[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 56 (Friday, April 15, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2903-H2908]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stivers). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, recently I have given several 
Special Order speeches about my view of the Constitution, making the 
argument for why I think it should be amended to include certain basic 
rights for the American people that they currently lack. These include: 
the right to a high-quality education, the right to health care, and 
equal rights for women.
  Equal rights for women, alone, Mr. Speaker, would be responsible for 
providing an extraordinary amount of income for 51 percent of 
households headed by women if women in our society were simply paid at 
the same rate that their counterparts in the workforce are paid. Equal 
rights. Equal rights for women, alone, as a fundamental right, would 
strengthen our economy.
  This afternoon, my Special Order time will be used to discuss the 
continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011, the Republican proposed 
fiscal year 2012 budget, which we just voted on, and the balanced 
budget amendment, or what I've taken to call the ``imbalanced budget'' 
amendment. All three of them have something in common.
  In an ideal world, my colleague Paul Ryan would support the idea of a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but such an amendment 
would have extraordinary implications for our country, extraordinary 
implications for our Federal Government, and it would be fundamentally 
in the wrong direction.
  And while the Republican proposed budget of fiscal year 2012 does not 
have the strength of the Constitution of the United States, it is clear 
to me that Republicans and conservatives in the Republican Party--and 
some conservatives within the Democratic Party--are forcing the 
Nation's politics into a consideration of a balanced budget amendment 
for the Constitution. And I want to talk about that in the context of 
the 2011 debate, the context of the 2012 debate, and such an amendment.
  Before I begin, I want to set the framework for my Special Order.
  President Harry Truman, in 1946, said, ``All of the policies of the 
Federal Government must be geared to the objective of sustained full 
production and full employment.''
  Today, our country has unemployment that is nearing 9 percent; 
unemployment nearing 9 percent. Nearly 13 to 14 million Americans are 
presently unemployed--many of whom are chronically unemployed--and yet, 
in 1946, President Harry Truman said that the objective of the Federal 
Government must be ``sustained full production and full employment to 
raise consumer purchasing power and to encourage business investment.'' 
There has not been a single bill in this Congress since the 112th 
Congress has begun to address the issue of full employment.
  Secondly, I want to remind the American people, Mr. Speaker, of what 
William Jennings Bryan said in 1896. He said: I am in favor of an 
income tax. When I find a man or a woman who is not willing to bear his 
share of the burdens of the government which protects him or her, I 
find a man or a woman who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a 
government like ours.
  Not long ago, Mr. Speaker, the House passed H.R. 1, a continuing 
resolution that would have forced middle class and working class 
Americans to carry the burden of spending cuts. My colleagues across 
the aisle simplified the impacts of this measure by describing it as 
``tightening our belts.'' They seem to be oblivious to the fact that 
these cuts went deep for those Americans who could least afford them.
  H.R. 1--tightening our belts--slashed programs like community health 
centers specifically designed to provide access to basic health and 
dental services to underserved communities that may not be otherwise 
able to care for them.
  H.R. 1 tightened our belts through cuts to the National Institutes of 
Health, setting back development of cancer treatments and cures for 
other diseases, the impact of which we will feel for years to come as 
medical professionals are forced to shut down promising research 
projects.
  H.R. 1 tightened our belts by hacking away at training of health 
professions, reducing this funding by more than 23 percent. Cuts to 
title VII and title VIII programs that help to train primary health 
professionals for underserved areas would limit the access of low-
income individuals to quality doctors, nurses and physician assistants 
in their areas.
  H.R. 1 tightened our belts by severing title X family planning 
programs. In doing so, we stepped back in time, preventing lifesaving 
care from being offered to our Nation's women, specifically women who 
wouldn't otherwise have access to this kind of care.
  The programs I've listed so far provide health services to our 
Nation, and especially to our most underprivileged populations.

                              {time}  1440

  H.R. 1 also tightened our belts with cuts to job-training programs, 
Head Start, and after-school programs, Pell Grants, Hope VI housing 
programs, and high-speed rail. These programs were systematically sent 
to the guillotine.


