Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H605-H619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 17,
TREATMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY UNDER ANY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
REQUIRING A BALANCED BUDGET, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION 1, PROPOSING A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 44 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 44

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 17) relating to the
treatment of Social Security under any constitutional
amendment requiring a balanced budget, if called up by the
majority leader or his designee. The concurrent resolution
shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or
their designees. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the concurrent resolution to final adoption
without intervening motion.
Sec. 2. At any time after the disposition of the concurrent
resolution made in order by the first section of this
resolution, the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing a balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first reading of the joint resolution shall be dispensed
with. Points of order against consideration of the joint
resolution for failure to comply with
[[Page H606]] clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the joint resolution and shall
not exceed three hours equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. After general debate the joint resolution shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the joint
resolution shall be considered as read, shall be debatable
for one hour equally divided and controlled by Representative
Barton of Texas and an opponent, and shall not be subject to
amendment while pending. No further amendment shall be in
order except those designated in section 3 of this
resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
designated, may be offered only by the named proponent or a
designee, may be considered notwithstanding the adoption of a
previous amendment in the nature of a substitute, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and
shall not be subject to amendment. If more than one amendment
is adopted, then only the one receiving the greater number of
affirmative votes shall be considered as finally adopted. In
the case of a tie for the greater number of affirmative
votes, then only the last amendment to receive that number of
affirmative votes shall be considered as finally adopted,
except that if the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary is one of the
amendments receiving the greater number of votes then it
shall be the amendment considered as finally adopted. At the
conclusion of consideration of the joint resolution for
amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the joint resolution to the House with such
amendment as may have been finally adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution and any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. The further amendments that may be offered after
disposition of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary are those
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII with the following
designations: (a) the amendment numbered 4 by Representative
Owens of New York; (b) the amendment numbered 1 by
Representative Wise of West Virginia; (c) the amendment
numbered 25 by Representative Conyers of Michigan; (d) the
amendment numbered 29 by Representative Gephardt of Missouri;
and (e) the amendment numbered 39 by Representative Schaefer
of Colorado.

{time} 1240

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut). The gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and
include extraneous material.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, today we begin consideration of what may
well be the most important matter this Congress will consider over the
next 2 years, a balanced budget constitutional amendment. In order to
make it perfectly clear right up front that the budget is not to be
balanced by cutting Social Security, this rule first makes in order a
resolution designed to protect Social Security.
The concurrent resolution directs the committees which will be
proposing legislation to implement the requirement for a balanced
budget to leave Social Security alone.
The concurrent resolution will be debated for 1 hour, and then the
House will vote on that issue.
Next, the rule provides the most open and the most fair process that
has ever been used by this House to consider a balanced budget
amendment.
The record shows that very clearly.
The rule provides 3 hours of general debate on the balanced budget
amendment. After general debate, the rule provides first for a vote on
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. This is the
Barton version of the balanced budget constitutional amendment. It the
version which includes the requirement for a three-fifths' vote to
increase tax revenues; it is this version that I strongly support.
We need to balance the budget, but we need to do it without making it
easy to raise taxes. That really is what this debate is all about.
After the vote on the committee substitute, there will then be votes on
the five additional substitutes, four of which are to be offered by the
Democrats.
This process is much more fair to the minority than at any other time
the House has considered a balanced budget amendment. Each of the six
substitutes will be debated for 1 hour, with a separate vote taken on
each one. And the one that receives the most votes is the version that
will be put to a final vote; that is, requiring a two-thirds majority,
or 290 votes, to pass.
Finally, the rule provides a motion to recommit, which will give the
minority one final chance to offer any amendment which complies with
the standing rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, the numbers of the national debt in this Nation have
grown so large that they have become difficult for most of us to really
comprehend, even those here, those of us who deal with it every day,
much less the American people.

Madam Speaker, the Federal debt has tripled during the last 10 fiscal
years to almost $5 trillion in accumulated debt.
How much debt is that? It is just almost incomprehensible. It is a
thousand billion dollars, not a thousand million dollars but a thousand
billion dollars five times over. That is how much the accumulated debt
is in this country.
The interest alone is projected at $235 billion for the current
fiscal year. That is almost as much as we spend on the national defense
of this country, which is the primary reason we formed this Republic of
States in the first place, to provide for a common defense.
Here we are spending just on the interest alone $235 billion this
year. And if interest rates rise, heaven help us. But even if they do
not, in just 4 or 5 years the interest we pay out annually to foreign
countries, like the Netherlands and Great Britain and other countries
that hold our national debt, the interest will rise to $400 billion a
year. What are we going to do to help people who are truly in need
then, when all the money is going out either for national defense or
just to pay the interest on the annual debt service?
Madam Speaker and Members, the deficit for this year is projected at
$176 billion, and that is underestimated. Next year it is projected to
rise to $207 billion, and that is underestimated. And by the year 2000
it is projected to be almost $300 billion unless we do something about
it. That is in spite of that huge tax increase in 1990 under President
Bush and that huge tax increase in 1992 under President Clinton. We are
still running debts annually of $300 billion. What is going on around
here?
Madam Speaker, the first step we can take is enacting a real balanced
budget amendment.
Now, you have heard these 1-minute speeches here today. The opponents
of these constitutional amendments will say that amendments are not
necessary because Congress can control the problem any time it wants.
That is a true statement.
Well, let me just tell you this: In the last Congress I offered an
alternative, and here it is right here. I offered an alternative budget
resolution which would have reduced the deficit to zero in just 5
years, and listen to this: Without raising taxes, without cutting
Social Security, and without cutting contractual obligations to our
veterans.
We balanced the budget and are left with an $8 billion surplus at the
end of 5 years. Let me tell you something: That budget provided for
tough spending cuts. It included language saying if Congress did not
like the specific spending cuts that are in there--and they are
specific and scored by the Congressional Budget Office--Congress could
do whatever it wanted. Congress could always substitute those cuts for
others. That is what we are going to have to be doing after we enact
this constitutional amendment.
But was that adopted? No, this budget was not passed, not on your
life. It only got 73 votes; 55 or 56 Republicans and 17 Democrats.
Madam Speaker and Members, we have come to a point where those of us
who care about our children and care about our grandchildren--and I
have 4 grandchildren, along with 5 children--we are going to have to
take a very serious step to put an end to the irresponsible deficit
spending that we have been talking about here this morning
[[Page H607]] and which is drowning this country in a sea of red ink.
And it is totally, totally irresponsible. A balanced budget amendment
will do just that.
Madam Speaker and Members, no one proposes that such a solution be
taken lightly. The problem requires drastic action, and the time is
now, it is right now today. The longer we wait the deeper in debt this
Nation will be and the more difficult it will be to get out of it. It
is almost too late now.
Madam Speaker, Congress has repeatedly shown that it is not prepared
to deal responsibly with the problems without some kind of a prod. The
enactment of a balanced budget amendment will help to give Congress--
and this is the point--it will help to give Congress that prod, that
spine, that backbone and, for some who need it, the excuse to do what
the American people have to do, and that is to live within our means.
I urge you to vote ``yes'' for this rule and then for the American
people, please vote for the balanced budget amendment. Let us give it
to the people to let them ratify it.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York, Mr. Solomon, for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very closed rule.
Madam Speaker, I am hearing a lot of double talk these days,
especially around the word ``open.'' When my Republican colleagues were
in the minority, they said that nearly every rule we granted was
closed, including rules that provided for time caps and required
amendments to be printed in the Record. But now that they are in the
majority, Republican Members have changed the meaning of the word
``open'' 180 degrees.
Now a rule that cuts off debate, restricts amendments and refuses to
allow Members to work together as the President urged us last night is
not just called an open rule but a most open rule. I do not know what
that means.
Madam Speaker, Republican flipflops are enough to give a weather vane
whiplash.
I have heard my colleagues compare this rule to other balanced budget
rules, but what they do not tell you and they do not tell the American
people is that every one of the balanced budget rules is the result of
either a discharge petition or reported to preempt discharge, and
closely imitated the discharge rule.
What they do not say is that I opposed those rules too because they
were too restrictive. Check the record.
The last time the discharge rule allowed only the amendments that
were made in order the Congress before, I led the opposition because I
knew that new Members and other people had new ideas on the topic and
were being stifled. Unlike my Republican colleagues, my position has
been consistent.
Madam Speaker, the Republicans would have us believe that
constitutional amendments must be considered under a gag rule, that
they always are considered under a gag rule. I would like to take this
opportunity to say to the American people that this is not true.

