[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.

                          ____________________