Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. That is true. And the majority beholder thinks that there are a lot of amendments that really have nothing to do with the bill and could be construed as being a little dilatory. We are just trying to accommodate the minority in trying to say, look, we will go through the whole process and allow you to offer all amendments and keep the process open, but we would appreciate you working with us and maybe, in order to accommodate the schedule and not be here late at night and through weekends, be able to ask the minority if laying the bill out for the 3 days could be accommodated.

Mr. DeLAY. We want due deliberation, but as the gentleman knows, from the time a bill gets out of committee to the time it gets to the floor, it could be 10 days in order to protect the minority's right of allowing a bill to sit around for 3 days for comments before it gets to rules, and then after rules it lays for 3 days before it can come to the floor. We are just saying that maybe we could do a little negotiating here and the committee could deliberate and take all amendments if the minority would only allow it to lay out 2 days.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman's concern and as we have during this entire process ever since January 4, we have been diligently trying to, and have protected the rights of the minority. We are running into scheduling problems. We are trying to get this bill out. We do not want to limit any kind of opportunities for Members to offer amendments. But as we have seen on other bills and we feel that at least on this particular bill that there are an inordinate number of amendments to the moratorium bill, a moratorium bill that gives the President the right to actually exempt regulations.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield briefly, I am looking forward to negotiating with the gentleman. We just thought, maybe wrongly, that the chairman of the committee and the ranking member could do that kind of negotiations for the committee, but if it takes the leadership level of negotiations we are happy to do it.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do intend to object, mainly because I do not mind negotiating on limiting time on an amendment, but I do mind limiting the ability for Members to amend the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I understand the gentleman's concern about the time limit. And I might concur and negotiate with the gentleman over a time limit, but if the gentleman would have consulted with the majority on his amendment, I think the majority could have worked with him. There are many Members on our side that do not want to be limited in being able to amend the gentleman's amendment or even substitute for the gentleman's amendment, or in some cases members of the committee may want to offer the gentleman's amendment, members who are in agreement with the gentleman. I think it is the privilege of the majority to ask for cooperation and ask for negotiation on unanimous-consent requests. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I would not characterize it, in responding to the gentleman, as stealing the gentleman's amendment. There are many on our side of the aisle that feel like they could support the gentleman's amendment if it was changed in certain ways. We want the opportunity to investigate that and to do that. To just arbitrarily say that we cannot amend the gentleman's amendment or substitute for it or do something else with it, we just cannot agree to that.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I think those Members that are on the Committee on the Judiciary, by the rules and by tradition, have the right to be recognized before the gentleman from Missouri. And whether a Member from that committee offers whatever amendment that may pertain to the substance of the gentleman's amendment, we are not prepared right now to say whether that is going to happen or not.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood the gentleman's question.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am more than happy to work with the gentleman on his suggestion, and we will look at it later. I was willing to work on this amendment, but when I really looked at it, I thought in order to be honest and straightforward about this, you cannot exempt any one particular line item.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to oppose this amendment. At the beginning, I thought this might be a pretty good amendment and it was really important to make sure that under the Constitution we maintain a common defense. But let me make two very real points. To those that are purists, like I am, you cannot come out here on the balanced budget amendment, on unfunded mandates, on this bill, the line-item veto, and be pure about the philosophy that we are trying to accomplish here with the Contract With America and exempt one program. If we are going to exempt defense, then it is hypocritical not to exempt child issues. It is hypocritical not to exempt education or any other very favorite and solemn program that we are all for. It disturbs me, first off, in this amendment that you have a threshold of $50 million. It very well concerns me that what in practice, in trying to avoid the President line iteming some of the very favorite programs that do not cost $50 million, defense becomes the welfare pot to throw all kinds of programs into. Let me just show you some non-defense-related programs that I have. I have two pages that are already put into the pot. Most of these are under $50 million. The National Guard civilian youth program; the National Guard Outreach Los Angeles program; the Presidio of San Francisco is in this; disaster relief is in this; the World University Games could be put in this. It was put in the defense bill before. Summer Olympics in the defense bill. AIDS research in the defense bill. Now, most men in this House think it is very important, but in the defense bill there is prostate disease research. I do not know if that is really important to the defense, the common defense, of this country. I could go on and on. Historically black