{time} 1250

In fact, constitutional amendments are usually considered in the
Committee of the Whole under an open rule. This tradition, Madam
Speaker, began in the very first session of the First Congress when the
Bill of Rights was considered. People offered amendments, including
perfecting amendments. Some were accepted, some were rejected, and none
of them were printed in advance in the Record. If an open rule worked
for the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Madam Speaker, if
an open rule worked for our Founding Fathers, it should work for us
here today with the balanced budget amendment.
Over the past 30 years, Madam Speaker, every single rule reported
from the Committee on Rules on a constitutional amendment has been an
open rule except those that arrived as a result of a discharge petition
or rules designed to preempt discharge. I am talking about rules for
amendments dealing with Presidential succession, direct election of the
President, granting the vote for 18-year-olds, the Equal Rights
Amendment, D.C. congressional representation, and let me repeat, Madam
Speaker:
Every one of those rules were open.
But today things have changed. I ask my colleagues to look at what
has been excluded by what the Republicans call a most open rule. Look
at the new ideas denied debate:
A bipartisan substitute on unfunded mandates; a substitute offered by
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard] protecting civil rights
legislation; a substitute offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] excluding Social Security and allowing Congress to waive the
requirements in case of a recession; a substitute offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Thornton] excluding capital investments
providing long-term economic returns; a substitute offered by the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] on judicial review; a substitute
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] requiring a
three-fifths vote to reduce funding for low income health, education
and employment programs; an amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] on natural disasters; amendments offered by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] clarifying the phrase
``increasing tax revenues; an idea offered by the gentleman from Utah
[Mr. Orton] to use sequestration to bring us back to balance.
Madam Speaker, the list goes on, and on, and on.
Let me tell my colleagues all is not lost. There is a chance really
to fix this rule. If we defeat the previous question, I will then offer
a germane amendment to the rule that will be an open rule and will give
us an opportunity to consider a truth-in-budgeting perfecting
amendment.
In closing I urge all my Members to vote no on the previous question
and then vote yes on the amendment to consider balanced budget under an
open rule and to allow the truth-in-budgeting perfecting amendment.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] my good friend.
As my good friend knows, A Democrat Member on his side of the aisle
had a balanced budget amendment pending before our Committee on Rules
in both the 102d and 103d Congresses, and our committee deliberately
stalled it and never let it come to the floor.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the very fine
gentleman from Kingsport, TN [Mr. Quillen], the chairman emeritus of
the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. QUILLEN. Madam Speaker, in my 32 years here in this House, I have
always tried to be helpful in passing a constitutional budget
amendment. I think it is absolutely necessary that we act today
favorably, and that we pass this constitutional amendment without any
delay. The people of this Nation demand it, the majority of this House
demands it, and I think the majority of the States will ratify it, not
only the majority in total, but the majority required. Some of the 50
States today have some kind of a balanced budget amendment, meaning
that they cannot spend any more than they take in.
Madam Speaker, Tennessee is a good example of that. We have had it
for years, and it works. The Federal Government should have it, and it
will work. We should give it a try, and today is the day that we are
going to do just that.
I commend the members of the Committee on Rules in the majority for
bringing this to the floor of the House, and I know that these
amendments, which will be discussed in full, embrace all of the ideas
that were introduced that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Moakley] alluded to. I know that we will have an opportunity to discuss
those issues, and in the end I certainly hope that this House will act
responsibly and favorably and pass this constitutional budget amendment
without delay.
[[Page H608]] Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip of the Democrat
Party.
Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Moakley], my friend, for yielding this time to me, and I thank my
colleagues on the Committee on Rules and on the other side of the aisle
for the good work they have done so far this year.
Madam Speaker, the American people have a right to know how we are
going to balance the budget, and they are not going to be fooled by fig
leaves. They are not going to be distracted by simple solutions. As my
colleagues know, in a poll that was released just yesterday, 86 percent
of the American people said that Republicans should specify what they
intend to cut before passing a balanced budget amendment, and in the
President's State of the Union Address that night one idea that went
off the charts was the idea that we should be honest with the American
people and spell out exactly what is going to be cut to balance the
budget.
I say to my colleagues:
``Now the question isn't whether or not you support a balanced
budget. The question is, and always has been, how do you intend to get
there?''
Now balancing the budget is going to require a mammoth cut totaling
over $1.2 trillion. This will affect every man, every woman, every
child in this country for years to come. The American people have a
right to know:
``How are you going to get there?''
``How much are you going to cut from Social Security?''
``How much are you going to cut from Medicare?''
``How much are you going to cut from student loans?''
``How much are you going to cut from veterans' benefits?''
Madam Speaker, the American people want to know.
My friend, Madam Speaker, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon],
just went like this, and we are not going to cut anything. But then he
offered a substitute on the budget just last year, let me tell my
colleagues what he did cut:
He wanted to eliminate all ag subsidies except for dairy, he wanted
50 percent cut in job training, and he had $140 billion over 5 years
cut in Medicare. I say to the gentleman, ``We need to know what you're
about doing with this balanced budget amendment.''
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONIOR. I will when I finish with my statement.
Now, Republicans say it is unreasonable, unreasonable to ask us where
these cuts are going to come from. Madam Speaker, I guess I was brought
up under a different set of rules. I was taught if I were going to do
something, I ought to have the guts to say how I am going to do it.
I say to my colleagues, ``It's cowardly to say that you're for a
balanced budget and then to leave it to future Congresses to figure out
how that budget is going to be reached. It's like something a retired
auto worker in my district once told me. He said, `Think about this in
common sense terms.' He said, `I wouldn't sign a mortgage without first
knowing how much the monthly payments are going to be. I wouldn't like
a mechanic to do major work on my car without first getting an estimate
on what the repair bill is going to be.' So he said, `I don't see why
it's so unreasonable to say that before we have a constitutional
amendment to require a balanced budget, we first have some idea how
that budget will be balanced.'''
Madam Speaker, I know the majority leader says that, if the American
people saw the details, that our knees would buckle. Well, I say to my
colleagues, ``I would guess that, if your bank gave an estimate on your
monthly mortgage payments that would cause your knees to buckle, you
might think twice about buying that home.''
We all know what is going on here. We all know why knees would
buckle. My colleagues do not want to come clean with the American
people because they do not want them to know the truth, and the truth
is they are going to slash Social Security, they are going to slash
Medicare, they are going to slash veterans' benefits, they are going to
pick the pockets of our seniors and balance the budget on the backs of
senior citizens and children because that is what the Republicans have
done traditionally, and if that is not true, if I am wrong, then show
us it is not true. I say to my colleagues, ``Show us your hand. Show us
how you intend to balance the budget.''
Each and every one of these substitutes that we have before us today
and tomorrow should be forced to reveal exactly what cuts they intend
to make to balance the budget.