          Removal of Name of Member As Cosponsor of H.R. 1081

  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1081.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois may proceed.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The people that they serve are not 
millionaires to whom we generously extended tax cuts. They are not the 
corporations that eagerly navigate tax loopholes, navigate the walls 
and the Halls of this Congress every year, costing our Nation billions 
in revenue. They are everyday, hardworking, middle class, public school 
educated, checkbook balancing, minimum wage earning mothers and fathers 
and grandparents who elected each of us, hoping we'd find a way to 
decrease unemployment and bring America back from the brink.
  Mr. Speaker, thankfully our colleagues across the Capitol thought we 
went a few notches too tight in our belt with H.R. 1, as the Senate 
refused to take up these cuts. Much of our future long-term budget 
decisions and discussions to reduce our deficit and get America back on 
track remain in limbo.
  Recently, this discussion had reached a fevered pitch. After multiple 
short-term extensions of the fiscal year 2011 appropriations 
legislation, the negotiations between Speaker Boehner, Leader Reid, and 
the President had broken down many times throughout the week. We were 
faced with the threat of the first government shutdown since 1996. 
Agencies were planning which workers to furlough, national parks and 
museums were prepared to shut their doors for the weekend, and the

[[Page H2904]]

brave men and women in active duty and service to our Nation were 
prepared to continue their work without pay.
  Then at the 11th hour, there was a breakthrough. The 5\1/2\-month 
continuing resolution agreed to by the leadership of the House and the 
Senate and the President included a total of $39 billion worth of cuts.
  But these cuts that were agreed to late into Friday have real 
consequences. There are significant cuts to programs like WIC, Women, 
Infants and Children, the special supplemental nutrition program for 
Women, Infants and Children; Community Health Centers; Low-income 
Heating and Energy Assistance Programs, LIHEAP; international disaster 
assistance; and Head Start.
  And after the President and congressional leadership agreed to giving 
$800 billion in tax cuts to America's top wage earners last December, 
we turned around and cut programs that working families and seniors 
depend on. It just doesn't make sense to me, Mr. Speaker.
  Again, while I was relieved that the Federal Government did not shut 
down, I am deeply disappointed in the process that has brought us this 
so-called ``compromise,'' if you can even call it that. Like the 
negotiations that held up tax cuts for the middle class at the end of 
last year to hold out for tax cuts for the wealthy, our leadership has 
again demonstrated that they're willing to hold up programs that 
provide for the most vulnerable Americans. And this Congress is only 
just beginning.
  As for next fiscal year's budget, there are a variety of solutions 
that have been presented--some with potential to succeed, others 
destined to fail.
  Among the proposals lie Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's recent 
offering. Look at the facts. His proposal will reduce our Nation's 
deficit, but leaves us asking the question, At what cost?
  First and foremost, Mr. Ryan intends to place the burden of ending 
our Nation's debt on the citizens least capable of caring for 
themselves, the most reliant on the help of others--our seniors. The 
Budget Committee's proposal will end the Medicare our senior citizens 
have come to know and rely on, replacing it with what can only be 
described as a coupon, a voucher, that, according to the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office, would leave our eldest Americans 
shouldering 68 percent of their health care costs in the next 20 years.
  Who else pays the cost of balancing our budget within the Ryan 
proposal? The burden falls next to working American families. The Ryan 
proposal will lower tax rates for individuals with the highest income 
as well as corporations, relying on raising taxes for the average 
Americans to pay for it.
  If it sounds familiar, it's because it's the same standby trickle-
down failure that we placed our faith in in the past decade. Despite 
what Majority Leader Cantor says, during an economic downturn, 
decreasing the deficit does not create jobs. Also, cutting taxes does 
not create jobs. Both Presidents Bush and Obama have cut taxes so much 
that if Majority Leader Eric Cantor's theory were correct, we would 
have zero unemployment, which we do not have. This is what the Ryan 
plan aims to do.
  For 10 years our economy has stagnated. The gap between the median 
wage and average wage is growing because the highest earners are the 
only ones receiving wage increases. Unfortunately, balancing our 
Nation's budget on the backs of the middle class does not end there.
  Where else would the burden of balancing the budget fall under the 
Ryan plan? Education. Cuts to K-12 education are just the starting 
point in disadvantaging the future of America. The proposal also makes 
significant cuts to Pell Grants. These cuts will prevent the educated 
generation of young Americans our country needs to compete in a global 
economy. The proposed cuts to Pell Grants would return the maximum 
award allowable to pre-stimulus levels, impacting millions of young 
Americans depending on financial assistance to attend college. This 
will stretch the time it will take for them to earn their degrees and 
enter the workforce.

