
constitutional amendment.
{time} 1120
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes in order to
respond to the chairman of the Committee on Rules' opening statement.
First off, I appreciate the kind things that the chairman has said
about me, and I reciprocate. In all of my time before the Committee on
Rules I have never been treated in what I consider to be an unfair
manner. I have been denied my wishes from time to time, but in all
instances in which we have been denied our wishes, the chairman has
acted in a very gentlemanly manner.
Sometimes he is, I am sure, denied his own wishes in the process of
the House, and in that spirit we certainly can continue to function in
this House.
I would say, though, that regarding other amendments that could or
should or would have been offered today, I would hope that all would
realize that the amendments that we make in order today have been
worked on since 1983. The Committee on the Judiciary has held hearings.
All of the amendments that have been made in order have been subject at
least at one time or another to a hearing of the appropriate committee.
That is why we choose to allow them, as we did 2 years ago. We
believe they have met the test. We filed the rule on January 25; anyone
who had an amendment, who wanted an amendment to be considered prior to
the discharge, would have received a full hearing from Mr. Smith and
myself and the other sponsors of the legislation.
We believe that amending the Constitution is a very serious endeavor
and should be handled in that way, and we believe the rule that we have
proposed today treats the Constitution with that amount of respect.
I know there are other ideas now, and we welcome new ideas regarding
how we deal with the problem before us. I assure you those who feel
like that they have been denied that right today, that is not our
intention. Had we known about them, we would have certainly listened
and heard them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MAOKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania [Ms. Margolies-Mezvinsky].
Ms. MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the committee chairman
for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask that when the time comes to vote on
the previous question, I hope that you will join with me to defeat
this, so that the rule might be amended so that I may offer my
amendment. This amendment would require that we balance the budget for
2 consecutive years prior to consideration of an amendment to the
Constitution.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I was trying to listen attentively to the
request of the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, that is a
rules change, I believe, and I do not know that we received any letter
from the gentlewoman in the Committee on Rules, and I do not think it
would be germane to a rule because it is changing the House rule that
does not deal with a constitutional amendment.
I would like to discuss that on the side, perhaps, and find out where
that stands.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] is one of the
Members of whom we are most proud in this body, and he has chosen to
retire at an early age. He has been a great leader on this balanced
budget issue over all his career, and we are going to miss him.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr.
Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to
me and for his kind words.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and passage of the
Stenholm-Smith balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
Three weeks ago, with the help of 216 of our colleagues, we were
successful in discharging this rule in 6 hours and 45 minutes, the
second fastest discharge in congressional history. Given this fact,
words are not needed to describe the enthusiasm Members have for a
Constitutional amendment to require a balanced Federal budget.
The rule before us provides for the full and fair consideration of
several versions of the balanced budget amendment. The consideration of
the Kyl substitute, the Barton substitute, the Wise substitute, and the
Stenholm-Smith amendment will provide the Members with a chance to
express their views on the different approaches that can be taken to
force Congress to balance the budget.
The Kyl and Barton substitutes, which have strong spending-limitation
and tax-limitation provisions, are attractive alternatives that I
intend to support in addition to the amendment I will be offering with
Mr. Stenholm. I am confident that upon careful scrutiny, it will be
clear that the Wise substitute is not only unsuitable for the
Constitution, but also for those seeking political cover to avoid the
American people's intolerance with continued opposition to the balanced
budget amendment. I am confident that the American people will see this
amendment for what it is--a shill for those who oppose the balanced
budget amendment and fear the consequences.
Mr. Speaker, in 1990 the House rejected the balanced budget amendment
by seven votes and the Federal debt was $3.1 trillion. In 1992, the
House rejected the balanced budget amendment by nine votes and the
Federal debt was $4 trillion. Now, despite the passage of two more
statutory deficit reduction packages, the Federal debt is expected to
reach $4.6 trillion by the end of fiscal year 1994.
Enough is enough. The time has come to force Congress to change its
habits, and this can only be accomplished with a Constitutional
mandate. This rule provides us the opportunity to make an institutional
change that will force results.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support the rule.
{time} 1130
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Browder], one of our hardest-working proponents of the
balanced budget amendment. He has done yeoman's work on behalf of
getting us to this point.
Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in
strong support of a balanced budget amendment. Opponents of the
balanced budget amendment are telling us this is gimmickry. That we
should not try to amend the Constitution to force fiscal responsibility
on the Federal Government.
We will not amend the Constitution with this vote. The Senate still
must vote again. The States must vote to ratify it. The vote today will
further a national debate on the role of the Federal Government, the
role of Federal fiscal policy, and our responsibility to future
generations.
Mr. Speaker, defeat of this rule would stop that debate. That would
be a shame for our Nation that is demanding action by this House and
for our future.
This House and this Nation need this debate. Support the rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Sanibel, Florida [Mr. Goss], a very valued member of the Committee on
Rules who has been a strong supporter of the balanced budget amendment
since he first came here.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I commend the bipartisan teamwork of the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr.
Smith] on this. Obviously it is their extra efforts and special wisdom
that has got this crucial debate to the House floor. Today's discussion
is a direct result of the first successful discharge petition under the
new rules of sunshine, the effort of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Inhofe] that has also paid off, and I think deliberate democracy exists
today, and I think this institution is better off because of it.
The bottom line is though that we have not done our jobs. In fact,
there has been a deficit in the Federal Government's accounts for 56 of
the last 64 years, including every year of the last quarter century.
These deficits have generated a national debt of $4 trillion, now on
the way to $6 trillion under the so-called deficit reduction plan of
the Clinton administration. It is no wonder that 7 out of 10 Americans
support a balanced budget amendment. They are tired of the Washington
version of Scarlett O'Hara's famous theme line when confronted with
trouble:
``I won't think about that today; I'll think about it tomorrow.''
Tomorrow, of course, never arrives. That was fiction; this is fact.
Only one-fifth of the House Members summoned the courage to vote for a
specific balanced budget plan last week, a plan that did not raise
taxes or touch Social Security, a plan offered by my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] of the Committee
on Rules. Many of my colleagues say a constitutional amendment is not
necessary to balance the budget--but 80 percent of Americans will
discover that their Member avoided the responsibility when given a
chance last week to vote for a specific plan to cut spending. If we
pass a constitutional balanced budget amendment with teeth, we impose a
non-waivable, not-repealable mandate that the budget be brought into
line. But we will still have to do the hard work. Responsible
government is not easy, and that means casting the votes to cut the
spending.
Mr. Speaker, I want to see this supported, and I want to respond to
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] who I admire and respect
greatly. He has likened this matter to the Volstead Act, that we are
inebriated on red ink here. We are indeed inebriated on red ink here,
and we need to change our ways, and I wish we could do it without a
constitutional amendment. I would be delighted if we could get this
done without a constitutional amendment, but the history of last week
and previous years here suggest we cannot. I do not like constitutional
amendments, but I do not like bankrupting the United States of America
at all, and that is a worse option, and I believe that is the option in
front of us.
Going further, the chairman has said that we should not have a policy
question like this available, put into the Constitution, and I agree
with him generally. But I would suggest that balancing the budget is
not a policy option. I suspect that most Americans would feel that
balancing the budget is a requirement of responsible public service. I
am the first to say that the options of cutting spending, raising
taxes, providing for emergency situations such as war, pestilence and
plague ought to be provided for in a good balanced budget amendment,
but I think that most Americans are at the point where they agree that
the Nation is sufficiently imperiled and worthy of a constitutional
amendment.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield back my time with a
brief statement just to say that the House majority has worked its
will. That is what brought this rule to the floor, and that is why we
should support the passage of the rule.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am not happy with the king-of-the-hill
provision. Other people are not happy with certain provisions. But the
fact is the House was allowed to work its will. More than 218 Members
did sign the discharge petition. That is why it is here.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we should vote for this rule and against
any other procedural motion that might be brought before us this
morning.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, something must really be going on at the
Committee on Rules when they give me 10 minutes. My God, they might
even have said that I could delegate some of that time to my friends.
But with that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I cosponsored the balanced budget
amendment. I did so because there are so many supporters who believe
very seriously that that is exactly what our Nation needs.