{time} 1300

Madam Speaker, they way this rule is written right now, that is not
the case. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and let
us bring an open rule that applies a truth test to every substitute
that is before us today. The American people deserve better than what I
think this gutless bill we have before us now provides. They want to
know, and they deserve to know, the truth.
I think, Madam Speaker, it is way past time that we gave it to them.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a very distinguished member of the
Committee on Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], for yielding me this time,
and I congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Rules for revealing
the true specific plan to achieve a balanced budget, showing that it
can be done.
Madam Speaker, on November 8 of last year, the American people
elected us to fulfill a contract. That contract includes allowing a
vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. And not just
any balanced budget amendment, but specifically one that would
permanently protect the American taxpayer from further unwarranted tax
hikes--tax hikes like the one in President Clinton's 1993
reconciliation--that come in the name of deficit reduction. The
American people signaled on November 8 that they want us to vote on the
Barton amendment, and to require a three-fifths supermajority to raise
taxes. And that's what we will do here today--as promised. Today's
modified open rule is fair. It provides guidance to navigate through
the 44 substitutes offered--including many overlapping proposals--by
bringing forward four Democrat substitutes and one bipartisan
alternative. There was ongoing consultation with the minority, and the
minority leader was given the opportunity to designate priority
amendments. There is some merit in all of the proposals--notably the
Schaefer substitute, which offers a well-known balanced budget
amendment that this House has come close to adopting several times in
the past. But make no mistake, this debate focuses on the version of
the balanced budget amendment that Americans said they wanted, the one
included in the Contract With America. Some in this minority will no
doubt complain that one or another specific proposal is left out of the
process. But the American people understand that this debate should
focus on the big ideas--and we won't be sidetracked by those who oppose
balancing the budget and are using every excuse to slow down passage of
the balanced budget amendment. American's did not vote for delay--they
voted for action--now.
Madam Speaker, as a member of the bipartisan Commission on
Entitlement Reform and as a Representative from Florida, I am quite
familiar--if not acutely aware--with the situation facing Social
Security. According to all the experts, the Social Security trust fund
will continue to run a surplus until at least 2012--and it is not
expected to add to the deficit until 2029. The idea that passage now of
the balanced budget
amendment will mean immediate and drastic cuts in Social Security
benefits is a scare tactic pure and simple. That is just not the truth.
In fact, as demonstrated by the Entitlement Commission findings, the
greatest threat to Social Security comes from our annual red ink and
mounting debt--if allowed to continue, interest payments on the debt
alone could eventually squeeze all other programs--Social Security
included--out
[[Page H609]] of the picture. Make no mistake, Social Security is off-
budget, and it will stay that way. The Flanagan resolution--House
Concurrent Resolution 17--made in order under the rule, shows our firm
resolve in this respect. The situation is serious: We are currently in
debt to the tune of $4.6 trillion, a figure that continues to grow by
over $200 billion a year. Madam Speaker, in light of this I was
startled to hear the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee
testify to the Rules Committee that the national debt is currently
being reduced. I'm not sure how he arrives at this, since every year
that we run a deficit, we add to our national debt. Surely the minority
is not advocating still bigger debt for our children to bear. In
closing I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the Barton
amendment.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Beilenson].
(Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks.)
Mr. BEILENSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], former chairman of the Rules Committee,
and our ranking member, who has so ably helped us protect the rights of
the minority and the citizens of our country through his work on this
committee. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, this is certainly not the open rule that we had been
promised, and while it is not entirely closed, we are all disappointed
in the restrictive nature of this resolution for the consideration of a
measure so momentous as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.
As has been well noted by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Moakley], the history of the manner in which constitutional amendments
have been considered, clearly shows that the use of the open rule is
the wisest approach, and the one that appears to have been most often
used when the threat of a discharge petition was not pending, as is
currently the case.
Even more disappointing, under this rule no perfecting amendments are
allowed. If even a few of the proposed perfecting amendments had been
made in order, we could have accommodated most of the major concerns
about the legislation, and given Members of the House a chance to
express their feelings on a number of very important additional
issues--issues which are precluded from considering under this proposed
rule.
This is an immensely significant matter that we are dealing with, and
we should do everything in our power to ensure that we take this step--
if, in fact, we are going to do it--as carefully, and as thoughtfully,
as possible.
There clearly were a handful of very fundamental and important issues
that should have been allowed to be considered as perfecting
amendments, such as one to consider alone the three-fifths requirement
to increase tax revenue--a perfecting amendment proposed by Mr.
Volkmer--and another to require truth in budgeting proposed by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
In addition, several substitutes that were not made in order would
have provided us with the opportunity to further improve the final
product of this debate.
I refer particularly to the substitute offered by the gentleman from
Arkansas [Mr. Thornton], which sought to define capital budgets by
going beyond investments for physical infrastructure alone, to include
also investments in developmental capital such as education and
training.
We should also have been allowed to consider, either as a perfecting
amendment or as a substitute, the suggestion of the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Hoke] for keeping the minutiae and complexity of changes in the
budget process itself out of the Constitution, allowing it to be
handled separately as legislation, and thus providing us with a choice
for a simpler constitutional amendment.
And, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] offered several good
proposals, including one that would allow Congress to approve an
unbalanced budget during a time of national security emergency, short
of a declaration of war, which is required in the pending proposal.
This rule, unfortunately, does not give us that opportunity, and it
should be rejected.
Madam Speaker, through the course of this debate, however, I hope
that it will become abundantly clear why the House should not give
final approval to any of the alternative versions of this legislation.
As a longstanding proponent of eliminating Federal budget deficits,
and as a Member who has acted to achieve that result by supporting and
voting for many, many unpopular measures to reduce deficits over the
past dozen years, I share the feelings of frustration which have led
most of our colleagues to conclude that amending our Constitution is
our only hope for solving the Federal Government's persistent budget
deficit problem.
The enormous deficits the Government has run for the last decade and
a half are, without a doubt, the leading policy and political failure
of our generation. By running huge deficits, we have produced a soaring
debt which requires that we spend 14 percent of annual Federal budgets
on interest payments. We have done a grave disservice to future
generations of Americans who will be saddled with that debt; and we
have damaged our Nation's economic prospects by allowing the debt to
consume more than $200 billion a year that could otherwise be used for
much-needed investment, in both the private and public sectors.
These huge deficits, and the debt they create, are also a large part
of the reason why voters are angry at Congress and why so many feel
that our political process just does not work.
But the solution to the deficit problem is not to amend the
Constitution; writing a balanced budget requirement into our
Constitution does nothing in and of itself to bring revenues and
spending into balance. The solution is to act to cut spending and, if
necessary, raise taxes. That is what the President and Congress did
successfully in 1993, and that is what we should do this year and in
the years ahead until the Federal budget is finally balanced.
Voting for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget is easy;
it does not require cutting any spending program or raising anyone's
taxes. It sounds good, and it allows us to say that we are for balanced
budgets. But the truth is, it is bad policy.
Passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget would give
Congress an excuse not to reduce the deficit until the year 2002. It
would allow us to say that we have done something about the deficit
when, in fact, we will have done nothing real about it.
In fact, if the House and Senate approve any of these proposals, what
we will have done is relegate the responsibility for deciding Federal
budget policy to the States. They will have to debate whether they want
to ratify this amendment; they will have to decide if Congress is
capable of bringing Federal revenues and spending into balance; they
will have to guess how Congress is likely to act in response to a
balanced budget requirement. At a time when we are trying to reach out
and improve relationships with our counterparts at the State level,
passing this amendment will undermine all of our efforts to come to
terms with which responsibilities to our citizens should be handled at
the Federal level, and which by the States.
I believe that it is highly unlikely that three quarters of our
States will ratify any version of this constitutional amendment. They
know that if the Federal Government is under a balanced budget
requirement, they are likely to face deep cuts in Federal aid--cuts
which will require them to make substantial cuts in spending or to
raise taxes at a time when most of them already face that unpalatable
choice.
Moreover, States will realize that the balanced budget requirement
for the Federal Government will be far more onerous than those that the
States themselves operate under. Most States require a balanced
operating budget, but allow borrowing for capital spending. To the
extent that they are able to categorize spending as part of their
capital budget, they are able to borrow extensively. Unless the
substitute offered by Mr. Wise is adopted, there will be no such
distinction for the Federal budget.
But if, in fact, enough States ratified the amendment, Congress would
undoubtedly go to great lengths to find ways not to comply with it.
Recall what happened under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which
Congress passed in 1985; when the President and Congress operated under
a requirement to reduce deficits to specified levels each year and
produce a balanced budget within 5 years, we did everything possible to
circumvent the requirement and avoid hard choices. We used unrealistic
economic assumptions to produce inflated estimates of revenues, we
moved programs off budget, and we delayed payments into future years.
When we ran out of creative bookkeeping
methods, we changed the deficit-reduction requirements and, finally,
abandoned the requirements altogether.