  Finally, Ryan's budget continues to provide tax loopholes to big oil 
companies and cuts all Federal support for clean energy, shortsighting 
our economic investments in the future of energy.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not promoting constant Federal debt. I am not 
advocating against hoping or trying for a balanced budget. But when you 
look through history and the history of our Nation, we see that when 
Americans were in most need during war or recession, during the Great 
Depression, we focused on solving these problems, not just on reducing 
our debt.
  Mr. Speaker, we are currently engaged in two wars and fighting our 
way out of the worst recession of the modern era. The Ryan budget is a 
new attempt at an age-old ploy to mandate a balanced budget for the 
Federal Government. Ending our Nation's deficit and returning our 
country to prosperity should, of course, be the goal. But we must also 
ask the question, At what cost? Where do our priorities lie?
  The Ryan proposal, like the myriad of constitutional amendments 
before it, attempts to balance our budget on the backs of those 
Americans who can least bear the burden.
  Here's the history of the balanced budget amendment. The current 
budget situation is most poignant when looking at the origins of the 
balanced budget amendment and its history. Mr. Speaker, after listening 
to my colleagues across the aisle present the Republican Study 
Committee's budget this morning, I'm apt to wonder what it is that 
they're actually studying over there. Hopefully, we will be able to set 
the record straight.
  As a reaction to FDR's New Deal, Republican Congressman Harold 
Knutson of Minnesota introduced the first version of the amendment in 
1936. Like many constitutional amendments, this resolution did not 
receive a hearing or a vote.
  During President Dwight D. Eisenhower's first term, the Judiciary 
Committee of a barely Democratic Senate held its first hearing on this 
amendment. It again did 2not receive a vote.
  After these partial defeats, the balanced budget amendment supporters 
shifted their focus to the States. From 1975 to 1980, 30 State 
legislatures passed resolutions calling for a constitutional convention 
to propose this amendment directly to the States; that is, they sought 
to bypass Congress and the congressional amendment process.
  The election of President Reagan and a Republican Senate in 1980 
renewed hopes for a balanced budget amendment and passage by Congress. 
While the Senate did adopt the amendment in 1982, it failed to garner 
the necessary three-fifths majority in the House. This failure 
energized conservative groups such as the National Taxpayers Union and 
the National Tax Limitation Committee to refocus on State action.
  In 1982 and 1983, the Alaska and Missouri legislatures passed a 
resolution supporting the BBA, bringing the total number of these 
resolutions to 32, two short of the 34 needed for a convention.
  However, a growing concern about the scope of a constitutional 
convention led some States to withdraw their resolutions, reshifting 
focus to congressional action.

                              {time}  1450

  From 1990 to 1994, Congress would make three additional attempts to 
codify this amendment. All failed to garner the necessary three-fifths 
majority. However, the BBA made a comeback when it was included in Newt 
Gingrich's Contract with America. Twenty-six days after taking office, 
the newly empowered Republican majority adopted the balanced budget 
amendment, giving conservatives their first congressional win in a 
decade. Disappointment awaited in the Senate, however, where two 
separate votes fell just short of adoption. This failure, along with 
the balanced budget and the budget surplus at the end of the decade, 
sapped any remaining congressional support for a balanced budget 
amendment.
  There was renewed energy from Republican support for the amendment in 
2000 as it was included in their party's platform. The Bush tax cuts, 
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the massive deficit spending created 
by them eventually led Republicans to sweep the idea of a balanced 
budget amendment back under the rug. By 2004, the Republican Party left 
any mention of a balanced budget out of their political platform.
  Again in recent years, with the advent of the tea party and the 
return of

[[Page H2905]]

