[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H312]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  MATTERS TO BE DEBATED ON HOUSE FLOOR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the gentleman that 
just spoke has left, because I for one am a strong supporter of a 
constitutional amendment for a balanced budget and have always done 
that. I have voted on it repeatedly. I have signed discharge petitions. 
There are any number of members of the Democratic Party who feel just 
as strongly as many of the people on the other side about a balanced 
budget amendment. We just disagree maybe on some of the details.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Yes, I will yield. Even though your people would not 
yield earlier on 1-minutes, I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I always yield on special orders because I feel it is a 
good time to have a little debate, and through the debate some 
camaraderie. I just wanted you to know I am back if you had any 
questions or anything that I could add to. If I heard you correctly, 
you said you are for the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I always have been, as the gentleman from New York can 
tell you.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I am pleased to hear that. Can you tell me how many 
folks on your side of the aisle might be voting in support of it?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Quite a few, but they are going to vote for the Stenholm 
provision, the Stenholm balanced budget amendment, and that is the one 
that we support.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, to my friend, I would say that if we can get 
their vote on the Stenholm amendment, that is a good positive step. I, 
as you know, am not part of the party leadership over here. Although I 
do support the Republican version with the three-fifths majority vote 
provision, I still think that the Stenholm amendment, which I supported 
last year on the floor, is a good step, and I am glad to hear it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. The gentleman has been here long enough. All you have to 
do is go back in the Congressional Record. You can go all the way back 
to 1982 and see where Harold Volkmer has voted consistently. And, like 
I said, I even signed a discharge petition when it was necessary to 
bring one out. I support a line item veto, too, maybe a little 
different than what you do, but I support the concept.
  I also support mandates, that do something about them. I disagree, 
and I have an amendment that I hope to offer when we bring the bill up 
Friday, because I think there is a big loophole in that bill, you can 
drive a truck through, in that mandate bill. So there may be some 
disagreements on the details.
  But what bothers me the most, and we could talk about these, and we 
have talked about a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget here 
since 1982. And I have been here 18 years, I am starting on my 19th 
year, and I have never come here with the idea that Harold Volkmer 
would ever become rich because he is a Member of Congress. And I think 
it is improper for any Member to get outside income, to become rich 
because of his position in this House. We are here to serve the people, 
not to fill our own coffers and fill our own pockets, and to use our 
influence in order to do so. And I think Members who do that should 
have what they are doing all debated on this floor.
  What bothers me is that we do not see the other side willing to 
debate that. We don't see an ethics bill. We think it is all right. We 
have it in our rules right now. You can take all the vacation trips 
with lobbyists and have them pay your full way and then you can vote 
for them on the floor of the House, everything they want on amendment 
or on a bill. And the other side, the Republican Party says that is the 
way it should be up here.
  We now have a Speaker that had signed a contract for $4.5 million to 
write a book. Boy, that is really pretty good. I don't think too many 
people have been able to do that. Now he says he will give that up and 
take the royalties instead.
  Well, as the gentlewoman from Florida attempted to say here today on 
the floor, it really depends now on the publisher and how many books 
they sell, how much money he could make. He could make $10 million if 
enough of his wealthy friends decide to buy a whole bunch of books. 
They could each buy 1 million books. He could make $10 million off of 
it. And I don't think any Member of this body, any Member, should be 
able to do that. I think that is unconscionable. I think that this 
matter, the book deal, should be debated on this floor.
  I welcome the majority party to come forward. I welcome the Speaker 
himself to come forward and stand in this well and debate his book 
deal. I think it should be debated.




                          ____________________