Just as our inability to comply with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings in an
honest way fueled public cynicism toward Congress, so too
[[Page H610]] would our almost-certain response to a constitutional
requirement to balance the budget.
The reason that Congress would try to find ways to avoid complying
with a balanced budget requirement is the same reason we did not comply
with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and the same reason we are not voting to
balance the budget right now: there is no political support for the
deep program cuts and large tax increases that would be required to
bring spending and revenues into balance. We may agree, in the
abstract, that want to balance the budget, but we also realize that the
draconian spending cuts required--if the budget is balanced through
spending cuts alone--are not supported by most Americans.
A constitutional requirement to balance the budget is not going to
suddenly give us the political support and the political will to cut
spending cuts and raise taxes. In fact, I would point out that many of
the Members of the House who are most enthusiastic about a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget are the same Members who
are equally, if not more, enthusiastic about cutting taxes. And, not
surprisingly, they are finding themselves unable to develop a plan to
show how we can produce a balanced budget by the year 2002.
Even if all tax-cut proposals were abandoned, Congress would need to
cut spending or raise taxes from projected levels by more than $1
trillion between now and 2002 to balance the budget. There is no doubt
in my mind that if we were voting on an amendment which also contained
the actual measures--the spending cuts and tax increases--which would
balance the budget by 2002, there would be very few votes for it.
There is another reason we ought not to enshrine a balanced budget
requirement in the Constitution: A balanced budget is not always good
economic policy. A requirement that would force Congress to cut
spending or raise taxes in the middle of a recession could be
disastrous for our economy. We need flexibility in Federal budget
policy to counter the swings in the economy and the negative effects
they cause. Some of the alternatives before us would allow Congress to
override a balanced budget requirement by majority vote; but, if that
is the case, what is the purpose of such a constitutional amendment?
On the other hand, the alternative proposed by Representative
Stenholm anticipates the possible need for deficit spending by allowing
expenditures to exceed revenues if three-fifths of both Houses of
Congress vote to approve deficit spending. That provision, however,
would enable a minority of Members--whether partisan, regional,
ideological, or otherwise--to control the outcome of a decision on this
matter, just as the Barton alternative, requiring a three-fifths vote
to raise taxes, would do on that question.
By giving minorities in both Chambers the power to demand concessions
in return for their votes--and the power to veto, in effect,
legislation supported by a majority of Members--this provision would
make it extraordinarily difficult for Congress to govern. It would
severely constrain Congress in its ability to respond effectively, and
in a way supported by a majority of Americans, to the problems facing
our Nation.
Finally, we have little understanding of how a constitutional
amendment requiring a balanced budget would be enforced--what would
happen if Congress failed to match revenues and spending. It is not
clear whether the President or the courts will enforce this--or whether
it could be enforced at all. If the resolution of a budget imbalance is
left to the courts, it would put unelected Federal judges in the
position of deciding our Nation's fiscal policy.
Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, the proposals before us to
amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget should be rejected,
and the rule before us, as I said at the beginning of my statement,
should be rejected as well. Let us resolve, instead, to build on the
work we began last Congress when we enacted legislation that is, in
fact, reducing deficits by half a trillion dollars over 5 years.
Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], a member of the committee.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my
friend, the gentlewoman from Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce] for yielding me
this time, and I rise to congratulate the gentlewoman as well as the
gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Diaz-Balart], and the other new members of the Rules Committee for the
superb work they are doing, joining the force of Solomon, Quillen,
Goss, and so forth.
Let me say that on this issue of the balanced budget amendment, it is
fascinating to listen to the arguments that are being made in
opposition to this rule by a number of my friends. I think it is
important for us to take an historical perspective in looking at this
issue.

{time} 1310

I know my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], raised a
number of these points. But it is worth noting that over the past 14
years, we have seen the balanced budget amendment brought up to the
House floor on four different occasions. Never once, never once did the
Committee on Rules report out a rule that provided the wide range of
options that are being provided under this rule.
The other thing, there was a fascinating argument made upstairs, and
my friend, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. Schroeder], raised great
concern about this. The Committee on the Judiciary only had an 8-hour
markup on this measure when they met. In previous Congresses, they did
not allow 8 minutes of markup, much less 8 hours. So to argue that
there was not an opportunity for wide ranging debate in this markup is
preposterous.
I think when we listen to the overwhelming hue and cry that has come
from across this country to balance the budget, we have the President
who spoke here last night, and most of us concluded that it was not the
President's finest hour. In fact, it was not the President's finest 2
hours here last night. It seems to me that we need to note that they
are all calling for us to immediately provide a list of exactly how we
plan to balance the budget.
Well, I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, they are
well aware of the way the budget process works. We have a Committee on
the Budget. The responsibility for outlining those things lies with
that committee, not with a particular piece of legislation like this
amendment.
Clearly we know that we have the responsibility to bring those
proposed cuts forward, and it is going to be done under the standing
rules of this House, something which tragically in the past have been
ignored, but something which we are doing our darnedest to stick to
just as well as we possibly can.
I also am concerned about the fact that behavior in the past has seen
the other side use that ridiculous king-of-the-hill procedure, whereby
the last standing measure, the last one voted on, even though it may
not have gotten the greatest number of votes in the House, is carried.
We have modified that so-called king-of-the-hill procedure so that the
provision which has the highest number of votes will be the one that
carries. It seems to me that we need to realize that we are, were the
deliberative process, bringing this forward in a fair way, and I urge
my colleagues to support this balanced approach to the balanced budget
amendment.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hall].
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I too rise in opposition to this
rule. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this rule
is some sort of move toward openness. But let us look at what the rule
actually does.
This is a closed rule. The Committee on Rules received 44 requests
for amendments from Members of this body, yet only 5 were made in
order, in addition to the committee substitute.
Debate is choked off on many, many issues that directly affect the
American people. People want to know what the programs are that will be
cut under this amendment. Will they lose their Social Security, what is
going to happen to Medicare, what about programs like disaster relief,
education benefits, or crime prevention? How much are we going to have
to cut defense?
I have part of one of the largest air bases in the world in my
district. What is going to happen to that air base under this
particular amendment?
We need to be fair and up front with ourselves and with the American
people. Therefore, I am going to vote against the previous question,
which allows us to bring up a resolution known as the truth-in-
budgeting resolution. This resolution simply requires us tell the
American people what programs will be cut in order to achieve a
balanced budget.
I do not think that is too much to ask. I am particularly concerned
with the effects of this balanced budget
[[Page H611]] amendment on some of our successful antipoverty programs.
According to the Children's Defense Fund, a balanced budget amendment
could result in approximately 7.6 million children losing school
lunches, 6.6 million children losing Head Start opportunities, and
231,000 blind and disabled children losing basic income supports
through SSI. And the list goes on and on.
There is no doubt that balancing the budget requires tough cuts and
very difficult choices. But that debate should take place in an open
forum, truthfully, and up front.
I offered a number of amendments to the rule yesterday in the
Committee on Rules, allowing Members' ideas to be brought to the floor
and debated. Those amendments had to do with Social Security, taxes,
low-income programs, civil and human rights and the disabled. They were
defeated every time by a partisan vote.
Let us really show the public we can have an open and fair debate.
Vote against the previous question, and vote ``no'' on this closed
rule.
Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Speaker, today marks another historic day in the life of the
104th Congress as the new Republican majority continues working to
fulfill its promises to the American people. On opening day, we adopted
a sweeping set of congressional reforms to make the House more open,
efficient, and accountable. Last week, we overwhelmingly approved a
long-overdue measure to bring this institution into compliance with the
same laws it imposes on the rest of society.
Last Thursday, as part of our plan to reduce the burden of Federal
regulations, we began debate on discouraging the practice of imposing
costly, unfunded, Federal mandates on States, local governments, and
the private sector. And today, as we proudly begin debate on this
historic rule, the House moves one step closer toward adopting a
constitutional balanced budget amendment, the very cornerstone of our
contract's plan to restore fiscal sanity to the congressional budget
process.
Madam Speaker, Congress can and should balance the budget without
being forced to do so. But the fact remains, it hasn't. And with a
Federal debt nearing $5 trillion and budget deficits in 33 of the past
34 years, it is clear that Congress is unable to solve the Nation's
fiscal crisis entirely on its own. Some Members just don't have the
stomach or the desire to make the tough decisions.
The time has finally come to give constitutional expression to a
policy practiced by thousands of families and businesses across America
every day: learning to live within our means. Without constitutional
constraints to deficit spending, future generations of Americans will
be forced to bear the costs of our excesses. We should be ashamed to
leave this legacy to our children and grandchildren.
Madam Speaker, let me say that I fully appreciate the seriousness of
this legislation. And the rule which we have recommended is abundantly
fair as it allows the House to consider six different versions of the
balanced budget amendment, four sponsored by Democrat Members, one by
Republicans, and one bipartisan proposal.
The fact that the House will soon consider a balanced budget
amendment just 3 weeks after opening day is proof positive that the new
Republican majority is serious about keeping its promises to the
American people. I congratulate Chairman Solomon and the leadership for
bringing this fair rule to the floor today. In terms of fairness it is
light years ahead of what we've seen in Congresses past. I strongly
urge its adoption by the House.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I would like to read a statement: ``With every closed
rule, millions of voters are disenfranchised when their duly elected
representatives are prevented from offering relevant amendments to
bills we consider.''
These are the words stated by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce]
at a press conference held by the Rules task force on April 23, 1993.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Frost].
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, for some time I have been a supporter of a
balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In the 16 years I
have served in this body, I have seen the public debt triple to well
over $4 trillion and have watched as the Congress has struggled to
bring the Federal budget and the deficit under control. Until recently,
we in the Congress, working with Presidents both Republican and
Democratic, have had only limited success in curbing the spriraling
growth of Government spending. Thanks to the policies instituted in the
last Congress, we are now witnessing a steady downward path of the
deficit, but I remain convinced that stronger measures are called for
if we are to finally, once and for all, bring the budget of this Nation
into balance. And, for that reason, I will support passage of a
constitutional amendment when the House votes tomorrow.
However, Madam Speaker, in spite of my record of support for just
such a constitutional amendment, I must rise in opposition to this
rule. My Republican colleagues made a number of points yesterday during
our markup of this rule saying that it provides for the consideration
of more options than have been considered in the past few years.