I personally do not believe so and will vote against this balanced
budget amendment for the following reasons:
Now I do not know if that makes any sense to my colleagues, but see
if this might make any sense:
The Constitution empowers the Congress of the United States to govern
and manage the people's Republic. Today the Congress of the United
States wants to give back that empowerment so that the Constitution
might govern whether they have failed.
Think about that.
This in my opinion is the ultimate cop-out, the ultimate surrender,
the ultimate concession, the ultimate PTB--pass the buck--ploy, my
colleagues.
{time} 1140
This is no insult or denegration to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Stenholm], the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], or any one of my
friends on the other side of the aisle. Their reasons are noble. They
believe they are right, and so help me God, the Constitution is not
going to straighten out America. It is the Congress of the United
States, and the Congress of the United States cannot turn it back to
the Constitution out of despair and political fear to maintain its own
particular standing. There is already enough deceit and smoke and
mirrors with this budget process, I say to the Members, and let me say
this today: If Congress would pass a balanced-budget amendment to the
Constitution, the Congress of the United States would have to use the
Hubbell telescope just to read the small print that will be coming out
of OMB, I believe it will be that bad.
But let us think for a minute. It is not the Constitution; it is the
trade laws that kill our jobs. It is not the Constitution; it is
foreign aid. We borrow money, then we give it away.
It is not the Constitution; it is overregulation of our industry and
small business that kills them and makes them unprofitable and kills
our exports. It is not the Constitution; it is the EPA. It is not the
Constitution; it is OSHA. It is not the Constitution; it is the
Internal Revenue Service. It is not the Constitution; it is the tax
laws of America. I say to the Congress it is a tax law that rewards
dependency, penalizes achievement, kills investment, kills our exports,
gives carte blanche to our imports, with most-favored-nation treaty
status to China that sells missiles and weapons and tanks to our outlaw
terrorist enemies. Beam me up, folks.
Congress should not change the Constitution. Congress should change
the tax laws and the laws in America that are destroying our country.
There is one thing, and I say to the Members this might be my
opinion, but I do not think it is the Constitution; I think it is the
politicians, the politicians that now want to use the Constitution 10
years from now as a scapegoat for what Congress is afraid to do now.
I may not have the best voting record around here on this so-called
balanced budget business, but I will be damned if I am going to vote to
continue to cut back in America and close American bases while we leave
those bases open overseas.
So, yes, there has to be some philosophy here as to how we are going
to come together, but the bottom line is we have the Tax Code that
kills our country, helps everybody else, and now they are going to
change the Constitution. I think the American people have a little bit
more sense than that.
I say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], that is not his
purpose, and I know that. I do not want him to be offended by my
remarks. I, in fact, signed that discharge petition because of my
tremendous respect for the gentleman, and I think somewhere down the
line I am going to come forward and vote for the things he is doing,
because they are right. But I do not think we should tamper with the
Constitution to do it.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kyl].
Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to
me.
I primarily wanted to speak in support of this rule and thank the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and my colleague, the gentleman
from Oregon [Mr. Smith], for working with us to craft a rule which will
enable this body to vote on four separate proposals. The first one to
be voted on is the Kyl amendment. It is a balanced budget amendment
that achieves the objective by limiting Federal spending, and it also
contains the line-item veto.
I also plan to support the Barton-Tauzin amendment and the Stenholm-
Smith amendment.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule because
it provides meaningful debate time on this important subject. It
provides a meaningful vote on four different kinds of proposals to
achieve the objective in different ways.
For those who say this is a meaningless exercise because the Senate
after all defeated a balanced budget amendment, I say this exercise
today, because of the way the rule was crafted, allows us an
opportunity to consider good ideas as to how to achieve this objective
so that, even if it does not happen this year, we will be better
informed and be prepared to vote on a constitutional balanced budget
amendment next year.
Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, and I thank the gentleman from Texas
and the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time in
order to close the debate on the rule.
First, let me acknowledge the closing statement of my colleague, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] in which he urged opposition
because of his belief that the Constitution should not be amended for
this purpose. I respect that reason by any Member for opposing this
amendment today.
Mr. Speaker, over the past month since the Senate began its
consideration of our companion resolution authored by Senator Simon, a
great deal has been said about balanced budget constitutional
amendments. We've witnessed historical dissertations, ideological
abstractions, political conversions, irrational predictions, and every
now and then, even a few humorous convulsions.
