Rep. Bill Orton, D-Utah, lost his unusual fight to persuade Republican leaders to back his version of a constitutional amendment to force a balanced budget and offer it for a vote.
"I know they were considering it. They didn't say why they didn't support it. But it's tough when there are so many people within their own party who have different ideas about what should be done or who want some partisan political posturing," Orton said Thursday.Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Utah, who sits on a council of ranking Republicans from major committees, said the party seriously considered Orton's amendment. Hansen had said, "The trouble is that his amendment makes so much sense that they probably won't do it."
Orton made his unusual overtures to Republican leadership because a House rule created by a petition by members allowed Democrats and Republicans to offer two versions each of a balanced budget amendment.
Democrats had settled on one by Democratic leaders and on another by Rep. Charles Stenholm, D-Texas, which is considered to have the best chance of passage. So Orton turned to Republicans for his amendment, which many felt may have a better chance for passage in the Senate than Stenholm's.
Orton's amendment would not require a three-fifths majority to allow an unbalanced budget in any given year like Stenholm's, just a simple majority subject to a presidential veto. Orton said the three-fifths majority rule would allow a minority to rule on the issue, and is the main obstacle to Senate passage.
"It was a fight worth fighting, though. And we were able to get some important changes in the Stenholm amendment," he said.