{time} 1320

But I would like to clarify a point. In the past the rules providing
for consideration of balanced budget constitutional amendments have not
been reported from the Committee on Rules. Rather, they have been
considered by discharge petition or the Committee on Rules has simply
reported a rule tracking the provisions of a discharge petition about
to reach the floor, thereby limiting the terms of debate.
My Republican colleagues will respond by saying this rule provides
for the most free and open debate ever granted to a constitutional
amendment to balance the budget. But I would like to say that this rule
does not really provide for the free and open debate promised by
Republican candidates for election to the 104th Congress. This rule
reported by the Republican majority has limited the opportunities for
Members to express their views on how to bring about fiscal restraint.
The chairman notified the Members of the House that the committee might
limit the consideration of amendments to those printed in the
Congressional Record last Friday as well as to those amendments
submitted in the form of amendments in the nature of a substitute. Yet
the Republican rule contains a provision providing for the
consideration of a concurrent resolution which not one Democratic
member of the committee saw until yesterday, just prior to our markup.
The Republican majority on the Committee on Rules recommended a rule
that included consideration of five substitutes to the joint
resolution. The Republican majority on the Committee on Rules rejected
23 amendments offered to the rule by the Democratic members of the
committee during our markup. Not one single amendment was agreed to
during the markup by the Republicans.
A variety of reasons were offered. Time constraints prevented
additional debate on further amendments. The rule makes in order four
Democratic alternatives as well as one bipartisan alternative. Debate
in previous Congresses was far more restrictive.
Madam Speaker, I do not understand the need to limit debate.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, with all due respect, and the gentleman
is one of the most respected Members of this House, in the Congresses
that he has been here for 16 years, he has voted for every one of those
restricted rules that far more restrict Members on both sides of the
aisle.
Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I point out to the
chairman that his party ran on a platform of open rules. I know that
this gentleman is sincere. I know that this gentleman intends to have
open rules. But for some reason we did not have an open rule in this
particular case.
For that reason, I must oppose the rule.
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
[[Page H612]] from Miami, FL [Mr. Diaz-Balart], a member of the
committee.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, as we debate this fair rule for
consideration of this very important constitutional amendment, I ask
the question: Why is there a very serious financial crisis in Mexico
today that we are dealing with precisely in this Congress because of
its worrisome effects? Because of lack of confidence by the
international financial community on the ability of Mexico to pay on
debt that will shortly be coming due. Investors will no longer buy
bonds there due to uncertainty regarding whether they will be paid,
whether those bonds will be paid when they mature. In other words, when
they come due.
Now, if our own debt continues to increase indefinitely, even though,
for example, even economists like Keynes, who believe in stimulation of
the economy through deficit spending occasionally, he never, for
example, supported permanent deficit spending.
If our debt would continue to grow indefinitely, $4 trillion, $5
trillion, $6 trillion, $7 trillion, theoretically, and then there would
one day be doubt as to our creditworthiness, God forbid if that ever
happened, who would bail us out, Madam Speaker? Who would bail us out?
The International Monetary Fund? No, we pay more into the International
Monetary Fund than anybody else? Germany, Saudi Arabia? Who would bail
the United States of America out, Madam Speaker? Is it acceptable to
depend on other countries to theoretically bail us out? No, it is not.
We must stand on our own for our children and for their children and
their grandchildren, and we owe it to them to be able to stand on our
own and maintain due to fiscal responsibility now and an end to fiscal
irresponsibility, the economic security into the future that we
require, that is why we need to pass this rule and this constitutional
amendment.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Speaker, I would like to put this debate in
perspective for the American people. The Constitution empowers the
Congress of the United States to balance the budget. But the Congress
evidently cannot do that or does not want to do that anymore. So the
Congress wants to empower the Constitution to balance the budget.
Now, Members would think by now Congress might have learned. It
started out with Gramm-Latta, then it went to Gramm-Kemp, then it went
to Gramm-Rudman. Now it is going to be Gramm-constitution in a 2-minute
drill no less.
I say to the Congress, this is going to turn into Gramm-bankrupt.
Because Congress has to balance the budget. And let us look at the
facts. The American people are saying, OK, we gave the Republican Party
the authority.
You are in charge. You want a balanced budget. You chair the
committees. Bring out the balanced budget. We know you cannot do that
with a $300 billion deficit, $5 trillion debt and $300 billion of
interest payments. But in 10 years from now the Constitution is going
to balance the budget with $7 trillion of national debt, $500 billion
in interest on that payment, but the Constitution is going to do it.
It is not the Constitution, Congress. It is the Tax Code. It is not
the Constitution, Congress. It is the trade laws.
The President did not mention the $153 billion record trade deficit
yesterday and 20,000 jobs for every $1 billion in deficit, that is 3
plus million jobs at $30,000 a piece.
Congress should be wise to remember history. There was a popular
saying during the depression by working people that said, Harding blew
the whistle, Coolidge rang the bell, Hoover pulled the throttle, and
all American jobs went to hell.
By the way, if Thomas Jefferson had a constitutional requirement to
balance the budget, Thomas Jefferson would not have been able to
consummate the Louisiana Purchase.
It is the Tax Code and trade policies, Congress. We are killing jobs.
We are penalizing achievement. We are rewarding dependency, and we are
insulting the intelligence of the American people.
Let me say this: No Hail Mary pass at the last minute to empower the
Constitution to balance the budget is going to solve our problems. It
is jobs. You will find them in our Tax Code and our trade laws. And why
do we not start dealing with it.
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Speaker, today we have an opportunity to prove that we hear the
people's voice demanding real change in this Congress and could keep
our commitment to them. As families sit down to plan their household
budget, to pay the rent or the mortgage, to buy back-to-school clothes
for the kids, or to repair the car, they want to know why Congress does
not have to do what they have to do, balance their budget.
Families make priorities. They give up some things they would like to
do for things they need to do. And as Congress moves to balance its
budget, as we must do, we are going to have to make some difficult
choices.
But I have great faith in the American people that not only do they
expect us to make these decisions but they will support us in making
these decisions if we work with them and talk with them and listen to
them and spend their money wisely on things they value most.
We need to pass a balanced budget amendment to give this Congress the
fiscal discipline it has repeatedly proven it does not have.
The rule that we have reported provides for the most inclusive, open,
honest debate on a balanced budget amendment in the history of the
Congress.
Of critical importance, this rule will allow us to reaffirm, through
Concurrent Resolution No. 17, our commitment to our seniors that we
will not use Social Security to balance the budget.