extreme fiscal conservatism in the Republican Party, there are 
currently 12 balanced budget amendments in the House of 
Representatives, and in the Senate there are three. I had my staff 
double-check that for me. Twelve balanced budget amendments in the 
House. They are all basically the same. Some have even been offered by 
Members of my own party. I understand these Members' frustrations. Mr. 
Speaker, I have been trying to pass my nine amendments to the 
Constitution for 10 years now, and my amendments are based on FDR's 
second bill of rights, which he proposed back in 1944. Today, 67 years 
later, here we are.
  Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally believe that conservatives in Congress 
are pushing for this amendment, not to force a vote in Congress, but to 
rally States to act. Mr. Speaker, we have a troubling national debt and 
deficit, but the balanced budget amendment is not the solution.
  The argument proponents of a balanced budget amendment make is as 
follows: Like families, businesses, and States, the Federal Government 
should balance its budget. But since it does not, we need a 
constitutional amendment to guarantee that it will do so.
  Nearly every State in this Union has some form of a balanced budget 
requirement, but those States are not out of debt. Their amendments 
have restricted the ability of those States to care for their citizens 
in time of austerity or emergency, but their budgets are not balanced.
  According to a Forbes analysis of the global debt crisis in January 
of 2010, every single State in the country is carrying some form of 
debt. These debts range from as little as $17 per capita in Nebraska to 
$4,490 in Connecticut. How can this be, Mr. Speaker? It's because the 
infrastructure of these States allows them to hide debt in capital 
funds. The Federal Government cannot, and I would argue the Federal 
Government should not follow this path. Congress should never seek to 
hide the fiscal realities from the public that bears the burden of the 
costs nor should we sell the public magic beans that a balanced budget 
amendment will somehow make the national debt and other problems go 
away.
  Debt will exist just as new problems will arise. Just as there are 
new threats to America, unforeseen threats, just as there are future 
economic calamities that we cannot see, the Federal Government must 
play some role in addressing a national crisis. A balanced budget 
amendment would simply prohibit the Federal Government from exercising 
precisely the authority that it needs to exercise on behalf of the 
American people.
  In fiscal year 2012, approximately 44 States will face revenue 
shortfalls. Many are desperately looking for ways to declare their 
State bankrupt. Bankrupt. I say it again, Mr. Speaker, because this 
proposed amendment would place the Federal Government in a similar 
predicament. The effect on many States is calamitous. For instance, in 
Rhode Island, judges and court workers have cut pay and left 53 
positions unfilled. This is still not enough to balance their budgets. 
As a desperate last resort, the chief justice has begun to dispose of 
cases on backlog, literally tossing them out. Florida is in the same 
predicament.
  Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget amendment would force the Federal 
Government to deny Americans the right to seek redress and justice in 
Federal courts for the sake of balancing their budgets. In my home 
State of Illinois, mental health services have been cut by $91 million. 
Human service directors are fearful that these cuts will cause a real 
public health and public safety crisis. Iowa, Idaho, Alabama, and Ohio 
are considering drastic cuts to education.
  My colleagues across the aisle are so concerned about handing our 
children and grandchildren any amount of national debt that they fail 
to realize we are setting future generations up for failure. States are 
already cutting too many services that the American people and the 
American workforce need in order to remain strong and competitive. 
Should the Federal Government do the same, our legacy will be an 
America that is uneducated, ill-equipped to compete on a global level.

  Mr. Speaker, as exemplified by its effects on the States, this 
amendment may sound good on its face, but it falls flat when examined 
more critically. Like an optical illusion, the image of which carries 
and changes as you draw closer, the balanced budget amendment 
masquerades as the savior of our budget; yet in reality it threatens to 
permanently destroy it.
  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Citizens for 
Tax Justice, and others, a Federal balanced budget amendment would do 
five very damaging things. It would damage our economy by making 
recessions deeper and more frequent. It would heighten the risk of 
default and jeopardize the full faith and credit of the U.S. 
Government. It would lead to reductions in needed investments for the 
future. It would favor wealthy Americans over middle- and low-income 
Americans by making it far more difficult to raise revenues on people 
who can afford to pay, and easier to cut programs for people who need 
them most. And lastly, Mr. Speaker, it would weaken the principle of 
majority rule. Therefore, passing a balanced budget amendment is not 
prudent. It's not the right path for our Nation to follow.
  So let's return for a few moments to the five faults outlined by the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Citizens for Tax Justice. 
These arguments will bring to light the dangers with which a balanced 
budget amendment would threaten our Nation.
  The first fault. A balanced budget amendment would damage the economy 
and make recessions deeper and more frequent. Under a balanced budget 
amendment, Congress would be forced to adopt a rigid fiscal policy, not 
just under the amendment, but also under the Ryan budget, requiring the 
budget to be balanced or in surplus every year, regardless of the 
current economic situation or threat to our Nation's security.
  A sluggish economy, with less revenue and more outgoing expenditures, 
creates a deficit, as we've seen from recent events. A deficit 
necessitates economic stimulation to reverse negative growth. That is 
why in the last session of Congress the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act invested in roads, bridges, mass transit, and other 
infrastructure, provided 95 percent of working Americans with an 
immediate tax cut, and extended unemployment insurance and COBRA for 
Americans hurt by the economic downturn through no fault of their own.
  If Congress were forced to function under a balanced budget 
amendment, deficit reduction would be mandated, even more so during 
periods of slow or stalled economic growth, which is the opposite of 
what is needed in such a situation. This consistently proposed 
constitutional amendment risks making recessions more common and more 
catastrophic for middle class families, seniors, veterans, and the 
poor. Under such an amendment, Congress is stripped of any power to 
adequately respond.
  The second fault. A balanced budget amendment would risk default and 
jeopardize the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government while 
simultaneously challenging the separation of powers. A balanced budget 
amendment would bar the government from borrowing funds unless a three-
fifths vote in both Houses of Congress permitted a raise in the debt 
limit. Under such a scenario, a budget crisis in which a default 
becomes a threat is more likely because of the limits placed on the 
fluidity of the debt ceiling. We are about to enter into a national 
conversation about what to do about the debt ceiling. That default 
under such a scenario becomes more likely to occur.
  After a default of only a few days, the long-term impacts would 
quickly appear. Confidence in the ability of the U.S. to meet binding 
financial obligations would erode almost immediately. The government 
pays relatively low interest rates on its loans because it pays its 
debts back in full and on time. A default would mimic an earthquake, 
shaking confidence in the United States on a global scale, resulting in 
exploding interest rates and aftershocks felt in our national economy.