After all of this, if I could rub the magic genie's bottle and have
my wishes for the next 2 days' deliberations come true, you might
assume that I would wish for a magical victory for House Joint
Resolution 103. In truth, what I hope for, above all, is that the level
of this debate rise to the standard deserved whenever Congress
considers amending our most precious national document, the U.S.
Constitution.
I would wish that as a nation we would look seriously at the hard
work we have before us in protecting our children's future.
I would wish that we could, for once, go beyond the political
demagoguery about certain sacred issues which push us farther and
farther down the path of fiscal irresponsibility.
I would wish that intellectual honesty, moral integrity, and personal
responsibility would guide the words each of us speak to such a degree
that political expediency and alarmist exaggerations were shamed into
hiding.
Because when these 2 days are over, regardless of the final outcome
of these votes, we will find ourselves still facing the cancer of debt
which is destroying the fiscal flesh and bones of our country.
Regardless of whether you vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' on House Joint
Resolution 103, each individual Member must be willing to say, ``This
is what I did today to make our country a better place.'' Bob Wise will
go home to tell Robert and Alexandra ``This is how I protected your
futures today'' in just the same way I will be thinking about Chris and
Cary and Courtney--and hopefully some unnamed grandchildren down the
path. Joe Barton will be picturing Brad, Allison, and Kristin, just as
Joe Kennedy will be cherishing his hopes for Joseph III and Matthew.
But for those children's sakes, for the thousands of high school
students that are touring the Capitol this very week during their
spring breaks, for the millions of children across the country, I
appeal to both sides, let us deliberate this issue straightforwardly
and honestly. Especially to the freshman Members I would say, please
evaluate this issue on its merits, not on its internal or external
politics. There is no such thing as an easy vote on a constitutional
amendment. If you believe that a constitutional amendment to balance
the budget is a mistake, then by all means vote ``no.'' If you think we
need only a constitutional nudge rather than a constitutional mandate,
then vote for the Wise amendment. If your 15 months in Congress have
led you to believe, as my 15 years have led me to believe, that nothing
short of a strong, enforceable amendment will protect our children's
future, then vote for the Stenholm-Smith amendment. But don't let
anyone talk you into believing this vote is meaningless.
I come here prepared to work hard these next 2 days and my hope is
that the hard work will pay off with 290 votes on final passage. But
come Friday, I'll have the same gameplan whether my amendment wins or
loses. Regardless of how many votes there are, I'll be working hard for
the rest of the year to chip away at our monstrous deficit. Next week
I'll be working with Joe Kennedy to develop the heart of the Concord
Coalition's zero-deficit plan. This spring I'll be working with Mike
Parker and Bill Orton to push for some of those budget process reforms
we had wanted to get included in the budget resolution. All summer I'll
be working with Tim Penny to dig out that appropriations pork which
oinks its way into the process every year.
My wish is that even those who vote against the constitutional
amendment--in fact, especially those who vote against a constitutional
amendment--are ready to say, ``This is what I did this Congress, this
year, this day, to take the debt off of my children's shoulders.''
Let the work begin.
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 SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. 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. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 387,
nays 22, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 59]
YEAS--387
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blackwell
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Fingerhut
Fish
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McMillan
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Michel
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Myers
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Rahall
Ramstad
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sharp
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Swift
Synar
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weldon
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--22
Beilenson
Bonior
Clay
Dellums
Fazio
Ford (MI)
Gephardt
Hinchey
Klink
Kopetski
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Moakley
Owens
Pickett
Rangel
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Torres
Unsoeld
Washington
Wheat
NOT VOTING--24
Chapman
Crane
Cunningham
Dixon
Evans
Farr
Gallo
Grandy
Green
Gutierrez
Hastings
Hilliard
Huffington
Johnson (CT)
Meehan
Murtha
Natcher
Porter
Quinn
Reynolds
Ridge
Rostenkowski
Rush
Yates
{time} 1212
Mr. FAZIO and Mr. GEPHARDT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BUYER, KLUG, LEWIS of California, ZIMMER, and McCRERY changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________