{time} 1330

Seniors will not pay the price for this Congress' past mistakes. The
fearmongering by those less concerned about the peace of mind of our
seniors than their own political agenda should end.
At the same time, Madam Speaker, this rule will allow us to protect
our children by ending Congress' reprehensible habit of spending away
their future. Madam Speaker, it is long past time to pass a balanced
budget amendment, and this rule will allow us to do that. I urge my
colleagues to join with me in keeping our word to the people who sent
us here, and to support this rule and pass a balanced budget amendment
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 20 seconds to the
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Thornton].
(Mr. THORNTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THORNTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Moakley], the ranking member, for yielding time to me.
Truth in budgeting is important. It is important to know what
programs will be cut and priorities will be protected.
Last night President Clinton told us of the heroic act of Jack Lucas
and commended all veterans who are willing to risk their lives for us,
and he said, ``We owed them a debt we could never repay.'' He then
challenged us, as we make cuts in Government spending, to remember our
obligations to our children, parents, and others who have risked their
lives by protecting education, Social Security, and Medicare, and
veterans' benefits from those cuts.
Madam Speaker, my proposed amendment would have accomplished those
goals. Last night, Madam Speaker, I was pleased that this suggestion
received a standing ovation from both sides of the House, for these are
truly nonpartisan goals.
That is why I am so puzzled by the Committee on Rules' decision not
to allow a vote on this balanced budget amendment, which has bipartisan
support and would accomplish all of these goals. I find it truly
amazing that even though our veterans put their lives on the line in
defense of our democracy, we are not allowed today to even have a vote
on whether to honor our commitment to those who have risked their lives
for our democracy.
[[Page H613]] Madam Speaker, I wanted to point out that truth in
budgeting is important. We need to know where the cuts will fall.
The refusal to allow a vote to protect education, Social Security,
Medicare, and veterans' benefits means that those benefits are fair
fame for the budget ax. We need an open rule so we can have truth in
budgeting.
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Lakewood, CO [Mr. Schaefer].
(Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
time to me.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 44. Madam
Speaker, I want to commend the leadership and the Committee on Rules
for putting together a rule that fulfills two items that, I believe,
are the cornerstone of our party's Contract With America.
The first is an early vote on the balanced budget amendment, and for
the first time ever, we have not had to resort to end-running a
reluctant leadership for trying to get a balanced budget amendment on
the floor. I think this rule does that.
It is the first item of business that brings up the contract version
of the BBA sponsored by my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Barton]. I strongly urge every one of my colleagues to support the
three-fifths tax limitation version of the amendment.
The rule also fulfills another cornerstone of the contract, and that
is of open and fair rules. This carefully crafted rule ensures that we
let the American people know who does and does not support tax
limitation, while at the same time maximizing the likelihood that this
body will send a balanced budget amendment to the States for
ratification.
Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHAEFER, I yield to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], who has worked long and hard on this issue.
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule today.
While I had offered a suggestion for a little different kind of a rule,
I believe on close analysis this is a fair rule for purposes of
debating the relevant issues that will come before us today.
Madam Speaker, I would say, as one of the coauthors of the Schaefer-
Stenholm amendment, to those who are concerned about Social Security
benefits, education, and all of the other extremely important
endeavors, there is nothing in our substitute that has anything to do
with a negative effect on any of those issues. That will be brought out
in general debate.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 44 allowing for
the consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, as well as five
substitute amendments to that language.
I want to commend the Republican leadership for its prompt
consideration of this critical matter. As this body knows, it has taken
herculean efforts on the part of many Members, both Democrat and
Republican, to bring this issue to the floor during the last three
Congresses. In each case, we filed discharge petitions to the rules
allowing for the consideration of these matters. In each case, we
crafted rules which granted a fair and open debate on the major
contending approaches to amending the Constitution for purposes of
requiring a balanced Federal budget. And in each case we,
unfortunately, fell just short of the two-thirds support necessary for
passage.
I am supporting this rule because I believe it allows for debate on
those relevant issues of greatest concern to House Members. While I had
suggested an alternative way to handle the rule which the committee did
not adopt, I believe that this rule is fair and I
am pleased, Chairman Solomon, to be able to support it today.

My great, great hope is that this year, at last, will be the final
time to deliberate this issue. It is time for us to get the amendment
behind us so that all of this energy can be focused, instead, on the
actual process of achieving a balanced budget.
All of the hours my staff and I, not to mention so many others, have
been required to put into this issue notwithstanding, I know that our
forbears showed remarkable wisdom and foresight when they made it so
difficult for us to amend the Constitution. This is no minor task we
will be undertaking for the next 2 days.
When we Representatives take our oath of office, we swear to uphold
the Constitution of the United States. That oath must not be taken
lightly. This is no place for games-playing. It is no place for seeking
political advantage. It is no place for irresponsible, short-sighted
self-interest.
I hope that the remarks which fill the debate of the next 2 days,
regardless of whether the speaker be favorably or negatively inclined
toward the amendments, reflect the seriousness of our endeavor.
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 1
or on any of the amendments, each individual Member must be willing to
say, ``This is what I did today to make our country a better place.''
I appeal to both sides, let us deliberate this issue
straightforwardly and honestly. Especially to the freshmen 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.
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 as
I said last year at the beginning of this debate, come Friday I'll have
the same gameplan whether the BBA wins or loses and whether the tax
limit 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 Peter Visclosky to develop a
revised enforcement implementation plan. This spring I'll be working
with Chairman Kasich amd Ranking Democrat Sabo on the first installment
of the 7-year glidepath to a balanced budget. Teaming up with Jane
Harman and Chet Edwards, I will push for some of those budget process
reforms that we believe will make a difference in the way business is
done around here. Joining with David Minge, Dan Miller, and other
porkbusters I will seek to keep our appropriations bills clean and
lean.
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 join me in saying, ``This is what I did this
Congress, this year, this day, to take the debt off of my children's
shoulders.''
Again, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and,
subsequently, to support the balanced budget amendment.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, I urge support of the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Becerra].
(Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule proposed for
House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment. I support
balancing the Federal budget, but I believe, as an elected
Representative of the people, that I owe them the responsibility and
respect to tell them how I will do so. This balanced budget amendment
does not do that.
The Republican leadership, as the new majority, made a commitment to
procedural rules for open debate and fairness. But sadly, the rule
before us now is closed. Closed.
I have an amendment that I would like to offer. It provides for rainy
day funds for purposes of emergencies, natural disasters. But I cannot
offer it on the floor of this House today, even though I think it is a
very worthy amendment, especially for folks in California, where I am
from, where we are suffering tremendously. We cannot do that. That is a
closed rule.
Madam Speaker, we have to admit that we really have entered the world
of Alice in Wonderland when Democrats end up fighting harder than
Republicans to keep Republican promises.
It is time, Madam Speaker, that we try to do the people's work and
give the people their day in court. It is a slap in the face to our
constituents when we cannot even come up here and to propose amendments
that are valuable and will affect the Nation's course of history,
because we are talking about an amendment to the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, I urge everyone to vote against this rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Linder], a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, this is an extraordinary day for those of
us
[[Page H614]] who have held dear to the Reagan-Bush axiom that the
Federal Government is too big and it spends too much. For too long
Government has been incapable of managing its finances in a responsible
manner, and the passage of a balanced budget amendment is an important
first step in assuring that this Nation is fiscally sound as we move
into the 21st century.
Madam Speaker, I also strongly support the rule, which will allow
consideration of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Many
duplicate amendments were offered to the Committee on Rules, but I am
pleased that six distinct constitutional amendments will be considered
on the House floor in the coming days.
Madam Speaker, it is important to note that in the past the House
refused even to hold a markup on this bill. I believe that the
Committee on Rules has been extraordinarily fair and prudent in
approving twice as many minority amendments as majority amendments in
this debate.
The balanced budget amendment with the three-fifths tax limitation
provision will force Congress to curb its spending, and will go a long
way toward eliminating Government waste and Government abuse of
taxpayer dollars.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Utah [Mr. Orton].
(Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed
rule. In this and the last two Congresses, I have filed a balanced
budget amendment which is not a dilatory amendment. It is a substantial
amendment which the Committee on Rules refuses to allow to be brought
here to the floor and voted upon.
Madam Speaker, it is a unique concept. It is the only amendment which
requires actual receipts and outlays to be balanced, the only amendment
with an actual enforcement mechanism. When presented to the Committee
on Rules, the chairman said ``We have 46 amendments. We can't possibly
take them all to the floor.'' Why not? Why not? Is it because there are
other issues in the contract to discuss?
This is the Contract With America, the Constitution of the United
States. Only 16 times in the last 200 years have we amended this
Constitution. There is nothing more important.
Suppose that Thomas Jefferson had taken, then, the floor of the
Constitutional Convention and said ``We don't have time to listen to
all of you. We are going to take 5 ideas, debate them, and then vote.''