                              {time}  1500

  The international economy would also succumb to the rumblings of this 
potential disaster, and our deep connection to it would cause even 
further chaos here at home.
  Other balanced budget proponents argue that since States have to 
balance

[[Page H2906]]

their budgets, so should the Federal Government. Indeed, many States 
are required to balance their operating budgets but not their total 
budgets. No such distinction is made by a balanced budget amendment.
  Rainy day, or reserve funds, which States can draw on to balance 
their budgets, are prohibited by a BBA. Many States operating under a 
BBA require the Governors to submit a balanced budget, but do not 
require the actual achievement of it. Some States allow Governors to 
act unilaterally to cut spending in the middle of the fiscal year. This 
condition of the BBA would violate the Federal Constitution's 
separation of powers.
  The Founding Fathers were deliberate in their construction of our 
government, and the separation of powers serves as a cornerstone in our 
democracy. Each branch has certain powers and limitations. Congress, 
the courts, and the President worked together but in distinct ways to 
move America forward. The threat of judicial involvement in matters of 
the budget is a real problem under the balanced budget amendment. The 
BBA would weaken the balance of power. It diminishes the authority of 
Congress, as the elected representatives of the people, to have the 
final say on taxes and spending.
  Mr. Speaker, what purpose does this body serve if this amendment 
passes? Should we broaden the scope of judicial review granted to our 
Federal courts? By subverting the balance of power between the 
branches, this body steps onto a slippery slope of reassigning 
authority and moving away from the values inherent in our Constitution.
  The third fault. A balanced budget amendment would lead to reductions 
in needed investments for the future.
  Since the 1930s, our Nation has consistently made public investments 
that improve long-term productivity growth in education, in 
infrastructure, in research and development. All of the Federal 
highways in this country are paid for by this Congress. They have 
helped build a more perfect union between the States, within States.
  When we take off from O'Hare airport in Chicago or from Reagan 
airport, all of the airports are Federal facilities run by the Federal 
Aviation Administration. When you visit your Nation's Capital and you 
take off from an airport, because airports function under the rigid 
guidelines of the FAA, there is a reasonable assurance, when your plane 
takes off from one airport and lands at another airport, that the 
length of the runway that you take off from and land on are reasonably 
the same. States don't determine the lengths of runways.
  If we are going to build a national government, if we are going to 
build one country, if we are going to form a more perfect union, only 
the Federal Government has the power to do that. It simply cannot be 
done one State at a time. In a global economy and in a global economic 
environment, we must move as one Nation to challenge Europe, to 
challenge the Japanese, to challenge the Chinese, to challenge cheap 
labor and cheap labor markets abroad.
  We must have one national standard, not 50 individual State sovereign 
standards to move our Nation--our education system, our infrastructure 
and our research and development--forward. These efforts encourage 
increased private sector investment, leading to a surplus and a 
thriving economy.
  A balanced budget amendment, which requires a balanced budget each 
and every year, would limit the government's ability to make public 
investments, thereby hindering our future growth and thereby hindering 
our ability as a Nation to be competitive nationally and 
internationally--a very important point, Mr. Speaker, for which I want 
to deviate from my prepared remarks.

