 This should not be a partisan issue, indeed, to almost a third of the democratic members I must say, recognized the desires of the people and were willing to support them. But House Joint Resolution 350 was delivered over several years by, or developed over several years by, or developed over several years by, or developed over several years by, or developed over several years by, or developed over several years by, prominent constitutional scholars. It was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate. The leadership in the House pasted together a phony, last-minute political sham with no teeth in it, which failed to pass. Their only concern was to defeat a real balanced budget tax limitation amendment, and this, they were willing to support them. They have choked off the chances for a balanced budget amendment this year. We'll fight on. The American people are overwhelmingly with us, and our numbers are growing. We can take heart from the fact that 236 Republicans and Democrats, a clear majority of the House, joined together in a bipartisan process. The constitutional amendment, however, requires a two-thirds majority, which would have been 290 votes, and therefore the measure failed. It was year after year of government living beyond its means that plunged our nation into a deep, painful mess. One that culminated in 1980 with double-digit inflation, climbing unemployment, 21.5 percent interest rates, and the highest peacetime tax burden that we've ever known. Yet today, incredibly, we heard the House leadership still claiming that a balanced budget would wreck the economy. For the overburdened taxpayers who are paying so dearly, for the mistakes of the past, I pledge to you we will redouble our efforts. We'll spin our amendment again, and with the support of the people, we'll keep up the pressure until Congress makes an ironclad commitment to bring spending in line with revenues. When the Congress busts the budget, it's the American people who are shortchanged. This vote today makes clear who supports a balanced budget and who does not. Work voters across America should count heads and take names. In November, we must elect representatives who will support the amendment when we propose it again. No one believes, Sam, I shouldn't take any questions and I'm not going to, but I'm going to answer that one, because no one believes that the passing of such an amendment means that instantly we could achieve this. There is a time lapse in between which gives us plenty of time to begin to bring spending in line with revenues. No one believes that the passing of such an amendment means that instantly we could achieve this. There is a time lapse in between which gives us plenty of time to begin to bring this budget back under control without devastating number of worthwhile programs that people are dependent on, and it's going to take some work to achieve that. And it can be accomplished, so it isn't a case that if this were passed that instantly after the vote we have to start, we have reduced the in-rate of increase in the budget from 17% when we started down to 4.5% in the next year's budget that has been proposed. I'm answering the question because the question you asked is the answer is so obvious that obviously after these years of out of control and build up to the level they have, there's no one that pretended that you could answer this would then have to go to the states for ratification. There would be a period of time before it was actually put in place, and in that period of time you have an opportunity to work out a budget which would not have to penalize people who are dependent now because on the government for help. Are you saying then, sir, that you think you could have a balanced budget by 1986, which was the goal of that amendment? Do you think that likely? Could you commit yourself today to that goal? We would have to, and I would be willing to go at it with that regard because I... I think that's likely, though. Isn't it really a case of politics by both sides? No. What's wrong with all the years that we've been advocating this? For eight years I served as governor of a state where we had it and it was never violated, except once by a Democratic administration and legislature in the state of California that used some bookkeeping tricks to conceal the fact. Are you sorry that it came to a vote today? Are you sorry that it came to a vote today? Yes, and I think that that was intentional. I think that we'd have more time for the people that know what was going on and make their wishes definitely known. I think the Congress might have acted it out. Can you tell us anything, sir, about the Habib mission, whether he has negotiated that with California? Is this one for TIP? Did TIP beat you on this one, sir? Did TIP beat you on this one? You've beaten him often enough. Is this one for TIP?