colleges and universities, that may entice some that are against this amendment to be for it, but it does not belong in the defense bill. United States-Japan management training, and many other programs that could go into the defense bill and seriously harm spending for defense. Let me tell you, the present President, my President, decides to start line-item vetoing things in the defense bill that are important to pro-defense people, I guarantee you we have the votes in this House right now to stop that President from doing so. I am not afraid to take on the President if he wants to take on the strategic defense initiative and other issues like that. We can take him on, we have the votes, and we will defeat him. I think you have to keep this line-item veto, and I agree with the gentleman from Texas, I would much prefer to have a constitutional amendment, but this is all we have. And it is a good, very well- structured, worked-out bill, that we do not need to be exempting any one program from another.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri. gentleman from Texas. The gentleman makes my case. Every item that the gentleman mentioned is under $50 million. Every item that the gentleman mentioned could be vetoed under this amendment by the President of the United States. I thank the gentleman for making the case and in essence speaking for my amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I disagree with the gentleman. He is right there could be line-item veto, but there are other items in here over $50 million that could not be vetoed. Disaster relief, legacy resource management, Hawaiian volcano observatory, over $50 million, Semetech research. University research grants. Some of them may be pro-defense, but we all know many of them probably are not. And there are many others. The point that I am trying to make is that it leaves a loophole for those that may want to have a favorite social program stuck into the defense budget, something that many of us oppose.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas for all the hard work that he has put into this amendment and I hope that Members on that side of the aisle will recognize that this is the constitutional amendment that really has teeth in it. We try to play these games back and forth about the Constitution and what kind of balanced budget it should be. This amendment is the real amendment. Congress, for instance, passed a law requiring a balanced budget in 1981, 1985, 1987, and in 1990, and we never get there. The most important part of this is that the Government is too big, it spends too much, and it is too intrusive in our lives. We have to make it very difficult for anyone in this Congress to raise more money from the American people. Right now they pay over 53 percent of their income, which goes to the cost of government. It ought to be very hard to raise any more taxes. We ought to look at spending first and cutting that spending. Ladies and gentlemen, I urge you to vote for the Barton amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend from Texas, Mr. Barton. The Barton amendment would require Congress to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. It would require a three-fifths vote of Congress to run a budget deficit, and a three-fifths vote to increase the public debt. Most importantly, it would require a three-fifths vote to raise taxes. Since 1930, the Federal budget has been balanced only eight times. The last time the budget was balanced was 1969--26 years ago. During the 8 years in which the budget was balanced, Federal spending averaged 16.2 percent of gross domestic product [GDP] and revenues averaged 17.5 percent. According to the Congressional Budget Office, spending will be 21.7 percent of GDP this year and revenues will be 19.2 percent.This means Federal spending is 34 percent higher today than it was on average during the 8 years in which the budget was in balance. Revenue is 10 percent higher today than it was on average during those 8 years. Clearly, the problem is not that taxes are too low, the problem is spending is too high. Let me briefly review the dismal record of past efforts to increase taxes in order to reduce the deficit. In 1982, Congress increased taxes by $98 billion; in 1984, Congress increased taxes by $49 billion; in 1987, Congress increased taxes by $28 billion; in 1989, Congress increased taxes by $14.2 billion; in 1990, Congress increased taxes by $164 billion; and finally, in 1993, Congress increased taxes by $241 billion. Despite a decade of tax increases, the deficit is still projected to exceed $200 billion a year for the rest of this century. Raising taxes to solve our deficit problem hasn't worked in the past, and there's absolutely no reason to think it would work any better in the future. Indeed a study by the Joint Economic Committee shows that since the end of World War II, Congress has increased spending by $1.59 for every dollar of additional taxes. The Democratic leadership insists that a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget is a copout. They claim that Congress already has the power it needs to balance the budget. This may be true, but it should be abundantly clear by now that in the absence of a constitutional amendment Congress will never make the tough choices. Congress has not only failed to balance the budget in 26 years, it has systematically passed and then ignored four separate laws requiring it to balance the budget. In 1978, Congress passed a law requiring a balanced budget by 1981. In 1985, Congress passed a law requiring a balanced budget by 1991. In 1987, Congress passed a law to require a balanced budget by 1993. In 1990, Congress passed a law to balance the budget by 1995. None of these laws have produced the intended result. Unlike the failed statutory efforts of the past, a constitutional amendment will force Congress to set budget priorities and make the tough decisions. Congress will finally have to choose between the special interests and the national interest. I urge my colleagues to support the Barton amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 16) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.