  You see, it is just simply impossible to go one State at a time or to 
assume that the private sector, acting on its own, has the capacity to 
address the question of sustained full production and full employment 
on their own. President Truman made it perfectly clear: All of the 
policies of the Federal Government must be geared to the objective of 
sustained, full production and full employment, to raise consumer 
purchasing power and to encourage business investment. In the 112th 
Congress, unemployment is at 9 percent, and not a single piece of 
legislation considered by the 112th Congress has done anything to 
address 13 million unemployed Americans.
  A few short weeks ago, I came to the House floor after having 
purchased an iPad, and I said that I happen to believe, Mr. Speaker, 
that at some point in time this new device, which is now probably 
responsible for eliminating thousands of American jobs--now Borders is 
closing stores, because why do you need to go to Borders anymore? Why 
do you need to go to Barnes & Noble? Buy an iPad and download your 
book, download your newspaper, download your magazine.
  At Chicago State University in my congressional district, in the 
freshman class, they are not being given textbooks any longer. They are 
all being given iPads as they enter school. President Wayne Watson 
hopes to have a textbook-less campus within 4 years where at this State 
university they no longer have textbooks.
  Well, what becomes of publishing companies and publishing company 
jobs? What becomes of bookstores and librarians and all of the jobs 
associated with paper?
  Well, in the not-too-distant future, such jobs simply will not exist. 
Steve Jobs is doing pretty well. He created the iPad. Certainly it has 
made life more efficient for Americans, but the iPad is produced in 
China. It's not produced here in the United States. So the Chinese get 
to take advantage of our First Amendment value, that is, to provide 
freedom of speech through the iPad to the American people, but there is 
no protection for jobs here in America to ensure that the American 
people are being put to work.
  I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Congress and the 
direction of this Congress, in its obsession with debts and deficits, 
is heading in the opposite direction of sustained full production. 
Again, iPads are made in China, and full employment. There are 13 
million unemployed Americans counting on this Congress to do something.
  They certainly can't count on the State of Illinois; it's broke. They 
can't count on the State of Idaho; it's broke. They can't count on the 
State of Alabama; the State of Alabama is broke. They can't count on 
Mississippi; Mississippi is broke. Louisiana is broke. The States are 
broke.
  So the Federal Government is under an obligation to sustain full 
production and full employment to raise consumer purchasing power and 
to encourage business investment in the United States, not in China.
  The third fault of the BBA would lead to reductions in needed 
investments for the future. Since the 1930s, our Nation has 
consistently made public investments that have improved long-term 
productivity growth in education, in infrastructure, and in research 
and development.
  These efforts encourage increased private sector investment, leading 
to a budget surplus and a thriving economy. A balanced budget 
amendment, which requires a balanced budget each and every year, would 
limit the government's ability to make public investments, thereby 
hindering future growth.
  For years, conservatives have abused the debt and the deficit as a 
springboard from which to argue for smaller government and cuts to 
programs that serve as social safety nets for American families. 
Although we must consider the debt and the deficit, the larger and more 
significant issue is the nature of the debt that we create.
  If you invest $50,000 in a business, in a house or in your education, 
you can expect future returns on your investment. If you ``invest'' the 
same $50,000 in a gun collection or ammunition, what are the future 
investment returns? Both investments result in $50,000 of debt, but 
only one results in returns that can transform that debt into long-term 
gain. Social investments provide the potential for greater returns in 
the long run in the same fashion as personal investments. Even small 
expenditures on social programs lay a foundation for great wealth in 
the long term.
  If the Nation chooses to invest $1.5 trillion over a 5-year period in 
the building of bridges and roads and airports and railroads and mass 
transit and schools and housing and health care, we could create some 
debt.

[[Page H2907]]