{time} 1340

We would have never have had the opportunity to hear of the great
compromise which created the House and Senate. We would have never had
this Constitution.
Oppose the rule. Vote against the rule. Allow us to bring all of the
ideas about changing this document.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, yielding myself 30 seconds, I would point
out to the gentleman from Utah that Thomas Jefferson was not at the
Constitutional Convention; he was the Ambassador to France at the time.
The gentleman from Utah last year voted for the very closed restrictive
rule. Now he is complaining about it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman
from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
Mr. ALLARD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman's leadership for
the fight in the balanced budget amendment. He has been a very
dedicated soldier in this regard.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The deficit this year
is forecast to be $176 billion. This is actually down from several
years of deficits well in excess of $200 billion.
The accumulated national debt is now $4.7 trillion. This includes
both debt held by the public and debt owed to the trust funds. If we do
nothing, the deficit situation will grow far worse. Current CBO
projections show the annual deficits increasing to over $300 billion a
year after the turn of the century.
Madam Speaker, I strongly support the balanced budget tax limitation
amendment included in the Contract With America, the Barton language.
If that version fails to garner 290 votes, I will support the
alternative language offered by my good friend from Colorado, Dan
Schaefer.
The current amendments before this House are directed at ending
annual deficits. This is great. It means that in 2002 we will at least
have stopped adding to the accumulated debt. But by then, we will still
have an accumulated national debt of over $6 trillion, and our children
will have to pay interest on this accumulated debt for every year in
the future. That interest will force Federal taxes to be higher than
they should be.
Under current CBO forecasts, Federal spending will grow an average of
5.3 percent a year. In order to achieve a balanced budget, we must hold
that rate of growth at 2 percent, and we can still pay for the tax
cuts. This means that instead of spending $2.5 trillion more than if we
froze spending, we can spend $1 trillion more. It is clear to me that
we can and must do this for our children.
Last November the American people sent a clear message to Congress.
They want us to pass the toughest balanced budget amendment that we
can. This is how I will cast my vote.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, might I inquire as to the time remaining
on both sides of the aisle?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut). The gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. SOLOMON. I would just say to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Moakley] that we will be closing on this debate.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the minority leader,
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire, is the gentleman yielding
his remaining time to the minority leader?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes. The gentleman from Massachusetts had 4
minutes remaining and has yielded 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this gag
rule so that we can shred the veil of secrecy that shrouds this
amendment and tell the American people what is really at stake in this
debate.
My colleagues, when we talk about tacking amendments on to the
Constitution of the United States, we are talking about the most sacred
responsibility we have as legislators: To ensure that the document that
has steered our ship of state for more than two centuries advances the
goals we share as a nation, openness, fairness, opportunity for all.
That is why I think it is crucial that a balanced budget amendment, an
amendment that would touch on every aspect of the lives of our
constituents, is considered in an open, fair, and honest manner.
I would urge and urged yesterday an open rule for this debate, one
that allows every amendment that has been presented to be considered by
the House, every argument that has been presented to be heard, and
every avenue for having a constitutional amendment to be understood.
How else will the American people know that we looked before we
leapt? You see, for Democrats, the question is not whether we balance
the budget, the question is how we balance the budget, and who is
affected and how they are affected.
When we ask our friends on the other side of the aisle what gets cut,
whose belt will be tightened, to borrow the words of my good friend the
Republican leader, ``Their knees buckle.''
So we say we are not signing this contract until we can read the fine
print. That is why I asked for a vote during this consideration of the
balanced budget amendment on a statute that I call the honest budget
bill that would force the Congress to say in a budget resolution
exactly how we want to balance the budget before the amendment is sent
out to the States. But this rule refuses to allow us to consider that
legislation.
So my question is, is there a hidden agenda here? Is there somewhere
in here a veiled attack on Social Security
[[Page H615]] or Medicare which some of our friends on the other side
have threatened in the past? Our States have a right to know. And our
people, most importantly, have a right to understand how this budget
will be balanced.
I know the Republican majority is trying to move fast on the
contract. I think it is because the contract is losing ground with
every passing opinion poll. The reality is the more that the people
know about the contract, the less they like it, and I sympathize.
But is this not what democracy is all about? Giving people the
information that they deserve to make informed, educated, choices about
their own lives? Even if it means sometimes our contracts, our ideas,
our proposals, are rejected and we have to go back to the drawing
board.
I urge Members, vote for the previous question, defeat this gag rule.
If this amendment is not good enough to withstand the bright light of
truth, then, my friends, it is not good enough for the American people.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I think the minority leader misspoke. We want to vote
against the previous question.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Vote no on the previous question. The gentleman knew
what I meant.
Madam Speaker, let me end with this last point. This is perhaps the
most important legislation we will consider in our whole time in the
Congress. There is not a more important, far-reaching bill or bills
than this set of proposals.
I urge Members to allow the fullest possible debate. This bill will
affect our people's lives more than anything we will vote on in the
time we are in the House of Representatives.
Vote no on the previous question, vote against the gag rule. Let all
of the alternatives be debated in a completely open rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I would just say the distinguished
minority leader is absolutely right, this is probably going to be the
most important vote we will cast in our career in this Congress. The
balanced budget amendment is going to do what the American people want
us to do for a change.
I would just have to take exception with the minority leader calling
this a gag rule. He has been here longer than I have, but for the last
4 successive, preceding Congresses, he has voted personally, as has
everyone on his side of the aisle, for a much more restrictive gag rule
than this one will ever be.

{time} 1350

This is a fair rule in which we took into consultation the minority
leader and other Members of his party.
Let me just say this, Madam Speaker, the Democrat minority leader is
using the faulty argument that we should not require a balanced budget
until Congress adopts a detailed plan for balancing that budget.
Using that kind of logic, if today's House Democrats had been in
charge at the time of Pearl Harbor, we would still be debating today
over a detailed plan for winning the war in the Pacific, before we
could vote on a declaration of war.
That is what this is, the same analogy, the deficit is the war we are
fighting today. We are not going to be forced to deal with it until we
recognize we are under attack, declare war on it, and then set about
mobilizing and planning to win that war.
Having said that, Madam Speaker, before I close and move the previous
question, let me explain that since we reported the rule yesterday, it
has been called to our attention that there is a discrepancy in the
Committee on the Judiciary report between the total votes cast for and
against amendment No. 6 on the actual number of the Members listed by
name as voting for and against the amendment. I appreciate the minority
calling this to our attention so we can correct this mistake by way of
an amendment to this rule.
We hope we can work cooperatively in insuring that our new
accountability rules will work for the good of the House and for the
public.
amendment offered by mr. solomon

Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: On page 2, at line 19,
insert after ``clause (2)(g)(3)'' the following: ``or clause
2(l)(2)(B)''.

Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, out of courtesy to the minority, I ask
unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes for this rule, and that I
be permitted to yield 5 minutes of that time to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] for the purposes of controlling that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]
will be recognized for 5 minutes and the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Moakley] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I have already explained the amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the proposed amendment to this rule waives clause
2(l)(2). This clause reflects changes made on opening today to require
that committee reports accurately reflect all rollcall votes on
amendments in committee.
Madam Speaker, the point of order that lies against the Committee on
the Judiciary report is the very same point of order that applied to
the unfunded mandates bill.
The Committee on Rules majority also failed to waive the point of
order on the unfunded mandates bill.
On January 19 the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] made a
parliamentary inquiry to establish for the Record that the point of
order applied, but he did not press in that point of order.
The minority does not wish to obstruct, but it is our responsibility
to call the majority as it tries to circumvent the very rules we
adopted on opening day.
If the new majority believes it is important to require an accurate
tally of each rollcall vote on amendments in committee, they should do
it. At a minimum they should include a waiver in the rule when they do
not live up to their own requirements.
To depend on our good graces not to press points of order week after
week just cannot be acceptable.
I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Foglietta].
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. This
restrictive rule did not allow many important and substantive
substitutes. One of the substitutes offered and not allowed was one
that I offered.
My substitute mirrored other balanced budget substitutes requiring
the Federal Government to achieve a balanced budget. It would have
required a three-fifths majority to raise taxes. However, it contained
one important difference. It would also have required a three-fifths
majority to cut spending for programs supporting the safety net for the
poor.
Specifically, it would have protected these programs respecting
subsistence, health, education, and employment. It is my belief that
these programs which comprise the safety net for America's most
vulnerable citizens deserve protection.
Programs likely to be slashed include LIHEAP, Head Start, mass
transit, and the list could go on and on. Too often poor families and
their children are the least heard in Washington. They deserve to be
heard and they deserve to be heard on my substitute.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for
yielding me the time.
Madam Speaker, I want to point out to my friends and colleagues here
this afternoon, we started off this session
[[Page H616]] with the first two rules being closed, and then we
adopted a package of rule reforms, some of which we agreed with, some
of which we did not.
Our point here today is to make it clear to you that we intend to
make you live by the rules and the reforms that we instituted on that
first day of session.
We had one other chance to do what we are raising this afternoon and
that is to raise a point of order on the rule as it came out of the
committee on the unfunded mandates bill. We did not do that because we
knew it would delay, and we could not go on with the business of the
House, and we let it go. The issue was basically the same as it is
today, that the report language coming out of the Committee on Rules
was not complete, in fact it was inaccurate.
So, I just want to make it very clear this afternoon that we are
determined to speak up and to protect the rule reforms that were
instituted in this House and to prevent our Members from being gagged,
from discussing these important issues as they come before this body.
We are not going to tolerate further points of order requests without
proper consultation and consideration for the needs of the people on
our side of the aisle.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut). The gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 30 remaining seconds.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], our Ambassador to Korea.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Madam Speaker, I wish to add my voice to the opposition to this rule
for two reasons that have been stated very eloquently. First, the rule
does not protect programs important to the public, from severe cuts;
and, second, I think that truth-in-budgeting provision is critically
important to have.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition of the rule for two reasons:
Although I support a balanced budget, this rule does not protect
programs like Social Security and Medicare, important to the public
from severe cuts. Second, this rule precludes the truth-in-budgeting
pension--we need to explain what programs we are cutting and be honest
about what a balanced budget means.
Madam Speaker, when we are facing a possible total of $1.2 trillion
in cuts from this amendment over the next 7 years, an open rule to
fully examine the impact of those cuts and to protect important
programs is certainly in order. Many of the substitutes denied by the
Rules Committee would have helped protect Social Security and other
programs important to health and education. Apparently, the Rules
Committee would like to continue the illusion that passing a balanced
budget amendment will mean no pain for any parts of our population in
actually getting to a balanced budget.
Madam Speaker, what is wrong with leveling with the American people
about what programs could be cut while balancing the budget? Many hard-
working Americans rely on programs such as Medicare and Social Security
to give them economic security and a safety net in times of trouble.
Madam Speaker, we should defeat this rule and allow for one that
would bring about careful consideration of the impact of this amendment
and help protect programs important to the public from deep budget
cuts. We need a rule that reduces the rhetoric and increases honesty in
cutting the budget. That's what the public wants to see.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I just will say, when the gentleman makes
the motion on the previous question I hope that the Members will vote
no on it, so we can get an open rule that the gentleman from New York
will be proud of. If he thinks this is the most open rule, we are going
to give him a most, most, most open rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
But let me just say to my good friend, this may not be a completely
open rule, but it is the most fair rule that ever came to this floor
for a balanced budget amendment.
Let me just say the minority whip had mentioned that the report
coming out of the Committee on Rules was in error. It was not a report
from the Committee on Rules. We do not make errors. It was out of
another committee. Second, I would just point out that what this is all
about is that there was a miscalculation on counting the yeas and nays
on a recorded vote in the Committee on the Judiciary. This simply is to
take care of that little miscalculation.
Second, we want to abide by these rules. You know, we have one which
now requires committee reports coming out of the committees to simply
record the yeas and nays of the individual members and how they voted.
That is part of Speaker Gingrich's orders to this House to be open and
fair and accountable and let the American people, and I will use the
word again, ``be accountable.'' Let the American people know how we
vote here on the floor of this House and in committees.
There were a great many proposals developed by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] and the committee that I served on concerning
the reform of Congress that went on to, as you know, to shrink the size
of this Congress itself by a third, cutting off 700 jobs and shrinking
it, shrinking this Congress, setting the example of what we are going
to do to the Federal Government in shrinking Government and returning
it to the private sector.
There were a whole slew of these. I will not get into all of those
now. I do appreciate the consideration of the gentleman.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, it is particularly important that we
have full and open debate on the balanced budget amendment on the floor
of the House, because we most assuredly did not have full debate in
committee. Amending the Constitution is a step we should not take
either lightly; I cannot think of a matter which is more deserving of
our most thoughtful and careful deliberation.
The Subcommittee on the Constitution gave this amendment less than 7
hours of time in actual debate and markup. We spent less than 6 hours,
if you exclude the time the majority spent with amendments perfecting
their own version of the bill. This is astounding--I have spent more
time making my children's Halloween costumes than I was allowed to
spend in committee debating an amendment to our fundamental document of
governance. The Constitution of the United States deserves better from
all of us.
When debate in subcommittee was arbitrarily cut off, without any
advance notice that there would be a limit to debate, significant
issues had yet to be debated by the committee, including:
The effects of the amendment during times of recession, and whether
the amendment would result in pro-cyclical, rather than counter-
cyclical, spending;
The role of the courts in interpreting and enforcing the amendment,
including questions of standing; and
What changes the amendment would bring about in terms of Presidential
authority.
Further, the debate the committee did engage in left very significant
questions unanswered. We ended the committee process without clear
answers to questions of basic definition and implementation, including
what is a tax revenue, and what isn't, and what is an outlay.
The most fundamental question that remains unanswered is one that
every American is entitled to have answered, because every poll on this
issue shows that it determines whether or not Americans support this
amendment, and that is what cuts will be made to balance the budget.
Polls show that Americans support this amendment if it means cuts in
defense, but not if it means cuts in Social Security or Federal support
for education. What are we saying to the American people? ``Trust us;
we'll tell you about the cuts later?'' That is paternalism, not
democracy. And we Members of Congress cannot know what those cuts might
be, because our knees will buckle. Instead, we hear only that they will
be draconian if Social Security is off the table, as everyone says it
will be. Mr. Speaker, it is indefensible to ask the Members of this
House to vote on a matter before we have the details.
We need full and open debate, and must guarantee that Americans will
have the details on how the budget will be balanced before the
constitutional amendment goes to the States for ratification.
Our duty to the Constitution is paramount. It is essential that the
floor debate provide us with what the highly abbreviated committee
process did not: a thorough examination of what this amendment would
mean to the American people in terms of the budget cuts it would bring
about. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut). The question
is on ordering the previous question on the amendment and on the
resolution.
[[Page H617]] The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore
announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. MOAKLEY. How does the gentleman go about getting a vote on the
previous question, a separate vote on the previous question?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not divisible.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I am sorry, on the amendment to the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is putting the previous question
by voice vote. Those in favor will say ``aye,'' those opposed will say
``no.''
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question is ordered.
Mr. SOLOMON. Are we now putting the question on the amendment to the
resolution and not on the resolution itself or on the previous
question?
Mr. MOAKLEY. I object. I am sorry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question has just been ordered
by voice, and the gentleman from Massachusetts is on his feet.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I object to the vote, Madam Speaker, 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. The gentleman from Massachusetts objects to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, makes a point of
order that a quorum is not present. A quorum is not present, and under
the rule, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 5(b)(1) of rule XV, the Chair may reduce to a
minimum of 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote, if ordered, on
the amendment to the resolution and on the resolution. Those in favor
of the question will vote aye, those opposed will vote nay.
Members will record their votes by electronic device on the question
of ordering the previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 196, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 37]

YEAS--233

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS--196

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--5

Bishop
Cubin
Fields (LA)
Gibbons
Smith (MI)

{time} 1420

Mr. WILSON changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut). Accordingly,
the previous question is ordered on the amendment to the resolution and
on the resolution.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon] to the resolution, House Resolution 44.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As announced earlier, this is a 5-minute
vote, and the Chair may reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for
electronic voting if the next vote is called for.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 253,
noes 176, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 38]

AYES--253

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
[[Page H618]] Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--176

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--5

Bishop
Cubin
Fields (LA)
Gibbons
Rose

{time} 1430

Mr. MEEHAN and Mr. SKELTON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut). The question
is on the resolution, as amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule 5(b)(1), this will be a 5-
minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 255,
noes 172, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No 39]

AYES--255

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--172

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
[[Page H619]] Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--7

Bishop
Chenoweth
Cubin
DeFazio
Fields (LA)
Norwood
Stark

{time} 1439

Mr. CRAMER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________