The House Tuesday rejected a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget, acknowledging that the blame for the massive deficit rests not in existing laws but in politicians` refusal to face reality on fiscal matters.
It was the second time this year that the House had refused to amend the Constitution. Last month, it turned back a constitutional amendment to protect the flag.
In both cases, lawmakers agreed that the Constitution is too precious to trifle with over mainly political issues. But in the case of the balanced-budget amendment, the House also agreed with opponents who said amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget probably would do little, because Congress and the president probably would find a way around it.
But the issue still provides attractive political capital in this election year. Tuesday`s vote was 279-150, only seven votes shy of the two-thirds majority necessary to approve a constitutional amendment.
”This country doesn`t need a constitutional amendment, it needs a Congress with guts,” said Rep. James Traficant (D-Ohio), arguing that neither Congress nor the president has made an attempt in the last 10 years to propose or pass a balanced budget.
”People are going to vote for the constitutional amendment and go home and beat their chests and say, `Look what I`ve done for you.` The fact is, they`ve done nothing,” Traficant said.
President Bush supported the proposed amendment and sent a letter to Congress urging its approval.
The amendment would have prohibited federal spending from exceeding revenue in any year, unless at least three-fifths of the House and Senate voted for a specific deficit or in times of declared war.
House Speaker Thomas Foley (D-Wash.), who opposed the amendment, said the problem ”has not been a legal or a constitutional deficiency, but the inability of the country to come to a political conclusion on how to reduce the expenditures or provide additional resources.”
According to supporters of the amendment, that was reason enough to pass the constitutional amendment.
”This House and everyone in it has lost the political will to be fiscally responsible,” said Rep. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), arguing that a constitutional amendment would force that will.
Nonsense, argued Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.). ”This is the epitome of the idea in politics that if you can`t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S.,” Obey said, noting that the earliest such a constitutional amendment could take effect would be in 1995, while the deficit is already too high.
Debate on the balanced-budget amendment came against the backdrop of administration-congressional budget talks aimed at reducing the estimated $169 billion in red ink this fiscal year. Negotiators are attempting to come up with about $50 billion in budget cuts or increased revenue.
Bush, in an interview Tuesday, said, ”We`re getting to a crunch” in the budget talks.
”Now, the debt ceiling load is going to drive some of the action,” Bush said.
”I`m still . . . fairly optimistic that we`re going to get a budget bill, but it can`t . . . be done by all spending increases. It darn sure can`t be done by revenue (tax) increases and it cannot and will not be a budget agreement unless we get budget reform.”
After a small meeting of Democrats, Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) said the congressional negotiators will be exchanging proposals on revenue increases with White House representatives. No major agreements have been reached in the talks, but Foley said he was hopeful of agreement by the first week in August, when Congress begins its recess.