                              {time}  1510

  But the increased ability of companies to interact and to ship their 
goods over well-paved and planned roads, the new businesses that would 
sprout around the freshly built or newly expanded airport, the higher 
wages of a student who is well-educated and able to attend college, 
resulting in more tax revenue, and the improved productivity of 
employees at their healthiest would eventually result in greater 
returns for our country.
  The extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for corporations and the rich 
brought about some short-term stimulus of consumer spending. But 
similar to Reagan's tax cuts, which resulted in record government 
deficits, the long-term damage outweighs the immediate effects. 
Reagan's tax cuts for the rich came at the expense of investing in our 
Nation's need for long-term balanced economic growth. The Reagan 
administration neglected and cut back on our Nation's investment in 
infrastructure, education, health care, housing, job training, 
transportation, energy conservation, and much more.
  The inclination of most conservatives in both parties is to cut the 
debt by cutting programs for the most vulnerable among us--our poor, 
our children, our elderly, and our minorities. This approach, however, 
has been proven false too many times. A balanced budget amendment would 
take us back to this archaic and ineffective system permanently.
  The fourth fault. A balanced budget amendment favors wealthy 
Americans over middle- and low-income Americans by making it harder to 
raise revenues and easier to cut programs.
  Again, a BBA ultimately favors wealthier Americans over middle- and 
lower-income Americans. Under current law, legislation can pass by a 
majority of those present and voting by a recorded vote. The BBA 
requires, however, that legislation that raises taxes be approved on a 
rollcall vote by a majority of the full membership of both Houses. 
Thus, the BBA would make it harder to cut the deficit by curbing 
special interest tax breaks of the oil and gas industries, and it would 
make it easier to reduce programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social 
Security, veterans' benefits, education, environmental programs, and 
assistance for poor children. Wealthy individuals and corporations 
receive most of their government benefits in the form of tax 
entitlements while low-income and middle-income Americans receive most 
of their government benefits through programs.
  As evidenced by the cuts that both parties agreed upon recently, it 
is far easier to cut social welfare programs than to cut spending for 
our military or to increase taxes. As long as spending is a political 
issue, cuts to those programs that assist those with the smallest voice 
in our government will always happen first.
  Raising taxes, the only option to address a budget deficit aside from 
cutting programs, is already a burdensome political issue. The 
additional requirements of a BBA further complicate the process of 
raising taxes. This means that the richest Americans will likely keep 
the benefits they receive from our government via tax cuts. Meanwhile, 
the poor lose the programs that provide them with housing, with food, 
with job training, with health care, and the very means to survive. 
This will further reinforce the growing gap between the rich and the 
rest of our society, middle class, working poor, and the destitute 
alike.
  Aside from this already distressing point, when the baby boom 
generation retires, Mr. Speaker, the ratio of workers to retirees will 
fall to very low levels. This poses difficulties for Social Security 
since Social Security has been a pure pay-as-you-go system, with the 
payroll taxes of current workers paying for the benefits of current 
retirees. This was acceptable as long as today's workers could pay for 
today's retirees. But in the future, when there are fewer workers to 
pay for more retirees, the system is going to be out of balance.

  So in 1977 and 1983, the Social Security Administration took 
important and prudent steps towards addressing this issue. It allowed 
the accumulation of reserves to be used later when needed. These 
changes were akin to what families do by saving for retirement during 
their working years and then by drawing down on their savings after 
they reach retirement. The balanced budget amendment insists that total 
government expenditures in any year, including those for Social 
Security benefits, not exceed total revenues collected in that same 
year, including revenues from Social Security payroll taxes. Thus, the 
benefits of the baby boomers would have to be financed in full by the 
taxes of those working and paying into the system then. This undercuts 
the central reforms of 1983. Drawing down on any part of accumulated 
reserves under a BBA, required under present law, means that the trust 
funds were spending more in benefits in those years than they were 
receiving in taxes. Under a BBA, that would be impermissible deficit 
spending.
  The fifth fault. A BBA weakens the principle of majority rule and 
makes balancing the budget more difficult.
  Most balanced budgets require that unless three-fifths of the Members 
of Congress agree to raising the debt ceiling, the budget must be 
balanced at all times. They also require that legislation raising taxes 
must be approved on a rollcall vote by a majority of the full 
membership of both Houses, not just those present and voting.
  Currently, this provision weakens the principle of majority rule, and 
that's exactly what the tea party and my conservative colleagues want. 
Why do they want it? Because a three-fifths requirement empowers a 
minority, 40 percent plus one, in any given year. It creates a small 
group of people willing to threaten economic turmoil and disruption 
unless they get their way, i.e., the Republican freshmen, with the 
ability to extort concessions or exercise unprecedented leverage over 
our national economic and fiscal policy. Mr. Speaker, haven't the last 
few weeks demonstrated how difficult it already is to reach a 
compromise on a budget? This provision will simply make it impossible.
  The final argument, Mr. Speaker, is what I'm calling the Ezra Klein 
argument. There is a final fault which is not on my list, but it is 
significant enough to mention. Ezra Klein of The Washington Post 
cleverly points out in a recent article, entitled ``The Worst Idea in 
Washington,'' that under a balanced budget amendment, not a single 
budget of the Bush or Reagan administration would have qualified as 
constitutional. In fact, the only recent administration which would not 
violate the requirements of a balanced budget amendment would have been 
President Clinton's, and that would have been for only two of his 
budgets. Mr. Speaker, if President Reagan's budgets wouldn't qualify, 
is this something we should even be considering in this Congress? I 
don't think so.
  I have listed a few, and certainly not an exhaustive list, of the 
arguments against the balanced budget amendment. The truth is the 
Federal budget is quite unlike fiscal practices of businesses, 
families, and States even though we keep hearing the argument: The 
Federal Government needs to balance its budget like I do at home. The 
Federal Government needs to balance its budget like our families do. 
The Federal Government needs to balance its budget like the States do. 
But contrary to popular myth, except in times of war and recession, the 
country has a conservative record of keeping deficits actually in line. 
It's when the States fail, it's when there are wars that we are 
fighting, and it's when we are looking at unforeseen economic calamity 
that we need a Federal Government that can reach into the deep recesses 
of her bounty to bring about a more perfect Union and keep the Nation 
moving forward. Without the Federal Government, the States cannot do it 
on their own, and the private sector has shown a reluctance to do it 
without regulation from the Federal Government to make the Union more 
perfect.
  Let me add one final quote, Mr. Speaker. In 1963, Martin Luther King, 
Jr., stood not very far from this auspicious location and delivered a 
speech at the feet of Abraham Lincoln, at the feet of Abraham Lincoln's 
memorial at the end of our Mall. He began by saying, today I stand in 
the shadow of a man who 100 years ago set the slave free. But 100 years 
later, they find themselves still trapped and still isolated in the 
ghettos and the barrios and the rural areas of our Nation. He said, Mr. 
Speaker, today we have come here, in a sense, to cash a check. Now 
imagine that. Martin Luther King, Jr., at the other end of this Mall, 
is looking in the direction of Democrats and Republicans in the 
Congress of the United

[[Page H2908]]

States. And he says, Mr. Speaker, we've come here to cash a check, a 
check that should give us upon demand the riches of security and of 
freedom and justice. But America, Dr. King says, has issued us a 
bounced check. It keeps coming back marked ``insufficient funds.'' But 
I refuse to believe that there are no funds in the great vault of 
opportunity of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am 46 years old, and I've had the privilege of serving 
in this Congress for nearly 16 years. I remember on September 10, 2001 
when we stood here on the floor of this Congress, my dear colleagues, 
and this Congress declared that it was broke, that it couldn't find 
money for anything. We took a vote on September 10, 2001, to defund 
education programs for the most vulnerable children in our Nation.

                              {time}  1520

  Every Member of Congress, mostly from conservatives, and many 
conservative Democrats, came and made the argument that we could no 
longer afford to provide high-quality education for your children, that 
we could no longer afford to provide health care for all of the 
American people, that we could no longer afford it. And just 24 hours 
later, the tragedy, the great tragedy of the 20th century, terrorists 
attacked the World Trade Center and flew a plane into the ground in 
Pennsylvania and landed a plane on our Nation's defense system at the 
Pentagon. Just 24 hours later, the Congress of the United States that 
did not have the money to provide for education for our children, the 
Congress of the United States that did not have the money to provide 
health care for all of the American people, suddenly it found an 
unlimited amount of money to chase down Saddam Hussein. And we are 
spending an unlimited amount of money, just 24 hours later, to find 
Osama bin Laden in a cave in Afghanistan. Ten years later, we haven't 
found him yet. Yet we continue to spend billions and billions and 
billions of dollars.
  So on one day the government is broke. Twenty-four hours later, Dr. 
King says the Nation has issued us a promissory note, and it keeps 
coming back marked ``insufficient funds'' for priorities that matter to 
the American people.
  Our government, Mr. Speaker, needs the flexibility to respond in 
times of economic downturn or in war in a way that businesses, that 
families, and that States never have to consider.
  I have been in the House long enough to know now that when my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle came into the majority with 
large deficits and debt, I knew their first response would be to cut 
social spending, to weaken government regulation and underfund 
protection of workers' rights and civil rights and environmental 
protections. You name it.
  I wish I could say I didn't see this coming, but conservative 
politicians want to get government off the backs of finance, off the 
backs of finance and industry. They are willing and ready to use the 
current economic situation to do it, and they intend to place the 
burden on the backs of the middle class, of seniors, of children, of 
veterans and the poor.
  The Republican budget that we voted on today does just that. The 
balanced budget amendment aims to make it a permanent fixture.
  Mr. Speaker, I know we can do better. We cannot balance the budget on 
the backs of middle class Americans. We need to achieve the America of 
everyone's dreams. The burden of that dream must rest squarely on the 
shoulders of every American that can carry it.
  I find it offensive that some of the most profitable corporations in 
this country pay no taxes and some even get a refund. I find it 
offensive that the richest 400 people in this country who have more 
wealth than half of all Americans combined have an effective tax rate 
of only 16.6 percent.
  In the words of William Jennings Bryan: ``When I find a man who is 
not willing to bear his share of the burdens of the government which 
protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a 
government like ours.''
  With those wise words, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.

                          ____________________